rmmbr_Cara
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 1
I barely have enough to survive on myself. Why would I give money to those liars?
Have you donated to "The Fund"
- Thread starter iNTERESTEDWOMAN
- Start date
- Status
Isabella
Thank you! Justice for Meredith!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 21
I totally agree with this post.
On the audit it said i believe that just 13% had gone to "searching". Did it actually signify at all what the "supporting the McCanns" portion of it went to exactly?
Jayelles
New Member
There's a really simple solution to those who object to the fund - don't give.
I donate to lots of good causes. My money, my choice.
I donate to lots of good causes. My money, my choice.
Isabella
Thank you! Justice for Meredith!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 21
Of course you chose who you donate to. I do think some people feel duped as they thought ALL the money was going to "try and find Madeleine" and not just a tiny portion of it.
Jayelles
New Member
IMO, you have absolutely no grounds for saying that. There is no evidence that the fund has been mis-managed whatsoever.
Isabella
Thank you! Justice for Meredith!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 21
I have every right for saying that. The fund was for SEARCHING for Madeleine when in fact very little of it has actually been used for that. Anything but that actually. And now its even paying Mitchells wages and at the same time Gerry complains the fund will be empty soon and so the searching will have to stop.
Maybe its time Gerry becomes a man...and speaks for himself...and saves the fund all that money.
Another thing one time Gerry said the fund would be run by independent people - when in fact 5 people running the fund include the McCanns ...another lie ..
Moab
Member
And by your own account they are no longer looking, so what should happen to the money?
In the states, donation accounts are set up for the family for expenses incurred while a child is missing, or in the event of a tragic death. They are sometimes set up by the main search groups and sometimes by LE. In any event, they are set up in the family's name and turned over to the family There are generally no stipulations placed on this money, from mortgages to food to housing to missing posters being printed to hiring a spokesperson. Maybe it is different in another country.
Isabella
Thank you! Justice for Meredith!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 21
People donated the money to SEARCH for Madeleine. They did not donate to pay the mortgage ( the fact the McCanns used it for that caused an uproar). People did NOT donate to pay Clarence Mitchell. They did NOT donate to pay the McCanns legal bills..as the McCanns wanted to happen. It was for searching.. Of course people also thought they was donating to a charity for Madeleine and got duped there also.
The facts are...the police do not think she was kidnapped. So...for the McCanns and there family to be in charge of this money is a total conflict. The fund should be turned over to people UNCONNECTED to the McCanns...and let them decide what to do with it ..ie if they want searches let them hire bonafide searchers...not crackpots like Metodo. In addition get rid of Clarence again this saves money.
Moab
Member
Interesting that you should have personal knowledge of everyone who donated to the fund and their specific intentions of how that money should be used. Normally there are not stipulations placed on the spending. People donate out of the goodness of their heart to a case that has touched them emotionally.
I am sure there is some sort of complaint you could lodge, isn't there?
I am not sure the police are qualified to make that assumption. It would be like you or I making an assumption on a B&E case when neither of us is qualified to do so because we had not been faced with the situation before or had not received training in how to handle that type of case. How many missing children cases had these police worked previous to the McCann case? Were they trained? Did they have practical experience?
Isabella
Thank you! Justice for Meredith!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 21
While im sure its all very interesting how funds are handled in America the fact is that Madeleine was English..so how funds are organised there is irrelevant. And apart from that im sure there is more money involved in this "business" than most donations families get for kids that go missing in America.
The funds were given so that searches could be made. NOT for there m ortgages to be paid..or for them to stay in 5 star hotels in Portugal...or to hire paid flunkeys like Clarence Mitchell. Nor to pay the McCanns legal bills when made arguidos. It was said from the start that the fund would be open to inspection...and that the McCanns themselves would never be anything to do with it...which is funny when 5 of the 9 directors are McCanns or there relations. And yes i know how people feel about this has there been uproar after uproar on how the money has been spent..especially then the McCanns wanted to use money....that pensioners and unemployed had paid to search for the little girl..to pay there legal bills after they was made ARGUIDOS. How can you possibly think people donated for those reasons? The fact that people..or at least very few are donating..even in the local area shows that people arent happy.
As for how experienced were the police searching...if u mean the ones the McCanns hired...they was nothing but debt collectors. Nothing more and nothing less. And the fact the boss said he knew where she was some 16 -18 months ago and that she would be home by Christmas..should have told people everything they needed to know.
And yes...if its found the McCanns have spent the fund in ways they shouldnt have..then yes..there are legal avenues that can be taken. The fact is...very little of the donations actually appear to have gone on actual searches..and they have got through nearly 3 million..and still..there is no Madeleine.
Texana
Overreaching
They seemed to have enough experience in taking crime scene photos and evidence that a) the evidence shows that no one but Kate McCann's fingerprints were on the window shutters b) the photos show the shutters are for all practical appearances, undamaged and intact c) the vegetation beneath the window is equally undisturbed and intact. They also brought in British cadaver and blood evidence dogs.
On the other hand, if having practical experience with anything associated with a case was a requirement for voicing an opinion or drawing conclusions, this forum wouldn't last very long.
Isabella
Thank you! Justice for Meredith!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 21
I thought she was asking if Metodo were experienced detectives not the pjs lol..tho i could be totally wrong. I actually think Metodo are used as a waq of laundering money to be honest.
Interesting point about the shutters...Gerry said that he closed the shutters and yet his finger prints isnt on them.
interesting read from a qualified accountant
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
and interesting poll results
it is a fact that the accounts do not match the mccann statements, ie, gerry mccann has stated on channel 4 that the vast majority of the fund money has gone directly on search fees, this is an obvious lie but its to the general public who dont know didly squat and dont care
the first year accounts proved most of the money went on anything but search fees and after that the mccanns kept their accounts secret hmmmmmm didnt declare them in full, so much for being open and transparent hey? i guess they didnt want to show how most of it goes on pr and lawyers and suing people and not on the search
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
and interesting poll results
it is a fact that the accounts do not match the mccann statements, ie, gerry mccann has stated on channel 4 that the vast majority of the fund money has gone directly on search fees, this is an obvious lie but its to the general public who dont know didly squat and dont care
the first year accounts proved most of the money went on anything but search fees and after that the mccanns kept their accounts secret hmmmmmm didnt declare them in full, so much for being open and transparent hey? i guess they didnt want to show how most of it goes on pr and lawyers and suing people and not on the search
Have you actually seen the real accounts, or just random websites like the mccannfiles? because the mccannfiles is just a random website set up by individuels with nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation. It is not an official website like some people try to imply. And the fund has not been used to sue people, carter ruck (a libel specialist) did not take fees from the fund, they did it on no win no fee. And why should the mccanns not sue people who commit libel against them, considering libeling someone is a crime, people who make statements that are untrue (regardless of whether they tack on a "in my opinion" or just imply it) should consider themselves lucky they just get sued and not a prison sentence (did tony bennett ever end up in prison, I now there was a threta of it earlier in the year, but I never heard the outcome). Besides it also proves these statements are unsubstantsiated as in the Uk you can say whatever you like about someone if you have real proof to back it up, so the fact they were successfully sued and barred from repeating the accusations shows that there was no proof to back up these accusations. It seems odd for a person to happily accuse the mccanns of committing a crime, and then whine when it turns out they themselves broke the law.
The fund has a board which contains non family members and have to approve any payment, it is a proper company and cannot just act like you claim. If you do have evidence that shows the fund is being misused then you have a duty to report it to the police and I suggest you do just that if you have evidence.
The fund has a board which contains non family members and have to approve any payment, it is a proper company and cannot just act like you claim. If you do have evidence that shows the fund is being misused then you have a duty to report it to the police and I suggest you do just that if you have evidence.
The link you provide also goes to an embarressingly bad article, that does not seem to understand the rules of how to get charity status.
Any charity most be for the public good and must not be for the benefit of any one individuel or small group of people. So madeleine's fund never could have been a charity, that is basic charity law. This law is also why some charities tag on the "and education of the public" bit as it makes them eligible to become a charity. So any fund that benefits an individuel or small group of people is a company not a charity. That includes funds set up to help an ill child etc .
The article states that kate Healy never explains why it was set up as a company, when in actual fact in her book she does say exactly why, and it should be obvious to anyone who has ever been involved in setting up a charity.
If the McCanns had wanted the money themselves they were under no obligation to set up a company, they could just have had the money sent to their account.
The article also relies on the word presumably. Instead of actually coming up with facts, it just says "presumably this" and presumably that and it would be reasonable to assume! It also implies that the Mccanns took Amaral to court for libel before 2010, but I do not think they started libel proceedings until much later. I do not think the outcome of the libel trial has been decided yet.
It also complains that the accounts are held at companies house and not on the website, but this is normal practice. I have never seen a charity, NFP company, or normal company that lists its accounts on its websites they are normally held at the relevant bodies, in this case companies house. If the reporter wanted them she could have got them from companies house, so i do not see why she is complaining about lack of transparency. The accounts are just as transparent as any other organisation.
It also states brian kennedy is Kate Healy's uncle.
Any charity most be for the public good and must not be for the benefit of any one individuel or small group of people. So madeleine's fund never could have been a charity, that is basic charity law. This law is also why some charities tag on the "and education of the public" bit as it makes them eligible to become a charity. So any fund that benefits an individuel or small group of people is a company not a charity. That includes funds set up to help an ill child etc .
The article states that kate Healy never explains why it was set up as a company, when in actual fact in her book she does say exactly why, and it should be obvious to anyone who has ever been involved in setting up a charity.
If the McCanns had wanted the money themselves they were under no obligation to set up a company, they could just have had the money sent to their account.
The article also relies on the word presumably. Instead of actually coming up with facts, it just says "presumably this" and presumably that and it would be reasonable to assume! It also implies that the Mccanns took Amaral to court for libel before 2010, but I do not think they started libel proceedings until much later. I do not think the outcome of the libel trial has been decided yet.
It also complains that the accounts are held at companies house and not on the website, but this is normal practice. I have never seen a charity, NFP company, or normal company that lists its accounts on its websites they are normally held at the relevant bodies, in this case companies house. If the reporter wanted them she could have got them from companies house, so i do not see why she is complaining about lack of transparency. The accounts are just as transparent as any other organisation.
It also states brian kennedy is Kate Healy's uncle.
Well he is her uncle. Didn't you know?
The rest of your post is just your opinion and not fact.
When the McCanns set up the "charity" fund, they do so in such a way that they could use the money for anything. There were no restrictions placed on the money. They could spend it looking for Maddie or they could send it buying a new car. Whatever. That is the way the fund was set up. And, NO, the fund does not have to be for the PUBLIC good. It is a private fund set up to help the McCanns. Nothing public about it.
There are threads on the subject right here in this forum along with links to the documents, etc.
As a note - if you refute a post with links in it, with your opinion, please state that it is your opinion - do not imply that you are relying on facts unless you link them up.
Please don't tell other posters how to post. If you have a different opinion, that's fine. Express your opinion WITHOUT telling others they are wrong.
Thanks,
Salem
There are threads on the subject right here in this forum along with links to the documents, etc.
As a note - if you refute a post with links in it, with your opinion, please state that it is your opinion - do not imply that you are relying on facts unless you link them up.
Please don't tell other posters how to post. If you have a different opinion, that's fine. Express your opinion WITHOUT telling others they are wrong.
Thanks,
Salem
It has certainly been. FYI
Read the chairman's statements for accounts ending 2009 and 2010. Their Portuguese lawyer has not been working for free for three years. Apart from Mr Amoral as they call him, they also started proceedings against several others.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id303.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id352.html
It does not imply anything that is incorrect. The Mccans issued a write in April 2009 and not much later than 2010 as you say. Did you not read the papers back in April/May 2009? The NOTW also printed parts of it in July 2009.What about the press conference outside the Lisbon court and all the Sky News reports back in Feb 2010? Here you go.
McCanns outside Lisbon Court, 10th Feb. - YouTube
Eventually they lost that case and their ban of Mr Amaral's book was overturned.
As for their accounts being transparent, their expenditure was not broken down, so though legally correct, not really transparent.
If you read through that very long accounting article you would have come across the fact that the Mccanns could have gotten charity status in the end and this was conveyed to their solicitors but they rushed through the forming of a ltd company in order to make the deadline of the press conference about launching the fund. If they had waited another day or so they could also have benefited from tax breaks which charities enjoy.
- Status