View Poll Results: Have you donated to the Find Madeleine Fund

Voters
127. You may not vote on this poll
  • NO- Never have, and never will

    115 90.55%
  • Yes- I gave at the beginning, but will not give again

    2 1.57%
  • Yes- I gave, and will continue to give until she is found

    4 3.15%
  • NO- I would, but I can't afford to

    6 4.72%
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 210
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18,299
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    . So there is no evidence the fund has been used to pay lawyers.
    .
    Sure there is.

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m...smarch2009.pdf


    J. McCann, chairman:
    We have paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry...
    etc.


  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Donjeta For This Useful Post:


  3. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    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.


  4. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18,299
    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.

    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.


  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Donjeta For This Useful Post:


  6. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    I refer you to the straw man article again.

    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.
    So in one breath you claim you have never said you have evidence that the McCanns breaking the law, but in the next you claim the fund is there to reward the parents. using the fund to reward the parents would be illegal. Do you have any evidence the fund is being used to reward the parents, the same parents who set up the fund after they were given millons to search for Madeleine, and who gave all the royalties from a book they wrote, and the refused personal compensation from newspapers and along with their holiday companions asked instead for donations to made to the fund. You claim it is rewarding the parents, where is your evidence of this?

    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.


  7. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18,299
    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.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15788546/M...Limited-310308

    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.


  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Donjeta For This Useful Post:


  9. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    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).


  10. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18,299
    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."

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m...smarch2009.pdf

    If the fund chairman says they paid for legal costs other than the fund's own legal costs I'm inclined to believe him.


  11. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    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.


  12. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    On Battleship Hill
    Posts
    3,146
    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...


  13. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by badhorsie View Post
    Can you provide evidence that the McCanns have not profited from the disappearance of Madeleine?
    If not then your point is moot

    First of all, the funds accounts are a matter of public record and do not show money being paid to th mccanns. The fund is not for profit so cannot by law make a profit. The Mccanns also chose not to receive royalties from the book kate wrote, and instead the money goes to the fund, they also decided not to accept compensation for libel payouts and instead asked for a donation to be made directly to the fund.

    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.


  14. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18,299
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    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.

    Please note the Companies house bar code on page 1 of both documents.

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m...smarch2009.pdf

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15788546/M...Limited-310308

    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.


  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Donjeta For This Useful Post:


  16. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18,299
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    First of all, the funds accounts are a matter of public record and do not show money being paid to th mccanns. The fund is not for profit so cannot by law make a profit. The Mccanns also chose not to receive royalties from the book kate wrote, and instead the money goes to the fund, they also decided not to accept compensation for libel payouts and instead asked for a donation to be made directly to the fund.

    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.
    BBM. If you don't like the links that have been posted, perhaps you can then produce links that meet your own approval that support this.


  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Donjeta For This Useful Post:


  18. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    But Donjeta,
    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?


  19. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18,299
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    But Donjeta,
    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?

    They didn't have to pay for their lawyer(s). A free lawyer is quite a reward imo.

    Also, one of the documents that has been linked to several times states that one of the purposes of the fund is to provide financial assistance to the family.


  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Donjeta For This Useful Post:


  21. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    On Battleship Hill
    Posts
    3,146
    For information Sept 2007
    Gerry McCann
    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.


    Link
    England's dancing days are done...


Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •