Does the Madeleine Fund have a moral obligation to transparency?

[ferryman]

They did neglect their children.

They did not take of their children.

and we know what happened.

So dave, do you support police officers with current convictions should still be working in the force ?

Quit pretending that you know better than the Portuguese prosecutors.

You don't.

[stephen25000]

Quit pretending that you know better than the Portuguese prosecutors.

You don't.

So where's Madeleine.

and whose neglect of their children resulted in her disappearance, cause undetermined ?

[ferryman]

So where's Madeleine.

and whose neglect of their children resulted in her disappearance, cause undetermined ?

Blame the abductor for Madeleine's disappearance.

[stephen25000]

I undertook a sponsored walk around the coastal path of the Isle of Wight to raise money for a hospice local to where I live.

Why did I do that?

Because just before his death, the hospice cared for my father, superbly well, and I wanted to say 'thank you'.

It is extremely common that personal involvement in something worthwhile (no matter what) is the incentive and spur for people to get off their backsides and support it.

and are you the only person to help a charity.

Most people do it, without the 'need' to appear in the National  Newspapers.

[stephen25000]

Blame the abductor for Madeleine's disappearance.

Cause of disappearance undetermined ferryman.

Stick to the facts.

[Anna]

Please stick to the topic of thread

[Alfred R Jones]

You didn't answer my question so why should I answer yours? unquote 
Nevertheless work it out from this:
The accounts for "The Fund" available to the public, patently are not transparent (except for 2007/8). Anyone who understands company accounts realises that. I am however content with "The Fund" doing only what is required by law. They [The Fund] suggested they were going to do more but didn't which is the crux of the matter. Me, I would have approached it in a different manner but that's not important.
Similarly, earlier this year there was a broohaha on here about whether the accounts were filed late. Again I don't care whether they were late or early but the Companies House document list says they were filed late so I believe Companies House; why would one not?. You need to understand what "filed" means of course.
So my interest is not so much in the case but in why a group of otherwise intelligent people should try to pretend so many things are other than they really are, are happy to misrepresent, play with words, leave out relevant points, pass off etc just to make a point that suits their agenda in support of two people they do not know, then resort to name calling etc when questioned.
Sort of the reciprocal of your reasons for being here in a way; I guess
Then of course it is addictive.

What question of yours have I not answered? 
As for this year's accounts being filed late, even Enid O'Dowd doesn't claim that they were, but let's not revisit that old argument again (unless you're REALLY bored and have run out of other things to nit-pick and enjoy reliving Groundhog Day).

[Jean-Pierre]

You have no case.

Did the mccanns take part in fund raising for charities prior to 2007 ?

I think the onus is on you to provide proof that they didn't.

I understand Gerry McCann actively worked with a charity prior to 2007.  Whether he fund raised I have no idea, but he gave of his time.   Not untypical of members of the medical profession - especially those who work for the NHS. 

[Miss Taken Identity]

Please stick to the topic of thread

not going to whoosh any off topic theads? or people being called idiot? but you can swipe my on topic post? TWICE TODAY. 

[stephen25000]

I think the onus is on you to provide proof that they didn't.

I understand Gerry McCann actively worked with a charity prior to 2007.  Whether he fund raised I have no idea, but he gave of his time.   Not untypical of members of the medical profession - especially those who work for the NHS.

Did they court publicity in the national press before 2007 ?

[Anna]

not going to whoosh any off topic theads? or people being called idiot? but you can swipe my on topic post? TWICE TODAY.

MTI, The idiot comment was deleted, I believe. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have a problem please take it up with Admin or report the posts that are causing you grief or discomfort.

[stephen25000]

MTI, The idiot comment was deleted, I believe. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have a problem please take it up with Admin or report the posts that are causing you grief or discomfort.

Has ferryman received points for the abusive comment to me ?

[mercury]

not going to whoosh any off topic theads? or people being called idiot? but you can swipe my on topic post? TWICE TODAY.

I have just had a (factual) post deleted too,in reply to Ferryman's at 5.36 PM
If the reason was "off topic" then his post and other related ones regarding "neglect" should not be standing

[ferryman]

Has ferryman received points for the abusive comment to me ?

I think you might be confusing factually accurate comment with 'abuse'.

[Miss Taken Identity]

MTI, The idiot comment was deleted, I believe. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have a problem please take it up with Admin or report the posts that are causing you grief or discomfort.

People's post do not cause me grief, no one here has that power over  me. I have had posts swooshed today for no good reason. I wonder if some are playing the  'complaint card' just to get rid of posts!  I do hope ADMIN will look into this.