SUN: Monster who made a mint out of Maddie

astro6:48 p.m.
We can confirm that no donations to this account that was created and is held by a group of friends seeking to help Gonçalo Amaral defend himself can possibly be seized as assets, because Mr Amaral is not part of the account.
We can also confirm that each and every cent that is spent goes to help Mr Amaral finance his defence, not to pay anyone, anywhere any compensation or damages.
Thank you.

urcrazy wrote:
I hear Lenny Bletch is now focusing on those who have NOT donated and 'outing' them.
How does that work, with all those anonymous donors??

And what right does she have anyway? Talk about delusions of importance!

If you are the organiser of something like this then you see every detail entered into the system. In the case of individuals fundraising for charities on just giving etc then the charity sees them. In these gofund me site the organiser would be Leanne Baulch as she's just put amaral's fund as the account it goes into. Therefore she sees all the real names and addresses etc even if they choose to be anonymous in public. However I believe she us breaking the law by releasing data like this, especially as she is using it to try to obtain money from the victims. Its certainly against gofundmes conditions.

jeremy ramsay ‏@jeremino  
@stephen2421 @RothleyPillow @Katycakes1 @QUEENdePORTUGAL The Portuguese seem 2 have an ostrich attitude to this. No sense of honour?  

Leanne Baulch @JusticeForMM · 5h 5 hours ago
@QUEENdePORTUGAL @Nettalars @real_zm_ fingers crossed, the place I volunteer at has agreed for me to put a poster up. Will PM you on FB now

Poster on Justice Forum:

It seems we have something else to look forward to...an article in the Sun about amaral's fund...it should be hilarious

Truthiness2 » Thu May 14, 2015 6:49 pm

catkins wrote:
So do I.......she admitted on Twitter she can change names....a silly little girl who has become too big for her boots......it'll end in tears just like their plots always do....

Mobyra wrote:  I see she's apologised, but only because they MIGHT have donated via PJGA directly....however, it seems it's still pretty much obligatory for haters to donate....

Leanne Baulch ‏@JusticeForMM 38m38 minutes ago
@Phuck_Hew @Nettalars @real_zm_ @DaSteelManX they might have via PJGA, or anonymously, I made a mistake tweeting what I did.

Leanne Baulch ‏@JusticeForMM 10m10 minutes ago
@DaSteelManX I'm sorry for saying you didn't donate to the fund, it was unprofessional, and I take it back.

In fact, I'd say it's so unprofessional that if she had any sense of propriety, she'd sack herself, as she would have been sacked, had someone else had been in charge. Either way, I'm sure the Tabloids are following the goings on very carefully...  

She's lying, she knows she's legally in very hot water and is trying to save herself.

Zora ‏@real_zm_ 3h3 hours ago
@ModNrodder @DAFFODIL53 @__blacksun @5haronl for obvious reasons, public en masse don't know much of Amaral's plight #mccann

'Plight'?

More like the 'obvious reason' is that the British public have better things to do with their money than hand it over to a convicted criminal, a perjurer, that tried - and failed - to frame a British couple after their child was abducted.

Amaral is NOT the victim, as anyone sane is well aware.

Vikki Scott

NEW MEMBERS AND ADDITIONS.
We welcome all new members to our group and are happy for existing members to invite their friend to join us however Admin have decided we will no longer be authorising multiple additions by existing members.
Whilst we are happy to add anyone who requests (except troublemakers), we have on occasion, had complaints from people added without their knowledge.
We would politely ask members to by all means direct their friends to our group but request that they make their own request to join.
Thank you
Vikki - Admin

@Leanne
Did you exercise due diligence before setting up the fund to confirm that GA has paid all his existing legal fees?

Ooooh, what a good question. Bet he hasn't.

Quote from: ferryman on Today
What happens next when the target figure is reached?

Sue Venus Curtis Wish all these famous people would donate. Surely they want to see the truth come out too...

fran ‏@PIXIEFRANK 4h4 hours ago
@KRotcepsni & if the parents didn't do anything to Maddie like they still claim, that doesn't matter. they're even more disgusting than the

fran ‏@PIXIEFRANK 4h4 hours ago
@KRotcepsni person or people who actually took her

 £100
Charles & Camilla
1 hour ago
We normally like a good old fashioned coverup but this one is getting a tad out of hand don't you know. So we've decided to change allegiance and back the good guy now. The mccanns are becoming a complete embarrassment and one just doesn’t another Diana style coverup debacle. So it's time we told the old dear "on your bike" and keep going for 500 miles.

Re: Brits already forking out en-masse for Maddie cop libel appeal
Post HelenMeg Today at 7:53 pm

Charles and Camilla have donated another substantial sum ! Good for them nod

Amelia Black £25 k is simply the target,more can be donated and its quite possible we'll need more, if however any is not needed for fees it will go to a childrens charity of goncalos choice x

Marcus Bone I was thinking that - is £25k enough?

Maureen Kirkwood It can go as high as we want it to be £25K is just a target, it can go over that amount

There are two reasons I have not yet done so:

1. I disagree with some of the activities of Leanne Baulch and her supporters. In particular, I think to allow, or even encourage, people to impersonate others, e.g. Prince Charles and Camilla, was misguided and unwise. I also disagreed with the slogan 'Give £12 for Madeleine on her 12th birthday on 12th May'. I think many neutral observers of all this would question both of those decisions.

2. My second reason is more important. I am not satisfied that there is a proper arrangement in place for all the monies raised to be sent to PJGA. I believe the GoFundMe account is only in the name of one individual, namely Leanne Baulch. I am not aware that direct ownership of this money has been placed, for example, in the hands of a trust, or assigned to PJGA.

Maybe these things are in place. If someone can point me to where anyone has made an on-the-record statement by those involved which covers point (2) above, then I will make a modest donation to that fund. That's despite having paid £22,500 legal costs in respect of court proceedings against me for breaching one or more of the 16 undertakings I was required to give and having to pay £125 by standing order to Carter Ruck until May 2023.

£100
Tony Bennett
1 hour ago
I have today been advised that all funds raised via this site will go direct to the PJGA fund for Dr Amaral's legal expenses and am pleased to make a modest contribution for these reasons ....

Gerald Bentley

Dear Mr Bentley,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Online trolls pay Madeleine McCann libel detective’s legal bills on eight year anniversary”, published by the Daily Express on 4 May 2015.
On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive reviews it to ensure that it falls within our remit, and discloses a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint under the terms of the Code. Having considered the points you have raised in full, we have concluded that your complaint does not raise a possible breach of the Code.
You said that it was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) to refer to individuals who have contributed towards covering the legal costs of Goncalo Amaral as “trolls”. The newspaper was entitled to characterise those “funding the legal bills of a shamed Portuguese detective” as “trolls”. Further, the article included statements from a number of individuals who have made donations to Mr Amaral, as well as from the McCann family about their experiences, which would allow readers to reach their own conclusions on the matter. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.
You also said that the article breached Clause 4 (Harassment). We should explain that the terms of Clause 4 generally relate to the conduct of journalists during the newsgathering process. Your concern that the article amounted to “harassment” to individuals who support Mr Amaral did not engage the terms of the Code, and did not raise a possible breach of Clause 4.
While we note your position that the term “troll” is offensive, we should explain that the Editors’ Code does not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not unjustifiably infringed.
You are entitled to request the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us within seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made more than seven days following the date of this email.
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.
Best wishes,
Xavier Bastin
Cc Daily Express  

Sharon Wheatley That makes the press the trolls then... there so full of shit .. these reporters they need flushing toilet handles instead of ears !!

The media are supposedly going to report/feature? the fund when the 25k target is reached. If this is correct and they do I would like to think with more exposure more money would roll in. Nothing has been mentioned on twitter, maybe we will hear something soon.

Martina McCosker
17 hrs
What happened to innocent on till proven guilty, surely Goncalo can't be guilty till the McCann's prove an actual abduction took place

Sue Maria
31 mins
Received a email today from IPOS regarding the Suns article calling us trolls , apparently they didn't breach any clauses by doing so . The part of my email that I find dam right disgusting is " you indicated that it was inaccurate to refer to individuals who have contributed towards covering the legal costs of Gonçalo Amaral as "Trolls" . The newspaper however characterised the hundreds of donations as a sick campaign and those making the payments as trolls , the newspaper was entitled to characterise the support of Mr Amaral in this manner and doing so did not raise a possible breach .