NO- Never have, and never will
Yes- I gave at the beginning, but will not give again
Yes- I gave, and will continue to give until she is found
NO- I would, but I can't afford to
If the Madeleine Fund wants to do some good other than fatten certain individuals wallets they should start campaigning for making it illegal to abandon small children in Portugal and the UK. I might donate for that cause.
So you do imply it is not good to try to find a missing child, you do outright say the fund is being used to fatten people's wallets.
And if leaving a sleeping three year old to be checked every half an hour is so bad, then why is it acceptable to allow older children to walk to school without an adult? Ten year olds have been kidnapped as they walked to school even with other children, yet one hears parents claiming that it is Ok they do not bother to ensure their child gets to school safely because they have made sure another child is there (because obviously a ten year old is going to be able to fight off grown men and women).
And we have no idea what information the fund has passed onto the police, but if people want to donate to it then that is their business, so why should other people suddenly decide that the fund should be closed and the money used for other things. If people want to focus on missing people in general then they can donate to those organisations. It appears that the people whining and demanding this and that of the fund are not the ones donating to it anyway, so I fail to see where the idea that they should have some say in it, or demand to see the exact accounts comes from.
people have been claiming that the McCanns have released sixteen efits, as if this is somehow suspicious. In actual fact, you have come up with four efits the McCanns publicized. With the exception of Jane Tanner's description none of these efits come from anyone the McCanns know.
We actually have no idea how much lawyers have made. But all criminal cases need lawyers, so lawyers make money from all cases involving children, they do not prosecute or defend for free. The police do not work overtime for free either. But the claim was that the fund was being used to fatten people's wallets, yet not one shred of proof has been used to dmeonstrate it. Carter ruck have claimed thye have not taken money from the fund. Richard Branson has given money to the McCanns for their lawyer's fees, and the McCanns were two of the signitories on a letter to the government asking for no-win no fee to stay (along wiht the parents of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler). So there is no evidence the fund has been used to pay lawyers.
I have read the Enid O'Dowd article, and sadly she does not seem to have a grasp f English law. one of the biggest mistakes she makes is to claim they could have made it a charity despite this being illegal under the law in England. The Mccanns have followed the law. It could not be a charity under English law, so the nly option was a NFP company or keeping it in their own bank account. If they kept it in their own account they would not have to submitted any accounts except to the taxman, and they have submitted all the correct accounts fr a NFP comapny. In actual fact charities are not any more transparent than this (oxfam employ thousands and thousands of volunteers work for them and can claim expenses, have you ever seen a detailed account listing all the thousands of expense claims for car parking etc from oxfam?).
But the fact is millons were given to the McCanns before the fund was even thought of, and more was received via book royalties and compensation payments (which could have gone into their own account), nor has anyone been forced to donate to the fund. If people do not want to donate then they do not have to, and it is not anyone elses business if others choose to donate.
the fund was set up to look for madeleine, yet Donjeta has written that if they want to do some good the fund shoudl be used to make it illegal for peopel to leave their children alone for thirty minutes.
I do not agree with people leaving their children like this, but I think it is just as bad, if not worse, for people to not bother to take their own children safely to school yet no-one seems to think people like that should be prosecuted. If you think about it it is much more likely a ten year old walking to school alone (or with a friend or two) is much more likely to be hurt or abducted than a three year old fast asleep in bed being checked every half an hour.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"]Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
First of all thta is a random blogsite with no way of proving that what they produce is true. If you want to be certain of your claims go to companies house for the accounts.
But even if this is an accurate copy this is just the legal costs for the injunction against amara'ls book and according to the same report the money in the fund had mainly come from the mccanns and their friends via compensatory donations from the express group. They could have kept the libel payouts,so why should they not use them against Amaral's book which is telling people that Madeleine is dead, and therefore actively encouraging people not to search for her, thereby increasing the chance that she will not be found (who is going to report suspicioins if they have been told the mccanns killed the child?).
At the end of the day if you have evidence of the McCanns or the fund breaking the law, go to the police. If you do not want to donate then do not donate, but those who are trying to stop the fund have a huge sense of self entitlement that they think they have the right to tell other people how to spend their money, if people want to dnate that is their business be it Branson and Rowling, or members of the public.
I refer you to the straw man article again.At the end of the day if you have evidence of the McCanns or the fund breaking the law, go to the police. If you do not want to donate then do not donate, but those who are trying to stop the fund have a huge sense of self entitlement that they think they have the right to tell other people how to spend their money, if people want to dnate that is their business be it Branson and Rowling, or members of the public.
Discussion would be so much more pleasant and productive if one would respond to points that were made by the poster and not to points that were not made by the other poster.
Maybe you can point me to a post where I said that I have evidence of the McCanns or the fund breaking the law, or that I'm trying to stop the fund or that I've told you or anybody else what they can do with their money.
The last I looked, this thread is "Have you donated" and there is a poll asking if people have or would consider donating and I will tell you that I would never donate to a fund which rewards parents who left their two year old twins to be babysat by a three year old but if someone else wants to be my guest.
You also said if it wanted to do some good, and not fatten individuels wallets... can you explain why trying to find a missing child is not good, and whose wallet is being fattened off the fund?
And I thought you thought it was good for children to be left to walk alone to school? How can one claim it is wrong to leave a three year old asleep and only check them every half hour, yet it is good to leave a ten year old to walk to school on their own or with only another child for protection. More children are abducted when walking even with other children. I am not saying it is wrong, but I cannot see how one is acceptable, and the other is not.
This feels like we're beating a dead horse.
The evidence is in the above posts. The fund paid a lot of money for the parents' libel suit. It is also stated that one of the main objectives of the fund is to provide financial support for the parents.
Paying their legal and other expenses is rewarding them in my book. I already told you that I haven't said finding missing children isn't a good thing but paying lawyers and the family is not going to find Madeleine.
As for older children being left alone, haven't we been through this already? IIRC I explained this and you must have read my posts because you replied to them. I told you that I think it's more negligent to leave small children alone because they are not able to handle being alone the same way older children are. I am pretty sure every parent knows how older children and small toddlers differ from each other in this respect. I am not talking about abduction risk because it's relatively rare, and let's face it, most of us adults couldn't go anywhere either if we could only go where we definitely can't be abducted. I am talking about the stuff that normally goes on when children are left alone. Small children wake up without their parents and have to cry for half an hour or more and nobody answers - they are distressed and feel abandoned. Major trauma if it's a recurrent habit. Older children are emotionally more capable of handling short separations from adults and cognitively more capable of solving problems, calling for help if something happens, and they actually eventually need to learn to become more independent if they're not going to be mama's babies forever. You don't go from being a constantly supervised 17-year old to fully independent 18-year old overnight, it's a gradual age-appropriate learning process. But it's not age appropriate to leave babies alone. Half an hour alone is an eternity for a child of that age.
Last edited by Donjeta; 07-30-2012 at 06:46 PM.
The only libel case the fund MAY have paid for is the one in Portugal, but no-one has shown an account from companies house, or a bill from the lawyers involved to prove this.
The libel costs in England were met by no-win no fee arrangements (here this means that the person taking the case i.e the Mccanns never pay anything, but if they win the opposing person pays the fees).
the mccanns own legal fees for when they were aguidos were not paid for by the fund. A donor (Richard Branson) did donate for this though, but to them directly not to the fund).
The only legal costs that the fund is known to have paid are the funds own legal costs (i.e the legals costs for setting up the fund).
Do you believe John McCann, the chairman, is lying when he opposes your opinion or do you think this has to be a forged document because it does not support your position?
"We have paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry, ..., and ..., in Portugal, enabling them obtain an injunction banning Mr Amoral [sic] from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction."
If the fund chairman says they paid for legal costs other than the fund's own legal costs I'm inclined to believe him.
I did say the only case may have been the Portugal one. So you have one case, which is being taken on behalf of all five of the McCanns not just the parents, and on that basis you claim the fund is being used to reward the parents, even though any compensation is going back in the fund, if they win it is likely all costs will have to be paid by Amaral, and most of the fund is being used to search for madeleine. The McCanns will not make a penny from the case. If the McCanns had only been interested in money they could have kept the book royalties, and the payouts from newspaper groups which admitted they printed fake stories. Besides if my child was missing, and a convicted criminal who was on the case for only six months decided to write a book full of lies that tried to convince people there was no point searching for my child, I would try to sue him. A convicted criminal making money not just from a child disappearing, but actually from writing lies and trying to impede the search for her is unacceptable.
But can I also point out that you still have only provided quotes from random blogsites, not from companies house or anything reputable.
Can you provide evidence that the McCanns have not profited from the disappearance of Madeleine?
If not then your point is moot
England's dancing days are done...
But as I am nto the one making the accusations, i do not actually have to prove that the accusations are not true. the burden of proof lies with those making accusations. Otherwise anyone could accuse anyone else of anything, and be free to stand outside their home with a sign accusing them of whatever they fancied, and it would be legal because the victim might not be able to prove their innocence. Would anyone here be happy if their neighbour decided to tell people that they were stealing money from someone, and then claimed that they had every right to make such claims as although they have not one shred of evidence we were unable to prove it was not true? So if someone is making a defamatory accusation, they have to be able to prove it.
Unless a person has seen evidence that the McCanns have profited from the disappearence then they cannot claim that to be true. Claiming that they must have profited because no-one has been able to show me their bank accounts to prove me wrong is not a good way to go about proving a point. If we all took that route we could suddenly claim that any random person was a criminal because they could not prove otherwise. Looking at the disappearence of madeleine, we could claim any person without a good alibi must be guilty because they cannot be proven not to have done it.
So unless anyone who has made these accusations can actually produce evidence to back up their accusations, then their claims are not only moot, but very irresponsible.
Please note the Companies house bar code on page 1 of both documents.
Look like scanned official documents to me, not blog posts.
I'm pretty sure the McCanns would have sued somebody already if random bloggers posted fake accounting info documents for the Madeleine fund on the interwebz.
You still have not come up with one shred of evidence the Mccanns are being rewarded. The action against Amaral is being taken on behalf of all five Mccanns, and any money awarded goes straight to the fund not the McCanns. How exactly have the McCanns been rewarded, what sources do you ahve to prove this accusation?
For information Sept 2007
Speaking in an interview with the News of the World, Gerry also confessed he is frustrated they are not allowed to use any of the £800,000 Madeleine Fund to pay their mounting legal bills.
"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion," said Gerry.
England's dancing days are done...
Who could consider this a reward for their child going missing? In the UK we had a case of two ten year olds who were allowed to walk in their village alone in the early evening. After the disappeared and were found murdered two weeks later after a huge media frenzy, a fund gave money for one of the families to go on holiday to New Zealand for a month - woudl you also consider this a reward for allowing their child to walk unaccompanied, and therefore putting her in a position where it was possible for someone to murder her? I certainly would not, I would consider it helping someone out at their time of greatest need.
A holiday in NZ?
I expect I would be needing some other kind of help altogether if my child was murdered, I probably wouldn't feel much like having a holiday. But hopefully they enjoyed theirs.
Has it now been established beyond all doubts that Madeleine was abducted?
the thing is until one finds onself in that situation we really have no idea how we would react if a loved one was murdered or went missing. I think if a loved one of mine went missing I would shift any sense of grief into some sort of denial anything bad could have happened and focus on finding them, anything rather than having to sit down and face the possibility they may have been killed. But I just do not know if thats what would happen in reality, for some people they really need to closure that believing the love done has died, and accepting that, can bring. The not knowing can be torture, you cannot give up looking because you feel you would be giving up on them, sealing their fate, but at least a part of you must feel they are dead, and yet you cannot grieve and come to terms with it because there is still doubt. How can someone do that to another person, a family?
In the 1980's a 25 year old woman disappeared in central London, a week after her disappearence her mother was interviewed and said she believed her daughter had been murdered. She also later said she accepted not having a body, and that the family did not need a body. However I have heard other parents of missing adults, say they believe their child may still be alive, and others still who say they believe they are dead, but need their body back. I also remember when a schoolgirl went missing a few years ago, and was found murdered six months later. I believe her family went on the holidya thye had already booked, and a friend just canceled the missing girls place. To me that seemed odd, but God only knows what they were going through. There just is no one size fits all way to react, it does not mean one family is guilty the other innocent, that one family cares the other does not. People are different, and so are their reactions.
Some news articles back in the day implied that the arguido status was lifted because the police shelved the investigation, not so much because the police knows what did or did not happen.
.While the police investigation is being closed, it can be re-opened in the light of new evidence.
According to a police source, the final report on the investigation is only descriptive of the facts which have been verified and those that have not been ascertained in the case. It means it has not reached any conclusions over whether Madeleine's disappearance involved abduction, homicide, or concealing a body.
Technically the public prosecutor could still press ahead with a prosecution but in the light of such lack of evidence and the police shelving their investigation it is virtually inconceivable