Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 23

[Ciara]

Right April.Whilst I agree with keeping children safe (who wouldnt?) this whole set up reeks of vigilantism and is just wrong.No matter what we believe or feel about the McCanns (and imo some peoples judgement is colored by their dislike for them) we simply DONT KNOW what happened to Madeleine and until something,anything points definitively to their involvement I will not be part of it.

I dont know for sure the McCanns are guilty, I just know that I feel they are not so innocent in all of this. I dont like the fact they left the kids alone and I dont like a lot of how they behaved after the fact.:blowkiss:

 

[Ciara]

Hi gord Thankyou for posting what you just did. I found that very interesting and would not mind seeing answers to the questions asked.

 

[colomom]

Jon Gaunt show with Clarence Mitchell on Talk Sport Radio 9/1/07:

"just send money in an envelope to Kate & Gerry,Rothley - it'll get there"

Lynch Mob? Vigilantism? Dislike for the McCanns?

That would mean that you would have to be interested in the parents and what happens to them.

It is all about Madeleine Beth McCann, nothing else matters.

 

[daffodil]

I am aware it is about Madeleine and dont need reminding but my opinion still stands.I dont post much here as I do think there is a lynch mob mentality and that is my opinion.

 

[daffodil]

I wont flame you daffodil
I wont be part of any lynch mob either. I dont know for sure the McCanns are guilty, I just know that I feel they are not so innocent in all of this. I dont like the fact they left the kids alone and I dont like a lot of how they behaved after the fact.:blowkiss:

Thank you!

 

[daffodil]

Hi gord.

Those are excellent and valid points and questions.I hope there is a response.None of it sits comfortably with me at all.

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

What is that old expression...oh yes, "It like the pot calling the kettle black"...LOL We call it free will here in my little corner of the world. You can give, or you don't, it's up to the individual. I for one won't donate to the McCanns mortgage payments, and much needed holiday for "family moments with the twins" and I won't donate to the Tony Bennetts fund either. But hey, if someone would come up with a fund to change the laws and make "Our own form of baby-listening while intoxicated" illegal and punishable by prison...(or any baby listening for that matter) I'd seriously consider making a contribution.

 

[april4sky]

Jon Gaunt show with Clarence Mitchell on Talk Sport Radio 9/1/07:

"just send money in an envelope to Kate & Gerry,Rothley - it'll get there"

Lynch Mob? Vigilantism? Dislike for the McCanns?

That would mean that you would have to be interested in the parents and what happens to them.

It is all about Madeleine Beth McCann, nothing else matters.

No Colomom it means being interested in truth and justice.

And sadly, due to the "witch hunt" this has become IMO, it hasn't been about Madeleine for a long time.

 

[Rino]

No Colomom it means being interested in truth and justice.

And sadly, due to the "witch hunt" this has become IMO, it hasn't been about Madeleine for a long time.

I'll be honest, that offends me. The only "witch hunt" is to find what happend to Madeleine - not to frame them.

It is a divisive term used purley to put those who feel the McCanns are not being forthright and honest in a negative light.

 

[april4sky]

Hi gord.

Those are excellent and valid points and questions.I hope there is a response.None of it sits comfortably with me at all.

Hi daffodil nice to hear from you...and your opinion. :blowkiss:.

And I agree, that was an excellent post gord. :clap::clap::clap:

 

[april4sky]

I'll be honest, that offends me. The only "witch hunt" is to find what happend to Madeleine - not to frame them.

It is a divisive term used purley to put those who feel the McCanns are not being forthright and honest in a negative light.

Sorry Rino but it is the truth as I see it...My opinion.

Accusations without any evidence offends me.

And if the leaked report is correct the PJ still don't know if Madeleine is dead or alive.

 

[Tony Bennett]

STATEMENT FROM TONY BENNETT 9 JULY 2008, 6pm

I would ask permission of websleuths forum to make a brief public statement on the record.

I understand that a number of questions have been asked of me on another forum (3 Arguidos) and possibly elsewhere. Someone called 'gord' on this forum, Nige in his posting and I think 'redsquare' on 3Arguidos has been asking the questions. As I have done before in response to questiomns about my personal interest in the case, I will (shortly) answer all of them.

I choose to post on just two forums regarding Madeleine McCann - websleuths and Stevo's 'Truth for Madeleine' forum. I choose these because they are well-run, courteous forums peopled by those who seem to seriously want to get to the truth. They are mercifully free of trolls and the perpetually argumentative.

It's been a busy day and I've carried out two lengthy radio interviews about The Madeleine Foundation, with BBC Radio Essex and 10-17 Radio (based in Harlow where I live).

I want to emphasise once again that this is NOT about money. Not at all.

I have posted openly about Madeleine McCann in my own name on forums since September, not under cover of a pseudonym. It should be clear from all my postings that I desire to co-operate with all those, wherever they are, who are genuinely pursuing truth and justice for Madeleine.

However, blogging and contributing to forums has limitations.

I am committed to action.

Hence my application for a summons alleging child neglect against Kate and Gerry McCann - and in this connection I am heartened by some reports that suggest that the Portuguese Judiciara may yet prosecute the McCanns for child neglect or abandonment.

Hence my forming The Madeleine Foundation - to take various forms of action.

Hence The Madeleine Foundation formulating 'Madeleine's law' with the strap-line: "Never Leave Young Children on Their Own". You would think that that would be the message emanating from the mouths of Kate and Gerry McCann and their spokesman Clarence Mitcell, wouldn't you? But it seems they have another, 'wider' agenda.

Hence my petition on the Prime Minister's website: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/no-to-neglect/ [Note, I think this is only for those with a U.K. address or maybe expats who are British ciitzens as well].

Hence my desire - at the appropriate time and if necesssary - to call for
an Inquest into Madeleine's 'disappearance'.

In due course I will post up the e-mail letter I sent out earlier this year in which I publicly rejected all offers of donations. I have done so on several occcasions since. This e-mail was sent out to literally hundreds who e-mailed me with support, following news of my application for a summons against the McCanns. I m a liitle tired by now of people hinting that I am only doing this for money.

The Madeleine Foundation is a democratic, membership organisation and, like any club, society or association, it has a set of rules and a membership fee. I have been involved in the running of a number of campaiging organisations in the past (and currently) and I can assure all readers here that what is needed for such organisations is a simple constitution and it is definitely not necessary to form a company, as I think gord/Nige/redsquare is claiming.

I should also make it clear that The Madeleine Foundation is not a charity nor have we sought registration as a charitable organisation. This is because the organisation's explicit campaigning aims mean that we could not achieve charitable status.

For those of a legal mind, The Madeleine Foundation is, I think, classed a 'an unincorporated association'.

Finally, what I really want to hear from is people who have good ideas about what to do about what appears to be Madeleine's death in Praia da Luz in May 2008.

For example, how should Madeleine be remembered?

How should we pay lasting tribute to her memory?

For now, I think the best tribute that could possibly be made to the poor girl's memory is for the law on leaving young children to be tightened up - so that it is very clear that leaving young children alone without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. The current law in the U.K. was framed in 1933 - 75 years ago.

If you like, that could be Madeleine's legacy to the world she has left behind.

More later with the permission of the websleuths moderators

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Ciara]

Thankyou Mr Bennett.
Changing UK Law would indeed be a good tribute to Madeleine's memory.

 

[Tricia]

Me neither daffodil.
It also begs the question...which was asked here by Chikrodah....

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/44100-tony-bennett-mccanns-26.html

"If I set up a charitable trust to fund my own pet obsession, can I advertise on this forum too?

"

The answer to to Chikrodah's question is....Not on Websleuths. That is for sure.

We have a hard and fast rule. No fishing for donations to "pet" projects unless it is approved first.

The mods and I will be reviewing Tony Bennet's postings and decide if TOS has been violated.

Tricia

 

[Tony Bennett]

A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT - 8 July 2008: PART ONE


TB: Here is my on-the-record reply to ‘Nige’, who by the way knows my e-mail address and telephone number but has never contacted me. I note that from Nige’s final paragraph , he says he is ‘incredibly angry’. It seems to me, Nige, that you were very angry when you wrote your post; it was written in anger, it seems

‘gord’ on websleuths: hello everyone. Thee is quite a few questions being asked about Tony Bennet and his fund

TB: Wait a minute. ‘His fund’? This is a membership organisation which anyone who supports our aims can join. I am currently the Secretary of it. A ‘fund’? No, it is an organisation. An organisation with a properly-set up bank account in the name of The Madeleine Foundation. PS for the record: correct spelling - Tony Bennett

gord: all over the web. To give some balance below is a particular no them put by a poster called Redwave on the 3 arguidos - certainly food for thought . I would do a bit of pondering before rushing to get your cheque book out.

TB: No problem about that, ‘gord’, and in fact, I’m glad you did post it up as it gives me another chance to say more about The Madeleine Foundation and its aims. Incidentally I could have drawn attention to The Madeleine Foundation here on websleuths but have not sought to take advantage of my membership of this forum to do so. My previous posts here are in my name and can be viewed

gord: quote from http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/vi...hp?f=1&t=17747

Nige: Dear Tony, I’m aware that you do not post on this board but I understand that you are able to reply through Stevo.


TB: Not quite right. I asked Stevo on one occasion to post a series of corrections to some statements that were made about me on 3Arguidos. I do not intend to ask him again and I do not intend to join a third forum. Websleuths and ‘Truth for Madeleine’ are enough. My e-mail address is [email protected] - anyone can ask me questions about The Madeleine Foundation and I will answer them openly and honestly, and you are at all times welcome to publish my replies

Nige: As a retired solicitor, I am sure you are familiar with the need to ask questions before passing judgement.

TB: No problem at all with that.

Nige: What follows is not an attempt to discredit you or the Madeleine Foundation, nor to imply any scam, but an attempt to get answers to a number of questions that concern me.

TB: Noted.

Nige: I understand that any action proposed by The Madeleine Foundation will not begin until the Portuguese legal system has taken its course.

TB: No, that is not really correct. Insofar as we are considering a further attempt to prosecute Kate and Gerry McCann for child neglect - subject to receiving an expert barrister’s opinion on the whole issue - it would seem prudent to delay any action for at least a few weeks whilst there is some prospect of the Portuguese Judiciara prosecuting them for child neglect and abandonment. From what I have read in the Portuguese press, this remains a distinct possibility. Similarly, we want an Inquest on Madeleine if the PJ do not press charges against the McCanns of either negligently causing Madeleine’s death, or hiding a corpse, or perverting (or interfering with) the course of justice, or whatever are the equivalent charges under Portuguese law. Once again, there seems to be a realistic prospect of one or more of those charges being laid within the next few weeks. There are other actions we propose that do not depend on whether the PJ press charges or not.

Nige: Only if no charges are brought will you 'activate' your proposed aims.

TB: See above.

Nige: It is therefore fundamentally wrong of people, like Stevo, to state on here that 'The law isn't doing anything'. Something is happening and to imply that it is nothing is an insult to the hard work and diligence of the Policia Judiciaria. It smacks of psychological pressure to 'join up now' whilst the dinner is still warm.

TB: You are referring to a comment made by Stevo. I cannot answer for comments made by someone else in his own right. I would not, speaking personally, say ‘the law isn’t doing anything’. Anyone who has seen even a selection of my public posts on forums about Madeleine would know I have a deep suspicion of possible British government involvement in trying to suppress the possible prosecution of the McCanns and many times I have praised the PJ for having worked under the most enormous pressure to try to find out the truth. It is my personal view that the McCanns have mounted the mother of all diversionary tactics regarding Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’ and have been aided and abetted in this by most of the media and possibly by sinister forces within the British government. I do not of course know about the quality of the work done by the PJ, but reading between the lines, my provisional verdict would be: ‘done a great job under very adverse circumstances

Nige: Anyway, my questions are as follows:

1) The Telegraph reports that the Madeleine Foundation is a fund. If so, why has it not been registered as a company with Companies House?


TB: Very simple. The Madeleine Foundation has been set up as a simple membership association. Which anyone who supports our aims can join. I should say I have been involved in the setting up of a number of similar associations in my time. It is, if you like, a club, or society, or association, no different from any other association of like-minded individuals who join together for a common purpose. It has a broadly similar constitution to that of, say, the Anytown Allotments Association or the Blandshire Campaign for Road Safety.

Nige: Companies House guidelines state the following about the use of certain words in company titles:

‘benevolent, foundation or fund - names that include any of these words will be refused if they unjustifiably give the impression that the company has charitable status. If the company is limited by guarantee and has a non-profit distribution clause in the memorandum of association, then the name will normally be approved.’

So, one would assume, based on this guidance that The Madeleine Foundation had been set up as a company ‘limited by guarantee’ – much the same as the McCanns did with Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.

TB: Completely wrong assumption on your part, which you could easily have checked by contacting me. The Madeleine Foundation is not a company, so none of the above applies.

Nige: However, a quick search of registered company names reveals no result for 'Madeleine Foundation' or 'The Madeleine Foundation', either in established or pending company names. Could you explain why this should be so considering that The Madeleine Foundation has been established at least since the LSE conference in January?

TB: Explained above. We are not a company

PART ONE ENDS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tony Bennett]

A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT - 8 July 2008: PART TWO

Nige: 2) At the moment, I, or anyone else, could register the name 'The Madeleine Foundation' with Companies House. Does that bother you? Why would you be so cavalier and unprofessional given that you are committing yourself to such wide-ranging and long term goals, as stated in your 7 aims?

TB: There is nothing ‘cavalier’ or ‘unprofessional’ about our choosing the name we have done for our association. You seem to be throwing out an awful lot of accusations. If I became aware that someone else had subsequently registered a company called ‘The Madeleine Foundation, I would immediately contact Companies House and, based on my previous knowledge of them I would expect the to de-register it in pretty short order

Nige: 3) If there has been no company registered then I presume you've made no attempt to trademark the business name either. I've some experience of trademarks and I'm 99% certain you would be refused the trademark because it is so similar to Madeleine's Fund.

TB: We’ve made no attempt to trademark ‘The Madeleine Foundation’ and we do not think we need to


Nige: Maybe you're not bothered about trademarks but the scope of the aims you're seeking to implement will take years. Are you not really serious about protecting that?

TB: I repeat that when we set up The Madeleine Foundation, we saw no need to trademark our name. Now that you have raised the subject, we will take advice on it

Nige: 4) My understanding is that a person can set themselves up as a self employed sole trader but that after 3 months they must inform the Inland Revenue. Given that donations have already been received, how have these been accounted for within the The Madeleine Foundation set up?

TB: Monies in and out of an association bank account have nothing whatsoever to do with the Inland Revenue. Had you bothered to establish with us that The Madeleine Foundation is a membership organisation, you wouldn’t have needed to ask that question

Nige: 5) I believe you describe The Madeleine Foundation as a 'democratic membership organisation' – what on earth is that? It sounds rather grand but an office tea club could successfully argue similar claims.

TB: Please see what I have said above

Nige: 6) Why did you choose the name 'The Madeleine Foundation'? Use of the words 'fund' and 'foundation' give very clear implications that a company has charitable status. Yours clearly does not. I'm afraid it just comes across as being a bit weasly and misleading and, dare I say it, consistent with the actions of the McCanns.

TB: Foundation is a common title for groups and associations that have a serious campaigning aim. There are tens of thousands of ‘Foundations’ in existence, many of which are not charities. The home page on our website, already prepared, deals with all the above points and will not mislead anyone

Nige: 7) You have proposed a yearly subscription fee of £10.00. Why are you seeking yearly subscriptions? Is this to fund your long term aims? If so, will you be promoting all those aims with as much vigour as you devote to the McCann 'neglect' issue?

TB: Virtually all membership organisations have a membership fee. The extent to which we pursue any of our aims depend on who joins and what talents and ideas they bring

Nige: You have an established bank account, presumably under the name 'The Madeleine Foundation' - as that is the name you request on cheques. How did you explain your 'business' to the bank? Did they not ask for evidence that you were a bona fide company? If so, again, why is there no company name registered?

TB: Simple. We are an association and provided our bankers with a copy of our constitution. Plus completed all the usual and - these days - very extensive bank account application forms

Nige: 9) If the Policia Judiciaria charge the McCanns with abandonment, will you refund donations? I understand that, much like Madeleine's Fund, your aims are wider than simply bringing a charge against the McCanns but, in my opinion, it would be solely the prospect of bringing charges against the McCanns that people would be donating towards. Of course, people must read the small print before donating but there's no small print in newspaper articles.

TB: Donations made to date are in full knowledge of the seven aims of The Madeleine Foundation. If any person donated specifying something like: ‘This is only to go towards a barrister’s opinion’ or ‘This is only for legal expenses if you successfully charge the McCanns with neglect’, that would be fully respected. We are much more interested in people with ideas, energy and talents joining us than in donations. We want members rather than money

Nige: 10) Who are the people behind The Madeleine Foundation? Much like there was with seymour's 'madeleinesearch' site, there seems to be a hazy reference, or implication towards a group of people being involved but no clear disclosure of who those people are. I will ask you a direct question: Are Seymour and/or Stevo involved in The Madeleine Foundation? You may say that is none of my business but given that you're asking people to make a financial commitment to your cause then it should be in the public domain.

TB: I do not wish to disclose who is and who is not a member, I do not have theor permission in any event. But I will confirm that Ms Debbie Butler from Kent is our Chairman

Nige: 11) Your previous action against the McCanns was unsuccessful, why would this further proposed action be any different?


TB: My action in November was without the benefit of a barrister’s opinion. If we can raise sufficient funds, our members would like us to get a comprehensive legal Opinion on the prospects of bringing an action against the McCanns for child neglect under the Children and Young Person’s Act. We would need to ask that barrister a number of questions, including the question of which is the proper court in which any action should be commenced (which involves questions of international law), the current state of case precedent in the courts on neglect, and the question of the strength of the evidence we could bring against the McCanns). I hasten to add that I considered that Article 17 of the Hague Convention made it clear that child protection issues should be brought in the country where a parent was resident, not where a child protection incident had actually happened, but the Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates Court were not sufficiently persuaded by that

Nige: 12) The Madeleine Foundation has been in existence since at least January. Why, 6 months later, have you still not got an operational website?

TB: A good question, it is mainly my fault as I have not been able to give enough time to finalising the contents

PART TWO ENDS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tony Bennett]

A REPLY TO NIGE FROM TONY BENNETT - 8 July 2008: PART THREE


Nige: 12) These are your 7 aims and my comments:

a) to make every effort to ensure that Kate and Gerry McCann are prosecuted for their admitted abandoning of their children six nights in a row in Praia da Luz

Nige’s comment: Yes, very good. But this is what the Policia Judiciaria have been doing for 14 months with greater resources, knowledge and skills than you could possibly possess. Why do you think you would have more success in bringing such a charge than them?


TB: My concern in November was that the Leicestershire Police and Leicestershire Social Services had emphatically said there would be no prosecution of the McCanns for child neglect. At the time, there was also no sign of the PJ being anywhere near charging then with neglect. Charges like this should be brought as soon as practicable after the event. Now, our main concern would be - what if the PJ do not charge the McCanns with child neglect? Is it OK under English law to go out boozing every night for several hours leaving three young children under 4 on their own? If the McCanns are not prosecuted, what kid of message does that send out to other parents?


b) to change the law in whatever way is needed in order to send out a clear message to all parents that leaving young children on their own is never acceptable, and to strive for the adoption of a ‘Madeleine’s Law’ with its key message: “Never leave young children on their own”

Nige’s comment: Madeleine's Law? Where did that come from? Have you registered the business or protected the trademark? The domain names madeleineslaw.co.uk, along with .com and .org extensions have been registered but yield no result when searched. Were these names purchased by The Madeleine Foundation? If so, are you cyber-squatting them?

TB: We think a ‘Madeleine’s Law’ which would help to protect other children from being neglected by being left on their own by their parents would be a fitting tribute to Madeleine. I do not know what ‘cyber-squatting’ means but, yes, we have purchased three domain names, using the limited funds we have

c) to pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007, and in particular to encourage Kate and Gerry McCann and the friends who were with them in Praia da Luz to tell the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

Nige’s comment: Mmm, I think you can cross this one off your list! How do you intend to 'encourage' the McCanns and Tapas 7 to tell the truth? Do you fully appreciate what is at stake here? They haven't just stolen some sweeties from the corner shop.

TB: Your comment noted. We intend to write to each of the ‘Tapas 9’ formally at some point

d) to investigate the facts behind the extent of British government involvement in this case and the reasons for it

Nige’s comment: You mean the British government that approved the rogatory letter and has severed all ties with the McCanns? Yes, the government were hoodwinked and the McCanns were courted by Gordon Brown in a desire to show people, unsuccessfully, that he had the common touch. But beyond that there is nothing. How do you propose to 'investiagte the facts'?

TB: We have made a start by successfully submitting a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the amazing speed with which the British Consul in Portugal was able to get information into the British press and media the day following Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’. We shall publish the reply in due course on our website. We shall investigate matters relating to the involvement of the British government where and when we can, just as others are doing on the forums

e) to ensure that the media, in particular the British media, report this case accurately and give due weight to the opinions of so many of the general public that the McCanns are withholding the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance

Nige’s comment: The British media are not the slightest bit interested in the McCanns innocence or guilt. To suggest that they will suddenly decide to reflect the opinions of the general public as a result of you undertaking some unspecified actions is naive. They will reflect those opinions when they consider that they will sell more papers that way. It will be a business decision not an emotional one.

TB: Noted

f) to demand a full-scale investigation by the relevant authorities into the activities of the Find Madeleine Fund private trust and to encourage the trustees of that fund to give full particulars about its income and expenditure to the public who have donated so generously to it with the express purpose of finding Madeleine

Nige’s comment: I trust the British police to undertake/already be undertaking this work.

TB: I do not think that they are, but in due course we shall ask them directly

Nige’s comment: The way in which Madeleine's Fund has been set up ensures that they do not need to disclose their accounts in any great detail to the public. Disgraceful, I know, but unfortunately true.

TB: Agreed

g) to generally promote the welfare of children, in particular by ensuring that parents are aware of the psychological needs of their children and ensuring that the relevant authorities take appropriate action to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Nige’s comment: Very noble but desperately woolly and completely beyond your scope. How exactly are you planning to 'promote' the welfare of children and 'ensure' that parents toe-the-line?

TB: Deliberately worded in general terms but obviously intended to include leaving young children on their own

Nige: 13) There then follows a statement that sets off alarm bells in my head and makes me incredibly angry:

'The Madeleine Foundation is only for those committed to achieving our above aims.'

This is classic emotional psycho-pressure to force people to 'join now' and send money.

TB: Oh dear! That is most definitely one accusation too far and, with the greatest of respect, a gross over-reaction on your part. The meeting in Harlow which set up the The Madeleine Foundation was deliberately not publicised. I organised it and only invited those I knew by e-mail or ’phone contact to be committed McCann-sceptics i.e. those who were definitely questioning the McCanns’ account of events. As you surely must know, in this battle which is being played for very high stakes, the McCanns have supporters out there who are trying to neuter the efforts of so many people who sincerely want truth and justice for Madeleine.

Nige: What you are effectively saying here is that unless you donate you are not really committed to finding truth and justice for Madeleine. You are presenting The Madeleine Foundation as an exclusive club for members who are 'the real, committed ones'. Absolute !

TB: I do not think anyone really thinks that the sentence you have quoted above means that. In many spheres, again as you must know - and especially where the stakes are high - people join associations with the sole purpose of disrupting them and rendering them ineffective. Our statement is a simple one, namely that we will only accept members who sign up to our aims. We do not for example want McCann-supporters seeing our e-mail communications. Of course we respect and admire the efforts of many other people involved in this tragic and convoluted case and we applaud them. Our efforts are simply meant to parallel other’s efforts and hopefully add a new dimension. Or to put it another way, add another string to our collective bow

Nige: I've raised a number of questions here and hope you will find time to address them in full. Many thanks, Nige

TB: Done the very same day you asked them. Please e-mail me your questions in future, or ‘phone me. It’ll save time all round

PART THREE ENDS


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[daffodil]

How are you going to stop McCann supporters joining? If someone sends in their £10 how are you going to vet them as being anti-McCann?

 

[Ciara]

I think Mr Bennett answered all the questions asked of him rather well in those posts. I dont think for one minute this is about money for him. I believe he is doing this sincerely for Madeleine. Just my opinion

 

[Tony Bennett]

I won't take up any more bandwidth by reproducing it here in full, but for those with queries about the constitution of the Madeleine Foundation, an unincorporated association, it can be found here:

http://www.truthformadeleine.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=347

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------