Does the Madeleine Fund have a moral obligation to transparency?

[G-Unit]

As far as I can see they certainly delivered transparency in the first year, then subsequently not so much.  Perhaps the costs of such transparency proved prohibitive when the donations started to dry up?  Perhaps a promise made with good intentions at the outset was impossible to fulfill going forward...?  Or maybe they're just lying b......s who like to break their promises to give people like you (who doesn't give a shit anyway) something to write about on internet forums?

The accounting information has to exist in order to prepare the year end accounts. Presenting the detail costs nothing, just a tad more typing, so expense doesn't enter into it. The promise was fulfilled in the first year's accounts, why would it have become impossible in subsequent years? I couldn't possibly comment on your third hypothesis. My guess is that following criticism after the release of the first year's figures they preferred not to be transparent thereafter. They broke their promise rather than defend their expenditure.

[Benice]

The accounting information has to exist in order to prepare the year end accounts. Presenting the detail costs nothing, just a tad more typing, so expense doesn't enter into it. The promise was fulfilled in the first year's accounts, why would it have become impossible in subsequent years? I couldn't possibly comment on your third hypothesis. My guess is that following criticism after the release of the first year's figures they preferred not to be transparent thereafter. They broke their promise rather than defend their expenditure.

IMO any decision to limit the details to what was legally required of them (if that is what happened)  may well have been made after seeing how some sceptics used the accounts simply as another method of McCann bashing.   And IMO that is the real reason why some sceptics are miffed i.e. because they regard the accounts as a source of ammunition which has been limited.   

If a full and  detailed set of accounts was published next year - would the sceptics say ' Well done you've kept your promise''   or would they pore over every tiny detail with the sole aim of finding fault?

Is the Pope Catholic?




 

[stephen25000]

IMO any decision to limit the details to what was legally required of them (if that is what happened)  may well have been made after seeing how some sceptics used the accounts simply as another method of McCann bashing.   And IMO that is the real reason why some sceptics are miffed i.e. because they regard the accounts as a source of ammunition which has been limited.   

If a full and  detailed set of accounts was published next year - would the sceptics say ' Well done you've kept your promise''   or would they pore over every tiny detail with the sole aim of finding fault?

Is the Pope Catholic?

No he's Argentinian.

[Brietta]

IMO any decision to limit the details to what was legally required of them (if that is what happened)  may well have been made after seeing how some sceptics used the accounts simply as another method of McCann bashing.   And IMO that is the real reason why some sceptics are miffed i.e. because they regard the accounts as a source of ammunition which has been limited.   

If a full and  detailed set of accounts was published next year - would the sceptics say ' Well done you've kept your promise''   or would they pore over every tiny detail with the sole aim of finding fault?

Is the Pope Catholic?

I think the rampant hypocrisy displayed by sceptics is evident in the blindness to Mr Amaral's donations by public subscription going into a private bank account set up for that purpose.

People in glass houses (in this instance a glass skyscraper) etc: etc:

You have hit the nail on the head with the obsessive pejorative scrutiny given to anything which benefits Madeleine McCann's case ... nothing more so than the running sore of the availability of money to fund the search for her.

[Benice]

No he's Argentinian.

Taxi for Stephen! :-)

[Miss Taken Identity]

I think the rampant hypocrisy displayed by sceptics is evident in the blindness to Mr Amaral's donations by public subscription going into a private bank account set up for that purpose.

People in glass houses (in this instance a glass skyscraper) etc: etc:

You have hit the nail on the head with the obsessive pejorative scrutiny given to anything which benefits Madeleine McCann's case ... nothing more so than the running sore of the availability of money to fund the search for her.

This post should be removed.

This thread is not about Amaral- there are plenty threads in here to post that. Are you enjoying using threads to goad and troll- calling all scepticss hypocrites without any evidence.?

[mercury]

I think the rampant hypocrisy displayed by sceptics is evident in the blindness to Mr Amaral's donations by public subscription going into a private bank account set up for that purpose.

People in glass houses (in this instance a glass skyscraper) etc: etc:

You have hit the nail on the head with the obsessive pejorative scrutiny given to anything which benefits Madeleine McCann's case ... nothing more so than the running sore of the availability of money to fund the search for her.

Maybe Mr Amaral didnt have 70k or whatever it was the Mccanns paid to set up /administer a "fund"

edited

68 k

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesfundgraphic.jpg&target=tlx_picamk1

[mercury]

This post should be removed.

This thread is not about Amaral- there are plenty threads in here to post that. Are you enjoying using threads to goad and troll- calling all scepticss hypocrites without any evidence.?

We have been told to report posts as much as possible to ensure the smooth runnng of the forum, click report and cite "off topic/abusive" as a reason (or whatever other reason you can thnk of)

[Mr Gray]

We have been told to report posts as much as possible to ensure the smooth runnng of the forum, click report and cite "off topic/abusive" as a reason (or whatever other reason you can thnk of)

yes I have reported several today

[Alice Purjorick]

I have never claimed that my posts make a difference to anyone or anything, but I have followed this case from Day 1, I have been deeply moved and troubled by it, and therefore I DO give a shit about it.   Why you who claims NOT to give a shit about it, but who expends a fair amount of time and energy "only asking questions" about it, is for you to know and for me not to give a shit about.

The "asking questions brigade" ask questions pretty much the same as you ask questions.
The same meat with different gravy. I guess you must object to the type of question rather than the principle of questioning.

[Alice Purjorick]

The accounting information has to exist in order to prepare the year end accounts. Presenting the detail costs nothing, just a tad more typing, so expense doesn't enter into it. The promise was fulfilled in the first year's accounts, why would it have become impossible in subsequent years? I couldn't possibly comment on your third hypothesis. My guess is that following criticism after the release of the first year's figures they preferred not to be transparent thereafter. They broke their promise rather than defend their expenditure.

Maybe there was a change in the board of directors and a different policy was adopted?.
The book was published in 2011(?).

[Jean-Pierre]

A couple of points.

As a contributor to Madeleine fund and to the Amaral fund, I regard the contribution as an unconditional gift, and therefore the organisers are free to do what they wish with it.  It does not confer any rights or obligations to provide detail.  As with all things, if I am unhappy with the way that things pan out I would simply not contribute again. 

Which leads me onto my second point.  Is there any level of detail which would satisfy the sceptic community here and elsewhere? The fund already goes way beyond the legal requirements in providing objective and professional oversight of the funds activities.  I can see no possible advantage to the McCanns in providing more detail.   

[Alice Purjorick]

A couple of points.

As a contributor to Madeleine fund and to the Amaral fund, I regard the contribution as an unconditional gift, and therefore the organisers are free to do what they wish with it.  It does not confer any rights or obligations to provide detail.  As with all things, if I am unhappy with the way that things pan out I would simply not contribute again. 

Which leads me onto my second point.  Is there any level of detail which would satisfy the sceptic community here and elsewhere? The fund already goes way beyond the legal requirements in providing objective and professional oversight of the funds activities.  I can see no possible advantage to the McCanns in providing more detail.

I can only speak for myself J-P.
Once the cash has been lobbed out, if I lob it out, I will have no control how it is spent nor would I expect to have control as it then belongs to someone else.
As a small company "The Fund" is obliged to provide financial statements to CH which are little more than a signed balance sheet and a P & L. They have an audit which is not required by CH unless a member has asked for one, so the fund go that little further in that respect. That is fine by me too; I only submit what I have to.
My main query is why state there will be  "transparency" then not deliver?
I suppose it depends on one's definition of transparency.
So in a nut shell I don't care how the money is spent but don't try to pretend there is transparency when there are sums approaching £1MM as line items in the financial statements. Picky maybe but there you go.

[Jean-Pierre]

I can only speak for myself J-P.
Once the cash has been lobbed out, if I lob it out, I will have no control how it is spent nor would I expect to have control as it then belongs to someone else.
As a small company "The Fund" is obliged to provide financial statements to CH which are little more than a signed balance sheet and a P & L. They have an audit which is not required by CH unless a member has asked for one, so the fund go that little further in that respect. That is fine by me too; I only submit what I have to.
My main query is why state there will be  "transparency" then not deliver?
I suppose it depends on one's definition of transparency.
So in a nut shell I don't care how the money is spent but don't try to pretend there is transparency when there are sums approaching £1MM as line items in the financial statements. Picky maybe but there you go.

Fair enough Alice.  I respect your view.

I imagine the logic is that the current level of transparency satisfies their supporters (=contributors), and even the most granular level of detail will not satisfy their critics(= non contributors), so from a practical point of view what is the point in providing more detail.   

[G-Unit]

I think the rampant hypocrisy displayed by sceptics is evident in the blindness to Mr Amaral's donations by public subscription going into a private bank account set up for that purpose.

People in glass houses (in this instance a glass skyscraper) etc: etc:

You have hit the nail on the head with the obsessive pejorative scrutiny given to anything which benefits Madeleine McCann's case ... nothing more so than the running sore of the availability of money to fund the search for her.

Seems someone is obsessed with Amaral, he appears on every thread no matter what the subject. Are you suggesting that the McCanns are hiding the details of the Fund's expenditure because they don't want to be criticised? Perhaps they should instead spend the money in such a way that no criticism is possible?