You have forgotten about the 2 months mortgage payments that the libel damages repaid.
No I'm not Donald. I have never objected to the McCanns using the Fund money to pay their mortgage whilst they were still in Portugal. It was unseemly, for sure, but it was always permissible in the 'small print' of the limited company that was 'The Fund'
What I object to in this instance, is that Clarence Mitchell is intimating something that is NOT covered by the Fund's Memorandum and Articles of Asssociation.
He is intimating that the use of monies in the Fund is dependent on where it came from.
He is making a distinction between different 'types' of donations, and intimating that the distinction determines the manner in which the money can be spent.
Or is he really just saying that they are 'counting' the last 500,000 in the account, as the money Kate and Gerry received in damages, and paid into the Fund ?
... that the last 500,000 in the Fund account is therefore, 'technically' theirs, and they are free to do with it as they wish ( like spend it on their personal legal fees for instance )
If that's the case, then they didn't really 'donate' their libel winnings to the Fund at all did they ? ... in fact, if that's the case, then they havn't given a single penny of their own money towards 'the search'
I can't replay the clip at the moment to quote the exact words, but he said that the people who donated the remaining monies were "happy for it to be spent in any way that assists Kate and Gerry and the wider family" and so on.
I took it to refer mainly to legal costs, as the children are, after all, joint applicants in the libel action.
What I think is a big assumption for Clarence to make, though, is that the fundraising event donors (who he mentioned) are happy for their donations to be spent in this way. The Express reported that "Jack Dee has helped to raise £45000 to keep up the search for Madeleine McCann"
If you look at the comments section of any online newspaper, you will see that most people are very sceptical about this case.
They aren't 'most people' they are a small bunch of people who, for reasons probably best known to their psychiatrists, dedicate their lives to vilifying and persecuting two people against whom there is no evidence. They openly 'organise' these spam attacks on their nasty little forums, in between making threats against the family.
He is intimating that the use of monies in the Fund is dependent on where it came from.
He is making a distinction between different 'types' of donations, and intimating that the distinction determines the manner in which the money can be spent.
Yes, that's what he was saying, making a distinction between publicly donated monies and other monies. It was the first time I'd heard that, and he seemed to be saying that the remaining non-publicly donated money would not now be used exclusively for the search.
They aren't 'most people' they are a small bunch of people who, for reasons probably best known to their psychiatrists, dedicate their lives to vilifying and persecuting two people against whom there is no evidence. They openly 'organise' these spam attacks on their nasty little forums, in between making threats against the family.
Well I made a comment on Jon Clemments Blog in the Mirror ... and the only forum I am a member of is DS
Yes, that's what he was saying, making a distinction between publicly donated monies and other monies. It was the first time I'd heard that, and he seemed to be saying that the remaining non-publicly donated money would not now be used exclusively for the search.
Does anyone have a link to CM's speech? I haven't seen it.
I'm not saying there has never been a corrupt policeman in the history of the world, however I feel that statistically now there seems to be an awful lot of them supposedly in one department in Portugal. :rolleyes:
There's no 'supposedly' about it. The number of ex/officers charged or convicted on criminal offences is quite worrying. IMO its the mindset of the dictatorship lingering in the 'old school' mentality of some of its members. I have no doubt its increasingly cause for concern in PT. Officers like Rebelo must despair of the likes of Amaral.
Did anyone actually watch the full press conference today. If so, what was your impression of how they looked, and how responded to the questions? It lasted for half an hour. Quite a long time in the scheme of things.
Now I understand what all the hair comments were about earlier :eek:
I also agree that his wording re Tanner was very careful, and his explanation of the use of the funds was interesting to say the least. I wonder if they stood up during the party and announced that the proceeds would be used on litigation , not searching. I highly doubt it, so I don't understand how he can be assured that the people there would be happy for thier money to be used in such a way.
Did anyone actually watch the full press conference today. If so, what was your impression of how they looked, and how responded to the questions? It lasted for half an hour. Quite a long time in the scheme of things.
I watched it with an open mind. I thought they came across quite well, although they did look very stressed, and Kate looked quite ill. Gerry answered calmly, and as a neutral observer I see no reason why you would doubt what he was saying.
It did help however, that for at least the portion that I saw, no really difficult questions were asked.
I do wonder though, if further criticising of the Police in Portugal is going to help them in their cause of "asking the Portugese people for help".
I would think the Portugese people are mighty sick of them actually, although of course I don't know that for a fact.
Imagine the outcry over here, if someone from a foreign country came over, went out and left their children alone, lost one of them to an abductor (or whatever) then criticised the Police handling of it. Again and Again.
They did ok, but I do think at this stage they are being advised badly.
Did anyone actually watch the full press conference today. If so, what was your impression of how they looked, and how responded to the questions? It lasted for half an hour. Quite a long time in the scheme of things.
The only thing I learnt from today's press conference and follow-up is that the Home Office have said they have offered the McCanns as much help as they are able to. They cannot do anymore!
As for how they looked/responded, same old same old.
Does anyone have a link to CM's speech? I haven't seen it.
The clip is on this page - can't get it to work on the chronically slow mobile connection I'm on at the mo, but the fund bit comes after about 6 minutes:
Did anyone actually watch the full press conference today. If so, what was your impression of how they looked, and how responded to the questions? It lasted for half an hour. Quite a long time in the scheme of things.
I didn't watch it donald, but I'm sure they were relieved to have Clarence Mitchell on hand to stage manage the event.
I agree with something you said earlier, I, too, think he has done a remarkable job for the McCanns.
I also think he is utterly loathesome.
That's not 'libel' is it ... saying you find someone utterly loathesome ?
I do wonder though, if further criticising of the Police in Portugal is going to help them in their cause of "asking the Portugese people for help".
They have not criticised 'the police' and they have always spoken highly of Rebelo.
They are criticising one particular policeman. The sacked, disgraced convicted criminal one. Who has libelled them repeatedly, and who has failed to justify any case for doing so.
I should imagine anything the Mccanns have to say about Amaral is nothing compared to what some senior members of that force have to say about him, and his disgraceful conduct.
Did anyone actually watch the full press conference today. If so, what was your impression of how they looked, and how responded to the questions? It lasted for half an hour. Quite a long time in the scheme of things.
Very tense and gulping a lot to begin with, but they relaxed a bit as they got on with the job of attacking Amaral. Kate overstepped the mark a bit by referring to "Amaral and his supporters", which caused the reporters to quickly ask whether she was saying there were divisions in the PJ, which she had to backtrack a bit on.
Comments
No I'm not Donald. I have never objected to the McCanns using the Fund money to pay their mortgage whilst they were still in Portugal. It was unseemly, for sure, but it was always permissible in the 'small print' of the limited company that was 'The Fund'
What I object to in this instance, is that Clarence Mitchell is intimating something that is NOT covered by the Fund's Memorandum and Articles of Asssociation.
He is intimating that the use of monies in the Fund is dependent on where it came from.
He is making a distinction between different 'types' of donations, and intimating that the distinction determines the manner in which the money can be spent.
They seem to be making it up as they go along !
I can't replay the clip at the moment to quote the exact words, but he said that the people who donated the remaining monies were "happy for it to be spent in any way that assists Kate and Gerry and the wider family" and so on.
I took it to refer mainly to legal costs, as the children are, after all, joint applicants in the libel action.
What I think is a big assumption for Clarence to make, though, is that the fundraising event donors (who he mentioned) are happy for their donations to be spent in this way. The Express reported that "Jack Dee has helped to raise £45000 to keep up the search for Madeleine McCann"
Were they duped?
Nothing in any part of their lives to me, seems to have any sort of decency.
Another little piece of doctrine, oft repeated in one form or another.
You understand wrong. PT law is quite clear that the process can only be re-opened if there is new information that the ministry deems relevant.
They aren't 'most people' they are a small bunch of people who, for reasons probably best known to their psychiatrists, dedicate their lives to vilifying and persecuting two people against whom there is no evidence. They openly 'organise' these spam attacks on their nasty little forums, in between making threats against the family.
Thats quite a little cottage industry you've got going there, spreading the word.
Yes, that's what he was saying, making a distinction between publicly donated monies and other monies. It was the first time I'd heard that, and he seemed to be saying that the remaining non-publicly donated money would not now be used exclusively for the search.
Well I made a comment on Jon Clemments Blog in the Mirror ... and the only forum I am a member of is DS
Does anyone have a link to CM's speech? I haven't seen it.
There's no 'supposedly' about it. The number of ex/officers charged or convicted on criminal offences is quite worrying. IMO its the mindset of the dictatorship lingering in the 'old school' mentality of some of its members. I have no doubt its increasingly cause for concern in PT. Officers like Rebelo must despair of the likes of Amaral.
Here
Thank you
Now I understand what all the hair comments were about earlier :eek:
I also agree that his wording re Tanner was very careful, and his explanation of the use of the funds was interesting to say the least. I wonder if they stood up during the party and announced that the proceeds would be used on litigation , not searching. I highly doubt it, so I don't understand how he can be assured that the people there would be happy for thier money to be used in such a way.
I watched it with an open mind. I thought they came across quite well, although they did look very stressed, and Kate looked quite ill. Gerry answered calmly, and as a neutral observer I see no reason why you would doubt what he was saying.
It did help however, that for at least the portion that I saw, no really difficult questions were asked.
I do wonder though, if further criticising of the Police in Portugal is going to help them in their cause of "asking the Portugese people for help".
I would think the Portugese people are mighty sick of them actually, although of course I don't know that for a fact.
Imagine the outcry over here, if someone from a foreign country came over, went out and left their children alone, lost one of them to an abductor (or whatever) then criticised the Police handling of it. Again and Again.
They did ok, but I do think at this stage they are being advised badly.
The only thing I learnt from today's press conference and follow-up is that the Home Office have said they have offered the McCanns as much help as they are able to. They cannot do anymore!
As for how they looked/responded, same old same old.
The clip is on this page - can't get it to work on the chronically slow mobile connection I'm on at the mo, but the fund bit comes after about 6 minutes:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/books/madeleine+mccannaposs+parents+win+book+battle/3548937
I know.
Do you ever wonder whether that level of emotional involvement is excessive? Or that it might get in the way of having a balanced view on the case?
What did you say?
I didn't watch it donald, but I'm sure they were relieved to have Clarence Mitchell on hand to stage manage the event.
I agree with something you said earlier, I, too, think he has done a remarkable job for the McCanns.
I also think he is utterly loathesome.
That's not 'libel' is it ... saying you find someone utterly loathesome ?
That's between me and Jon
They have not criticised 'the police' and they have always spoken highly of Rebelo.
They are criticising one particular policeman. The sacked, disgraced convicted criminal one. Who has libelled them repeatedly, and who has failed to justify any case for doing so.
I should imagine anything the Mccanns have to say about Amaral is nothing compared to what some senior members of that force have to say about him, and his disgraceful conduct.
Very tense and gulping a lot to begin with, but they relaxed a bit as they got on with the job of attacking Amaral. Kate overstepped the mark a bit by referring to "Amaral and his supporters", which caused the reporters to quickly ask whether she was saying there were divisions in the PJ, which she had to backtrack a bit on.
Oh and she referred to Madeleine as "it".
Nothing to be ashamed of, I'm sure.