Madeleine Fund end of year accounts 2016-2017 delayed.

[Alice Purjorick]

Does it need to matter to be discussed then?

An interesting question.
The Foundation is now classified as a Micro Entity so that kind of puts it in perspective.

[G-Unit]

No, Not at all. But a bit pathetic, don't you think.  Is that the best you can do?

No, I don't think my contributions are pathetic or below standard. I am posting on topic and I have professional knowledge of the subject.

[Angelo222]

In my opinion, Oxford Dictionary should review the meaning of the word transparent and the phrase no stone unturned in the light of the Maddie story.

[Benice]

In my opinion, Oxford Dictionary should review the meaning of the word transparent and the phrase no stone unturned in the light of the Maddie story.

I was going to suggest the same review for the word 'Vulture' as the phrase.... 'The vultures are circling' ....always comes to my mind as soon as the accounts are mentioned as being imminent.   But I see there is no need - as they already have it covered.

No doubt the annual whinge is about to commence because sceptics have been deprived of complaining about   - for instance  - how many paper clips, Post-it pads etc etc the Fund paid for this year imo.

It's just another blatant McCann bashing exercise IMO with the usual 'outrage' being expressed by some sceptics because the McCanns won't help them to be even more spiteful to them -  via the info in the accounts -  than they are able to be at the moment. 
AIMHO

[G-Unit]

I was going to suggest the same review for the word 'Vulture' as the phrase.... 'The vultures are circling' ....always comes to my mind as soon as the accounts are mentioned as being imminent.   But I see there is no need - as they already have it covered.

No doubt the annual whinge is about to commence because sceptics have been deprived of complaining about   - for instance  - how many paper clips, Post-it pads etc etc the Fund paid for this year imo.

It's just another blatant McCann bashing exercise IMO with the usual 'outrage' being expressed by some sceptics because the McCanns won't help them to be even more spiteful to them -  via the info in the accounts -  than they are able to be at the moment. 
AIMHO

What a peculiar idea, that people are curious about paper clips and Post-it pads. I think you've totally misunderstood the reason for the interest in the accounts of Madeleine's Fund; Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.

[slartibartfast]

What a peculiar idea, that people are curious about paper clips and Post-it pads. I think you've totally misunderstood the reason for the interest in the accounts of Madeleine's Fund; Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.

Agreed. I pretends that taking an interest in how money donated to a transparent “charity like” organisation is spent is equivalent to worrying about every last penny.

[G-Unit]

Agreed. I pretends that taking an interest in how money donated to a transparent “charity like” organisation is spent is equivalent to worrying about every last penny.

As to why people are interested, I blame Jerry Lawton for one;

Fund set up to help find missing Madeleine McCann could be wiped out
THE fund set up to help find Madeleine McCann could be wiped out, it has emerged.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/599164/madeleine-mccann-fund-cop-parents
 

[Eleanor]

I was going to suggest the same review for the word 'Vulture' as the phrase.... 'The vultures are circling' ....always comes to my mind as soon as the accounts are mentioned as being imminent.   But I see there is no need - as they already have it covered.

No doubt the annual whinge is about to commence because sceptics have been deprived of complaining about   - for instance  - how many paper clips, Post-it pads etc etc the Fund paid for this year imo.

It's just another blatant McCann bashing exercise IMO with the usual 'outrage' being expressed by some sceptics because the McCanns won't help them to be even more spiteful to them -  via the info in the accounts -  than they are able to be at the moment. 
AIMHO

Oh, do come on.  You don't want to deprive them of their Annual Whinge, do you?  I mean, it is only once a year. Although it does tend to go on a bit.  We haven't yet got over last year.  There is still meat to be extracted from that one.

Oh, and then there is still 2007 that we never quite got to the bottom of.

[slartibartfast]

Oh, do come on.  You don't want to deprive them of their Annual Whinge, do you?  I mean, it is only once a year. Although it does tend to go on a bit.  We haven't yet got over last year.  There is still meat to be extracted from that one.

Oh, and then there is still 2007 that we never quite got to the bottom of.

It appears to be one of those subjects that seems to get an disproportionate response from supporters.

[Eleanor]

It appears to be one of those subjects that seems to get an disproportionate response from supporters.

No, Lovey.  It is always Sceptics who raise this subject.  "Guess what.  The Annual Accounts are due.  Oh really."  Have you missed that?

Me?  I have no idea.  I file my Tax Return when someone reminds me.

[G-Unit]

No, Lovey.  It is always Sceptics who raise this subject.  "Guess what.  The Annual Accounts are due.  Oh really."  Have you missed that?

Me?  I have no idea.  I file my Tax Return when someone reminds me.

As far as I know any member can start a thread on any subject they wish. Those who aren't interested are under no obligation to contribute. There are several threads to which I haven't contributed for that reason. What I haven't done is criticise the threads or those who have posted on them. I may not share their interest in certain subjects, but they have as much right as anyone else to discuss the subjects which interest them. 

[Angelo222]

What really really irks sceptics is the simple fact that the Mccanns promised transparency but ultimately deliver secrecy and obscurity.  The accounts hide the fine details of what the fund money was spent on and their is only one reason for doing so imo.

The McCanns are both unwilling and unable reveal what and who the money was spent but an in-depth investigation will get to the bottom of it.

It must be extremely embarrassing to them to have this stick held over them.  My challenge to them is reveal their full accounts to the public if they dare.

[Mr Gray]

What really really irks sceptics is the simple fact that the Mccanns promised transparency but ultimately deliver secrecy and obscurity.  The accounts hide the fine details of what the fund money was spent on and their is only one reason for doing so imo.

The McCanns are both unwilling and unable reveal what and who the money was spent but an in-depth investigation will get to the bottom of it.

It must be extremely embarrassing to them to have this stick held over them.  My challenge to them is reveal their full accounts to the public if they dare.

As you say...what irks sceptics....do you think the McCanns care what irks sceptics....they won't be bothered in the slightest

[Eleanor]

As far as I know any member can start a thread on any subject they wish. Those who aren't interested are under no obligation to contribute. There are several threads to which I haven't contributed for that reason. What I haven't done is criticise the threads or those who have posted on them. I may not share their interest in certain subjects, but they have as much right as anyone else to discuss the subjects which interest them.

This is not entirely true.  Some Threads are Approved and some are not.  I personally stay away from those that I don't like and might be going down a road that I don't want.  But I am not the only Moderator on this Forum. 

It remains ever possible that some other Moderator might Approve something  that I personally wouldn't want.

[G-Unit]

What really really irks sceptics is the simple fact that the Mccanns promised transparency but ultimately deliver secrecy and obscurity.  The accounts hide the fine details of what the fund money was spent on and their is only one reason for doing so imo.

The McCanns are both unwilling and unable reveal what and who the money was spent but an in-depth investigation will get to the bottom of it.

It must be extremely embarrassing to them to have this stick held over them.  My challenge to them is reveal their full accounts to the public if they dare.

The first end of year accounts were transparent because they included the Profit and Loss Account. Following media criticism that particular account was never included again. Clarence Mitchell's statement was true in reference to the 2007-08 accounts, but not of subsequent years.

The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "The accounts have been independently audited and are entirely transparent."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id205.htm#30

Hiding the details of the Fund's income and expenditure stopped criticism of specific items of expenditure but it also suggested that the initial criticisms were not unfounded.