English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

STILL not produced the new 80,000k publicity campaign they talked about WEEKS ago. What is taking them so long?
Looks like it was more McLies to quieten the voices of dissent about why they have not used the Madeleine fund to look for her. THE FUND SHOULD BE FROZEN NOW. They have not used it to look for Madeleine, only for their "living expenses". Why hasn't the government frozen the "FUND" which is nothing more than a MASSIVE FRAUD. Why won't people open their eyes and see it for what it is. What exactly have they spent on "looking for" Madeleine. Not just commerce which will generate more money ie the wristbands and the photos of Madeleine which they CHARGE for. Don't forget they now have the online Madeleine shop. This ongoing fraud should not be forgotten. Does anyone disagree that they are using the fund as personal income rather than looking for Madeleine.

2007-10-14 21:32:40 · 24 answers · asked by trancebabe 4 in News & Events Current Events

Veritas, why do you keep calling me Dave S? I'm Trancebabe, the one and only.

2007-10-14 22:41:31 · update #1

24 answers

This is something that has bothered me for a long time - why has so little money from the fund been spent on finding Madeleine? How can the parents afford to take so much time off work and why? It's not as if they are actively looking for her. Any other parents in this situation would have had to face up to the reality of what they themselves allowed to happen and live with the consequences, which for most of us would mean going back to earning a living. I agree the fund should be frozen as the money is not being used for the purpose it claimed to have.

2007-10-14 22:27:26 · answer #1 · answered by Ella 2 · 7 0

I find it odd that people are so defensive in their answers - the fund obviously has been used in a disappionting way and whatever you think of the parents I feel you would have a hard time feeling overly happy with the way things are going on this front.

The poster campaign does seem to be delayed somewhat and I must admit I'm unsure what good more posters would do - her face is everywhere and the eyes thing cannot of passed many people by so even if the poster is going to show her with shorter hair etc the eyes are the issue. A lot of four year old girls look just like Madeleine but obviously wouldn't have this distinguishing feature.

My guess would be that the PR machine felt that they ought to at least show the public they were spending a little on the cause it was originally collected for rather than just to cover Gerry's wages. They are not returning to work for one reason and one reason only - they are spending all this time working on their defence. I personally find that wrong and insincere and if these two people were not the parents of this child the public would not be funding their living expenses in such a way.

2007-10-14 22:44:43 · answer #2 · answered by snaffle 4 · 6 0

I thought it had been frozen?????
Anyways, perhaps they should offer a giant monetary reward.....I know it's already been done, but not by the McCanns. It would certainly make them appear a little more caring I guess. I think they're damned if they do & damned if they don't.

I don't think it's a case of people opening their eyes - after all we can't go hanging people just because we THINK something is amiss can we? we can't function on gut instincts.

You have a point about charging for madeleine 'products' though.....it's bound to cause people to question their motives.

Everyone has a brain & it's only natural I think when given only fragments of information we try to fill in the blanks. I know for me, one day I'm suspicious & the next not so sure.......we're just going to have to wait & see (if ever)

As my mum always said, everything done in the dark always comes into the light one day.
Unless she was just saying that to keep me in check. :-)

2007-10-14 22:25:07 · answer #3 · answered by Funky 6 · 3 0

The Fund should have DEFINITE guidelines on how it is to be spent. To the best of my knowledge it was to make money available for publicity to keep case in public eye. The people who donated large sums should get a grip on the situation.

2007-10-14 22:38:16 · answer #4 · answered by LOOBYLOO 3 · 2 0

If people are stupid enough to keep giving their money what's the problem? Some people deserve to be robbed blind and the McCanns are only taking money off the fools of the world these days. The only people I feel bad for are the ones who donated at the start who may now regret their decision.

2007-10-14 22:30:21 · answer #5 · answered by SR13 6 · 4 0

You are completely right. I can well understand your outrage.
It amazes me that people dont see through the Mclies.
I dont think it will be too much longer before we see these two charged. I sincerely hope then that the fund is frozen.
Its clear that the Mcgrubs should also be charged for fraud.

2007-10-14 22:32:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

I think its difficult to say. Fraud is hard to prove. They still have a couple of years before any books need to be produced and, I know of companies that do not bother even then. After a while, letters will start to come to the "fund" from Companies House, but if they are ignored, any amount of time may elapse before action of any kind is taken. In the meantime, several changes of serving Directors may occur to muddy the waters, changes of company name, and all sorts of other legal corporate loopholes may be taken advantage of.

2007-10-14 22:02:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

we dont have to agree that the fund is being used to support the parents we all know this for a fact.
the question how long before the fund drys up and
it will be interesting to see when they have to submitt to company house the nature of how the fund was used and what was spent on what, just how mach of the money was spent on finding the child.

2007-10-14 22:04:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7 3

Well why don't you email the www.findmadeleine.com website and ask them? You can keep your message private from public view.

How would anyone on here know what the in's and out's of their media campaign is and how it is being set up? You need to email the website or write to Dr's McCann in Rothley if this issue is driving you to such distraction.

Have a good day.

2007-10-14 22:00:42 · answer #9 · answered by Zed 6 · 3 4

DAVE S, enough of this crapola.. You are more transparent than a pair of the Pussycat Dolls' g-strings.

To state the obvious, I sincerely hope that this poor lamb is found soon, I don't think any decent human would disagree with you on that. I also think that many agree with you that the McCanns have behaved oddly - but that does not necessarily mean they killed their daughter.

I have to say one thing. Give it up Dave, we all know its you here and not ''pdr',/"Jack H"/ "Adam"/"Dr Watson"/"AndrewT2", or any of the others that are quite obviously you. None of them exist outside your messed up mind. You used to make fantastic valid points before you grew another 20 identities. It's sad, the way you are wasting your writing talent on trolling when you actually have a lot of sense somewhere in your head.

You obviously want people to know it is you. None of those troll IDs tend to respond to anyone who makes a good, sound case against what they say. Just like you. Coincidence? Yeah, right. You don't bother even trying to disguise youself most of the time, and when you do, your deliberate misspellings are very obvious. Your style still comes through, and you answer all your own questions under your various IDs in quick succession. It is not hard to spot.

Whatever any of us think of your lunatic theories, nobody can deny that you are smart. So, here's one suggestion. When someone faults you, why not use your reasoning skills (which you clearly possess) to floor them instead of trite sniping? I remember watching you call clearly intelligent people illiterate, purely because you didn't agree with them, when in fact they are more articulate than yourself. It's tragic. Before you give the predictable answer, I am not sniping at you: I am stating facts. You know it.

2007-10-14 22:33:14 · answer #10 · answered by Veritas The Great and Terraboil 1 · 2 6

fedest.com, questions and answers