McCann's using Madeleine fund to pay mortgage

[Ethel]

I think this is very wrong.

Am I alone?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=490415&in_p age_id=1811&ct=5

[mattie]

Short answer - No, I won't go into detail for fear of being flamed.

[Bewlay Bros]

You are not alone Ethel.

Whilst I 100 percent believe the McCanns to be innocent, their mortgage should not be paid for by the charity of less earning folk.

The story of Maddie is terrible and fairly unique but many parents lose children through disease or car accidents and they have to piece their life back together. Although the situations are different, the sense of losing a child is surely the same?

They both earn a fairly good wage. Time to move on and rebuild their lives. Or, without sounding harsh, sell up and move to a smaller house. They don't need as many bedrooms now do they??

[cheries]

This is astonishing if it is true.

[Reverandfunk]

If people were stupid enough to give money to the "fund" then tough.

Ive left my kids alone in Dudley while I went to the pub and they disappeared.

Can I have a million pounds please.

it weren't my fault honest Im a good parent.

[Whickerman]

Can't see a problem. What else did people think they were paying into? The whole idea is to support the family until they get their daughter back.

I'm not debating whether it was their fault, what they're like as people, or who's to blame, just stating that people donated for just this kind of expense to allow them be free to travel and search.

[4GS]

Did you all miss the part that says:
But there is provision for her parents, both 39, to use the money to support themselves while the search for their daughter continues.

[redcrx]

the idea of the fund was not to support the family until they get their daughter back. It was to help fund the search, not pay their living expenses.

[Whickerman]

Sorry, you're wrong. Reread the text of the piece, it was for both.

(Not agreeing or disagreeing that this was right or wrong, it just is...)

[Supernick]

The fund has clear provision for this. That is completely unarguable. It's fact. So if you didn't read what it was for and gave money, what can you complain about? I check to see where my money is going before I give it to anyone.

Aside from this, I find it entirely reasonable. If you want to find Maddie, then having her parents constantly lobbying and keeping her in the news seems the best way. They can't do this as effectively if they're at work all day. If it pays for PR agencies to help keep it in the news, or to hire private detectives, then that is all fine with me.

[Ethel]

I didn't give any money as I only give to registered charities - I only have so much to go round.

But I think a lot of people who did give will be disappointed.

[redcrx]

Gerry is returning to work this week and to a wage of �75k a year. I wonder if those mortgage payments will be returned to the fund?

For a couple who are fighting a battle against those who doubt their story this is just another wrong move in my opinion.

[B00]

Totally agree with supernick, if people failed to read the small print as to where their money was going if they donated, then it's their fault, not the McCanns. I myself have donatted and i'm not i the least bit bothered that it's gone towards helping them keep their house, the house which I'd dearly love to see Madelieine being returned to.

[Bewlay Bros]

Just to add to my above, which is sort of linked, I do object to "managers" of charities being paid corporate salaries as well.

I know they may have the relevant expertise and political or business acumen to make said charity very profitable, but when the MD of Mencap or something is on �100k p.a, I often wonder if the average Joe is aware of this when he pops his twenty pence piece in to a poor box.

[Whickerman]

You're correct there redcrx, as a PR move it's poor. But I think they've lost the battle for the hearts of the public already, and if they need the money they've little to lose.

I just hope that the majority are proved wrong, the child is returned and the parents shown to be faultless. I can't see it though.

[kwicky]

A small point but in todays paper there is a picture of Mrs McCann. Not unusual you might think as this seems a daily occurrence and why not she is a very attractive woman. But have you noticed she is never seen in identical clothing and the picture showed her clutching a Next shopping bag. Not the actions of someone depressed and thinking of committing suicide as her mother suggests?

[Whickerman]

damn her for shopping? Nope, I can't do that.

[B00]

My God kwicky, lets hang her now- the woman was shopping, surely she's guilty and that proves it!

[spaced]

Ethel if this is true, I would find it appauling and unjustifiable.

Surely monies paid are for helping them find their duaghter, not paying Nationwide their monthly payments.

Again, like some others on here I dont want to pass judgement too much, for fear of being too harsh. Buy in my opinion, I feel that they know much more than they say and if innocent had they been looking after their daughter properly like proper parents non of this would have happened...


*spaced braces himself for a tsunami of backlash!*

[Ethel]

Most people with large mortgages have some sort of mortgage insurance.

If the insurance is refusing to pay under these circumstances that is an extremely poor reflection on the insurance company.

I doubt very much the health authority would consider either of the McCann's as fit for work up until now.

[Sweep2k]

But spaced, the money is going towards helping them find their daughter.

As Supernick has pointed out, if they have to return to work to pay bills, they can't spend their time promoting the search for Maddie, which means that the story will run out of steam and be forgotten.