Gonçalo Amaral Legal Defence fund to be closed on 28 October 2015

[Brietta]

Stands a chance it is merely down to the website method of totaling; but that has nowhere near the potential for scurrilous or mischief making remarks does it?

I would agree totally that the potential for some of the accompanying remarks, while being both "scurrilous" and "mischief making" go a lot deeper than that and stand as testament to the truly bizarre nature of the beliefs of the authors.

[G-Unit]

Stands a chance it is merely down to the website method of totaling; but that has nowhere near the potential for scurrilous or mischief making remarks does it?

Of course it's down to gofundme. I saw a few donator's posting comments such as 'It's fiver Friday, here's my contribution'. They were obviously trying to fool us. 

[Miss Taken Identity]

What has that got to do with my post?   You asked a question about the GFM fund and I answered it.    i.e. The figure shown as the total number of people who have donated to GFM fund is false.  And all the deflecting in the world won't change that.

So someone who is not great with spreasheets, does a counif sum and counts  the number of donations and states this must be the amount of people. Easy mistake to make. But anyway, thing is Amaral has not been flying round the world,staying in 5 star hotels whilst telling people he is not happy about the search for his daughter. begging for more all the while.  Amaral's fund was set up by someone lse and they will descide how that m oney is best spent!

Not on PR and lobbying politicians, and various legal services.

[Benice]

So what.

People donated to Amaral.

Get over it.

I have never disputed that people donated to Amaral.   I pointed out that the number of people which it is claimed have donated is false - and therefore gives a false impression to the public of the level of support which Amaral has actually received from the public.   That's dishonest IMO.

If the McCanns did the same you and your fellow sceptics would be up in arms imo.

[G-Unit]

I have never disputed that people donated to Amaral.   I pointed out that the number of people which it is claimed have donated is false - and therefore gives a false impression to the public of the level of support which Amaral has actually received from the public.   That's dishonest IMO.

If the McCanns did the same you and your fellow sceptics would be up in arms imo.

As it seems to be a feature of the way gofundme works perhaps you should explain to them that it should be changed?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Of course it's down to gofundme. I saw a few donator's posting comments such as 'It's fiver Friday, here's my contribution'. They were obviously trying to fool us. 

 *&*%£
 Sour grapes anyone? Seems a certain camp is not best please with AMARAL getting funds...bah humbug.

[Benice]

As it seems to be a feature of the way gofundme works perhaps you should explain to them that it should be changed?

If the organisers had wanted to change it they would have.   It's not rocket science to see why they preferred to turn a blind eye to it.  *In fact reading elsewhere it would seem people were encouraged to split their contributions into several small contributions instead of just one.   Why do you think they would do that - if not to make the figures look better than they really were?    *(I'm sure if I've got that wrong someone will correct me.)

[G-Unit]

If the organisers had wanted to change it they would have.   It's not rocket science to see why they preferred to turn a blind eye to it.  *In fact reading elsewhere it would seem people were encouraged to split their contributions into several small contributions instead of just one.   Why do you think they would do that - if not to make the figures look better than they really were?    *(I'm sure if I've got that wrong someone will correct me.)

Who? Leanne? The one the ......... drove away? Could she have changed it? Who suggested making small donations, do you have a link?

[Benice]

Who? Leanne? The one the ......... drove away? Could she have changed it? Who suggested making small donations, do you have a link?

If it couldn't be changed - there was nothing to stop a note being included on the page - pointing out the 'discrepancy'.   

I think I would be breaking forum rules to give a link (even if I could - as I'm not good at that sort of thing).    I can copy and paste the info - if that is allowed?

[G-Unit]

If it couldn't be changed - there was nothing to stop a note being included on the page - pointing out the 'discrepancy'.   

I think I would be breaking forum rules to give a link (even if I could - as I'm not good at that sort of thing).    I can copy and paste the info - if that is allowed?

I don't think you are allowed to quote, Don't know about links, sorry. I don't think any deception was considered or intended, but once people realised it was upsetting certain others they probably did it all the more.

[misty]

If it couldn't be changed - there was nothing to stop a note being included on the page - pointing out the 'discrepancy'.   

I think I would be breaking forum rules to give a link (even if I could - as I'm not good at that sort of thing).    I can copy and paste the info - if that is allowed?

Their logic defies belief - GFM charged a fee for each transaction, so splitting a donation incurred multiple fees and possibly multiple currency conversion charges.

[pegasus]

Their logic defies belief - GFM charged a fee for each transaction, so splitting a donation incurred multiple fees and possibly multiple currency conversion charges.

Misty if you check the Stripe transaction fees you will discover that the kind donator, who split their donation to gfm of £8000 into two seperate donations each of £4000, incurred by doing so an extra transaction fee of
twenty pence !!!
Thankyou for pointing out the scandalous immensity of it, this is certainly your best critique of the gfm amaral appeal ever.

[misty]

Misty if you check the Stripe transaction fees you will discover that the kind donator, who split their donation to gfm of £8000 into two seperate donations each of £4000, incurred by doing so an extra transaction fee of
twenty pence !!!
Thankyou for pointing out the scandalous immensity of it, this is certainly your best critique of the gfm amaral appeal ever.

I'm not referring to the deceptively generous double donation, merely the much smaller donations of, say, £20.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Misty if you check the Stripe transaction fees you will discover that the kind donator, who split their donation to gfm of £8000 into two seperate donations each of £4000, incurred by doing so an extra transaction fee of
twenty pence !!!
Thankyou for pointing out the scandalous immensity of it, this is certainly your best critique of the gfm amaral appeal ever.

 *&*%£ *&*%£ *&*%£ OMG too funny!

[pegasus]

I'm not referring to the deceptively generous double donation, merely the much smaller donations of, say, £20.

If someone split a £20 donation into four £5 donations they incur an extra transaction charge of 60pence Misty or twelve shillings in old money. You are talking shillings.