Kate becomes ambassador

Just noticed on the Anorak Forum site (Madeleine) "Anorakaren" has posted a "link" Missing-People-Facebook-Deletions. Very interesting ratio of actual comments deleted and those that remained.

Pamela gurney talking to herself until she takes a break then Sandra Carter takes over.


Did you know that Pamela gurney has met Kate McCann?

Perhaps he/she/it is Kate Healy? (The latter does not style herself "McCann", I believe).

Kitti, how do you know that Pamela Gurney has met Kate McCann - assuming they are not one and the same person?!

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney talking to herself until she takes a break then Sandra Carter takes over.


Did you know that Pamela gurney has met Kate McCann?

I bet KM was still wiping the slobber off herself three days later ......

margaret wrote:

James wrote:

margaret wrote:

kitti wrote:

mariang wrote:I wonder if a 'salary' is given as 'an ambassador'?

If they payed out 1.3m in salaries last year my bet is YES....

Yes £1.3M out of £1.9M. So the charity only received £600K which is less than a third of the money raised! I think that figure is outrageous. Mind you Kate will soon have that honed down to 13%....

the staff getting the salaries are doing the work of the charity was set up to do - we have no evidence otherwise. So what is the problem?

Because it worked out to be an average salary of £26k didn't it? Which is an awful lot of money for an office based job, call me old fashioned but isn't there an element of putting yourself out for little money working for a charity?

Raising nearly £2m and finding yourself with less than a third of that for the charity stinks IMO, l do finance for a living and the wages/donations ratio seems ott to me.

Well I wouldn't get worked up over an average salary of £26K. Why should working in an office mean getting less? Whether you work for a charity, in the public or private sector you have the same costs to pay - housing, heating, food, expenses re your children etc. Personally, and I'm idealistic I couldn't afford to work for £26 k pa . Wages/donation levels are misleading. you have to know what the people getting the wages are actually doing. If they are sitting in the office reading celebrity magazines all day then this is wrong but we don't know that. This charity at least publishes detailed accounts and I hope the Mccanns will take note. I suspect (and hope) the charity is not paying her - this is all about her ago and profile with the Tony bennett case up in the Autumn.

mariang wrote:I wonder if a 'salary' is given as 'an ambassador'?

That's just what I wonder. Kate doesnt do anything for free, even to get a poster of madeleine off their web site back in the early days, you had to pay for it.

They probably thought if they called it an ambassador it'd sound posh, because she is so up market as a brand (!) but also might throw people off the scent if she's getting paid. Spokespersons get paid and people with regular titles get paid ... come to think of it, so do advocates and ambassadors

I guess the silver lining is that people will pay attention to the ads, maybe more missing kids will be found. I'm guessing that those will likely bi older teens who ran away, not an Olympic stadium full of 3 year olds who were snatched by child molesters however. Those ones don't seem to be found alive unless in the first hour or so. It is a great pity that this charity felt Kate mcCann was an "amazing" ambassadorial choice.

So many mums of missing kids... so few willing to exploit them for cash.

So Tony Bennett and Amaral both have cases up in September?

The UK papers are still up Kate's rear end so I will only imagine both sets of coverage will be very negative against these men and completely ignore the facts to focus on spin.

If McCanns did not have the connections with Rupert Murdoch - the ability to make oodles of money for his papers and the willingness to sue for any negative publicity - it would be quite a different story, literally.

Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice women.



Off course she could be just saying that, who knows .

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice women.



Off course she could be just saying that, who knows .

So they are one and the same ?!

widowan wrote:

mariang wrote:I wonder if a 'salary' is given as 'an ambassador'?

That's just what I wonder. Kate doesnt do anything for free, even to get a poster of madeleine off their web site back in the early days, you had to pay for it.

They probably thought if they called it an ambassador it'd sound posh, because she is so up market as a brand (!) but also might throw people off the scent if she's getting paid. Spokespersons get paid and people with regular titles get paid ... come to think of it, so do advocates and ambassadors

I guess the silver lining is that people will pay attention to the ads, maybe more missing kids will be found. I'm guessing that those will likely bi older teens who ran away, not an Olympic stadium full of 3 year olds who were snatched by child molesters however. Those ones don't seem to be found alive unless in the first hour or so. It is a great pity that this charity felt Kate mcCann was an "amazing" ambassadorial choice.

So many mums of missing kids... so few willing to exploit them for cash.

Ambassadors definitely get a salary, as Missingpeople in their last tax return lists 1.3 million for wages - out of about 1.9 million income and they employ 43 staff, Kate should feel right at home with them.

As regards 'missingpeople' - although Kate insisted in the interview it was going to be mainly children (more photogenic) it is absolute rubbish to state that that amount of people go missing. In fact the great majority are runaways and that's what it said in the headline. The girl who was going to feature was a runaway.
That begs the question why? Is she now going to be shipped back to a home where there may be a very good reason for her not to stay there?
Whatever Kate likes to suggest, none of these missing people are under the age of 14 or so. That's still the job of the police, to find under age runaways.
It's sad that there are a lot of mothers who are desperate to have their missing child back - but surely they will already have contacted the police! I would like to see the actual results from this charity - recovery of people independent of any outside agencies.
Setting up a website with photographs isn't very expensive or labour intensive. (although the only 'detailed' returns of the Madeleine Fund show 37.000 pounds for one year's website maintenance...).

There will not be a single lost or 'abducted' child on this list to compare with Maddie. Not one. Whatever Kate likes us to think.

I once saw a programme - long time ago - about a missing children. One boy of about 12, who'd gone to London to escape his horrible family was found by the usual methods, charitable organisations giving shelter and food to such children, passing his details to the police.
This child had been living rough for months, was returned to his family who had never reported him missing. The police and the charities said this was quite common. Most of these children would soon leave again, all they could do is to give shelter and advice.

Missingpeople isn't spending any money on this new campaign - it's a donation. They only operate in the UK and have been going since 1993.
IMO their main achievement is job creation for now about 44 people.

It's quite possible that there are going to be a lot more 'missing people' now that Kate is leading the pack. Otherwise uninterested parents may well start to report their missing children on the off chance of getting publicity with Kate and so doing a mini McCann themselves. It's alway the money.

Wouldn't it be good if an enterprising journalist asked missing people if they pay their 'ambassadors' other than the refund of out of pocket expenses, and if they do, what sort of remuneration is involved.

The charity publishes very detailed accounts which probably give much more information than they legally have to. In that context you would expect them to answer that question; they dont seem secretive about money like the Fund.

But there is an acute shortage of journalists asking the right questions of the McCanns....

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice woman. Of course she could be just saying that, who knows .

No doubt Kate is a very nice woman to everyone who believes the official version of events. To anyone else though - hell hath no fury etc.

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice women.



Off course she could be just saying that, who knows .

Ted Bundy was intelligent, articulate and many people who knew him said he was a charmer.

It's the gruesome twosome's dream come true. ScAmbassador Kate.... liaising with celebs, lords, and ladies.

And all that lovely, lovely dosh as a reward for neglecting three toddlers and destroying Maddie's life.

Yummy, yummy, yummy.

James wrote:Wouldn't it be good if an enterprising journalist asked missing people if they pay their 'ambassadors' other than the refund of out of pocket expenses, and if they do, what sort of remuneration is involved.

The charity publishes very detailed accounts which probably give much more information than they legally have to. In that context you would expect them to answer that question; they dont seem secretive about money like the Fund.

But there is an acute shortage of journalists asking the right questions of the McCanns....

I put in a FOI request on the 10th for that very question, and I have yet to receive a response. Not even the standard response that other people on here seem to be getting. Maybe they are having to THINK about mine!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice woman. Of course she could be just saying that, who knows .

No doubt Kate is a very nice woman to everyone who believes the official version of events. To anyone else though - hell hath no fury etc.

Indeed.
I bet she employs all the tricks to wheedle her way into someone's good books if it gets her where she needs to be PR-wise. The people she's beguiling will never see any of her bed-smashing tantrums, will they?
What's really scary is to observe those in positions of power and influence, who would normally spot a wrong 'un at ten paces, being taken in by such transparent manipulation.

Gullibility?
Or the all too common Brains-In-Their-Trousers Syndrome?

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice women.



Off course she could be just saying that, who knows .

Ted Bundy was intelligent, articulate and many people who knew him said he was a charmer.

Blimey I neally choked on me toast then lol

kitti wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice women.



Off course she could be just saying that, who knows .

Ted Bundy was intelligent, articulate and many people who knew him said he was a charmer.

Blimey I neally choked on me toast then lol

He was a respected member of the Republican Party and well respected and liked by many.

ETA: Thought to be a very intelligent psychopath!

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice women.



Off course she could be just saying that, who knows .

Ted Bundy was intelligent, articulate and many people who knew him said he was a charmer.

Blimey I neally choked on me toast then lol

He was a respected member of the Republican Party and well respected and liked by many.

ETA: Thought to be a very intelligent psychopath!

Psychopaths have above the average IQs.

tigger wrote:

widowan wrote:

mariang wrote:I wonder if a 'salary' is given as 'an ambassador'?

That's just what I wonder. Kate doesnt do anything for free, even to get a poster of madeleine off their web site back in the early days, you had to pay for it.

They probably thought if they called it an ambassador it'd sound posh, because she is so up market as a brand (!) but also might throw people off the scent if she's getting paid. Spokespersons get paid and people with regular titles get paid ... come to think of it, so do advocates and ambassadors

I guess the silver lining is that people will pay attention to the ads, maybe more missing kids will be found. I'm guessing that those will likely bi older teens who ran away, not an Olympic stadium full of 3 year olds who were snatched by child molesters however. Those ones don't seem to be found alive unless in the first hour or so. It is a great pity that this charity felt Kate mcCann was an "amazing" ambassadorial choice.

So many mums of missing kids... so few willing to exploit them for cash.

Ambassadors definitely get a salary, as Missingpeople in their last tax return lists 1.3 million for wages - out of about 1.9 million income and they employ 43 staff, Kate should feel right at home with them.

As regards 'missingpeople' - although Kate insisted in the interview it was going to be mainly children (more photogenic) it is absolute rubbish to state that that amount of people go missing. In fact the great majority are runaways and that's what it said in the headline. The girl who was going to feature was a runaway.
That begs the question why? Is she now going to be shipped back to a home where there may be a very good reason for her not to stay there?
Whatever Kate likes to suggest, none of these missing people are under the age of 14 or so. That's still the job of the police, to find under age runaways.
It's sad that there are a lot of mothers who are desperate to have their missing child back - but surely they will already have contacted the police! I would like to see the actual results from this charity - recovery of people independent of any outside agencies.
Setting up a website with photographs isn't very expensive or labour intensive. (although the only 'detailed' returns of the Madeleine Fund show 37.000 pounds for one year's website maintenance...).

There will not be a single lost or 'abducted' child on this list to compare with Maddie. Not one. Whatever Kate likes us to think.

I once saw a programme - long time ago - about a missing children. One boy of about 12, who'd gone to London to escape his horrible family was found by the usual methods, charitable organisations giving shelter and food to such children, passing his details to the police.
This child had been living rough for months, was returned to his family who had never reported him missing. The police and the charities said this was quite common. Most of these children would soon leave again, all they could do is to give shelter and advice.

Missingpeople isn't spending any money on this new campaign - it's a donation. They only operate in the UK and have been going since 1993.
IMO their main achievement is job creation for now about 44 people.

It's quite possible that there are going to be a lot more 'missing people' now that Kate is leading the pack. Otherwise uninterested parents may well start to report their missing children on the off chance of getting publicity with Kate and so doing a mini McCann themselves. It's alway the money.

I agree with you tigger. There is a vast difference between finding a missing 3 year old who was stolen by a pedophile and finding a 14 year old runaway, there are very few of the former and probably a lot of the latter however they do count each time they run away as a separate case so that two hundred thousand could be as little as 50 or 60 thousand different people, and the per cent of those cases that are actual kidnappings of very young children NOT by a non custodial parent, are extremely rare I would have thought. In that two hundred thousand number would also be just kids whose non custodial parent has not returned them on time - who were reported missing.Not to diminish the seriousness of it, nor to say billboards showing pictures of them aren't a good idea, however, I will be surprised to see if the only thing those billboards advertise is missing children.

Think of it: as the manufacturer, you get money from advertising, it comes from nowhere else. You can't just flash photos of missing kids or you'll have no revenue and go out of business immediately the donations run out. So there will be a picture of Madeleine, and then a sports drink, and then a diet plan, and then a theater show, and then another missing kid. People will (possibly) look at the billboards in case there's a kid they recognize but they'll be bombarded with other images, kind of like when you use facebook, they run ads all along the side of your page so you get those impressions constantly.

It's good business for the ad board people to use missing kids in this way. It's a necessary evil to parents who really want people to look for their missing child and for Kate McCann it's her bread and butter. They've been exploiting their daughter since day one, or day four or five at least, when the first donations came rolling in, they set up the fund, they set up the website to charge people for downloading posters FGS, they pretended to be a charity - Gerry with his horning in on the cancer ccharity bike ride to try and get money for the "Fund" that he and his wife can dip into whenever they like and IIRC spent about 13% of it on the "search" and the rest who knows where.

And others who want to get publicity to do the round of talk shows and paper interviews can certainly use this to get celebrity status if they have a good story to tell and a photogenic child. It's sad but I think people will do just about anything for money these days, I've just been waiting for McCanns to do a movie or reality show on tv. In one way you could say they are smart. They are just using the technology we have today and appealing to people's need to know and feel directly involved in the news and the lives of other people, to highlight their missing daughter which if she is missing - alive and findable - is smart, if cynical. You'd hold your nose but you'd do it, anything to get people to look and pay attention.

If she's not alive and they know she's not, that's different. They surely must suspect as much, since statistics say she was dead May 3, yet want to highlight in the press the "ambassadorship" rather than the possibility that their child is buried a hundred yards from the apt they left her in while they were out dining. Kind of gives one a dirty feeling, and it's certainly a controversial choice and one in bad taste if you ask me.

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice women.



Off course she could be just saying that, who knows .

Ted Bundy was intelligent, articulate and many people who knew him said he was a charmer.

This lady probably was predisposed to being fooled - I don't think nice people leave their very young children alone and leave the property to go out to dinner, knowing that the night before the child lay sobbing for over an hour, then lie about that and try to discredit some poor old woman.

A nice person wouldnt tell neighbors like Mrs Fenn to f* off when she asks if she can help, nor do they lie and connive and manipulate - remember that interview where as soon as they thought the camera was off they started grinning... something about them...

I doubt the cops in Portugal found Kate charming.

People can certainly fool us if we want to be fooled, Ted Bundy was an extreme example but all those young girls sure thought he was what he pretended to be, a guy with a broken arm who needed help loading something into his van. People were more trusting in those days but what choice do we have. Unless you want to believe anyone you meet on the street or in the office could be a victim of or a perpetrator of domestic violence or even more weird, a sociopath... Dennis rader, the BTK killer, was a compliance officer in his neighborhood and a dean in his church...

The sociopath has the ability to wear many masks, and I think most people do to some extent. People can be different at home where they can unfortunately save their worst behavior for their families. People think child abusers are these drunken unemployed horrible people but it happens in every part of society, it would be difficult to look at a doctor who's all fixed up to go infront of the camera and think this woman is not kind to her children, she's not a particularly good mother unless someone is watching. Then it's all sun cream and trips to the petting zoo. But when it's eleven at night and the 3 year old is terrified and alone, and Kate's out in the bar, how do you reconcile those two images -you either say, she's a phony- or that it isn't really neglect, or abuse, to leave your kids like that, "we've all done it." Which is bs.

widowan wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

kitti wrote:Pamela gurney has said herself that she has met Kate McCann and she is a very nice women.



Off course she could be just saying that, who knows .

Ted Bundy was intelligent, articulate and many people who knew him said he was a charmer.

This lady probably was predisposed to being fooled - I don't think nice people leave their very young children alone and leave the property to go out to dinner, knowing that the night before the child lay sobbing for over an hour, then lie about that and try to discredit some poor old woman.

A nice person wouldnt tell neighbors like Mrs Fenn to f* off when she asks if she can help, nor do they lie and connive and manipulate - remember that interview where as soon as they thought the camera was off they started grinning... something about them...

I doubt the cops in Portugal found Kate charming.

People can certainly fool us if we want to be fooled, Ted Bundy was an extreme example but all those young girls sure thought he was what he pretended to be, a guy with a broken arm who needed help loading something into his van. People were more trusting in those days but what choice do we have. Unless you want to believe anyone you meet on the street or in the office could be a victim of or a perpetrator of domestic violence or even more weird, a sociopath... Dennis rader, the BTK killer, was a compliance officer in his neighborhood and a dean in his church...

The sociopath has the ability to wear many masks, and I think most people do to some extent. People can be different at home where they can unfortunately save their worst behavior for their families. People think child abusers are these drunken unemployed horrible people but it happens in every part of society, it would be difficult to look at a doctor who's all fixed up to go infront of the camera and think this woman is not kind to her children, she's not a particularly good mother unless someone is watching. Then it's all sun cream and trips to the petting zoo. But when it's eleven at night and the 3 year old is terrified and alone, and Kate's out in the bar, how do you reconcile those two images -you either say, she's a phony- or that it isn't really neglect, or abuse, to leave your kids like that, "we've all done it." Which is bs.

So good to see you back. You tell it as it is.

Hi Bobsy

I needed a break, but this latest thing with the ambassadorship feels like news - unwelcome news.

Maybe I am just cruel and cynical hiding here behind my laptop but I just don't think that people who did what McCanns did should be held up as ambassadors of anything - they should have been doing ads on tv as a penance for their child neglect, community service, stating never leave your children unattended as we did, what a mistake.

To do this for hours at a time over several nights, as doctors, people who the rest of us are supposed to look up to and listen to - and then fail to cooperate with the police and so on and in fact hire someone to promote you and relish in the celebrity of it - how is this a good choice for a role model, it's purely cynical on the part of the missing children organization and I wouldn't give them a dime.

People know Kate will draw the stares and stories, and it'd be one thing to have her as a spokesperson for running gear (even THEN I think it's tacky) but for missing children? What's next?

Here is the link for the last accounts of Missingpeople submitted to the Charities Commission.

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends19/0001020419_ac_20110331_e_c.pdf

The salaries are on page 18. I'm not good at bookkeeping, but staff and office costs come to 1.3 million, but it may be that the other costs listed (shops etc) also refer to salaries.

This type of detailed spending and receipts is exactly what the Fund would have had to submit each year. You can see why that wouldn't have suited them at all.
At the moment the Fund lacks the input from the book advance. Interesting to find out where that went to.
Enid O'Dowd's analysis - a brilliant piece of work: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html