Pefect comic book baddie then. Shame this is real life.
Yes - after all we have a Prime Minister with a glass eye. How ridiculous to link a visual impairment with looking creepy or suspicious. Tells you more about the prejudice of the reporter than their abilities (or lack of them) as a journalist...
Turning BBC News 24 on now. I don't even see her attraction looking at her objectively. She says some amount of rubbish when she's presenting and absolutely repeats everything in every sentence.
The stated aims of the Madeleine Fund, which have mysteriously disappeared from the shop...
Quote:
NOTE
1.1 The full objects of the Fund are:
1.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
1.1.2
To procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice
; and
1.1.3
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.
1.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
Now if it does emerge that Mr and Mrs McCann are responsible, then those two stated aims highlighted in blue will seemingly contradict. The definition of 'financial assistance' is very broad - could this include defence solicitor's/lawyer's fees? Would this take precedence over the 'bring her abductors to justice' aim?
Sadly, I too remember Ian Woods detailing Mr Murat's glass eye when being interviewed by Anna Botting a few months ago in Praia de Luz. In fairness I think he recognised straight away what a ridiculous comment he had made.
The stated aims of the Madeleine Fund, which have mysteriously disappeared from the shop...
Quote:
NOTE
1.1 The full objects of the Fund are:
1.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
1.1.2
To procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice
; and
1.1.3
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.
1.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
Now if it does emerge that Mr and Mrs McCann are responsible, then those two stated aims highlighted in blue will seemingly contradict. The definition of 'financial assistance' is very broad - could this include defence solicitor's/lawyer's fees? Would this take precedence over the 'bring her abductors to justice' aim?
Well,
Find Madeleine Website posted:
]Who are the directors of Madeleine’s Fund?
There are six directors of the Fund. They are:
Peter Hubner; a retired consultant;
Brian Kennedy, a retired head teacher;
John McCann, a medical representative;
Esther McVey, managing director of a public relations & communications company;
Doug Skehan, clinical director in cardiology at Glenfield Hospital;
Philip Tomlinson, a solicitor
and former coroner in Leicestershire.
Are the directors paid?
The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However [...] they may be paid for providing services to the Fund.
The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.
Could be a very large conflict of interest there. The Fund also has Bates Wells Braithwaite listed as professional legal advisors to the Fund.