I'm relatively new here. Are we allowed to mention a Portuguese Supreme Court ruling today about a missing British child in Praia da Luz.

[meltownmary]

Don't want to break any rules. Thanks.

Will we ever know the truth, complete circus from the moment the whole tragedy began

RedHelen, they might not have explicitly said it was only for searching for Madeleine, but they certainly gave that impression.

IIRC they (or the people who set up the fund) held a press conference detailing the things the money was going to be used for/could be used for at the time it was launched. I'm not sure how much more open they could have been.

Just wanted to say in defence of the OP... this subject is strictly forbidden on a number of message boards so not necessarily goady to ask if it is here.

Just wanted to say in defence of the OP... this subject is strictly forbidden on a number of message boards so not necessarily goady to ask if it is here.

Agreed, I didn't think the OP was being goady at all, but gave my "lol, good luck with that" comment as knew just how these threads go on here.
It just descended into with "I'm watching youuuu" updates. so just switched off.
Perfectly valid question to ask. For what it's worth I think it's a very strange case all round.

I didn't initially think OP was being goady..... but the desire for MM related 'banter' is so bizarre, and the responses so weird and snappy, I wonder if this is some freak of a PBP just trying to wind everyone up?!

I'm sure I remember the directors of the fund saying it wouldn't be used for K and G's legal fees. That was when they were officially suspects in Portugal, though.

OP here. I was not being goady in any fashion. New word to me, but I get the drift.
I merely reported a news item related to the case. But if someone can point out my sins WRT to being goady I will respond.

Thanks to those who backed me up.

Oh and I am a relatively new member here, therefore never banned before now.

If you wish I'm sure you can check with Headquarters to check me out.

Strange place this. When someone says something that you may not agree with, it's suddenly, bizarre, a banned poster reincarnated, full moon, mad, goady and a lot of other things too.

Could someone please give me the thread behavioural posting rules LOL.

But I'll stick around anyway, thank you.

Are you Julian Clary?

I think if you belong to other forums then you won't be coming here writing like a newbie

What does a newbie write like NavyandWhite?

Like you do?

So many judgy people here. OMG. ( I've seen the word "judgy" already) Term of endearment I'm sure, just like goady, to welcome new posters in.

Crescent moon tonight, so we have a few weeks to go before the SHTF here I reckon.

I thank you

Like buggery are you 'new'.

LOL

@ArmySal

Thanks for the welcome.

IIRC they (or the people who set up the fund) held a press conference detailing the things the money was going to be used for/could be used for at the time it was launched. I'm not sure how much more open they could have been.

Nope, not true. For a start you're assuming 20/20 foresight that they would be made suspects and require money for legal costs anyway.

But it was initially set up as a fund 'to aid the search for Madeleine', 'Leaving no stone unturned'. Which is ambiguous enough not to preclude anything but gave the impression it was to fund searching. If you have a google and look back at the initial setting up you'll see exactly how scattergun and unfocused it was, especially because initially the donations were totally unsolicited and they had no idea what to do. The initial idea was to set up a charity but they were told they couldn't because it was just for one child. And they had no idea how long she would be missing for or how the situation would develop. So everything was ambiguous but the main'pull' was funding the search for Madeleine. There was certainly no idea that legal fees or PR would be needed in those early days and presumably no idea they would become suspects either. So no media conferences setting things out, it was remarkable by its ambiguity in fact.

Then there were a series of media storms over mortgage payments, legal fees, PR bills etc. None of which were initially covered and put quite a few people's noses out of joint. These have always been justified as aiding the search for Madeleine and therefore justifiable under the funds aims, but some people disagree that this is the case and it has been controversial.

But clear aims and setting out at the start? Definitely not.

The use of the fund to cover some living expenses was definitely covered in the press conference that launched the fund.

You're right they wouldn't have known about the legal fees they would have incurred when they became suspects but I think a lot of that was paid by another donor anyway.

Not true. It was only revealed that it was used for their living expenses in October 2007, five months after the fund was set up and after they were made suspects. The trustees justified it by saying they had legal advice it was acceptable, not that they had always been clear it would. And there was a huge row about it at the time precisely because it hadn't been made clear it would be used for that and a lot of donors felt it was not in the spirit of the fund. Please can you back up your claim with some sort of link, because everything I can find says exactly the opposite.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.scotsman.com/news/uk/mccanns-used-madeleine-fund-to-pay-their-mortgage-1-697486/amp?client=safari

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490415/Row-McCanns-use-1million-Madeleine-fund-pay-mortgage.html