Open letter to Trustees of Missing People Limited

Iris wrote:Yes great stuff, well done. How to alienate the charity even further, and get us ALL labelled as nutters, haters and probably even violent and deranged. Whoever wrote that should NOT have put the signature at the end. That letter certainly does not speak for me.

It doesn't speak for me either and the fact that the writer, at the very beginning says this...

KATE MCCANN AS AMBASSADOR IS UNACCEPATBLE TO THE BRITISH PUBLIC

.....had me feeling that I wasn't going to agree with it. The writer cannot speak for 'the British public.' I'm sure there are quite a few members of that very large group who would find it acceptable that Kate McCann is ambassador for Missing People.

James wrote:

Justiceforallkids wrote:imo this letetr was too far many of us think she should not have been given this job but imo it was no reason to send such a horrible letter to a charity thart may have not had any choice

I too have reservations about aspects of the letter, but it is not true that Missing people 'may not have had a choice.'

of course they had a choice - the board of directors/trustees could have chosen Claudia Laurence's father for example, or kerry needham or sara payne. Almost anyone would be more suitable than Kate McCann.

I'm just wondering if there were bribed to accept her ie promised a substantial donation. Kate would I'm sure be willing to use her book money/Fund money to help her image with the bennett and amaral cases coming up in sept. Perhaps that is what you mean by 'may not have had a choice' - the choice was take a substantial donation which you could use for the benefit of your charity and take Kate, or lose the donation at a time when all charities are struggling to maintain their income.

They could have used other spokespersons or ambassadors, there are plenty of them out there. I'd love to see Kate NOT in this role however if they dropped the last sentence and didn't sign it like that- the signature seems funny, why not put your names?

Does kind of remind me of a ransom note - "We are a small foreign faction" - like JonBenet Ramsey case.

I think they chose Kate because the PR people probably did a market test to see what image people would look at or react to or focus on longest and found that MM wins it, obviously you can't use her, so her mother, who is a figure that will certainly engender INTEREST ie controversy... it's a purely economic choice which is why it seems so cynical and improper for a charity.

ProfessorPlum wrote:Probably well intentioned but smacks of blackmail imo...do this or else.MP will probably pass the letter to the police and use it against those against Mrs McCanns appointment-not very well thought out I dont think.

They don't say what action they will take, I assume more letters or more not-donating. I can't imagine this is a police matter.

For all anyone knows MP wrote it themselves to get more attention. But now that you've got SY investigating the case maybe they can track the writer down. They don't seem to have much luck tracking down Madeleine or any suspects... Tony Bennett woudl have signed it with his organization, I don't think this is him.

Should you fail to meet our requirements, and we are the public, we will take this further and get an investigation into your charity.

Whoever wrote that has no right to impose requirements of the charity. As for being 'the public,' no they're not. They, whoever they are, don't speak for every member of the public and they don't speak for me. I think it was a bad idea to have Kate McCann as an ambassador, but they have the right to make that choice. As far as I know, they have done nothing illegal.

tigger wrote:

Fern wrote:Yet another load of nonsense from Bennett and his 'mob' no doubt.

If you take the trouble to check the author on that blog, it's Peter Davis. I have never heard of him before.

Imo sending an open letter is a good idea, but I agree it's not factual in all respects. It's also too long imo. In general the reasons why KM isn't a suitable ambassador for this charity are valid.

Since I also post on JH I feel that I am included in the 'mob' you mention above. If you would take the trouble to read the files, you would find that Tony Bennett has nothing to do with the site and only posts on it from time to time. Under his own name.

A forum is for discussion and rational argument without resorting to facile insults.

Imo, even if the whole abduction and the aftermath were true, KM would still be the wrong person to be ambassador for missing people.
One of the many reasons would be that the fame-hungry public would report children missing who'd not be missing at all, simply to get the same as the McCanns: publicity and money.

I did check the blog however I guess I have read it different to others on here who believe that a Peter Davies actually wrote the letter.

I read that a Peter Davies had POSTED it on the blog and that the letter itself was from "The Campaigners for truth and justice for Madeleine McCann"

Where does it actually say that it was written by him ?

Whoever has written this is clearly part of a group given that its been written using 'we' rather than 'I'.



.

There is nothing else on the blog, seems to have been set up just for the purpose of this letter only. Especially with the domain name too. Plus whoever sent it would put their address on the right side of the letter

Probably another hoaxer that the case seems to be attracting lately

Well the letter is good until it gets to the end.


But no doubt WE will be on brens blog as the 'trolls target missing people website'.


You can't blame people for being upset about making her ambassador can you but they have as much said they don't give a toss about the uproar it may cause, after all, Kate McCann is being used, makes a change, to bring money in for this campaign, people will see her face and feel sorry for her being the mother off a missing child and GIVE....GIVE and GIVE and poor Madeleine will once again be used as cash cow for another
Purpose ...and it will go on and on until something or someone grows a spine and speaks up HER and stop using her memory like this way.




It reminds me when you have a product that needs selling and you hire a celebrity to front it and sell it whilst making vast amounts off money for just showing up.

Iris wrote:Yes great stuff, well done. How to alienate the charity even further, and get us ALL labelled as nutters, haters and probably even violent and deranged. Whoever wrote that should NOT have put the signature at the end. That letter certainly does not speak for me.

But there is no signature as such at the end Iris, it simply says its from these 'Campaigners'.

The more I read the letter the more annoyed I am with this group of pathetic know-it-alls who believe they have the right to speak on behald of the British public. Just who on earth do they think they are making such demands to a Missing Persons charity in the first place who no doubts will have done far more good than this group of 'Campaigners' will EVER achieve.

In my opinion thats all they are doing is discrediting the voice of others who DO believe the McCanns have a case to answer but go about raising their concerns in a far better way than targetting charities for goodness sake. What next.

I am thinking this letter is a set up, with probably team Mccann behind it. It is a reaction to the negative response to the appointment so they can use this letter to discredit the other communications objecting to the appointment.

Its quite clever. initially I thought it was fine. then reread it and saw there's some speculation in it, then finally the bullying at the end.

If this was genuine there would be a name on it and contact details for this 'organisation' which no members of this site appears to have heard of.

kitti wrote:Well the letter is good until it gets to the end.


But no doubt WE will be on brens blog as the 'trolls target missing people website'.


You can't blame people for being upset about making her ambassador can you but they have as much said they don't give a toss about the uproar it may cause, after all, Kate McCann is being used, makes a change, to bring money in for this campaign, people will see her face and feel sorry for her being the mother off a missing child and GIVE....GIVE and GIVE and poor Madeleine will once again be used as cash cow for another
Purpose ...and it will go on and on until something or someone grows a spine and speaks up HER and stop using her memory like this way.




It reminds me when you have a product that needs selling and you hire a celebrity to front it and sell it whilst making vast amounts off money for just showing up.

Quite.

Kate McCann not only has celbrity/notoriety, she also has access to power through her relationship with the Sun. Brooks asked her what she wanted in exchange for the serialization rights to Madeleine, (the book not the child although the child now is seemingly merely a merchandising opportunity) and Kate said, have a review of the investigation. Brooks went via her henchman at the Sun to Number 10 and depending on who you believe, Number 10 either "bowed to pressure from" or "was convinced by the argument of" the Sun, to put 3M of your contingency fund into reviewing the case, lest they face having their story on page one of the Sun every day.

To me, that is a threat and if kate mcCann can threaten the UK government into doing what she wants to the tune of 3M pounds, then she has power. Possibly Missing People feels that that more than outweighs the fact that she wasn't a good or responsible parent, which is sad, but that's business.

James wrote:I am thinking this letter is a set up, with probably team Mccann behind it. It is a reaction to the negative response to the appointment so they can use this letter to discredit the other communications objecting to the appointment.

Its quite clever. initially I thought it was fine. then reread it and saw there's some speculation in it, then finally the bullying at the end.

If this was genuine there would be a name on it and contact details for this 'organisation' which no members of this site appears to have heard of.

it well could be, but I think this is from someone who is vehemently anti McCann because they believe they had somethign to do with Maddie's disappearance - and of course only speaks for themselves, so can't sign the letter with their own name because who cares what some powerless individual wants or believes. If they represented an organization, the organization's name would be there. Hence the threatening tone, the use of "we" and trying to speak for the British public which is a democracy and of course doesn't all feel the same way about ANYTHING.

Who can know, but I think this is from a person who is anti McCann, and if it wasn't for the somewhat threatening tone I would have no objection to someone writing their passionately stated beliefs to this charity.

I don't think a pro or TM would do this because the last thing they llike to do is set down an argument about why police believe Kate and/or Gerry McCann had something to do with MM going missing. They want to look forward and focus on finding Madeleine - remember?

James wrote:I am thinking this letter is a set up, with probably team Mccann behind it. It is a reaction to the negative response to the appointment so they can use this letter to discredit the other communications objecting to the appointment.

Its quite clever. initially I thought it was fine. then reread it and saw there's some speculation in it, then finally the bullying at the end.

If this was genuine there would be a name on it and contact details for this 'organisation' which no members of this site appears to have heard of.

Exactly....smell the coffee, hoax

I don't feel that the charity intends to pay the slightest attention to any correspondence objecting to their decision so this one will end up the same way as all the rest and that is actually quite fortunate.

Yup: WPB

"We shall brook no dissent"

Tony normally puts his name to anything he does and the Foundation so it is unacceptable to use this as another excuse to slag off Tony and he is owed an apology.

Perhaps those who have written it are too scared to put their names due to the punishment that would be meted out to them if it was known who they were - e.g. intimidation, being hounded, nasty comments etc., from those who support the Mccanns, just as they have done to anyone who doesnt agree with the abduction story, just like they have hounded Chelsea Hoffman on Twitter, slagged posters off on this forum, hounded/slagged off Tony Bennett, Pat Brown etc.

cherry1 wrote:Tony normally puts his name to anything he does and the Foundation so it is unacceptable to use this as another excuse to slag off Tony and he is owed an apology.

Perhaps those who have written it are too scared to put their names due to the punishment that would be meted out to them if it was known who they were - e.g. intimidation, being hounded, nasty comments etc., from those who support the Mccanns, just as they have done to anyone who doesnt agree with the abduction story, just like they have hounded Chelsea Hoffman on Twitter, slagged posters off on this forum, hounded/slagged off Tony Bennett, Pat Brown etc.

Unless, of course, the perpetrators are "pros" ...........

But as everyone knows by now, I don't do conspiracy theories

Tony Bennett is a complete nutcase as far as I'm concerned and has done far more harm than good to the reputation of 'Antis'.

Up until recently I tended to keep my reservations about him to myself however out of the blue, he saw fit to have a pop at me on Facebook without any provocation in the slightest and as per usual, he got it totally wrong.

I don't believe for one moment that he only posts using his name for the simple reason that I hadn't had any interactions with him for years that I was aware of and yet what he said on FB confirmed otherwise.

Many may feel he is doing what he does for Madeleine however in my opinion, the bloke is an attention seeking pest who should stop interferring with the case and allow both NSY and the PJ to work without any distractions from him and his 'mob' and just to clarify, I don't consider all the members of JHs forum as part of his 'mob' at all, just a very small minority.

A link to his Facebook page would be of interest. I have ploughed through dozens of Tony Bennetts (apart from the singer) and can't find him.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:A link to his Facebook page would be of interest. I have ploughed through dozens of Tony Bennetts (apart from the singer) and can't find him.

Try Anthony Bennett.

(His pop at me was elsewhere on Facebook and was brought to my attention)

Another fruitless tiptoe through the tulips, no sorry, the Anthonys and Tonys. If you've actually read it on Facebook, not just heard about it from someone else, I don't see why you can't provide a link.

I certainly don't agree with everything he does but in my book he deserves respect for going public with his name and address, knowing what hate-filled nutters are attracted to the McCanns and the things of which they are capable.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Another fruitless tiptoe through the tulips, no sorry, the Anthonys and Tonys. If you've actually read it on Facebook, not just heard about it from someone else, I don't see why you can't provide a link.

I certainly don't agree with everything he does but in my book he deserves respect for going public with his name and address, knowing what hate-filled nutters are attracted to the McCanns and the things of which they are capable.

Of course I've read it however I've no intention whatsoever of posting any links to it as it will serve no purpose other than to drag it over here.

I suppose I did have some respect for him years ago however as time progresses and given his recent outburst then any respect I may have had from him previously has totally gone.

I can only wonder what was the point of mentioning it in the first place.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I can only wonder what was the point of mentioning it in the first place.

To highlight the fact that I most certainly don't owe him any sort of apology in the slightest.

I don't know if anyone has asked or expects you to apologise and, without any proof of what he has allegedly said about you, I can't comment further.

Perhaps Tony may have heard that fern posts alongside the pros who sit around all day pouring forth their nastiness, making fun of people on various sites including this one, who dont believe the abduction story, attacking and mocking posters who have never ever mocked or made fun of them or been abusive about them, posting up peoples personal information etc. etc.,

Fern obviously is completely unaware of all the good work Tony has done on many cases
including that of Lee Balkwell where the work he has done has exposed a number of corrupt
officers in Essex Police and a corrupt investigation!

I dont think a 'nutcase' as fern puts it could achieve that, so maybe not such a 'nutcase' after all!