UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: kizzy on June 28, 2018, 08:16:43 AM
-
What exactly is the Madeleine Fund being used for.
I think the public have a right to know given that the Fund was suppose to be transparent - and open
Has the fund - become a secret fund - if it has why.
420
-
What exactly is the Madeleine Fund being used for.
I think the public have a right to know given that the Fund was suppose to be transparent - and open
Has the fund - become a secret fund - if it has why.
To stop busy-bodies who don’t like the Mcacanns sticking their beaks in and using the Fund to fuel their obsessions?
-
Ms Esther McVey said: "The McCanns very much know and are aware of how the money had come together. They know it's from pensioners and kids in schools and they want it spent as carefully as possible. Because we're a not-for-profit limited company they are very much aware that we abide by the best practice charity laws."
Statement from Esther McVey:
Madeleine's Fund was set up to: Find Madeleine; support the family and bring the abductor or abductors to justice; and, subject to that, help other missing children.
With the sudden, dramatic, and unexpected turn of events at the weekend, the directors had to consider whether legal defence costs could be paid by the fund.
The board has taken advice from Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP and Christopher McCall QC.
The board has been advised that payment of Gerry and Kate's legal defence costs would be legally permissable subject to conditions about repayment in the event of a guilty conviction.
The directors of the fund discussed this today.
The 2 family directors, Brian Kennedy and John McCann, withdrew from the meeting when the decision was made.
I chaired that meeting.
The fund directors realise there is not only a legal answer but recognise too the spirit which underlies the generous donations to Madeleine's Fund, which it's the directors responsibility to steer.
For this reason, the fund directors have decided not to pay for Kate and Gerry's legal defence costs.
How long ago those days seem now when there was a moral dimension to how the fund money was used.
Of course that’s before the parents became directors.
-
What exactly is the Madeleine Fund being used for.
I think the public have a right to know given that the Fund was suppose to be transparent - and open
Has the fund - become a secret fund - if it has why.
It has become a 'secret' Fund in as much that there is limited transparency as to where monies are going. The promises and pledges of yesteryear appear to have fallen on stoney ground.
-
To stop busy-bodies who don’t like the Mcacanns sticking their beaks in and using the Fund to fuel their obsessions?
Quite possibly VS but shouldn't any private limited company which actively seeks donations from the public be morally obliged to release full and open accounts rather than the absolute bare minimum in order to comply with its legal obligations?
-
Quite possibly VS but shouldn't any private limited company which actively seeks donations from the public be morally obliged to release full and open accounts rather than the absolute bare minimum in order to comply with its legal obligations?
Before I answer I'd like to point out something interesting. You have answered my post, but then my post has been deleted, presumably by another mod. The same mod who deletes many of my perfectly acceptable posts, perhaps?
As for your question, I think that the Madeleine Fund, being the target of some very unreasonable people indeed, has every right to protect itself from smears and insinuations, like those that arose when the first set of accounts were published. The majority of public donations came in that first year anyway, most of the money generated since has been from Kate's book which is slightly different IMO. The Fund fulfils its legal obligations, beyond that it has no obligations to you or I, IMO. This is of course all a matter of opinion, and as we know opinions are all equally valid, or equally worthless, depending on your point of view.
-
Before I answer I'd like to point out something interesting. You have answered my post, but then my post has been deleted, presumably by another mod. The same mod who deletes many of my perfectly acceptable posts, perhaps?
As for your question, I think that the Madeleine Fund, being the target of some very unreasonable people indeed, has every right to protect itself from smears and insinuations, like those that arose when the first set of accounts were published. The majority of public donations came in that first year anyway, most of the money generated since has been from Kate's book which is slightly different IMO. The Fund fulfils its legal obligations, beyond that it has no obligations to you or I, IMO. This is of course all a matter of opinion, and as we know opinions are all equally valid, or equally worthless, depending on your point of view.
I have reinstated your post because I believe it to be a valid reason. By doing so though it has only served to fuel speculation instead of dampen it. I agree that most of the public money was donated in the first few years and that the vast majority of funds generated since have come from book royalties and legal actions against newspapers. Was it right though to combine the two under the same entity?
-
I have reinstated your post because I believe it to be a valid reason. By doing so though it has only served to fuel speculation instead of dampen it. I agree that most of the public money was donated in the first few years and that the vast majority of funds generated since have come from book royalties and legal actions against newspapers. Was it right though to combine the two under the same entity?
Thanks for reinstating my posts - far too many of my posts are removed for no good reason IMO. The book was published solely for the reason of raising money for the Madeleine Fund so I believe it was correct to combine earnings from the book with the initial public donations. Why have two entities, with all the associated costs of managing them?
-
I have reinstated your post because I believe it to be a valid reason. By doing so though it has only served to fuel speculation instead of dampen it. I agree that most of the public money was donated in the first few years and that the vast majority of funds generated since have come from book royalties and legal actions against newspapers. Was it right though to combine the two under the same entity?
Who has the right to make a decision as to what is wrong and what is right...the only people who seem bothered are those who daily accuse the mccanns of being awful parents ,,,liars ..criminals...why should the mccanns be botherd about what these handful of peopel think. As regards morals...who decides whats morally right...is it morally right to accuse teh mccanns of being liars and criminals with no real evidence to support it
-
Who has the right to make a decision as to what is wrong and what is right...the only people who seem bothered are those who daily accuse the mccanns of being awful parents ,,,liars ..criminals...why should the mccanns be botherd about what these handful of peopel think. As regards morals...who decides whats morally right...is it morally right to accuse teh mccanns of being liars and criminals with no real evidence to support it
Some people are just deeply and righteously concerned about all the pensioners and little children who have been tossing and turning in their beds every night since 2008 (the last time the accounts were published in full) worrying how their pension and pocket money has been spent in the intervening years. It must be a worry!
-
Thanks for reinstating my posts - far too many of my posts are removed for no good reason IMO. The book was published solely for the reason of raising money for the Madeleine Fund so I believe it was correct to combine earnings from the book with the initial public donations. Why have two entities, with all the associated costs of managing them?
The costs are minimal for such a company as are the costs involved in running a website. My own personal view is that money derived from out of court libel actions should not have been included within the Madeleine Fund and especially so given that this case is far from solved.
-
The costs are minimal for such a company as are the costs involved in running a website. My own personal view is that money derived from out of court libel actions should not have been included within the Madeleine Fund and especially so given that this case is far from solved.
Where should the money have gone then? Into the McCanns personal bank accounts? I personally ;would have no objection to this.
-
Who has the right to make a decision as to what is wrong and what is right...the only people who seem bothered are those who daily accuse the mccanns of being awful parents ,,,liars ..criminals...why should the mccanns be botherd about what these handful of peopel think. As regards morals...who decides whats morally right...is it morally right to accuse teh mccanns of being liars and criminals with no real evidence to support it
I think that particular ship has sailed, reference to the Portuguese Supreme Court edict.
-
Where should the money have gone then? Into the McCanns personal bank accounts? I personally ;would have no objection to this.
As the libel action concerned them, then yes. The Fund was set up to receive public donations and that is how it should have remained IMO.
-
I think that particular ship has sailed, reference to the Portuguese Supreme Court edict.
what ship is taht...The SC made no comment on the innocence or guilt of the mcCanns...I think you are mistaken...there is no real evidence against the mccanns ...accrding to the archiving report...according to teh pj
im a little surprised...do some posters think teh SC judhement in someway questions the innocence of the mcCAnns
-
The first year accounts of Madeleine's Fund were the most detailed and were widely publicised and discussed. Some of the expenditure seemed excessive and people pointed that out. The directors had a choice; be open and cooperative and explain or remain silent. They chose to remain silent and reduce the amount of information they released in future accounts.
The directors did nothing illegal; they disclosed what the law required them to disclose, but the legal requirements weren't the only requirements they needed to consider. Promises were made;
The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
One of the things the Fund has consistently refused to do is respond in a meaningful way to questions or complaints about the Fund's accounts. That alone isn't in accord with the advice in Section 6 of the publication they refer to.
http://www.rcvda.org.uk/sites/default/files/contentfiles/code-for-small-orgs.pdf
Regardless of the reasons, the Fund hasn't kept it's word in my opinion.
-
Where should the money have gone then? Into the McCanns personal bank accounts? I personally ;would have no objection to this.
Well i bet there are hundreds that would have objections
people gave the money not to go in there bank accounts - or pay there mortgage or legal fees.
what would the mccanns have done without that fund - imo they were broke when maddie went missing.
The fund was their lifeline - not maddies
-
what ship is taht...The SC made no comment on the innocence or guilt of the mcCanns...I think you are mistaken...there is no real evidence against the mccanns ...accrding to the archiving report...according to teh pj
im a little surprised...do some posters think teh SC judhement in someway questions the innocence of the mcCAnns
A reminder...
http://portugalresident.com/uk-media-rounds-on-supreme-court-‘shock’-that-mccanns-“have-not-been-proved-innocent”
-
Well i bet there are hundreds that would have objections
people gave the money not to go in there bank accounts - or pay there mortgage or legal fees.
what would the mccanns have done without that fund - imo they were broke when maddie went missing.
The fund was their lifeline - not maddies
I was responding to John's comment that he felt that the money from out of court libel settlements should not have gone into the Fund. Perhaps it would have been better if the McCanns had pocketed the money directly and paid for all their legal fees out of it. Why would anyone object to that?
-
The first year accounts of Madeleine's Fund were the most detailed and were widely publicised and discussed. Some of the expenditure seemed excessive and people pointed that out. The directors had a choice; be open and cooperative and explain or remain silent. They chose to remain silent and reduce the amount of information they released in future accounts.
The directors did nothing illegal; they disclosed what the law required them to disclose, but the legal requirements weren't the only requirements they needed to consider. Promises were made;
The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
One of the things the Fund has consistently refused to do is respond in a meaningful way to questions or complaints about the Fund's accounts. That alone isn't in accord with the advice in Section 6 of the publication they refer to.
http://www.rcvda.org.uk/sites/default/files/contentfiles/code-for-small-orgs.pdf
Regardless of the reasons, the Fund hasn't kept it's word in my opinion.
Who has complained about the Fund in writing and on what basis?
-
The first year accounts of Madeleine's Fund were the most detailed and were widely publicised and discussed. Some of the expenditure seemed excessive and people pointed that out. The directors had a choice; be open and cooperative and explain or remain silent. They chose to remain silent and reduce the amount of information they released in future accounts.
The directors did nothing illegal; they disclosed what the law required them to disclose, but the legal requirements weren't the only requirements they needed to consider. Promises were made;
The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
One of the things the Fund has consistently refused to do is respond in a meaningful way to questions or complaints about the Fund's accounts. That alone isn't in accord with the advice in Section 6 of the publication they refer to.
http://www.rcvda.org.uk/sites/default/files/contentfiles/code-for-small-orgs.pdf
Regardless of the reasons, the Fund hasn't kept it's word in my opinion.
Very good Post G. I agree entirely.
When people were donating the money, them blasted pensioners and children who the supporters don't seem to think they matter any more according to the posts about the fund is anything to go by, were giving money as they were concerned, and wanted to help find Maddie and support the family in some way- ON THE BAISIS they were told that Madeleine was abducted from her bed.
At that same time- I personally had no objections to them using the fund money to make a mortgage payment after their salaries were affected, and buying the twins toys or taking them away for the day etc. However, when the story actually unfolded. I changed my view all together.
The Money's as John said should have been separated because it was agreed by the then board of directors NOT to pay for legal fees from the fund but they just went ahead and started a civil case. To get more money! Now we have a situation where they must pay out from said fund after losing the court case.
-
A reminder...
http://portugalresident.com/uk-media-rounds-on-supreme-court-‘shock’-that-mccanns-“have-not-been-proved-innocent”
That really is, a meaningless statement.....since when is anyone proven innocent even when a trial has, taken place..
That does not imply any sort of guilt and you, are mistaken if you think that's, what the SC have done
-
Clarence Mitchell Lies on NZ Radio
I’d stress as well that the money that people have donated from around the world is only being spent on that campaign and Kate and Gerry’s legal costs and media management in the shape of me that’s all coming from the financial benefactors who are contributing quite separately so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that.
This statement is quite clear. “No money will be spent on lawyer’s fees or anything like that.”
Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:
“Mainly for legal expenditure”
As this was the first raison d’etre for the Madeleine Fund, and confirmed nationally by one of its directors, we can conclude that the Madeleine Fund was set up to provide legal funds for the McCanns.
At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.
http://mccannfundfraud.info/2011/05/brian-kennedy-admits-madeleine-fund-was-for-legal-expenditure/
-
I was responding to John's comment that he felt that the money from out of court libel settlements should not have gone into the Fund. Perhaps it would have been better if the McCanns had pocketed the money directly and paid for all their legal fees out of it. Why would anyone object to that?
Because the money was to search for maddie - not pay the mccanns legal fees.
-
That really is, a meaningless statement.....since when is anyone proven innocent even when a trial has, taken place..
That does not imply any sort of guilt and you, are mistaken if you think that's, what the SC have done
The SC were unequivocal imo in what it stated.
-
Clarence Mitchell Lies on NZ Radio
I’d stress as well that the money that people have donated from around the world is only being spent on that campaign and Kate and Gerry’s legal costs and media management in the shape of me that’s all coming from the financial benefactors who are contributing quite separately so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that.
This statement is quite clear. “No money will be spent on lawyer’s fees or anything like that.”
Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:
“Mainly for legal expenditure”
As this was the first raison d’etre for the Madeleine Fund, and confirmed nationally by one of its directors, we can conclude that the Madeleine Fund was set up to provide legal funds for the McCanns.
At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.
http://mccannfundfraud.info/2011/05/brian-kennedy-admits-madeleine-fund-was-for-legal-expenditure/
So if they had private benefactors doing all that- why hide the funds accounts? ^*&&
-
Who has complained about the Fund in writing and on what basis?
All the information is here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/58feb12/MCCANNFILES_20_02_2012.htm
The only response from anyone connected to the Fund was from Clarence Mitchell;
I have now been authorised to issue the following brief statement from Madeleine's Fund in response to your approach:
"Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited" fulfils all of its legal requirements through the filing and public declaration of all the information that is legally required of it. It exists to support the search for Madeleine and remains entirely dedicated to finding her through everything that it does, fully in line with its published objectives."
I appreciate that this does not directly address your specific questions but this is all that the Fund wishes, or needs, to state at present. I hope it is helpful nonetheless.
Kind regards,
Clarence
-
Why have there been such vitriolic attacks which obviously have no substance attached to them directed towards Madeleine's Fund since its inception in 2007 till the present day?
What is it people are objecting to?
The fund was set up to finance the search for a missing little girl ... whose death the lead detective in her case insisted on without one iota of supporting evidence ... at a time when only her parents were searching for her.
Is the objection that her parents continued the search for Madeleine using the fund do do so? As far as I am concerned no fund equalled no search for Madeleine. Is that what these objectors wanted?
-
Because the money was to search for maddie - not pay the mccanns legal fees.
What the money from libel settlements? Who said? If the McCanns chose to put it in the Fund that was up to them - there was no obligation to anyone (apart from Madeleine) to do so - certainly it's none of your business what they did with their libel settlements.
-
Why have there been such vitriolic attacks which obviously have no substance attached to them directed towards Madeleine's Fund since its inception in 2007 till the present day?
What is it people are objecting to?
The fund was set up to finance the search for a missing little girl ... whose death the lead detective in her case insisted on without one iota of supporting evidence ... at a time when only her parents were searching for her.
Is the objection that her parents continued the search for Madeleine using the fund do do so? As far as I am concerned no fund equalled no search for Madeleine. Is that what these objectors wanted?
I don't believe that argument can hold? We have been told benefactors were giving them financial assistance and other help. How much has been spent of searching for this 'abducted child' ?
A whole community of volunteers, Private investigators, police force, now two police forces.. Care to put a price on all this?
The parents were never left to search by themselves at all. They never gave up their jobs to find Madeleine, in fact they made no sacrifices what so ever. Did the visiting family 'look' 'search' for MBM?
-
All the information is here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/58feb12/MCCANNFILES_20_02_2012.htm
The only response from anyone connected to the Fund was from Clarence Mitchell;
I have now been authorised to issue the following brief statement from Madeleine's Fund in response to your approach:
"Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited" fulfils all of its legal requirements through the filing and public declaration of all the information that is legally required of it. It exists to support the search for Madeleine and remains entirely dedicated to finding her through everything that it does, fully in line with its published objectives."
I appreciate that this does not directly address your specific questions but this is all that the Fund wishes, or needs, to state at present. I hope it is helpful nonetheless.
Kind regards,
Clarence
Did O'Dowd write to the Fund to complain about it? I'm not wading through that lot again. a precis would be useful.
-
I don't believe that argument can hold? We have been told benefactors were giving them financial assistance and other help. How much has been spent of searching for this 'abducted child' ?
A whole community of volunteers, Private investigators, police force, now two police forces.. Care to put a price on all this?
The parents were never left to search by themselves at all. They never gave up their jobs to find Madeleine, in fact they made no sacrifices what so ever. Did the visiting family 'look' 'search' for MBM?
Kate gave up her job didn't she? I suppose you'd have her traveling the world knocking on paedos' doors.
-
Kate gave up her job didn't she? I suppose you'd have her traveling the world knocking on paedos' doors.
well yes.
-
I don't believe that argument can hold? We have been told benefactors were giving them financial assistance and other help. How much has been spent of searching for this 'abducted child' ?
A whole community of volunteers, Private investigators, police force, now two police forces.. Care to put a price on all this?
The parents were never left to search by themselves at all. They never gave up their jobs to find Madeleine, in fact they made no sacrifices what so ever. Did the visiting family 'look' 'search' for MBM?
In my opinion without the Fund Madeleine's parents would have been unable to keep the search for her going in the way they did from 2007 until 2013 when Madeleine's case was reopened by the Policia Judiciaria and by Scotland Yard.
Madeleine's fund has been handled competently and more importantly perhaps, legally throughout the timescale of its existence.
In my opinion objections to the fund equate with objections to financing the search for a missing child. If that is not the case ... what are the reasons for the objections?
-
What the money from libel settlements? Who said? If the McCanns chose to put it in the Fund that was up to them - there was no obligation to anyone (apart from Madeleine) to do so - certainly it's none of your business what they did with their libel settlements.
Kizzy did not mention libel money. This is a goading post IMO.
Putting all the money in one basket, so to speak, meant they could access all the fund money to do as they pleased.
A separate account to use their own libel money and book money to pay for legal fees and travel back and forth to Portugal- staying in first class hotels etc couldn't be done because?
They have as told us in past year, that they have separated some of the funds money... hmmmm
-
IMO it wasnt a fund for maddie it was gerry and kates that people donated too not maddie because they thought it was a charity it wasnt though maddies name made/makes peoplle donate to it imho
-
IMO it wasnt a fund for maddie it was gerry and kates that people donated too not maddie because they thought it was a charity it wasnt though maddies name made/makes peoplle donate to it imho
If I understood that correctly I tend to agree.
-
Why have there been such vitriolic attacks which obviously have no substance attached to them directed towards Madeleine's Fund since its inception in 2007 till the present day?
What is it people are objecting to?
The fund was set up to finance the search for a missing little girl ... whose death the lead detective in her case insisted on without one iota of supporting evidence ... at a time when only her parents were searching for her.
Is the objection that her parents continued the search for Madeleine using the fund do do so? As far as I am concerned no fund equalled no search for Madeleine. Is that what these objectors wanted?
I have seen no 'vitriolic attacks' on the Fund on this thread, so that's not an issue which needs to be discussed. Neither do the reasons for the setting up and continued existence of the Fund need to be discussed.
The thread was set up to discuss the secrecy associated with this Fund. As openness and transparency and adherence to certain guidelines were promised, why were those undertakings abandoned?
-
All water under the bridge now as they seem to have disposed of the bulk of it on one thing or another.
-
well yes.
Why pay a dog and bark yourself?
Kate gave up her job didn't she? I suppose you'd have her traveling the world knocking on paedos' doors.
We don't know the reasons for her giving up her GP job do we? And she , Like Gerry, became Directors of a company, and then got a job with 'Missing Persons' ... It is paid job? we don't know.
I wonder what the director gets paid for that 'charity'
-
I have seen no 'vitriolic attacks' on the Fund on this thread, so that's not an issue which needs to be discussed. Neither do the reasons for the setting up and continued existence of the Fund need to be discussed.
The thread was set up to discuss the secrecy associated with this Fund. As openness and transparency and adherence to certain guidelines were promised, why were those undertakings abandoned?
As with all funds one is at liberty to chose to donate or not. Those have concerns about any aspect of the legality of the Fund as it affects them surely have a duty to report those concerns to the appropriate authorities.
In my opinion all else sails very close to a cowardly 'innocent face' wind.
-
Did O'Dowd write to the Fund to complain about it? I'm not wading through that lot again. a precis would be useful.
That's not really the point. The point is that they don't do what they said they would do.
-
The SC were unequivocal imo in what it stated.
I actually agree 100%..teh mccanns have not been proved innocent...they havent been charged ...there is no evidence against them...thats why the statement is absurd...could you perhaps give me an example of a suspect who has been proved innocent...Had they gone to court and been found not guilty...that would not be proof of innocence..
-
Why have there been such vitriolic attacks which obviously have no substance attached to them directed towards Madeleine's Fund since its inception in 2007 till the present day?
What is it people are objecting to?
The fund was set up to finance the search for a missing little girl ... whose death the lead detective in her case insisted on without one iota of supporting evidence ... at a time when only her parents were searching for her.
Is the objection that her parents continued the search for Madeleine using the fund do do so? As far as I am concerned no fund equalled no search for Madeleine. Is that what these objectors wanted?
To be honest, if it was my daughter that had disappeared and I was completely innocent of any wrongdoing then I would spend ever hour I have looking for her in Portugual and not sitting on my backside in Rothley. I don't care what anyone says, I think it very callous behaviour.
-
As the libel action concerned them, then yes. The Fund was set up to receive public donations and that is how it should have remained IMO.
I don't see the problem. Kate donated her own income from the royalties, as a member of the public, to the Fund.
-
This reads as if we're discussing apples, oranges and pears.
Which legal fees are posters here talking about?
-
To be honest, if it was my daughter that had disappeared and I was completely innocent of any wrongdoing then I would spend ever hour I have looking for her in Portugual and not sitting on my backside in Rothley. I don't care what anyone says, I think it very callous behaviour.
In my opinion that is unrealistic. How would it have been possible to raise the twins in as normal a family environment as possible Portugal while spending every minute ... doing what exactly? Standing on street corners handing out flyers?
The Needhams who I believe had intended settling in Greece came home after Ben's disappearance, I've not seen any criticism of them for doing that, thank goodness.
-
If I understood that correctly I tend to agree.
People donated spontaneously. Some structure had to be set up to receive and manage them legally. Hence, the Fund. Otherwise, where would it have gone other than to their private bank accounts?
-
Kate gave up her job didn't she? I suppose you'd have her traveling the world knocking on paedos' doors.
From working 2 days a week.
"Kate's specialty is general medicine, and works two days a week. After the birth of the twins, Kate did not work for a year, on maternity leave, and currently works part-time as above."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
To be honest, if it was my daughter that had disappeared and I was completely innocent of any wrongdoing then I would spend ever hour I have looking for her in Portugual and not sitting on my backside in Rothley. I don't care what anyone says, I think it very callous behaviour.
I find that an extremely silly idea..
-
In my opinion that is unrealistic. How would it have been possible to raise the twins in as normal a family environment as possible Portugal while spending every minute ... doing what exactly? Standing on street corners handing out flyers?
The Needhams who I believe had intended settling in Greece came home after Ben's disappearance, I've not seen any criticism of them for doing that, thank goodness.
You can still be based in the UK yet be involved in searches in Portugal and Kos.
-
What the money from libel settlements? Who said? If the McCanns chose to put it in the Fund that was up to them - there was no obligation to anyone (apart from Madeleine) to do so - certainly it's none of your business what they did with their libel settlements.
No one mentioned libel settlements - but there again the fund would have paid for them to sue.
Sweet nothing' is all that Team McCann feel the good people who donated to that Find Madeleine Fund are worthy of.
When you ask the public for money - it is only right morally to act with honesty, integrity and transparency, to produce full and detailed accounts and not produce only that which one is obliged to by law.
Only then, will those who donated be able to see exactly for what purpose the money has been used for.
What has actually been spent - looking for maddie. '
Transparency Team clearly don't agree!
-
No one mentioned libel settlements - but there again the fund would have paid for them to sue.
Sweet nothing' is all that Team McCann feel the good people who donated to that Find Madeleine Fund are worthy of.
When you ask the public for money - it is only right morally to act with honesty, integrity and transparency, to produce full and detailed accounts and not produce only that which one is obliged to by law.
Only then, will those who donated be able to see exactly for what purpose the money has been used for.
What has actually been spent - looking for maddie. '
Transparency Team clearly don't agree!
No idea how much the public donated in total, but almost certainly this will have been spent long ago and replaced by money from book royalties and various libel payouts.
-
You can still be based in the UK yet be involved in searches in Portugal and Kos.
THats exactly what the mccanns ahve done...and not only that persuaded SY to spend 12 million trying to solve the mystery..well done the mccanns
-
No one mentioned libel settlements - but there again the fund would have paid for them to sue.
Sweet nothing' is all that Team McCann feel the good people who donated to that Find Madeleine Fund are worthy of.
When you ask the public for money - it is only right morally to act with honesty, integrity and transparency, to produce full and detailed accounts and not produce only that which one is obliged to by law.
Only then, will those who donated be able to see exactly for what purpose the money has been used for.
What has actually been spent - looking for maddie. '
Transparency Team clearly don't agree!
Can you supply any evidence of any clamour from " those who donated to the fund " wanting "to see what purpose the money has been used ford"?
Any evidence at all of public disquiet and discontent?
-
No idea how much the public donated in total, but almost certainly this will have been spent long ago and replaced by money from book royalties and various libel payouts.
Indeed
I would suggest the major part of the fund was from the libel payouts and Kate's book royalties.
-
THats exactly what the mccanns ahve done...and not only that persuaded SY to spend 12 million trying to solve the mystery..well done the mccanns
Indeed.
-
Money was quite rightly spent from the fund to try and silence amaral who persuaded most of portugal that maddie was ..dead..the mccanns covered it up....and there was no need to look any further for maddie or her abductor
-
As with all funds one is at liberty to chose to donate or not. Those have concerns about any aspect of the legality of the Fund as it affects them surely have a duty to report those concerns to the appropriate authorities.
In my opinion all else sails very close to a cowardly 'innocent face' wind.
As a limited company the Fund has no obligation to the public over and above it's legal obligations. Given it's unusual raison d'être the Fund has gone to the trouble to give extra undertakings. It lists these undertakings on it's website but has refused to fulfill them in practice. If any of that is untrue I am happy to be corrected.
-
No idea how much the public donated in total, but almost certainly this will have been spent long ago and replaced by money from book royalties and various libel payouts.
Nor any way of finding out. But "The Rough Guide To...." 8(0(*
As at FY 2014 Gross Income £4.25MM
Income per book damages / book royalties at FY 2014 ca £2MM
Gross Trading Income ca £2.4MM [for 2007/2008 ca £1.4MM]
Gross Expenditure ca£3.2MM
After FY2014 who knows as the rules changed and only a balance sheet need be presented to Companies House.
-
I don't see the problem. Kate donated her own income from the royalties, as a member of the public, to the Fund.
The book was advertised as a fundraiser for the Fund. It said on the cover that all royalties would be donated to the Fund. Therefore Kate McCann was under a moral obligation to hand them over. Whether she did or not isn't known. The accounts have references to donations by Kate McCann, but whether they are all of the royalties she was paid no-one knows. Whether any other income generated by the book was donated no-one knows. Once again there is secrecy instead of openness and transparency.
-
From a bucket in a foyer placed by the mccanns - how did it turn out to a business...and why.
It is strange the speed - at which the company was set up.
According the the book madeleine, on Friday May 11th 2007 two men,neither of whom were named in the book
A paralegal and a barrister flew out to Portugal and had meetings with the mccanns
that weekend (may 11,12,13) - these unnamed men, apparently suggested that the best way to proceed in the circumstances.... was to set up a limited company.
Why was this made out to be a charity - why did they want to take control of the money.
The company was incorporated on Tuesday May 15th and formally launched with much media hype on Wednesday May 16th.
What was the reason for the incredible hurry?
How did this help maddie.
How has the fund ever helped maddie
-
From a bucket in a foyer placed by the mccanns - how did it turn out to a business...and why.
It is strange the speed - at which the company was set up.
According the the book madeleine, on Friday May 11th 2007 two men,neither of whom were named in the book
A paralegal and a barrister flew out to Portugal and had meetings with the mccanns
that weekend (may 11,12,13) - these unnamed men, apparently suggested that the best way to proceed in the circumstances.... was to set up a limited company.
Why wasn't this just left as a charity - why did they want to take control of the money.
The company was incorporated on Tuesday May 15th and formally launched with much media hype on Wednesday May 16th.
What was the reason for the incredible hurry?
How did this help maddie.
How has the fund ever helped maddie
do you still not understand why it was not set up as a charity
-
do you still not understand why it was not set up as a charity
Yes. But not why it couldn’t have been.
-
To be honest, if it was my daughter that had disappeared and I was completely innocent of any wrongdoing then I would spend ever hour I have looking for her in Portugual and not sitting on my backside in Rothley. I don't care what anyone says, I think it very callous behaviour.
With or without your little children in tow? When would you have given up, or would you still be there now knocking on doors?
-
From a bucket in a foyer placed by the mccanns - how did it turn out to a business...and why.
It is strange the speed - at which the company was set up.
According the the book madeleine, on Friday May 11th 2007 two men,neither of whom were named in the book
A paralegal and a barrister flew out to Portugal and had meetings with the mccanns
that weekend (may 11,12,13) - these unnamed men, apparently suggested that the best way to proceed in the circumstances.... was to set up a limited company.
Why wasn't this just left as a charity - why did they want to take control of the money.
The company was incorporated on Tuesday May 15th and formally launched with much media hype on Wednesday May 16th.
What was the reason for the incredible hurry?
How did this help maddie.
How has the fund ever helped maddie
I've seen this claim before that the bucket in the foyer was placed there by one of the McCann family.
Is there a cite to show that this is true?
-
No one mentioned libel settlements - but there again the fund would have paid for them to sue.
Sweet nothing' is all that Team McCann feel the good people who donated to that Find Madeleine Fund are worthy of.
When you ask the public for money - it is only right morally to act with honesty, integrity and transparency, to produce full and detailed accounts and not produce only that which one is obliged to by law.
Only then, will those who donated be able to see exactly for what purpose the money has been used for.
What has actually been spent - looking for maddie. '
Transparency Team clearly don't agree!
John mentioned libel money, I responded, you jumped into the discussion between us. Read back if you don't believe me. Who do you donate money to on a regular basis, if anyone?
-
With or without your little children in tow? When would you have given up, or would you still be there now knocking on doors?
It's an utterly ridiculous notion.
I've asked before......if Madeleine's parents arrived in PDL should they knock on every door?
Clamber down the many wells?
Break into empy properties?
-
It's an utterly ridiculous notion.
I've asked before......if Madeleine's parents arrived in PDL should they knock on every door?
Clamber down the many wells?
Break into empy properties?
No just support the local people who searched and supported them.
-
People donated spontaneously. Some structure had to be set up to receive and manage them legally. Hence, the Fund. Otherwise, where would it have gone other than to their private bank accounts?
That is, indeed what we were told.
-
No just support the local people who searched and supported them.
Support them how?
-
I find that an extremely silly idea..
So it is a silly idea to want to do everything you possibly can to find your missing child?
-
THats exactly what the mccanns ahve done...and not only that persuaded SY to spend 12 million trying to solve the mystery..well done the mccanns
No...what they have done is get others to do the work for them.
-
So it is a silly idea to want to do everything you possibly can to find your missing child?
And they have.
-
No...what they have done is get others to do the work for them.
So what would you do?
Knock every door in Portugal?
Clamber down every disused well?
Break down the doors of empy properties?
Search the highways and byways of Portugal?
They have never relented from seeking the investigation be reopened.
-
With or without your little children in tow? When would you have given up, or would you still be there now knocking on doors?
They would now be welcome in Portugal had they shown the slightest compassion for their missing child.
-
It's an utterly ridiculous notion.
I've asked before......if Madeleine's parents arrived in PDL should they knock on every door?
Clamber down the many wells?
Break into empy properties?
That is a flippant response. There are many ways the parents of a missing child can inspire local people to help in the hunt and that doesn't require knocking on doors or looking down culverts.
-
They would now be welcome in Portugal had they shown the slightest compassion for their missing child.
This is an absurd statement and wrong on two levels. 1) The McCanns have absolute compassion for Madeleine and 2) most of Portugal believes they hid their child's body so why would they be welcome there?
-
And they have.
Most definitely not!!
-
That is a flippant response. There are many ways the parents of a missing child can inspire local people to help in the hunt and that doesn't require knocking on doors or looking down culverts.
I thought the local people were inspired to look for Madeleine, but the McCanns would have been lambasted if they had expected the locals to keep on actively searching indefinitely. They plastered PdL in posters but were ridiculed and despised for doing so. They ensured Madeleine was barely off the front pages of the media in Portugl and the UK and were ridiculed and despised for doing so. How would you have done it Angelo? You'd still be in Portugal now, 11 years later presumably, but doing what exactly?
-
John mentioned libel money, I responded, you jumped into the discussion between us. Read back if you don't believe me. Who do you donate money to on a regular basis, if anyone?
Thats none of your business VS
-
Thats none of your business VS
But how the Fund is managed and what they spend their money on is your business is it?
-
I've seen this claim before that the bucket in the foyer was placed there by one of the McCann family.
Is there a cite to show that this is true?
Is there a cite to prove that they didn't.
I recall the mccanns put one in the OC foyer early days and the staff were upset because it put their tips box out of action.
-
From a bucket in a foyer placed by the mccanns - how did it turn out to a business...and why.
It is strange the speed - at which the company was set up.
According the the book madeleine, on Friday May 11th 2007 two men,neither of whom were named in the book
A paralegal and a barrister flew out to Portugal and had meetings with the mccanns
that weekend (may 11,12,13) - these unnamed men, apparently suggested that the best way to proceed in the circumstances.... was to set up a limited company.
Why wasn't this just left as a charity - why did they want to take control of the money.
The company was incorporated on Tuesday May 15th and formally launched with much media hype on Wednesday May 16th.
What was the reason for the incredible hurry?
How did this help maddie.
How has the fund ever helped maddie
There are threads on the Fund dating back years ago... I don't understand what others don't understand why it COULDN'T have been a charity...
-
money!
-
money!
do you understand why it couldnt be a charity
-
Is there a cite to prove that they didn't.
I recall the mccanns put one in the OC foyer early days and the staff were upset because it put their tips box out of action.
What do you mean by I recall.....etc etc
Some evidence of this recall would be very welcome.
-
do you understand why it couldnt be a charity
The focus was to find one person, to help one family.
-
This is an absurd statement and wrong on two levels. 1) The McCanns have absolute compassion for Madeleine and 2) most of Portugal believes they hid their child's body so why would they be welcome there?
Not absurd at all.
1. you do not know what happened to MBM . therefore you do not know if those parents feel compassion.
2. you do not know what the population of Portugal believe.
There could be many factors for many Portuguese withdrawing support to that family.
The best one being crying wolf to the UK press not long after MBM was announced 'missing'abducted' by stating: the police were doing nothing and they were both left to look for their daughter by themselves? shame on them after all the hours people put in searching.
They (along with a fan base) went on to slag off the police, the staff at MW, the neighbours, and insinuated the place wasn't safe for families and children. Now we even have them trying to take the whole of Portgual to ECHR!
It is everyones fault but theirs... ^*&&
and (&^& (&^&
-
Is there a cite to prove that they didn't.
I recall the mccanns put one in the OC foyer early days and the staff were upset because it put their tips box out of action.
You made the initital claim the the McCanns put the bucket in the foyer......not me.
I don't have to post a cite for the negative of your post.
It's up to you to prove your statement or withdraw your statement.
A cite please that the McCanns placed the bucket in the foyer.
If you can provide that cite, I will accept your proof.
-
Most definitely not!!
That is in your opinion, not mine.
-
Not absurd at all.
1. you do not know what happened to MBM . therefore you do not know if those parents feel compassion.
2. you do not know what the population of Portugal believe.
There could be many factors for many Portuguese withdrawing support to that family.
The best one being crying wolf to the UK press not long after MBM was announced 'missing'abducted' by stating: the police were doing nothing and they were both left to look for their daughter by themselves? shame on them after all the hours people put in searching.
They (along with a fan base) went on to slag off the police, the staff at MW, the neighbours, and insinuated the place wasn't safe for families and children. Now we even have them trying to take the whole of Portgual to ECHR!
It is everyones fault but theirs... ^*&&
and (&^& (&^&
1) Angelo stated as fact that the McCanns have no compassion for Madeleine- based on what?
2) Thanks for making the point that the people of Portugal would not be welcoming towards the McCanns for whatever reason.
-
But how the Fund is managed and what they spend their money on is your business is it?
Probably not... but it just gives people the opportunity see on an open forum - something else to the acting suspicious list- they cannot be trusted in other words.
They said one thing - did another.
-
They would now be welcome in Portugal had they shown the slightest compassion for their missing child.
I assume from this post that you believe their child was abducted, woke and wandered, fell off a sofa and was got rid off and this much loved and wanted child was quickly dismissed without a compassionate thought.?
How bizarre!
-
1) Angelo stated as fact that the McCanns have no compassion for Madeleine- based on what?
2) Thanks for making the point that the people of Portugal would not be welcoming towards the McCanns for whatever reason.
Could you please stop re writing words I did not type. I never said the people of Portugal would not be welcoming of the McCanns. YOU said that.
I highlighted some reasons why many....not ALL.
The fund is their stash I wish them well with it, In hope it brings them untold happiness!
$6(& Some way to earn a few millions though...
-
That is a flippant response. There are many ways the parents of a missing child can inspire local people to help in the hunt and that doesn't require knocking on doors or looking down culverts.
Possibly Amarals book and documentaries put paid to any hope of engaging the local people to do so.
Very sad.
-
do you understand why it couldnt be a charity
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Charity Commission revealed several emails, telephone calls and a telephone conference between BWB and the Charity Commission about the possibility of charity status, for the then unincorporated company, between Monday afternoon May 14 and Tuesday May 15.
BWB emailed Alice Holt, Head of Legal Services (Status and Advice) at 9.39 pm on Monday evening with draft documents for the company as a charity. The email stated there was to be a press launch of the Foundation on Wednesday May 16 and that they awaited instructions on how the founders proposed to operate.
The minutes of the telephone conference held between BWB and the Charity Commission on the morning of Tuesday May 15 record that Alice Holt would look at revising the draft document to a form more acceptable to the Commission. The minutes also record that Commission official Kenneth Dibble was concerned that the press conference set for the next day might send out confused messages to the public unless it was settled what the fund could and could not be used for.
At 1.10 pm on May 15 the Charity Commission received an email from BWB saying their clients were likely to go the ordinary company route rather than pursue charity status. When that email was received Ms Holt was just finalising her promised revisions to the documents submitted to her the previous day. She sent her revised document anyway at 1.28 pm. To meet the Fund launch date of May 16, the McCanns had obviously decided to abandon the apparently hopeful charity negotiations in order to meet the deadline for same day company incorporation. Documents must be filed by 3pm for the company to be incorporated on that day.
-
You made the initital claim the the McCanns put the bucket in the foyer......not me.
I don't have to post a cite for the negative of your post.
It's up to you to prove your statement or withdraw your statement.
A cite please that the McCanns placed the bucket in the foyer.
If you can provide that cite, I will accept your proof.
There is this -
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQp8zcY7Iag/Vj8cG-hL2OI/AAAAAAAArtU/Fe6xOTHs5A8/s640/%2523McCann%2BBegging%2BBucket.jpg)
-
Could you please stop re writing words I did not type. I never said the people of Portugal would not be welcoming of the McCanns. YOU said that.
I highlighted some reasons why many....not ALL.
The fund is their stash I wish them well with it, In hope it brings them untold happiness!
$6(& Some way to earn a few millions though...
Do you have a cite proving that they personally have earned millions.
Can you prove that they personally have used thse millions in the pursuit of what you wish for them
-
There is this -
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQp8zcY7Iag/Vj8cG-hL2OI/AAAAAAAArtU/Fe6xOTHs5A8/s640/%2523McCann%2BBegging%2BBucket.jpg)
Really and that proves what?
-
Really and that proves what?
Proof of a bucket
-
Could you please stop re writing words I did not type. I never said the people of Portugal would not be welcoming of the McCanns. YOU said that.
I highlighted some reasons why many....not ALL.
The fund is their stash I wish them well with it, In hope it brings them untold happiness!
$6(& Some way to earn a few millions though...
So do you think that generally speaking the Portuguese would have been welcoming to the McCanns if they’d gone back to Portugal to start knocking on doors indefinitely?
-
Do you have a cite proving that they personally have earned millions.
Can you prove that they personally have used thse millions in the pursuit of what you wish for them
IMO your post is libellous.
Although I am sure you will justify it.
The first year accounts are on another thread by Alice.Fund Income: in'millions'
I have no intentions of justifying what you have written, it makes no sense!
-
The first year accounts are on another thread by Alice.Fund Income: in'millions'
I have no intentions of justifying what you have written, it makes no sense!
And your posts always make complete sense to me.
-
I don't have to prove anything
Very true but Kizzy should.
-
So do you think that generally speaking the Portuguese would have been welcoming to the McCanns if they’d gone back to Portugal to start knocking on doors indefinitely?
I have no idea, I have never done a survey of the population of Portugal to ask and don't feel I should have to I have no issue with the country or it people.
I do believe some Portuguese people welcomed and supported the McCanns. Some people from the church and their lawyers for sure.
-
That photo of the bucket - the hand writing looked like Kate's handwriting didn't it?
-
Very true but Kizzy should.
Can you?
Proof that one of the McCann family put the " begging bucket" in the foyer?
-
your cite needs a source....who wrote this
-
That photo of the bucket - the hand writing looked like Kate's handwriting didn't it?
Sure does - probably photoshopped to make her look bad @)(++(*
-
Ir isn't relevant where the money in the Fund cane from because once it's been donated it belongs to the Fund. The Fund needs money to find Madeleine McCann and bring her abductor to justice. It's the job of the directors to ensure that expenditure is related to those aims. It's also their job to make sure the company complies with statutory requirements. At the moment their annual confirmation statement is a month overdue.
-
Can you?
Proof that one of the McCann family put the " begging bucket" in the foyer?
Glad you realise it was a begging bucket - because i did not put that in my post.
kmccanns handwriting.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=kate+mccann+handwriting&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=OZ70Q_8BlQym0M%253A%252Cyy3Iofp0tF9MpM%252C_&usg=__tGf_XQaQ_00UndpsQ12LaTA8JWo%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEkdyRtfjbAhUqKMAKHSGpDIkQ9QEILDAA#imgrc=OZ70Q_8BlQym0M:
-
There are threads on the Fund dating back years ago... I don't understand what others don't understand why it COULDN'T have been a charity...
Iwill amend the post as it should have been - why did they make out it was a charity [cant read my own pitmans lol]
-
The full objects of the Fund are:
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
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
A couple of the objects of the fund
What i find odd about this is -to secure the safe return of maddie.
Shouldnt it be the return of maddie what ever the outcome. [alive or dead] sad as that would be.
and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and.
Surely this would stop anyone with the slightest info - coming forward for fear of being involved.
-
These are just words made up by the people managing the fund. They won't be locked in stone. IMO I could imagine that if the directors agreed the fund's purpose could change.
-
Can you?
Proof that one of the McCann family put the " begging bucket" in the foyer?
It has the parents name on it.
-
If the parents had no connection with the bucket, one might expect them to have raised a fuss about a scam trading on Madeleine's name
-
If the parents had no connection with the bucket, one might expect them to have raised a fuss about a scam trading on Madeleine's name
Collection buckets are soooo very outmoded in this computerised age ... absolutely no-one uses them any more preferring instead to use social media to fund raise.
http://www.missingkids.com/supportus/donate/fundraiser
https://www.givengain.com/cc/fundraisingformce/
https://www.givengain.com/cause/5656/campaigns/14995/
https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/get-involved/fundraise.html
May we now make an effort to return to the thread topic ... "Is the maddie fund.... now a secret fund"
-
These are just words made up by the people managing the fund. They won't be locked in stone. IMO I could imagine that if the directors agreed the fund's purpose could change.
Well they did drop one of the aims, didn't they, although it still remains on the Find Madeleine website;
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
That aim was dropped in December 2011, 7 years ago.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
21 Dec 2011Resolution of Memorandum and/or Articles of Association
-
These are just words made up by the people managing the fund. They won't be locked in stone. IMO I could imagine that if the directors agreed the fund's purpose could change.
Err no ! they are objectives laid down in the articles of association of a private limited company registered in England and Wales, subsequently have legal standing.
If the board directors vote in favour and CH accept then the articles may be changed. As indeed they were in 2011 according to CH filing records.
The fund should properly be referred to as The Foundation. See definitions in articles of association.
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails
Play around in here enough and you should find it all.
-
Collection buckets are soooo very outmoded in this computerised age ... absolutely no-one uses them any more preferring instead to use social media to fund raise.
http://www.missingkids.com/supportus/donate/fundraiser
https://www.givengain.com/cc/fundraisingformce/
https://www.givengain.com/cause/5656/campaigns/14995/
https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/get-involved/fundraise.html
May we now make an effort to return to the thread topic ... "Is the maddie fund.... now a secret fund"
Yeah but the iunternet was is its infancy in 2007 according to some supporters and mods.
No names no packdrill
-
Proof of a bucket
Definitely proof of a bucket for something called Leaving No Stone Unturned etc.
Suggesting the photo was may be taken post 15th May 2007.
-
All this done in a week - after maddie went missing.
What type of Company is Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd?
Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd is a “Private Limited Company”. We have all heard this term at some point in time. Essentially, the Fund is a private company and the people who run it/own it, are protected by limited financial liability. Unlike the most common type of limited company, the Fund is a special type of limited company and is a “Company Limited by Guarantee”. In the case of the Madeleine Fund, this means there are no shareholders. The board of directors (or members) act like a conventional board of directors but they have special rules which are quite different to the rules imposed on a regular private limited company. The explanations below were taken from a company that sells off the shelf companies in the United Kingdom (http://www.ukincorp.co.uk/).
http://mccannfundfraud.info/2008/12/what-type-of-company-is-madeleines-fund-leaving-no-stone-unturned-ltd/
However, it is possible to design a company where the only members are also the directors, who are thus only constitutionally accountable to one another. Such a structure may be preferred where greater stability is required without the potential for power blocs to develop within a larger membership. In this case, how the directors get to be appointed will be laid down in the articles. In some cases, directors are effectively self-perpetuating, with future directors appointed by the present ones.
-
Well they did drop one of the aims, didn't they, although it still remains on the Find Madeleine website;
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
That aim was dropped in December 2011, 7 years ago.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
21 Dec 2011Resolution of Memorandum and/or Articles of Association
Without actual proof of it, it seems that the public reaction to them legitimately using the fund to cover two mortgage payments may have prompted that change.
-
Err no ! they are objectives laid down in the articles of association of a private limited company registered in England and Wales, subsequently have legal standing.
If the board directors vote in favour and CH accept then the articles may be changed. As indeed they were in 2011 according to CH filing records.
The fund should properly be referred to as The Foundation. See definitions in articles of association.
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails
Play around in here enough and you should find it all.
OK the directors and the Companies House board or whatever have to approve the changes. That's fine. Changes have occurred proving that the objectives do change with time.
-
Glad you realise it was a begging bucket - because i did not put that in my post.
kmccanns handwriting.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=kate+mccann+handwriting&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=OZ70Q_8BlQym0M%253A%252Cyy3Iofp0tF9MpM%252C_&usg=__tGf_XQaQ_00UndpsQ12LaTA8JWo%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEkdyRtfjbAhUqKMAKHSGpDIkQ9QEILDAA#imgrc=OZ70Q_8BlQym0M:
I just had a look. That source was notorious for hundreds of "satirical" photoshopped images.
-
I just had a look. That source was notorious for hundreds of "satirical" photoshopped images.
A cite would be helpful Carana.
-
I just knew somebody would claim photoshopping - see post 109 @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
A cite would be helpful Carana.
Kizzy already did. Find the photo, and check out the site, plus another of the "blogs" on the right-hand menu.
-
Without actual proof of it, it seems that the public reaction to them legitimately using the fund to cover two mortgage payments may have prompted that change.
I doubt it, that was quite a while earlier. The only significant occurrences in 2011 were the launch of 'madeleine' and the setting up of Operation Grange.
-
Kizzy already did. Find the photo, and check out the site, plus another of the "blogs" on the right-hand menu.
Are you saying the picture is photoshopped ?
-
Are you saying the picture is photoshopped ?
No, as I don't know - just that the source is well known for that sort of faked image.
-
No, as I don't know - just that the source is well known for that sort of faked image.
The image is unique to the source ... so that rather tells one something ... and now I am making the polite request for all members to return to the theme of the thread.
-
Here's another bucket, so some contributions were prompted rather than spontaneous;
Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester's Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine's father works.
The Guardian 17th May 2007
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
-
Collection buckets are soooo very outmoded in this computerised age ... absolutely no-one uses them any more preferring instead to use social media to fund raise.
http://www.missingkids.com/supportus/donate/fundraiser
https://www.givengain.com/cc/fundraisingformce/
https://www.givengain.com/cause/5656/campaigns/14995/
https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/get-involved/fundraise.html
May we now make an effort to return to the thread topic ... "Is the maddie fund.... now a secret fund"
Actually, there was a door-to-door fund-raising scam back in 2007.
Woman Remanded Over Madeleine Scam
9:33pm UK, Monday June 18, 2007
A woman has been remanded in custody after pleading guilty to making door-to-door collections for the fund to help find Madeleine McCann. Debbie Clifton made several attempts to collect cash after calling at addresses earlier this month, Cannock Magistrates' Court heard.
Madeleine went missing in the Algarve
She successfully persuaded one elderly resident to hand over £2.70.
The 33-year-old, of Chadsmoor, Cannock, was detained on June 2.
Sonia Durrant-Clarke, prosecuting, told the court: "She made various attempts to collect further money but they proved futile and she was arrested and admitted the offence."
Clifton pleaded guilty to theft in connection with the bogus collection and to smashing a pub window after an argument.
She also admitted the unrelated theft of a garden ornament worth £4.
Adjourning the case until July 9 for the preparation of reports, magistrates warned Clifton that all sentencing options would be considered.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/woman-remanded-over-madeleine-scam-sky-18-06-07-t6906.html
-
Here's another bucket, so some contributions were prompted rather than spontaneous;
Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester's Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine's father works.
The Guardian 17th May 2007
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
People wanted to help and some kind of structure had to be set up to manage it. Which they did. As the purpose centred around Madeleine, it couldn't have been a charity.
On charities:
The ‘public aspect’
The ‘public aspect’ of public benefit is about who the purpose benefits.
Legal requirement: to satisfy the ‘public aspect’ of public benefit the purpose must:
benefit the public in general, or a sufficient section of the public
not give rise to more than incidental personal benefit
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-makes-a-charity-cc4/what-makes-a-charity-cc4#part-4
-
People wanted to help and some kind of structure had to be set up to manage it. Which they did. As the purpose centred around Madeleine, it couldn't have been a charity.
On charities:
The ‘public aspect’
The ‘public aspect’ of public benefit is about who the purpose benefits.
Legal requirement: to satisfy the ‘public aspect’ of public benefit the purpose must:
benefit the public in general, or a sufficient section of the public
not give rise to more than incidental personal benefit
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-makes-a-charity-cc4/what-makes-a-charity-cc4#part-4
There may have been a problem with the 'personal benefit' bit also.
13. I've heard that Kate and Gerry McCann might benefit from the Fund. Is this true?
Yes – the fund has provided support to Kate and Gerry. One of the reasons the fund was established was to support Madeleine's family and such financial assistance is one of its specific objectives. This assistance to Kate and Gerry was a subsistence allowance, provided whilst they were on unpaid leave from work and enabled them to push forward the campaign to find Madeleine. The directors approve all payments to Kate and Gerry, with family members not having a vote. Financial support given to Kate and Gerry since Gerry returned to work is negligible.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
-
Here's another bucket, so some contributions were prompted rather than spontaneous;
Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester's Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine's father works.
The Guardian 17th May 2007
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
So what?
-
OK the directors and the Companies House board or whatever have to approve the changes. That's fine. Changes have occurred proving that the objectives do change with time.
But not in the manner or by the mechanisms you suggested in your earlier post.
-
But not in the manner or by the mechanisms you suggested in your earlier post.
True but the point I was making the changes are initiated by the directors.
-
So what?
On the subject of secrecy, that information is no longer on the Find Madeleine website.
-
On the subject of secrecy, that information is no longer on the Find Madeleine website.
Why should information about a collection bucket at a hospital in 2007 still be on the Find Madeleine website? Rhetorical question, not asking for a reply.
-
Why should information about a collection bucket at a hospital in 2007 still be on the Find Madeleine website? Rhetorical question, not asking for a reply.
It never was, it was reported in the Guardian if you look at my cite.
-
It never was, it was reported in the Guardian if you look at my cite.
So then I don’t understand what your earlier comment refers to.
-
So then I don’t understand what your earlier comment refers to.
It referred to another post.
-
To stop busy-bodies who don’t like the Mcacanns sticking their beaks in and using the Fund to fuel their obsessions?
Think you will find it was the mmcanns who used the fund to fuel there obsession with GA.
IMO they knew they needed that money - starting with the bucket....but why.
It was everybody else searching for maddie....as well as everyone else getting the blame.
All they seem to care about - was their reputation imo.
Those sad parents - holding up the tee shirt as if it was a check for the lottery.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/12/chronological-record-of-madeleines-fund.html
At the heart of this campaign and Fund is a little girl confused, lonely and in need of her parents. This Fund’s money will be focused on finding that little girl and leaving no stone unturned.»
Esther McVey: Madeleine's fund won't be used for legal fees, 18 September 2007
Extract:
«Kate and Gerry, 39 - also parents of two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, both fiercely deny any involvement in the long-running mystery and believe they are being set up to cover up a bungled police inquiry.
This week, prospective MP Esther McVey, one of the six trustees of Madeleine's fund, met with lawyers to examine the legality of breaking into the £1m worth of public donations.
She said that the fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned was set up to find Madeleine, support the family, bring the abductor(s) to justice and subject to that, help other missing children.
But numerous angry postings from people who claim to have given donations have appeared on the internet asking if they are entitled to their money back if Madeleine's parents are prosecuted.
"Fund directors have decided not to pay for Kate and Gerry's legal defence costs," said Esther. "We stress that the family has not asked for these costs to be paid, however, people have already called in offering their financial support.
"Any such fund would have to be separately set up and administered." (....)»
-
I was loath to wonder too much about the objective of this particular thread in the hope I might have been wrong; however it has panned out very much along the lines and in the direction I had expected it to take.
In my opinion the discourse lends nothing to the ethos of this forum ... personifying instead only the prejudices of blogs in the darkest corner of the internet who have taken upon themselves the task of excoriating the family of a missing child and their efforts on her behalf.
Anyway ... for those who care about it, the fact that Madeleine's parents do not have to raise money to finance searching for her at the moment is good news. Scotland Yard ... despite the complaints about 'taxpayers dollars' and the Policia Judiciaria have been and are doing it instead.
"Justice for Madeleine" doesn't come cheap - as her parents worked out many years ago.
-
I was loath to wonder too much about the objective of this particular thread in the hope I might have been wrong; however it has panned out very much along the lines and in the direction I had expected it to take.
In my opinion the discourse lends nothing to the ethos of this forum ... personifying instead only the prejudices of blogs in the darkest corner of the internet who have taken upon themselves the task of excoriating the family of a missing child and their efforts on her behalf.
Anyway ... for those who care about it, the fact that Madeleine's parents do not have to raise money to finance searching for her at the moment is good news. Scotland Yard ... despite the complaints about 'taxpayers dollars' and the Policia Judiciaria have been and are doing it instead.
"Justice for Madeleine" doesn't come cheap - as her parents worked out many years ago.
It certainly doesn't come cheap! how much has the 'fund' spend on legal fees for pursuing Amaral? Madeleine will never get justice, while people fawn over her parents like they are deities. And refuse to accept that something terrible happened /is happening to her, and that her parents are not the real victims in all this?
It is also difficult for some to appreciate that although they have not been held accountable, they were responsible for her. It would seem that this forum is being used by parent supporters to whitewash them and protect them at any cost. Which to my mind is seriously weird.
-
I imagine the Fund director's had to respond, due to stories like this on 10th September;
DAD: I'LL USE £1m MADDIE FUND TO CLEAR OUR NAMES
They are being advised by top lawyers Kingsley Napley, Michael Caplan QC and Angus McBride.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/dad-i-ll-use-1m-maddie-fund-to-clear-our-names-10--t14687.html#p208447
We can rest assured, therefore, that none of the Fund money was paid to any of the above members of their defence team.
-
I was loath to wonder too much about the objective of this particular thread in the hope I might have been wrong; however it has panned out very much along the lines and in the direction I had expected it to take.
In my opinion the discourse lends nothing to the ethos of this forum ... personifying instead only the prejudices of blogs in the darkest corner of the internet who have taken upon themselves the task of excoriating the family of a missing child and their efforts on her behalf.
Anyway ... for those who care about it, the fact that Madeleine's parents do not have to raise money to finance searching for her at the moment is good news. Scotland Yard ... despite the complaints about 'taxpayers dollars' and the Policia Judiciaria have been and are doing it instead.
"Justice for Madeleine" doesn't come cheap - as her parents worked out many years ago.
That is only your opinion - as you say B
The accounts tell you nothing.
They have fulfilled the minimum legal requirement - and that is all they ever intended to do
despite the open and transparent promise.
They move tranches of money about and there is nothing to show detailed expenditure.
If SY were halfway serious they could probably subpoena the accountancy books
Start investigating paper trails - but of course they won't.
-
I imagine the Fund director's had to respond, due to stories like this on 10th September;
DAD: I'LL USE £1m MADDIE FUND TO CLEAR OUR NAMES
They are being advised by top lawyers Kingsley Napley, Michael Caplan QC and Angus McBride.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/dad-i-ll-use-1m-maddie-fund-to-clear-our-names-10--t14687.html#p208447
We can rest assured, therefore, that none of the Fund money was paid to any of the above members of their defence team.
Good Find G.
Some people have short memories, or are drowning in that African River called 'de nile'.
So now we have the answer, they , the parents aka ,company directors, didn't like people knowing what the money was being spent on in case they asked for their money back! oops lol So let us keep this a secret?
SC put paid to their futile mission ,after all that money and drama... Tsk.
-
Note by Editor:
Please keep all conversations civil, constructive and to the point. Let's try and get through the weekend with as few reports as possible being made.
Have a great weekend everyone.
-
It certainly doesn't come cheap! how much has the 'fund' spend on legal fees for pursuing Amaral? Madeleine will never get justice, while people fawn over her parents like they are deities. And refuse to accept that something terrible happened /is happening to her, and that her parents are not the real victims in all this?
It is also difficult for some to appreciate that although they have not been held accountable, they were responsible for her. It would seem that this forum is being used by parent supporters to whitewash them and protect them at any cost. Which to my mind is seriously weird.
IMO
Your use of language such as "fawn over her parents like they are deiites" is both insulting and goading.
I for one do never forget that Madeleine is the real victim in all of this but I also consider her family to be victims.
Victims in that they have been deprived of their much loved daughter and victims of a disgraceful (imo) intetnet campaign .
-
Good Find G.
Some people have short memories, or are drowning in that African River called 'de nile'.
So now we have the answer, they , the parents aka ,company directors, didn't like people knowing what the money was being spent on in case they asked for their money back! oops lol So let us keep this a secret?
SC put paid to their futile mission ,after all that money and drama... Tsk.
It's hard to believe that anyone (innocent or guilty) might think that it was ethical to pay defence lawyers out of money donated to help find a missing child.
-
I was loath to wonder too much about the objective of this particular thread in the hope I might have been wrong; however it has panned out very much along the lines and in the direction I had expected it to take.
In my opinion the discourse lends nothing to the ethos of this forum ... personifying instead only the prejudices of blogs in the darkest corner of the internet who have taken upon themselves the task of excoriating the family of a missing child and their efforts on her behalf.
Anyway ... for those who care about it, the fact that Madeleine's parents do not have to raise money to finance searching for her at the moment is good news. Scotland Yard ... despite the complaints about 'taxpayers dollars' and the Policia Judiciaria have been and are doing it instead.
"Justice for Madeleine" doesn't come cheap - as her parents worked out many years ago.
Not one penny of their own money that hasn’t been raised from their own negligence has been spent by the McCanns so you’ll appreciate if my sympathy is in limited supply.
-
IMO
Your use of language such as "fawn over her parents like they are deiites" is both insulting and goading.
I for one do never forget that Madeleine is the real victim in all of this but I also consider her family to be victims.
Victims in that they have been deprived of their much loved daughter and victims of a disgraceful (imo) intetnet campaign .
I find it no more objectionable than the continual references to the suffering of her parents. Undoubtedly they suffered, but in what way and why is unknown. They may be victims, but no-one has managed to prove they are as yet. As of now, the only proven victim is Madeleine McCann.
-
IMO
Your use of language such as "fawn over her parents like they are deiites" is both insulting and goading.
I for one do never forget that Madeleine is the real victim in all of this but I also consider her family to be victims.
Victims in that they have been deprived of their much loved daughter and victims of ais
"is both insulting and goading". It is not. The fact you feel insulted on their behalf is neither here nor there really.
-
I imagine the Fund director's had to respond, due to stories like this on 10th September;
DAD: I'LL USE £1m MADDIE FUND TO CLEAR OUR NAMES
They are being advised by top lawyers Kingsley Napley, Michael Caplan QC and Angus McBride.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/dad-i-ll-use-1m-maddie-fund-to-clear-our-names-10--t14687.html#p208447
We can rest assured, therefore, that none of the Fund money was paid to any of the above members of their defence team.
That was Jerry Lawton in the Daily Star on 10 Sept 2007 during the general free-for-all (has the Star ever qualified for Pulitzer-prize-worthy reporting?).
Legal costs funding
The trustees of Madeleine's Fund announced in September that the fund would not be used to pay the McCanns' legal costs.[50] Initially, the McCanns considered setting up a separate appeal fund for legal expenses.[51] However, Richard Branson created a fund for the McCann's legal expenses, including those of their current advisor, Michael Caplan QC, a solicitor and partner in the London firm of Kingsley Napley.[52] Stephen Winyard came out in December as having contributed £100,000 to the McCanns' defence fund, which paid for DNA tests carried out on the Renault Scénic hire car used by the McCanns.[53] He also revealed Brian Kennedy as another donor.[53]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#Legal_costs_funding
-
So there was a separate account for legal expenses at the beginning.
-
So there was a separate account for legal expenses at the beginning.
Possibly there still is.
If it was set up by Branson it wouldn't be connected to the Madeleine Fund and would no doubt be as opaque as they come.
-
So there was a separate account for legal expenses at the beginning.
It might depend on the legal expenses involved in which aspect... there were several.
-
It's hard to believe that anyone (innocent or guilty) might think that it was ethical to pay defence lawyers out of money donated to help find a missing child.
To be honest they weren’t defence lawyers, they were attack lawyers.
-
To be honest they weren’t defence lawyers, they were attack lawyers.
Looks like opinion again..... Could you moderate your post
-
Not one penny of their own money that hasn’t been raised from their own negligence has been spent by the McCanns so you’ll appreciate if my sympathy is in limited supply.
Please provide a cite to substantiate your allegation. Thank you
-
Looks like opinion again..... Could you moderate your post
No. If you can point out a case in which they were the defendants then maybe.
-
No. If you can point out a case in which they were the defendants then maybe.
No... You should point out who they were meant to attack
-
No... You should point out who they were meant to attack
In the words of John McEnroe....
Defence lawyers do not instigate proceedings.
-
In the words of John McEnroe....
Defence lawyers do not instigate proceedings.
You have not answered the, question... Who were they meant to, attack
Your post is, opinion and you should make that clear
-
You have not answered the, question... Who were they meant to, attack
Your post is, opinion and you should make that clear
They did not spend lots of money on defence lawyers,.
-
They did not spend lots of money on defence lawyers,.
You said they were attack lawyers... Cite... You should know the rules by now
-
You said they were attack lawyers... Cite... You should know the uled by now
It’s the opposite of defence, a play on words. Ok rather than attack I will say litigating.
-
They hired lawyers to defend their reputation and also to defend themeselves from possible action from the Portuguese judiciary...being an arguido means you are being accused and therefore need a DEFENCE lawyer..I cannot see one instance of any attack by the mccanns
-
They hired lawyers to defend their reputation and also to defend themeselves from possible action from the Portuguese judiciary...being an arguido means you are being accused and therefore need a DEFENCE lawyer..I cannot see one instance of any attack by the mccanns
But not to protect the search for Madeleine?
-
They hired lawyers to defend their reputation and also to defend themeselves from possible action from the Portuguese judiciary...being an arguido means you are being accused and therefore need a DEFENCE lawyer..I cannot see one instance of any attack by the mccanns
That didn't turn out too well did it? In fact I don't know of any innocent parents of missing children who have gone to such lengths. Only somebody with something to hide would need to go down that particular road imo.
-
It referred to another post.
Then why did you respond to my post with it?
-
It certainly doesn't come cheap! how much has the 'fund' spend on legal fees for pursuing Amaral? Madeleine will never get justice, while people fawn over her parents like they are deities. And refuse to accept that something terrible happened /is happening to her, and that her parents are not the real victims in all this?
It is also difficult for some to appreciate that although they have not been held accountable, they were responsible for her. It would seem that this forum is being used by parent supporters to whitewash them and protect them at any cost. Which to my mind is seriously weird.
Supporters wouldn’t get away with making such risible comments about sceptics, so why has this provocative post been allowed to remain?
-
But not to protect the search for Madeleine?
The self-appointed spokesman for the PJ declared via a book/documentary about the investigation that Madeleine had in 5A & her body disposed of by her parents. Therefore, no-one need bother looking for Madeleine any more or the person/people who removed her from 5A. Did that harm the search? - you judge.
Furthermore, the self-appointed spokesman failed to declare in his book/documentary that the investigation was shelved due to the nature of any crime against Madeleine or its perpetartor(s) never having been ascertained. Did the non-disclosure of those facts harm the search? - you judge.
When the McCanns took action to overturn this negative publicity about their daughter's disappearance, did it harm the search when people chose to financially back the primary source of such negativity rather than the agencies who were privately trying to find her? - you judge.
If finding Madeleine is such a great public concern that people have placed their money, reputations & lives on the line for it, why question the use of money, freely given to the Fund, for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences on the search?
-
The self-appointed spokesman for the PJ declared via a book/documentary about the investigation that Madeleine had in 5A & her body disposed of by her parents. Therefore, no-one need bother looking for Madeleine any more or the person/people who removed her from 5A. Did that harm the search? - you judge.
Furthermore, the self-appointed spokesman failed to declare in his book/documentary that the investigation was shelved due to the nature of any crime against Madeleine or its perpetartor(s) never having been ascertained. Did the non-disclosure of those facts harm the search? - you judge.
When the McCanns took action to overturn this negative publicity about their daughter's disappearance, did it harm the search when people chose to financially back the primary source of such negativity rather than the agencies who were privately trying to find her? - you judge.
If finding Madeleine is such a great public concern that people have placed their money, reputations & lives on the line for it, why question the use of money, freely given to the Fund, for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences on the search?
I was actually asking Davel who seems to have forgotten that the case, allegedly, wasn’t about savin* the parent’s reputations.
But let me ask you this Misty. If the McCanns had needed to use their own money to sure Amaral do you think they would have gone ahead with the litigation?
-
The self-appointed spokesman for the PJ declared via a book/documentary about the investigation that Madeleine had in 5A & her body disposed of by her parents. Therefore, no-one need bother looking for Madeleine any more or the person/people who removed her from 5A. Did that harm the search? - you judge.
Furthermore, the self-appointed spokesman failed to declare in his book/documentary that the investigation was shelved due to the nature of any crime against Madeleine or its perpetartor(s) never having been ascertained. Did the non-disclosure of those facts harm the search? - you judge.
When the McCanns took action to overturn this negative publicity about their daughter's disappearance, did it harm the search when people chose to financially back the primary source of such negativity rather than the agencies who were privately trying to find her? - you judge.
If finding Madeleine is such a great public concern that people have placed their money, reputations & lives on the line for it, why question the use of money, freely given to the Fund, for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences on the search?
I really wouldn’t encourage Faithlilly to judge, you know what the verdict’s likely to be...
-
I was actually asking Davel who seems to have forgotten that the case, allegedly, wasn’t about savin* the parent’s reputations.
But let me ask you this Misty. If the McCanns had needed to use their own money to sure Amaral do you think they would have gone ahead with the litigation?
Yes.
-
I really wouldn’t encourage Faithlilly to judge, you know what the verdict’s likely to be...
For the purpose of debate, I'd like her to pick the bones out of it.
-
IMO
They already had sufficient funds to pay the PI's due in no small way to the backing received from wealthy benefactors. Perhaps they felt the old proverb "never look a gift horse in the mouth" was appropriate in their situation. What would you have recommended - refusing financial assistance when their family life remained at stake?
-
Yes.
Then why didn’t they?
-
The judge of the first instance said the McCanns suffering wasn't caused by Amaral's book etc., but it had an effect on them. She awarded them 500,000 Euros on the strength of that.
-
IMO
They already had sufficient funds to pay the PI's due in no small way to the backing received from wealthy benefactors. Perhaps they felt the old proverb "never look a gift horse in the mouth" was appropriate in their situation. What would you have recommended - refusing financial assistance when their family life remained at stake?
At the time they launched the libel litigation they had no way of knowing how much money they would need to fund an ongoing investigation so to say that they had sufficient funds is just a nonsense.
They also had no idea how long the goodwill of wealthy benefactors like Brian Kennedy would last.
What would I have recommended? I would have recommended that the fund money should be used to search for their child.
-
At the time they launched the libel litigation they had no way of knowing how much money they would need to fund an ongoing investigation so to say that they had sufficient funds is just a nonsense.
They also had no idea how long the goodwill of wealthy benefactors like Brian Kennedy would last.
What would I have recommended? I would have recommended that the fund money should be used to search for their child.
At the time of launching the litigation they had no idea if Madeleine would be found or just how protracted the whole legal process would be. How did Amaral plan to fund his (extended) defence, given his knowledge of Portugal's justice system & case history mainly leaning in favour of the defamed back in 2009?
-
At the time of launching the litigation they had no idea if Madeleine would be found or just how protracted the whole legal process would be. How did Amaral plan to fund his (extended) defence, given his knowledge of Portugal's justice system & case history mainly leaning in favour of the defamed back in 2009?
Again the McCanns would have had no idea how long they would need to fund a private investigation. As parents surely making sure that the money needed for that was there would be their main priority?
As to Amaral he didn’t chose to fight the McCanns, he was forced to.
-
Again the McCanns would have had no idea how long they would need to fund a private investigation. As parents surely making sure that the money needed for that was there would be their main priority?
As to Amaral he didn’t chose to fight the McCanns, he was forced to.
if you attack someone as amara did don't be surprised if you have to fight them
-
if you attack someone as amara did don't be surprised if you have to fight them
Yet again would the parents have sued if they had had to fund it themselves ?
-
Again the McCanns would have had no idea how long they would need to fund a private investigation. As parents surely making sure that the money needed for that was there would be their main priority?
As to Amaral he didn’t chose to fight the McCanns, he was forced to.
Given the defamation laws at the time & Amaral's breach of his duty of reserve, I assume the legal advice the parents received indicated that they would be successful & rather than drain the search fund, any award would actually enhance it.
Amaral DID choose to fight the McCanns IMO; at least 80% of his book/documentary was dedicated to the investigation of them.
-
Given the defamation laws at the time & Amaral's breach of his duty of reserve, I assume the legal advice the parents received indicated that they would be successful & rather than drain the search fund, any award would actually enhance it.
Amaral DID choose to fight the McCanns IMO; at least 80% of his book/documentary was dedicated to the investigation of them.
A bit of a shock to them IMO.
-
Again the McCanns would have had no idea how long they would need to fund a private investigation. As parents surely making sure that the money needed for that was there would be their main priority?
As to Amaral he didn’t chose to fight the McCanns, he was forced to.
"Forced to"?
-
A bit of a shock to them IMO.
More than a bit I would think, given the ease with which the 3rd arguido, not cleared by the same archiving report, managed to obtain substantial libel damages from the UK press who'd published defamatory material against him after using the same source - the PJ files.
-
Given the defamation laws at the time & Amaral's breach of his duty of reserve, I assume the legal advice the parents received indicated that they would be successful & rather than drain the search fund, any award would actually enhance it.
Amaral DID choose to fight the McCanns IMO; at least 80% of his book/documentary was dedicated to the investigation of them.
Libel litigation is always a gamble. The McCanns would have known this.
-
It's a fact that the Fund isn't being as transparent as promised. If newspapers repeat damaging gossip, (which I think might be what you're referring to) they are still guilty of libel. It's true that there were derogatory comments in the files, it's not true that the comments were true.
-
It's a fact that the Fund isn't being as transparent as promised. If newspapers repeat damaging gossip, (which I think might be what you're referring to) they are still guilty of libel. It's true that there were derogatory comments in the files, it's not true that the comments were true.
I wasn't referring to gossip.
-
Shouldn't we all be discussing the alleged 'secrecy' of Madeleine's fund? What is the evidence ... I've seen nothing to justify such a claim so far ... is there any?
-
Shouldn't we all be discussing the alleged 'secrecy' of Madeleine's fund? What is the evidence ... I've seen nothing to justify such a claim so far ... is there any?
The fact that we have seen nothing justifies the claim IMO.
-
Madeleine's Fund makes a statement on it's website;
The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
In my opinion they don't follow all the recommendations of that code;
https://www.charitygovernancecode.org/en
-
The fact that we have seen nothing justifies the claim IMO.
We are all members of a discussion forum and one of the members was concerned enough to express concern by raising an allegation about Madeleine's Fund.
I have seen nothing raised in those posts which are actually on topic to justify the questions asked in the opening post.
In my opinion there has been nothing discussed here which justifies the sentiments outlined in the thread topic.
Interesting that you think the fact that because there are no post 'substantiating' the claim is justification for it,
in my opinion, that isn't quite the way it works.
-
We are all members of a discussion forum and one of the members was concerned enough to express concern by raising an allegation about Madeleine's Fund.
I have seen nothing raised in those posts which are actually on topic to justify the questions asked in the opening post.
In my opinion there has been nothing discussed here which justifies the sentiments outlined in the thread topic.
Interesting that you think the fact that because there are no post 'substantiating' the claim is justification for it in my opinion, that isn't quite the way it works.
Whoosh.
As we have very little details as to how the fund is used, where the money is spent, where it comes from. It is, to all intents and purposes a secret fund with only outline information available.
-
Whoosh.
As we have very little details as to how the fund is used, where the money is spent, where it comes from. It is, to all intents and purposes a secret fund with only outline information available.
Is Madeleine's Fund operating within the law?
-
Is Madeleine's Fund operating within the law?
Did anyone suggest it wasn’t?
-
Did anyone suggest it wasn’t?
Can all Funds or businesses which operate within the law but which dont. go into great detail about what every penny is spent on be considered “secret”then?
-
Can all Funds or businesses which operate within the law but which dont. go into great detail about what every penny is spent on be considered “secret”then?
Only the ones which promised openness and transparency in my opinion.
-
Did anyone suggest it wasn’t?
So ... a perfectly legal Fund is being questioned - I refer you to the opening post. Why ever would that be since there is absolutely no question of illegality.
-
Only the ones which promised openness and transparency in my opinion.
That shouldn’t make any difference- either they are secret or they are not. What is the meaning of secret anyway?
-
So ... a perfectly legal Fund is being questioned - I refer you to the opening post. Why ever would that be since there is absolutely no question of illegality.
Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.
-
I don't get it. The Maddie Fund was supposed to have been used to search for her so taking £1000's out to pursue the folly of a libel case would in itself damaged the fund and thus the search for Maddie. I'm surprised the lower court never recognised this.
-
I don't get it. The Maddie Fund was supposed to have been used to search for her so taking £1000's out to pursue the folly of a libel case would in itself damaged the fund and thus the search for Maddie. I'm surprised the lower court never recognised this.
im surprised posters dont realise that amaral telling everyone maddie is dead and the parents know it doesnt just damage the search for maddie,,,...it ends it
-
Please stay on topic. Murat has no relevance to this discussion.
-
im surprised posters dont realise that amaral telling everyone maddie is dead and the parents know it doesnt just damage the search for maddie,,,...it ends it
Did it end it ? Have sightings continued to come in ? Are two police forces, as we speak, continuing the search for Madeleine?
-
Did it end it ? Have sightings continued to come in ? Are two police forces, as we speak, continuing the search for Madeleine?
in portugal it has ended it..as sil has confirmed
-
in portugal it has ended it..as sil has confirmed
I think Kate McCann managed that all on her own the moment she answered "no comment"
-
in portugal it has ended it..as sil has confirmed
The investigation in Portugal is ongoing unless you can prove otherwise ( I’m afraid if you behave in any way like you did while desperately avoiding the request for a ECHR case number etc I’m going to be disappointed).
-
Back to the topic - please.
-
• Is The Foundation a Charity?………. No
• Is the Foundation a CLG?…………… Yes
• Can a CLG also be a Charity?………. Yes
• Is the financial reporting for
The Charities Commision more
stringent than that for Companies
House?…………………………………… Yes
• Is the public entitled to have access
to more financial information under
the CC System the CH system?……… Yes
• Was it stated that The Foundation was
“very much aware that we abide by
the best practice charity laws." ?………Yes
• Did The Foundation produce annual
accounts that would satisfy
CC examination ?…………………............ No
• Did the presentation of the accounts
comply with the applicable laws?....................Yes
• Did The Foundation comply with the
Requirements of the Good Governance
Code. Ha ha this one is very arcane...........Yes
Oh dear we are down to legal and moral. Now if like me you do legal rather than moral that is no great shakes.
If you belong to the group that is more feeling more compassionate and more empathic I understand the horns of your dilemma....... ?{)(**
-
Can a charity be set up for the benefit of one child?
ETA: the answer would appear to be “no”, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charitable-purposes/charitable-purposes
-
• Is The Foundation a Charity?………. No
• Is the Foundation a CLG?…………… Yes
• Can a CLG also be a Charity?………. Yes
• Is the financial reporting for
The Charities Commision more
stringent than that for Companies
House?…………………………………… Yes
• Is the public entitled to have access
to more financial information under
the CC System the CH system?……… Yes
• Was it stated that The Foundation was
“very much aware that we abide by
the best practice charity laws." ?………Yes
• Did The Foundation produce annual
accounts that would satisfy
CC examination ?…………………............ No
• Did the presentation of the accounts
comply with the applicable laws?....................Yes
• Did The Foundation comply with the
Requirements of the Good Governance
Code. Ha ha this one is very arcane...........Yes
Oh dear we are down to legal and moral. Now if like me you do legal rather than moral that is no great shakes.
If you belong to the group that is more feeling more compassionate and more empathic I understand the horns of your dilemma....... ?{)(**
"Is the public entitled to have access
to more financial information under
the CC System the CH system?……… Yes" This answers the question "what business is it of yours by supporters" ^*&&
Hmm yeah moral high ground dilemma indeed dear Alice!
-
"Is the public entitled to have access
to more financial information under
the CC System the CH system?……… Yes" This answers the question "what business is it of yours by supporters" ^*&&
Hmm yeah moral high ground dilemma indeed dear Alice!
Except the Fund is not a charity, nor could it have set up as one, so irrelevant.
-
Can a charity be set up for the benefit of one child?
ETA: the answer would appear to be “no”, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charitable-purposes/charitable-purposes
The thing with that is - why didnt it start off as a charity .
Why was it made a mccann fund in a week - of maddie going missing
How did they know maddie - was not going to be found.
-
The thing with that is - why didnt it start off as a charity .
Why was it made a mccann fund in a week - of maddie going missing
How did they know maddie - was not going to be found.
What sort of a charity should the McCanns have been busy setting up in the weeks following Madeleine’s disappearance? To benefit which members of the public?
-
The thing with that is - why didnt it start off as a charity .
Why was it made a mccann fund in a week - of maddie going missing
How did they know maddie - was not going to be found.
Only the parents can tell us that - and they're not saying.
-
Only the parents can tell us that - and they're not saying.
This is such crap. Why does setting up a fund for Madeleine = knowing she’s not going to be found, would you or Kizzy kindly explain the logic?
-
What sort of a charity should the McCanns have been busy setting up in the weeks following Madeleine’s disappearance? To benefit which members of the public?
It was done within a week as a fund - that only the mccanns etc controlled.
Why did they do that....maddie could have been found at anytime.
-
It was done within a week as a fund - that only the mccanns etc controlled.
Why did they do that....maddie could have been found at anytime.
What should they have done with all the public donations that poured in then? Bank it, return it or stuff it under the mattress?
-
What sort of a charity should the McCanns have been busy setting up in the weeks following Madeleine’s disappearance? To benefit which members of the public?
Well, there were very busy meeting and greeting and communicating with very important people but still managed to get a fund set up very quickly... Could they not just get money raised for 'missing people'? The charity knows how to pull at heart strings to get money for 'support'. It is run like a business with a CEO and all that jazz. Can't seem to find their salaries though.
-
Well, there were very busy meeting and greeting and communicating with very important people but still managed to get a fund set up very quickly... Could they not just get money raised for 'missing people'? The charity knows how to pull at heart strings to get money for 'support'. It is run like a business with a CEO and all that jazz. Can't seem to find their salaries though.
So in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance of their own child you think they should have been setting a charity to benefit all missing people do you? And how would that have worked exactly?
-
So in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance of their own child you think they should have been setting a charity to benefit all missing people do you? And how would that have worked exactly?
You asked a question I made a suggested reply. I DIDN'T say it was my answer to what they should have done.
This thread deals with what happened to the money and is it being held captive under a secret agenda. So far it has been shown to be held as such. a secret fund, as in, not at all transparent. Which was promised!
-
You asked a question I made a suggested reply. I DIDN'T say it was my answer to what they should have done.
This thread deals with what happened to the money and is it being held captive under a secret agenda. So far it has been shown to be held as such. a secret fund, as in, not at all transparent. Which was promised!
If the fund was secret we wouldn’t even know of its existence. To refer to it as a “Secret Fund” is ridiculous IMO. I gave money to the Fund. I bought the book (twice). I couldn’t give a monkey’s that I don’t have full transparency. I wouldn’t care a jot if the money I paid into the Fund (directly or indirectly) paid for lawyers, dodgy detectives, or a kitchen extension. I really couldn’t. I know there are supposedly millions of tiny tots and tottering OAPs the length and breadth of the country who are gnashing their teeth over this because they feel robbed of their pocket money and pensions, but again, I don’t give a toss. IMO the whole thing is just an excuse for more righteous indignation and faux outrage, mostly from people who crow proudly they’ve never read the book and who almost certainly never paid a penny into the Fund in the first place.
-
Except the Fund is not a charity, not could it have set up as one, so irrelevant.
If the Fund wishes to behave like a limited company there's nothing stopping it except it's promise on it's website to behave like a charity. They should change their behaviour or withdraw that promise.
-
If the Fund wishes to behave like a limited company there's nothing stopping it except it's promise on it's website to behave like a charity. They should change their behaviour or withdraw that promise.
Why don’t you address your complaint to the Fund directly then?
-
What sort of a charity should the McCanns have been busy setting up in the weeks following Madeleine’s disappearance? To benefit which members of the public?
They should have setup a Charity to assist the Parents of Children missing abroad. Their first bit of assistance would have been for the McCanns but other applications for assistance would have been welcomed.
There you are. Simple.
-
They should have setup a Charity to assist the Parents of Children missing abroad. Their first bit of assistance would have been for the McCanns but other applications for assistance would have been welcomed.
There you are. Simple.
Equally simple and clearer to all who donate is to set up a Fund to help find their daughted called the Madeleine Fund, which, the moment she is found, can then become a charity to help other missing people.
-
If the Fund wishes to behave like a limited company there's nothing stopping it except it's promise on it's website to behave like a charity. They should change their behaviour or withdraw that promise.
How can Madeleine's Fund behave like a charity when it very patently is not a charity but a fund set up to benefit a little girl who is missing by allowing a search for her to be financed?
One has to wonder why an allegedly fraudulent fund has been metamorphosed into an allegedly secret fund by people who would not contribute a penny to it anyway.
-
So in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance of their own child you think they should have been setting a charity to benefit all missing people do you? And how would that have worked exactly?
Exactly immediately after the aftermath of maddie going missing - gmccann was busy turning the money it a fund.
Imo the fund seemed more important.- the money should have been the last thing on there minds.
-
Exactly immediately after the aftermath of maddie going missing - gmccann was busy turning the money it a fund.
Imo the fund seemed more important.- the money should have been the last thing on there minds.
Cite required, please
-
Equally simple and clearer to all who donate is to set up a Fund to help find their daughted called the Madeleine Fund, which, the moment she is found, can then become a charity to help other missing people.
You appear to be agreeing it could have been set up as a Charity?
-
You appear to be agreeing it could have been set up as a Charity?
Yes, if you read my post you will see I said so, the moment Madeleine is found. No problem with that at all.
-
How can Madeleine's Fund behave like a charity when it very patently is not a charity but a fund set up to benefit a little girl who is missing by allowing a search for her to be financed?
One has to wonder why an allegedly fraudulent fund has been metamorphosed into an allegedly secret fund by people who would not contribute a penny to it anyway.
The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector.
http://findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
-
delete personal comment.
I doubt I’m unique, do you?
-
Yes, if you read my post you will see I said so, the moment Madeleine is found. No problem with that at all.
It could have been from the start, unless you are suggesting there would be too many calls on the fund to allow support for Madeleine.
-
You appear to be agreeing it could have been set up as a Charity?
How would a fund set up for the benefit of Madeleine meet the Charity Commission's requirement 'for the public benefit'?
-
How would a fund set up for the benefit of Madeleine meet the Charity Commission's requirement 'for the public benefit'?
Read http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.msg472338#msg472338 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.msg472338#msg472338)
-
It could have been from the start, unless you are suggesting there would be too many calls on the fund to allow support for Madeleine.
The McCanns could have set up a charity to save the bees too, but why would they, when their child had just gone missing and thousands of people were sending thousands of unsolicited donations to them, to help them find THEIR child? Why would or should they have been concerned with using the money to help ALL missing people at that time?
-
Cite required, please
When was Madeleine's Fund set up and where has the money gone?
Madeleine's Fund timeline
03 May 2007
At 10.00pm Madeleine is reported missing.
06 May 2007
First website set up
The official Madeleine McCann website is launched under the domain name www.bringmadeleinehome.com - This does not have a 'donate' button and is a simple awareness site.
The Infohost site says: 'On the 6th of May Infohost received a call from Philomena McCann, Madeleine's aunt, asking if they would set up a website to help find her neice. The website was setup that day as www.bringmadeleinehome.com.'
11 May 2007
Lawyers fly in / 'No stone unturned' mentioned for first time
Portuguese newspapers report that this is the day lawyers flew into Portugal and met with the McCanns at the Ocean Club.
Extract:
English lawyers in Lagos
However, it is known to DN, that two British lawyers arrived Friday afternoon at The Ocean Club resort, and were staying there to advise the parents of Madeleine in this process. A situation that arises hours after the last presence of the parents with the PJ in Portimão, where they were interviewed for the second time, for long hours.
Although the PJ reiterate that the relatives and friends of Madeleine "do not fall under any suspicion," the presence of lawyers is nevertheless a curious fact, at a time when there is talk of a possible return to the United Kingdom by the couple. According to the PJ, there is no legal obligation to prevent the family and friends from leaving the country at this stage, since "nobody has been made an arguido".
Diário de Notícias (Portuguese language)
Gerry McCann reads a short prepared statement to the waiting press on the road outside their holiday apartment. He specifically emphasises that they will 'leave no stone unturned' in the search for Madeleine. He also mentions how grateful they are with the offers of support they have received both from home and around the world.
It would appear from this statement that the name of the company had already been decided and that this was a form of public preparation for the launch of Madeleine's Fund. Video link here.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
-
When was Madeleine's Fund set up and where has the money gone?
Madeleine's Fund timeline
03 May 2007
At 10.00pm Madeleine is reported missing.
06 May 2007
First website set up
The official Madeleine McCann website is launched under the domain name www.bringmadeleinehome.com - This does not have a 'donate' button and is a simple awareness site.
The Infohost site says: 'On the 6th of May Infohost received a call from Philomena McCann, Madeleine's aunt, asking if they would set up a website to help find her neice. The website was setup that day as www.bringmadeleinehome.com.'
11 May 2007
Lawyers fly in / 'No stone unturned' mentioned for first time
Portuguese newspapers report that this is the day lawyers flew into Portugal and met with the McCanns at the Ocean Club.
Extract:
English lawyers in Lagos
However, it is known to DN, that two British lawyers arrived Friday afternoon at The Ocean Club resort, and were staying there to advise the parents of Madeleine in this process. A situation that arises hours after the last presence of the parents with the PJ in Portimão, where they were interviewed for the second time, for long hours.
Although the PJ reiterate that the relatives and friends of Madeleine "do not fall under any suspicion," the presence of lawyers is nevertheless a curious fact, at a time when there is talk of a possible return to the United Kingdom by the couple. According to the PJ, there is no legal obligation to prevent the family and friends from leaving the country at this stage, since "nobody has been made an arguido".
Diário de Notícias (Portuguese language)
Gerry McCann reads a short prepared statement to the waiting press on the road outside their holiday apartment. He specifically emphasises that they will 'leave no stone unturned' in the search for Madeleine. He also mentions how grateful they are with the offers of support they have received both from home and around the world.
It would appear from this statement that the name of the company had already been decided and that this was a form of public preparation for the launch of Madeleine's Fund. Video link here.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
Have you actually read that in any depth?
Anyway ... what about the cloak and dagger stuff no-one seems too interested in and the topic of the thread ... the allegation about the 'secret' fund.
Topic, please.
-
The thing with that is - why didnt it start off as a charity .
Why was it made a mccann fund in a week - of maddie going missing
How did they know maddie - was not going to be found.
And now you explain how you know they knew!
-
The McCanns could have set up a charity to save the bees too, but why would they, when their child had just gone missing and thousands of people were sending thousands of unsolicited donations to them, to help them find THEIR child? Why would or should they have been concerned with using the money to help ALL missing people at that time?
A Charity to save bees would not have helped Madeleine. It sounds to me like you are suggesting they didn’t make it a Charity because other people may have wanted to access the fund in their time of need.
-
A Charity to save bees would not have helped Madeleine. It sounds to me like you are suggesting they didn’t make it a Charity because other people may have wanted to access the fund in their time of need.
I most certainly am not suggesting that, I’m suggesting that to expect the parents of a missing child who have just lost that child to set up a charity with funds sent to them to look for their own child, at a time when finding their child was their top priority, is more than a little unreasonable IMO.
-
If the Fund wishes to behave like a limited company there's nothing stopping it except it's promise on it's website to behave like a charity. They should change their behaviour or withdraw that promise.
So what was the promise? Is that promise still on the website?
-
Can a charity be set up for the benefit of one child?
ETA: the answer would appear to be “no”, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charitable-purposes/charitable-purposes
No. But who said it could?
The notion was just introduced by you as a question and is irrelevant.
-
No. But who said it could?
The notion was just introduced by you as a question and is irrelevant.
What was the purpose of your bullet point post then, if not to imply that the McCanns were somehow morally lacking for failing to set up the “Foundation” (sic) as a charity?
-
No. But who said it could?
The notion was just introduced by you as a question and is irrelevant.
No its not.
-
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/april-jones-fund-23-groups-6448411
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/april-jones-fund-trustees-astounded-6114517
http://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/15833286.Missing_April_Jones__fund_to_be_registered_as_a_charity/
-
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/april-jones-fund-23-groups-6448411
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/april-jones-fund-trustees-astounded-6114517
http://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/15833286.Missing_April_Jones__fund_to_be_registered_as_a_charity/
Could you link to the charity itself and its accounts please?
-
Could you link to the charity itself and its accounts please?
It was wound up in 2013...
-
It was wound up in 2013...
So, there are no historical accounts that we can look at?
-
So, there are no historical accounts that we can look at?
Who knows, it was a fund that was setup, raised a lot of money, distributed said money and closed down.
-
It was wound up in 2013...
It was.
The money was donated to help with the search for April, likewise for Madeleine. Both missing children had an active police investigation in progress when the funds were set up. April’s fund was registered with the Charity Commission to benefit the community and was overseen by directors completely independent of the family, Madeleine’s fund was registered as a company with over half the directors family or personal friends of the McCanns and was for the benefit of one child and her family.
The search, at the time both funds were registered was being carried out by the an official police force so there was no need to fund a search. April’s family accepted this and the money went to good causes. The McCanns knew this yet still decided not to share the money with good causes.
My question is why ?
-
Who knows, it was a fund that was setup, raised a lot of money, distributed said money and closed down.
Surely accounts should be available to view after the charity is closed, in the same way that they are for companies?
-
It was.
The money was donated to help with the search for April, likewise for Madeleine. Both missing children had an active police investigation in progress when the funds were set up. April’s fund was registered with the Charity Commission to benefit the community and was overseen by directors completely independent of the family, Madeleine’s fund was registered as a company with over half the directors family or personal friends of the McCanns and was for the benefit of one child and her family.
The search, at the time both funds were registered was being carried out by the an official police force so there was no need to fund a search. April’s family accepted this and the money went to good causes. The McCanns knew this yet still decided not to share the money with good causes.
My question is why ?
How long into the search for April before the police informed her parents that they were no longer looking for a living child?
-
Surely accounts should be available to view after the charity is closed, in the same way that they are for companies?
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/april-jones-fund-trustees-astounded-6114517
30th Sept 2013.....
snipped
......The fund, now administered by a board of trustees, has collected well in excess of £70,000, and donations are still being made.
The money will be split in three ways in accordance with the family’s wishes, with a portion being donated to a local search and rescue organisation, a local charity that benefits children and to the family of April.
-
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/april-jones-fund-trustees-astounded-6114517
30th Sept 2013.....
snipped
......The fund, now administered by a board of trustees, has collected well in excess of £70,000, and donations are still being made.
The money will be split in three ways in accordance with the family’s wishes, with a portion being donated to a local search and rescue organisation, a local charity that benefits children and to the family of April.
And ?
-
And ?
It's self-explanatory how the fund was distributed after being wound up. Is there another fund still collection for charity in April's name?
-
It's self-explanatory how the fund was distributed after being wound up. Is there another fund still collection for charity in April's name?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at ? The Madeleine fund, like April’s, could have received charitable status if their aims had been widened. The McCanns could still have received money, just not all the money. With charitable status they would also be able to claim 25p for every pound donated which would have added greatly to the amount the fund raised.
Bottom line is that when the OFM fund was set up the McCanns could have had no idea that they would have to fund a search so there was nothing stopping them widening the aims. At this distance it looks like greed rather than need.
-
I’m not sure what you’re getting at ? The Madeleine fund, like April’s, could have received charitable status if their aims had been widened. The McCanns could still have received money, just not all the money. With charitable status they would also be able to claim 25p for every pound donated which would have added greatly to the amount the fund raised.
Bottom line is that when the OFM fund was set up the McCanns could have had no idea that they would have to fund a search so there was nothing stopping them widening the aims. At this distance it looks like greed rather than need.
Were the objectives of each fund identical at the respective times they were set up?
-
Were the objectives of each fund identical at the respective times they were set up?
Of course not but they could have been.
-
I’m not sure what you’re getting at ? The Madeleine fund, like April’s, could have received charitable status if their aims had been widened. The McCanns could still have received money, just not all the money. With charitable status they would also be able to claim 25p for every pound donated which would have added greatly to the amount the fund raised.
Bottom line is that when the OFM fund was set up the McCanns could have had no idea that they would have to fund a search so there was nothing stopping them widening the aims. At this distance it looks like greed rather than need.
The idea that the McCanns should have set up a charity to help all missing people abroad in the early days of Madeleine’s disappearance is patently absurd IMO. Furthermore, how is it greedy to safeguard donations sent to you to help you with your personal situation? If I sent you £1000 to help you at a time of need in your life should I consider you greedy for gratefully accepting it?
-
The idea that the McCanns should have set up a charity to help all missing people abroad in the early days of Madeleine’s disappearance is patently absurd IMO.
Definitely agree.
-
It really is funny. April Jones’s family who you would imagine were in a much more precarious financial situation than the McCanns were quite willing to divide money sent directly to help their family between charitable causes while accepting a proportion for themselves. The McCanns found a way to have it all. Through all that trauma and distress they managed to remain financially savvy it would seem.
-
It really is funny. April Jones’s family who you would imagine were in a much more precarious financial situation than the McCanns were quite willing to divide money sent directly to help their family between charitable causes while accepting a proportion for themselves. The McCanns found a way to have it all. Through all that trauma and distress they managed to remain financially savvy it would seem.
Did the Jones need money to mount their own investigation into their daughter’s disappearance?
-
It really is funny. April Jones’s family who you would imagine were in a much more precarious financial situation than the McCanns were quite willing to divide money sent directly to help their family between charitable causes while accepting a proportion for themselves. The McCanns found a way to have it all. Through all that trauma and distress they managed to remain financially savvy it would seem.
Re: your last sentence. The April Fund was shared out over a year after April was taken, and after her death was confirmed and Bridger apprehended. The situation is quite different to the McCann case.
-
It really is funny. April Jones’s family who you would imagine were in a much more precarious financial situation than the McCanns were quite willing to divide money sent directly to help their family between charitable causes while accepting a proportion for themselves. The McCanns found a way to have it all. Through all that trauma and distress they managed to remain financially savvy it would seem.
Are you suggesting you'd be happy with the same proportional split for the OFM Fund as April's to reflect their increased losses & expenditure?
(For the record, I don't object to a single pound given to April's parents & I wish there was a fair way to compensate for such tragedies).
-
What was the purpose of your bullet point post then, if not to imply that the McCanns were somehow morally lacking for failing to set up the “Foundation” (sic) as a charity?
I don't see why you put Foundation within speechy marky pieces. If you check the articles of association it says hereinafter referred to as The Foundation. Seems like you know not of that which you speak. That is not a good start.
I did not suggest/imply/state the McCanns were morally lacking.
You said I did.
I notice you give the bullet points a wide berth. I would have thought you would have argued with them rather than just make stuff up.
-
In the pursuit of accuracy it is worth pointing out that the McCanns weren’t aware that the would have to fund a private investigation when they decided that they’d keep all the money to themselves.
-
In the pursuit of accuracy it is worth pointing out that the McCanns weren’t aware that the would have to fund a private investigation when they decided that they’d keep all the money to themselves.
Were they supposed to have given it all away by that point then?
-
Are you suggesting you'd be happy with the same proportional split for the OFM Fund as April's to reflect their increased losses & expenditure?
(For the record, I don't object to a single pound given to April's parents & I wish there was a fair way to compensate for such tragedies).
Why not?
-
Why not?
Your repetitious inquisitions into the way the fund is managed suggest you wouldn't approve of the McCanns personally profiting from donations.
-
Your repetitious inquisitions into the way the fund is managed suggest you wouldn't approve of the McCanns personally profiting from donations.
I don’t think they should ‘profit’. Even if it was an abduction do you think they should have ‘profited’ even from that ?
-
I don’t think they should ‘profit’. Even if it was an abduction do you think they should have ‘profited’ even from that ?
Do you have any objection to the notable profits made by others, who benefited outwith the Fund, from the McCanns' situation?
-
I don’t think they should ‘profit’. Even if it was an abduction do you think they should have ‘profited’ even from that ?
Victims of crime sonetimes can “profit” though, in various ways, through money raised by the public, by compensation paid by writing books etc.
-
Victims of crime sonetimes can “profit” though, in various ways, through money raised by the public, by compensation paid by writing books etc.
Who was a victim of crime?
-
Who was a victim of crime?
In this case the whole McCann family. Madeleine firstly, but also her parents, siblings, grandparents. IMO.
-
It really is funny. April Jones’s family who you would imagine were in a much more precarious financial situation than the McCanns were quite willing to divide money sent directly to help their family between charitable causes while accepting a proportion for themselves. The McCanns found a way to have it all. Through all that trauma and distress they managed to remain financially savvy it would seem.
Excellent post.
Seems they don't have to say what they spent the money on either. imo
-
Excellent post.
Seems they don't have to say what they spent the money on either. imo
Except the McCanns don’t “have it all”. The Fund has it all, and how it is spent is decided by the directors, and none of it is spent on buying nice things for the McCanns to enjoy. Some of it may have been spent on legal action but I’m certain the McCanns would have much preferred not to have faced a situation in which they felt it necessary to do so.
-
In this case the whole McCann family. Madeleine firstly, but also her parents, siblings, grandparents. IMO.
Can I remind you that Maddie's fate is unknown. The only crime I have seen occurred post disappearance and that is still to be investigated imo.
-
Can I remind you that Maddie's fate is unknown.
What is almost virtually certain that whatever her fate it was ultimately due to the criminal actions of a stranger. IMO. Madeleine did not simply fall down a hole.
-
What is almost virtually certain that whatever her fate it was ultimately due to the criminal actions of a stranger. IMO. Madeleine did not simply fall down a hole.
Not the phantom stranger story again.
-
I would say that some use Madeleine as a stick for putting down others, it’s a debating ploy, probably has a fallacy named after it (I’m sure Slarti will deny it).
If you can find one, go for it.
-
What is almost virtually certain that whatever her fate it was ultimately due to the criminal actions of a stranger. IMO. Madeleine did not simply fall down a hole.
Why we don’t know what happened to Madeleine is quite likely due to a criminal act.
-
If you can find one, go for it.
Whether or not there is one, can you as a mod tell me if it is acceptable to rpeatedly attack supporters for their perceived failings as Carly does, in a clear attempt to goad and take threads off topic? When you remove this post without comment I will take you answer to be in the affirmative.
-
Not the phantom stranger story again.
I’m sorry but don’t you believe firmly that Madeleine woke and wandered? If so, it was either a phantom hole (or similar) or a stranger that did for her, so which are you going for as the more likely?
-
i was just pointing out that mcann supporters seem to focus on the mcanns where as us so called mcann skeptics focus on maddie no one likes censorship
-
i was just pointing out that mcann supporters seem to focus on the mcanns where as us so called mcann skeptics focus on maddie no one likes censorship
I don't like deleting posts either. Don't rave on.
Madeleine McCann is one of the McCanns.
-
i was just pointing out that mcann supporters seem to focus on the mcanns where as us so called mcann skeptics focus on maddie no one likes censorship
Is starting a thread called “Is the Maddie Fund...now a secret fund?” more focusing on Maddie (sic) or the McCanns, in your view? It was started by a “skeptic” I believe....
-
Except the McCanns don’t “have it all”. The Fund has it all, and how it is spent is decided by the directors, and none of it is spent on buying nice things for the McCanns to enjoy. Some of it may have been spent on legal action but I’m certain the McCanns would have much preferred not to have faced a situation in which they felt it necessary to do so.
So why did they want it all to themselves. they made it there money imo
Like when Cm said just put the money in an envelope address it mccanns Rothley - it will get there.
You don't know where that money went - and it seems neither did anyone else.
Obviously imo the mccanns finances was not too great - or why pay the mortgage etc out of fund.
Its like the song that accompanied the fund - Dont forget about me...well they soon for got about that.
-
So why did they want it all to themselves. they made it there money imo
Like when Cm said just put the money in an envelope address it mccanns Rothley - it will get there.
You don't know where that money went - and it seems neither did anyone else.
Obviously imo the mccanns finances was not too great - or why pay the mortgage etc out of fund.
Its like the song that accompanied the fund - Dont forget about me...well they soon for got about that.
It’s all about the McCanns with you isn’t it? Why can’t you focus on Maddie for a change?
-
I don't like deleting posts either. Don't rave on.
Madeleine McCann is one of the McCanns.
Agreed should really say Kate and Gerry.
-
It’s all about the McCanns with you isn’t it? Why can’t you focus on Maddie for a change?
Not very observant are you V
Its what the mccanns did to maddie - that it is all about for me.
-
Is starting a thread called “Is the Maddie Fund...now a secret fund?” more focusing on Maddie (sic) or the McCanns, in your view? It was started by a “skeptic” I believe....
What do you think happened to all that money that arrived at Rothley - by post.
Cheques made to k g mccann
Do you think that went in the fund - if so what under .
Wonder who counted it - or will it have gone unopened - to the directors.
See this is it you don't know. many many people who did donate ..did want to know.
-
Not very observant are you V
Its what the mccanns did to maddie - that it is all about for me.
So is that all we should focus on in your view? The wrong done by the McCanns to Maddie and nothing and no one else?
-
What do you think happened to all that money that arrived at Rothley - by post.
Cheques made to k g mccann
Do you think that went in the fund - if so what under .
Wonder who counted it - or will it have gone unopened - to the directors.
See this is it you don't know. many many people who did donate ..did want to know.
I think it was paid into the Fund. Certainly the first year accounts would seem to suggest so. You appear to be hinting at something else imo.
-
So is that all we should focus on in your view? The wrong done by the McCanns to Maddie and nothing and no one else?
No not at all you focus on your view and i will focus on mine
Its really as simple as that V
-
I think it was paid into the Fund. Certainly the first year accounts would seem to suggest so. You appear to be hinting at something else imo.
No - not at all...[again lol]
But you see you think - you don't know - yet the fund is suppose to be open and transparent.
-
No - not at all...[again lol]
But you see you think - you don't know - yet the fund is suppose to be open and transparent.
In the first year when people were sending cheques to Rothley the accounts were open and transparent, though perhaps they weren't open and transparent enough for you? Perhaps only a full list of names of donors and amounts would satisfy you, I don't know.
-
No not at all you focus on your view and i will focus on mine
Its really as simple as that V
Great, well let's hope there is no further admonishment of supporters for their alleged lack of focus on Maddie then.
-
In the first year when people were sending cheques to Rothley the accounts were open and transparent, though perhaps they weren't open and transparent enough for you? Perhaps only a full list of names of donors and amounts would satisfy you, I don't know.
Well that's my point - you don't know.
-
Great, well let's hope there is no further admonishment of supporters for their alleged lack of focus on Maddie then.
Excuse me V - how do i admonish posters - think you are wrong there.
Unless you have proof of that - that i don't think you have.
-
Excuse me V - how do i admonish posters - think you are wrong there.
Unless you have proof of that - that i don't think you have.
I wasn't referring to you.
-
Well that's my point - you don't know.
So what is it you want? A list of names of every donor, and full accountability with access to bank statements?
-
I’m sorry but don’t you believe firmly that Madeleine woke and wandered? If so, it was either a phantom hole (or similar) or a stranger that did for her, so which are you going for as the more likely?
I believe in following the evidence and not fairy tales.
-
I believe in following the evidence and not fairy tales.
so the evidence takes you down a hole, or towards a criminal act by a stranger?
-
so the evidence takes you down a hole, or towards a criminal act by a stranger?
The evidence points to her leaving of her own accord and being lifted from the street for whatever reason.
As for the Fund, it has become a secret fund without any doubt.
-
The evidence points to her leaving of her own accord and being lifted from the street for whatever reason.
As for the Fund, it has become a secret fund without any doubt.
I don't think the evidence points to woke and wandered at all.... The archiving report say it was highly unlikely
-
The evidence points to her leaving of her own accord and being lifted from the street for whatever reason.
As for the Fund, it has become a secret fund without any doubt.
Lifted from the street by what? A forklift truck driver? A spaceship? A nice kind looking couple? A spotty smelly bloke? Whichever way you look at it, it's looking like a crime committed by a stranger (unless you think one of the Tapas 9 spirited her away after she woke and wandered...?)
-
So what is it you want? A list of names of every donor, and full accountability with access to bank statements?
Why have you got them V.
off topic but - good luck England.
-
Why have you got them V.
off topic but - good luck England.
I haven't got them no - but is that what you want? A full list of donors and full access to bank statements?
-
If the fund is now a secret fund... How do we know so much about it...
-
If the fund is now a secret fund... How do we know so much about it...
I guess all companies that post the same level of financial information as the Madeleine Fund can now be classed as "secret companies".
-
Lifted from the street by what? A forklift truck driver? A spaceship? A nice kind looking couple? A spotty smelly bloke? Whichever way you look at it, it's looking like a crime committed by a stranger (unless you think one of the Tapas 9 spirited her away after she woke and wandered...?)
Definitely lifted IMO by somebody who knew where Madeleine was and then he crossed the Smith family.
-
Definitely lifted IMO by somebody who knew where Madeleine was and then he crossed the Smith family.
yes quite possibly
-
I guess all companies that post the same level of financial information as the Madeleine Fund can now be classed as "secret companies".
Only if they have promised on their website to be open and transparent like a charity.
-
Only if they have promised on their website to be open and transparent like a charity.
Is the opposite of “open and transparent like a charity” secret then?
-
Is the opposite of “open and transparent like a charity” secret then?
Seems like it.
-
If the fund is now a secret fund... How do we know so much about it...
That is just it we dont.
So where has the money gone?
The short answer to that question is that we don't know. [Note: This article was written in April 2008. The accounts, to 31 March 2008, were released in January 2009 - view here]
The Fund's organisers have refused to say how much has been spent but have confirmed that money donated by the public was made available for the family's living expenses.
In October 2007, it was revealed that the Fund had been used to make mortgage payments on the McCanns' family home in Rothley. It is believed that two payments were made amounting to £4,000 but the fund directors have never been prepared to divulge that information. The information has come from Clarence Mitchell who isn't even on the board of directors.
The Fund also met the legal fees involved in the setting up of the private limited company but the Fund's directors ruled that they could not use it to pay the legal team defending them against Portuguese allegations that they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance. That has been met by a separate fund, using donations from wealthy benefactors including Sir Richard Branson.
The salary of the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell is paid by another millionaire, double-glazing tycoon Brian Kennedy. But Madeleine's Fund has paid for other staff, including former campaign manager Justine McGuinness.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
-
If the fund is now a secret fund... How do we know so much about it...
We don't know as much about the financial activity as we did in the beginning. It is not a secret fund but the behaviour is such that it seems to want to hide the financial activity from the public for some strange reason. This would be the same public they ask for help to find their missing daughter.
-
We don't know as much about the financial activity as we did in the beginning. It is not a secret fund but the behaviour is such that it seems to want to hide the financial activity from the public for some strange reason. This would be the same public they ask for help to find their missing daughter.
I keep thinking they are hiding it from GA and his lawyers.
-
I keep thinking they are hiding it from GA and his lawyers.
Who is this they? [as one might say]
-
Who is this they? [as one might say]
That could only be the fund directors in my way of thinking.
-
That could only be the fund directors in my way of thinking.
Why would they hide their income and expenditure from GA and his lawyers?
-
Why would they hide their income and expenditure from GA and his lawyers?
Lest he be tempted.
-
Lest he be tempted.
If so minded, would Amaral not be more interested in targeting the McCanns personal assets?
The salary of a professor and the value of the McCann Towers will not be a closely kept secret.
-
Lest he be tempted.
Tempted to do what?
-
IMO this statement shows the fund was for the mccanns survival -not maddies.
Gerry bemoans inability to use funds for legal costs as 'a disaster', 09 September 2007
Now we're fighting for our lives News of the World
By Sarah Nuwar
09 September 2007
Extract:
The McCanns now fear the cops may be about to arrest and charge them. Gerry told us: "Our lawyer said the weight of it is that, under the Portuguese legal system, they've got enough to move forward against us."
Then he revealed they may consider flying in a crack legal team from the UK to assist their Portuguese advisor.
But he confessed he is frustrated they are not allowed to use any of the £800,000 Madeleine Fund— boosted by celebrity appeals including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and soccer star David Beckham—to pay their mounting legal bills.
"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion," said Gerry.
-
IMO this statement shows the fund was for the mccanns survival -not maddies.
Gerry bemoans inability to use funds for legal costs as 'a disaster', 09 September 2007
Now we're fighting for our lives News of the World
By Sarah Nuwar
09 September 2007
Extract:
The McCanns now fear the cops may be about to arrest and charge them. Gerry told us: "Our lawyer said the weight of it is that, under the Portuguese legal system, they've got enough to move forward against us."
Then he revealed they may consider flying in a crack legal team from the UK to assist their Portuguese advisor.
But he confessed he is frustrated they are not allowed to use any of the £800,000 Madeleine Fund— boosted by celebrity appeals including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and soccer star David Beckham—to pay their mounting legal bills.
"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion," said Gerry.
In my opinion the McCanns became too enmeshed with the Fund. Once it was set up it was nothing to do with them, it was a separate entity and should have had no family members or friends as directors.
-
In my opinion the McCanns became too enmeshed with the Fund. Once it was set up it was nothing to do with them, it was a separate entity and should have had no family members or friends as directors.
I’m afraid that’s where most of the questions have stemmed from.
-
IMO this statement shows the fund was for the mccanns survival -not maddies.
Gerry bemoans inability to use funds for legal costs as 'a disaster', 09 September 2007
Now we're fighting for our lives News of the World
By Sarah Nuwar
09 September 2007
Extract:
The McCanns now fear the cops may be about to arrest and charge them. Gerry told us: "Our lawyer said the weight of it is that, under the Portuguese legal system, they've got enough to move forward against us."
Then he revealed they may consider flying in a crack legal team from the UK to assist their Portuguese advisor.
But he confessed he is frustrated they are not allowed to use any of the £800,000 Madeleine Fund— boosted by celebrity appeals including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and soccer star David Beckham—to pay their mounting legal bills.
"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion," said Gerry.
You would think if they were guilty and hence likely to be charged at some stage the fund would have been specifically set up to help with legal costs, wouldn't you?
-
You would think if they were guilty and hence likely to be charged at some stage the fund would have been specifically set up to help with legal costs, wouldn't you?
According to Brian Kennedy early on, it was for legal fees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-gTcKDKrM
-
According to Brian Kennedy early on, it was for legal fees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-gTcKDKrM
He thought so at the time but was he a director?
-
He thought so at the time but was he a director?
He was appointed a director on 16th May 2007 the day the company was incorprated.
The video date according to the presenter is 17th May 2007.
-
IMO this statement shows the fund was for the mccanns survival -not maddies.
Gerry bemoans inability to use funds for legal costs as 'a disaster', 09 September 2007
Now we're fighting for our lives News of the World
By Sarah Nuwar
09 September 2007
Extract:
The McCanns now fear the cops may be about to arrest and charge them. Gerry told us: "Our lawyer said the weight of it is that, under the Portuguese legal system, they've got enough to move forward against us."
Then he revealed they may consider flying in a crack legal team from the UK to assist their Portuguese advisor.
But he confessed he is frustrated they are not allowed to use any of the £800,000 Madeleine Fund— boosted by celebrity appeals including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and soccer star David Beckham—to pay their mounting legal bills.
"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion," said Gerry.
The original company objects were:
3. The objects of the Foundation are:
3.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
3.1.2 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
3.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.
3.2 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.
These objecta were subsequently changed, in December 2011, to:
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.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; and
2B.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.
2B.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.
-
Is there a correlation between the changes to The Foundation objects Dec 2011 and the appearance of "restricted funds" in the accounts
-
The original company objects were:
3. The objects of the Foundation are:
3.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
3.1.2 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
3.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.
3.2 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.
These objecta were subsequently changed, in December 2011, to:
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.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; and
2B.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.
2B.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.
Well spotted. no doubt an innocent coincidence ^*&&
-
So who appointed the mccanns as directors.
Why did he use his works address - and not his own.
Gerry McCann became a director of Madeleine's Fund on 12/11/2008, 10 April 2009
Some points to note from this document:
1) This is the electronically filed document that originated from Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.
2) Gerry McCann was appointed a director on 12/11/2008, yet, despite promising that Madeleine's Fund would be 'entirely transparent', this information was not made public until it appeared in the UK press on 17 May 2009 - following its submission to Companies House in April.
3) Instead of satisfying the Companies House requirement to state his 'usual residential address', Gerry has used his work address of Glenfield Hospital. Gerry's boss at Glenfield, Douglas Skehan, is also on the board of directors.
What we have here is a public hospital with Trust status - funded by tax payers - being used as the residential address of a director of a privately run business.
4) There is no authorising director listed, and no accompanying signature, so it remains unclear who approved Gerry McCanns' election to the board of a fund of which he, and his family, are direct beneficiaries.
5) What assurance is there that Gerry won't get involved in making financial decisions from which he and his family will benefit?
-
So who appointed the mccanns as directors.
Why did he use his works address - and not his own.
Gerry McCann became a director of Madeleine's Fund on 12/11/2008, 10 April 2009
Some points to note from this document:
1) This is the electronically filed document that originated from Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.
2) Gerry McCann was appointed a director on 12/11/2008, yet, despite promising that Madeleine's Fund would be 'entirely transparent', this information was not made public until it appeared in the UK press on 17 May 2009 - following its submission to Companies House in April.
3) Instead of satisfying the Companies House requirement to state his 'usual residential address', Gerry has used his work address of Glenfield Hospital. Gerry's boss at Glenfield, Douglas Skehan, is also on the board of directors.
What we have here is a public hospital with Trust status - funded by tax payers - being used as the residential address of a director of a privately run business.
4) There is no authorising director listed, and no accompanying signature, so it remains unclear who approved Gerry McCanns' election to the board of a fund of which he, and his family, are direct beneficiaries.
5) What assurance is there that Gerry won't get involved in making financial decisions from which he and his family will benefit?
... and still one is left to ponder why Madeleine's Fund has received such obsessive and pejorative scrutiny scrutiny for a period of eleven years.
The complete negativity towards Madeleine's Fund which used the money it had to successfully achieve its aim of paying for detectives to keep investigating Madeleine's case when no-one else was, raises the question of why the scrutineers appear to resent that success.
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
The tenacity of her parents in doing the job of the police in leaving no stone unturned in the search for a missing child is in my opinion quite remarkable.
The fact that the self appointed scrutineers of Madeleine's Fund have spent eleven years knocking them for it using in my opinion innuendo at the least brings the question of what their aims have been throughout.
It costs a lot of money to keep feet on the ground in an investigation into a kidnapping, as the complaints about the now official investigation into Madeleine's case have proved.
Is it possible there are those who object to anyone having the means to search for Madeleine McCann? I think that is a question that the scrutineers have to ask themselves.
-
... and still one is left to ponder why Madeleine's Fund has received such obsessive and pejorative scrutiny scrutiny for a period of eleven years.
The complete negativity towards Madeleine's Fund which used the money it had to successfully achieve its aim of paying for detectives to keep investigating Madeleine's case when no-one else was, raises the question of why the scrutineers appear to resent that success.
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
The tenacity of her parents in doing the job of the police in leaving no stone unturned in the search for a missing child is in my opinion quite remarkable.
The fact that the self appointed scrutineers of Madeleine's Fund have spent eleven years knocking them for it using in my opinion innuendo at the least brings the question of what their aims have been throughout.
It costs a lot of money to keep feet on the ground in an investigation into a kidnapping, as the complaints about the now official investigation into Madeleine's case have proved.
Is it possible there are those who object to anyone having the means to search for Madeleine McCann? I think that is a question that the scrutineers have to ask themselves.
Leaving no stone unturned? Like this ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206842/Why-did-Madeleine-McCann-detectives-ask-questions.html
Or perhaps you mean this ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html
-
... and still one is left to ponder why Madeleine's Fund has received such obsessive and pejorative scrutiny scrutiny for a period of eleven years.
The complete negativity towards Madeleine's Fund which used the money it had to successfully achieve its aim of paying for detectives to keep investigating Madeleine's case when no-one else was, raises the question of why the scrutineers appear to resent that success.
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
The tenacity of her parents in doing the job of the police in leaving no stone unturned in the search for a missing child is in my opinion quite remarkable.
The fact that the self appointed scrutineers of Madeleine's Fund have spent eleven years knocking them for it using in my opinion innuendo at the least brings the question of what their aims have been throughout.
It costs a lot of money to keep feet on the ground in an investigation into a kidnapping, as the complaints about the now official investigation into Madeleine's case have proved.
Is it possible there are those who object to anyone having the means to search for Madeleine McCann? I think that is a question that the scrutineers have to ask themselves.
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
What success - what exactly was the mccanns doing then.
Apart from fighting G A.
-
... and still one is left to ponder why Madeleine's Fund has received such obsessive and pejorative scrutiny scrutiny for a period of eleven years.
The complete negativity towards Madeleine's Fund which used the money it had to successfully achieve its aim of paying for detectives to keep investigating Madeleine's case when no-one else was, raises the question of why the scrutineers appear to resent that success.
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
The tenacity of her parents in doing the job of the police in leaving no stone unturned in the search for a missing child is in my opinion quite remarkable.
The fact that the self appointed scrutineers of Madeleine's Fund have spent eleven years knocking them for it using in my opinion innuendo at the least brings the question of what their aims have been throughout.
It costs a lot of money to keep feet on the ground in an investigation into a kidnapping, as the complaints about the now official investigation into Madeleine's case have proved.
Is it possible there are those who object to anyone having the means to search for Madeleine McCann? I think that is a question that the scrutineers have to ask themselves.
I think the reasons why the Fund has attracted attention are well-documented on the thread, so no need to ponder; just read.
The picture you paint of a string of achievements isn't the whole story. The detectives were neither suitable or successful and the 'kidnapping' is still just a theory. The reviews turned into investigations which were never requested afaik.
You wonder about the motives of those who don't support the McCanns, I wonder about the motives of those who offer their unconditional support without any evidence to confirm the McCann's story and motives.
-
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
What success - what exactly was the mccanns doing then.
Apart from fighting G A.
‘The complete negativity towards Madeleine's Fund which used the money it had to successfully achieve its aim’
I think she means to keep the McCanns out of bother @)(++(*
-
Leaving no stone unturned? Like this ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206842/Why-did-Madeleine-McCann-detectives-ask-questions.html
Or perhaps you mean this ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html
The Victoria Beckham lookalike was traced https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/119414/Socialite-at-centre-of-Maddy-mystery and was eliminated from the inquiry apparently she was in Australia at the time.
I would say that is a result.
Tiresome to say the least in my opinion to resurrect the question of why the original Portuguese investigation with all the resources available to it failed to elicit enough information from the Smiths to construct a workable 'robot'.
I'm afraid if that is the best you can do to justify what is in my opinion, the obsession against having the means to fund the search for Madeleine McCann you will have to keep going. Sadly, I think you will do just exactly that.
-
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
What success - what exactly was the mccanns doing then.
Apart from fighting G A.
Didn't you notice? Madeleine's Fund enabled her parents to keep the search for Madeleine alive until such time as the PJ and SY took it over.
If you object to her parents having the means to do that on her behalf ... in my opinion it raises the question of whether or not you wish Madeleine to be found.
-
I think the reasons why the Fund has attracted attention are well-documented on the thread, so no need to ponder; just read.
The picture you paint of a string of achievements isn't the whole story. The detectives were neither suitable or successful and the 'kidnapping' is still just a theory. The reviews turned into investigations which were never requested afaik.
You wonder about the motives of those who don't support the McCanns, I wonder about the motives of those who offer their unconditional support without any evidence to confirm the McCann's story and motives.
In my opinion questions about Madeleine's Fund have arisen because Amaral - in the very beginning - could not understand why altruistic people would wish to contribute to it in the first place ... or else why did he enquire about it being 'fraudulent'?
-
‘The complete negativity towards Madeleine's Fund which used the money it had to successfully achieve its aim’
I think she means to keep the McCanns out of bother @)(++(*
Who is "she"? The cat's mother?
-
Didn't you notice? Madeleine's Fund enabled her parents to keep the search for Madeleine alive until such time as the PJ and SY took it over.
If you object to her parents having the means to do that on her behalf ... in my opinion it raises the question of whether or not you wish Madeleine to be found.
No it doesn't raise the question at all.
IMO maddie will never be found never.
This is why i disagree with the fund - and imo is for the mccanns
Wasn't there a challenge thrown out = find the body prove we killed her .
imo that says it all.
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2012/03/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-find.html
-
No it doesn't raise the question at all.
IMO maddie will never be found never.
This is why i disagree with the fund - and imo is for the mccanns
Wasn't there a challenge thrown out = find the body prove we killed her .
imo that says it all.
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2012/03/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-find.html
I believe that was a misquote.
I also think that the chances of finding her, or what happened to her are almost zero, however much money is spent
-
I believe that was a misquote.
I also think that the chances of finding her, or what happened to her are almost zero, however much money is spent
Early days yet.
-
Early days yet.
You think 11 years is early days ?
What then would you consider as long term ?
-
You think 11 years is early days ?
What then would you consider as long term ?
21 years and more. *%87
-
21 years and more. *%87
Under the banner of OG?
-
Under the banner of OG?
No I'm just thinking that if she hasn't surfaced by the time she is 24 then we are in for the long haul.
-
The Victoria Beckham lookalike was traced https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/119414/Socialite-at-centre-of-Maddy-mystery and was eliminated from the inquiry apparently she was in Australia at the time.
I would say that is a result.
Tiresome to say the least in my opinion to resurrect the question of why the original Portuguese investigation with all the resources available to it failed to elicit enough information from the Smiths to construct a workable 'robot'.
I'm afraid if that is the best you can do to justify what is in my opinion, the obsession against having the means to fund the search for Madeleine McCann you will have to keep going. Sadly, I think you will do just exactly that.
Yes I will just as you will unfortunately fail to come up with an original point, preferring to let cut and paste do the job for you.
-
Yes I will just as you will unfortunately fail to come up with an original point, preferring to let cut and paste do the job for you.
Ignore.
-
It's important to look carefully when scrutinising company accounts. There was a misleading headline in the Daily Mail;
Where the £2m you gave to find Madeleine McCann has gone
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131284/Where-2m-gave-Madeleine-McCann-gone.html
The newspaper looked at the March 2008 accounts and used the Income figure of £ 1,846,178. This was from;
Sale of T Shirts and wristbands £ 64,078
Donations (bank) £ 1,390,360
Donations (website) £ 391,740
The bank donations, however, included a sum of £ 563,152 which had not been received as @ March 2008. It seems to have been included in anticipation of receiving money from Express Newspapers.
Actual donations, therefore, were £ 827,208 via the bank, £390.360 via the website and £ 64,078 in sales. A total of £1,281,646. Take off the costs of the sales; 35,190 and it's down to £ 1,246,456.
The headline should have said;
Where the £1.2m you gave to find Madeleine McCann has gone
The McCann's friends received £ 375k in 2008 also, which was donated to the Fund, suggesting that donations in 2008-9 fell to £254,181.
Without those libel payments the Fund would have been very small or in the red by March 2009.
-
It's important to look carefully when scrutinising company accounts. There was a misleading headline in the Daily Mail;
Where the £2m you gave to find Madeleine McCann has gone
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131284/Where-2m-gave-Madeleine-McCann-gone.html
The newspaper looked at the March 2008 accounts and used the Income figure of £ 1,846,178. This was from;
Sale of T Shirts and wristbands £ 64,078
Donations (bank) £ 1,390,360
Donations (website) £ 391,740
The bank donations, however, included a sum of £ 563,152 which had not been received as @ March 2008. It seems to have been included in anticipation of receiving money from Express Newspapers.
Actual donations, therefore, were £ 827,208 via the bank, £390.360 via the website and £ 64,078 in sales. A total of £1,281,646. Take off the costs of the sales; 35,190 and it's down to £ 1,246,456.
The headline should have said;
Where the £1.2m you gave to find Madeleine McCann has gone
The McCann's friends received £ 375k in 2008 also, which was donated to the Fund, suggesting that donations in 2008-9 fell to £254,181.
Without those libel payments the Fund would have been very small or in the red by March 2009.
Which in my opinion epitomises the ersatz nature of the speculation about 'public subscription' in relation to Madeleine's Fund.
In effect, without personal libel awards being paid into Madeleine's Fund in conjunction with the profits from Kate's book being paid into it ... in my opinion there would have been nothing there to 'scrutinise' and complain about.
Certainly giving one pause for thought as to why the McCann baiting with the fund as its root has continued unabated for eleven years.
-
Which in my opinion epitomises the ersatz nature of the speculation about 'public subscription' in relation to Madeleine's Fund.
In effect, without personal libel awards being paid into Madeleine's Fund in conjunction with the profits from Kate's book being paid into it ... in my opinion there would have been nothing there to 'scrutinise' and complain about.
Certainly giving one pause for thought as to why the McCann baiting with the fund as its root has continued unabated for eleven years.
If the fund had been transparent as it promised then there would be no need to ‘scrutinise’ and complain about. It is a situation entirely of their own making.
-
Which in my opinion epitomises the ersatz nature of the speculation about 'public subscription' in relation to Madeleine's Fund.
In effect, without personal libel awards being paid into Madeleine's Fund in conjunction with the profits from Kate's book being paid into it ... in my opinion there would have been nothing there to 'scrutinise' and complain about.
Certainly giving one pause for thought as to why the McCann baiting with the fund as its root has continued unabated for eleven years.
I thought it showed how careless journalists are when it comes to researching and writing their stories. Vanessa Allen overstated the amount donated by the public because she didn't understand the accounts.
The fact remains that the Fund received £ 2,475,369 from May 2007 to March 2009. As at March 2009 it had
£ 719,723 in the bank. It had spent £ 1,735,841 in just under two years.
It seems that at least £ 800,000 was spent on private investigators during that period, with £ 935,841 being spent elsewhere. (Cites below)
It was said by Clarence Mitchell that Metodo 3 were paid £ 50,000 per month, so by March 2008 they had been paid £300,000. (October 2007 onwards)
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mccanns-refuse-to-axe-50000-a-month-private-detectives-in-search-for-madeleine-6632100.html
Metodo 3, it is alleged, claimed to have received only £ 84,627. Only they and the Fund directors know the truth of how much they were paid.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3085.msg114663#msg114663
In March 2008 Oakley International came along. They, allegedly, received £ 500.000 for their efforts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42679242
-
If the fund had been transparent as it promised then there would be no need to ‘scrutinise’ and complain about. It is a situation entirely of their own making.
In my opinion no reasonable person would demand access to any more information than Madeleine's Fund is legally entitled to impart.
Alice has informed us of the dire financial state the fund was in prior to the money received in libel settlement being put into it ... in my opinion the cupboard was almost bare until the McCanns and their friends put that money into it.
Further to that it had to be replenished at a later date with the proceeds from the sale of Kate's book 'Madeleine' for exactly the reason that the Fund to finance the search for Madeleine was almost running on empty yet again.
In the full knowledge that without the libel payments and the book profits being paid into Madeleine's Fund there would have been no money in it at all ... how is it possible in conscience for individuals to take it upon themselves to pejoratively scrutinise it as a means in my opinion, to excoriate Madeleine's parents?
-
If the fund had been transparent as it promised then there would be no need to ‘scrutinise’ and complain about. It is a situation entirely of their own making.
In the first year the Fund was transparent and it was thoroughly scrutinised and criticised and complained about, so I would say you are mistaken.
-
In my opinion no reasonable person would demand access to any more information than Madeleine's Fund is legally entitled to impart.
Alice has informed us of the dire financial state the fund was in prior to the money received in libel settlement being put into it ... in my opinion the cupboard was almost bare until the McCanns and their friends put that money into it.
Further to that it had to be replenished at a later date with the proceeds from the sale of Kate's book 'Madeleine' for exactly the reason that the Fund to finance the search for Madeleine was almost running on empty yet again.
In the full knowledge that without the libel payments and the book profits being paid into Madeleine's Fund there would have been no money in it at all ... how is it possible in conscience for individuals to take it upon themselves to pejoratively scrutinise it as a means in my opinion, to excoriate Madeleine's parents?
The Fund has a promise on it's website which, in my opinion, it has not kept. It isn't the McCanns who have broken that promise, it's every director since May 2008. Do those seeing scrutiny of the Fund as a criticism of the McCanns believe that they are actually in control of it and the other directors are there just for show?
-
The Fund has a promise on it's website which, in my opinion, it has not kept. It isn't the McCanns who have broken that promise, it's every director since May 2008. Do those seeing scrutiny of the Fund as a criticism of the McCanns believe that they are actually in control of it and the other directors are there just for show?
Why don’t you ask them?
-
If the fund had been transparent as it promised then there would be no need to ‘scrutinise’ and complain about. It is a situation entirely of their own making.
I have seen this time and time again. Something starts out with the best of intentions but somewhere along the way the goals move for one reason or another.
-
The Fund has a promise on it's website which, in my opinion, it has not kept. It isn't the McCanns who have broken that promise, it's every director since May 2008. Do those seeing scrutiny of the Fund as a criticism of the McCanns believe that they are actually in control of it and the other directors are there just for show?
A poster made a good point yesterday to the effect that the directors should all have been completely independent of the family and especially so given the McCanns former official status within the investigation and the recent Portuguese Supreme Court clarification.
-
A poster made a good point yesterday to the effect that the directors should all have been completely independent of the family and especially given the McCanns former offcial status within the investigation.
Do you think the McCanns should have had no say in how the money raised in their daughter’s name is spent?
-
Do you think the McCanns should have had no say in how the money raised in their daughter’s name is spent?
As pointed out previously, those funds have been exhausted long ago. I would add though given the funds squandered on Oakley, Método 3 and by default, Correia, it might have been better had that happened.
-
As pointed out previously, those funds have been exhausted long ago.
There is still money in the fund, most of it raised by Kate McCann, but you don’t think she should have any say on how it is spent?
-
A poster made a good point yesterday to the effect that the directors should all have been completely independent of the family and especially so given the McCanns former official status within the investigation and the recent Portuguese Supreme Court clarification.
the SC clarification does not impy any guilt towards the mccanns...the archiving report was clear that there was no evidence of a crime by rthe mccanns. Posters here can say what they like....it is none of their business who is apponted as directors of the fund...the only complaints i here are from those who..imo...do not understand the evidence
-
There is still money in the fund, most of it raised by Kate McCann, but you don’t think she should have any say on how it is spent?
I think that's the point that was being made, money received as result of libel action should have been kept separate from the Madeleine Fund.
-
I think that's the point that was being made, money received as result of libel action should have been kept separate from the Madeleine Fund.
I think its up to the McCanns who have raised the money to decide
-
the SC clarification does not impy any guilt towards the mccanns...the archiving report was clear that there was no evidence of a crime by rthe mccanns. Posters here can say what they like....it is none of their business who is apponted as directors of the fund...the only complaints i here are from those who..imo...do not understand the evidence
The Portuguese Supreme Court declaration was unambiguous. It stated that the McCanns were wrong to claim that they had been proven innocent or cleared of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Take out of that what you may!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html
-
I think that's the point that was being made, money received as result of libel action should have been kept separate from the Madeleine Fund.
So if I’m following this correctly, you feel that money donated by the public should have been controlled by a board of directors not including the McCanns and then when all the moeney from the public got used then the McCanns should not have topped it up with money they received personally, from libel actions and book. Would you have rather the McCanns just kept the money in their own bank account and kept entirely secret how they chose to spend that money?
-
The Portuguese Supreme Court declaration was unambiguous. It stated that the McCanns were wrong to claim that they had been proven innocent or cleared of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Take out of that what you may!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html
of course they havent been proved innocent...and Im sure the mccanns never claimed that....thefact that they havent been proved innocent is no indication that thye are. i think there is alot of misunderstanding about what the mccanns lawyer cliamed...if she claimed the archiving report is evidence of innocence then i think shes absolutely right
-
So if I’m following this correctly, you feel that money donated by the public should have been controlled by a board of directors not including the McCanns and then when all the moeney from the public got used then the McCanns should not have topped it up with money they received personally, from libel actions and book. Would you have rather the McCanns just kept the money in their own bank account and kept entirely secret how they chose to spend that money?
I have pointed out what other members views are. As it is, Madeleine's fate is as yet undetermined, nobody has been prosecuted in relation to her disappearance, the investigation is still wide open.
-
I have pointed out what other members views are. As it is, Madeleine's fate is as yet undetermined, nobody has been prosecuted in relation to her disappearance, the investigation is still wide open.
I know that but what does that have to do with how the Fund is managed?
-
I have pointed out what other members views are. As it is, Madeleine's fate is as yet undetermined, nobody has been prosecuted in relation to her disappearance, the investigation is still wide open.
and according to the archiving report...and the present PJ investigation..there is no evidence against the parents...
-
of course they havent been proved innocent...and Im sure the mccanns never claimed that....thefact that they havent been proved innocent is no indication that thye are. i think there is alot of misunderstanding about what the mccanns lawyer cliamed...if she claimed the archiving report is evidence of innocence then i think shes absolutely right
The SC judges stated that the lifting of the arguido status did not mean they were innocent.
-
and according to the archiving report...and the present PJ investigation..there is no evidence against the parents...
Only they know what the current status is but 'unresolved' would be a good starter.
-
The SC judges stated that the lifting of the arguido status did not mean they were innocent.
did they claim that...a full trial and not guilty verdict doesnt prove innocence.....but there is no evidence of guilt.
-
Only they know what the current status is but 'unresolved' would be a good starter.
unresolved...but the parents are not suspects
-
If the mccanns were tried ...they would be found not guilty...so would the SC say...that doesnt mean they are innocent.....in fact the SC to my knowledge never said they were not innocent...lets stick to the facts...not myths
-
If the mccanns were tried ...they would be found not guilty...so would the SC say...that doesnt mean they are innocent.....in fact the SC to my knowledge never said they were not innocent...lets stick to the facts...not myths
off the main topic.
-
off the main topic.
then you need to speak to John who has introduced the SC to this thread
-
then you need to speak to John who has introduced the SC to this thread
Stop making waves!
-
Stop making waves!
I like a nice wave...portugal is very famous for them...Johns claims cannot go unchallenged
-
I like a nice wave...portugal is very famous for them...Johns claims cannot go unchallenged
Here's a new word "self control".
-
Here's a new word "self control".
thats two words...heres a new word...fairness...if john quotes the SC which i beleive to be incorrect then i have the right to challenge it....
-
I think its up to the McCanns who have raised the money to decide
They did. They decided to donate it to Madeleine's Fund. From that moment on it was no longer theirs and it was not up to them to decide how it was spent. Why would there be a board of directors otherwise?
-
They did. They decided to donate it to Madeleine's Fund. From that moment on it was no longer theirs and it was not up to them to decide how it was spent. Why would there be a board of directors otherwise?
so im correct in that it was up to the mccanns to decide if it should go to the fund.....from then on it WAS the directors who decide d how the funds were spent
-
The SC judges stated that the lifting of the arguido status did not mean they were innocent.
this is what the SC judges stated....
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
and if that is a correct transaltion i think it can be strongly argued that they are wrong...the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof
-
this is what the SC judges stated....
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
and if that is a correct transaltion i think it can be strongly argued that they are wrong...the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof
I see "insufficiency of evidence" to mean there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Insufficient evidence is not no evidence and is not evidence of innocence either. All IMO
-
I see "insufficiency of evidence" to mean there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Insufficient evidence is not no evidence and is not evidence of innocence either. All IMO
the archiving report said no evidence.......suspects are cleared everyday due to lack of evidence...we ahve discussed this at length....lack of evidence is evidence of innocence ...but not proof...and I have supplied evidence to support it..
john has raised the SC judgement and the question of innocence in relation to how the fund should be run...suggesting that as they were not proved innocent the mccanns should not ne involved in running the fund...in that respect the post is on topic
-
No the archiving report said they lost the chance to prove their innocence that is not the same thing at all. I am not saying they are guilty but in my mind if they donated money - libel payouts, book royalties to the fund then this should not be at their own behest to spend as they will. Spending of the money must be at the discretion of the directors in their entirety. Surely that is how a business works. Well one without a managing director anyway
As a matter of the wording on the McCanns website, why don't they simply remove the bit about transparency regarding the fund, from it and then no one will have a reason to complain. All imo.
-
No the archiving report said they lost the chance to prove their innocence that is not the same thing at all. I am not saying they are guilty but in my mind if they donated money - libel payouts, book royalties to the fund then this should not be at their own behest to spend as they will. Spending of the money must be at the discretion of the directors in their entirety. Surely that is how a business works. Well one without a managing director anyway
As a matter of the wording on the McCanns website, why don't they simply remove the bit about transparency regarding the fund, from it and then no one will have a reason to complain. All imo.
The archiving report said there was no evidence of any crime by the Mccanns. Its not up to any person here to tell the McCanns how to run the fund or their website.
-
The archiving report said there was no evidence of any crime by the Mccanns. Its not up to any person here to tell the McCanns how to run the fund or their website.
You have already mentioned the word "insufficient". Insufficient evidence is not "no evidence". Didn't the attorney general say they lost the chance to prove their innocence IIR With reference to the McCanns fund I was not telling them how to run their fund or website it was just what I would do in the interests of transparency and accountability. All still IMO.
-
We don't know as much about the financial activity as we did in the beginning. It is not a secret fund but the behaviour is such that it seems to want to hide the financial activity from the public for some strange reason. This would be the same public they ask for help to find their missing daughter.
There appears to be a secret trend here. Secret E-fits withheld, a secret fund and secret non disclosure agreements with private investigators Oakley and M3 to name but two. All very peculiar imo for something which is claimed to be just a missing child case? Just what were the McCanns afraid of??
-
You have already mentioned the word "insufficient". Insufficient evidence is not "no evidence". Didn't the attorney general say they lost the chance to prove their innocence IIR With reference to the McCanns fund I was not telling them how to run their fund or website it was just what I would do in the interests of transparency and accountability. All still IMO.
Whoever used the word "insufficient" in the first place should have put the anagram IMO alongside it.
-
You have already mentioned the word "insufficient". Insufficient evidence is not "no evidence". Didn't the attorney general say they lost the chance to prove their innocence IIR With reference to the McCanns fund I was not telling them how to run their fund or website it was just what I would do in the interests of transparency and accountability. All still IMO.
I haven't used the word insufficient... The SC did
-
Whoever used the word "insufficient" in the first place should have put the anagram IMO alongside it.
Why should they have done that if it was in an official document. By the way IMO is an acronym not an anagram. An anagram is where the letters are all mixed up. All JIMO of course.
-
I haven't used the word insufficient... The SC did
Is the SC decision merely an opinion?
-
... and still one is left to ponder why Madeleine's Fund has received such obsessive and pejorative scrutiny scrutiny for a period of eleven years.
The complete negativity towards Madeleine's Fund which used the money it had to successfully achieve its aim of paying for detectives to keep investigating Madeleine's case when no-one else was, raises the question of why the scrutineers appear to resent that success.
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
The tenacity of her parents in doing the job of the police in leaving no stone unturned in the search for a missing child is in my opinion quite remarkable.
The fact that the self appointed scrutineers of Madeleine's Fund have spent eleven years knocking them for it using in my opinion innuendo at the least brings the question of what their aims have been throughout.
It costs a lot of money to keep feet on the ground in an investigation into a kidnapping, as the complaints about the now official investigation into Madeleine's case have proved.
Is it possible there are those who object to anyone having the means to search for Madeleine McCann? I think that is a question that the scrutineers have to ask themselves.
You call employing crooks Oakley and M3 a success? @)(++(*
I would remind that had Kate McCann cooperated with the police in the first instance and those within the tapas 9 group who refused to take part in a reconstruction done so, then the enquiry might not have been shelved when it was. This being confirmed in the AG report.
-
Is the SC decision merely an opinion?
A legally binding one.
-
A legally binding one.
its legally binding up to the moment it was made but can be corrected by the ECHR....I believe two SC decisions have been corrected in the last few months
-
Posters are reminded to stay on topic. TY
-
So who appointed the mccanns as directors.
Why did he use his works address - and not his own.
Gerry McCann became a director of Madeleine's Fund on 12/11/2008, 10 April 2009
Some points to note from this document:
1) This is the electronically filed document that originated from Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.
2) Gerry McCann was appointed a director on 12/11/2008, yet, despite promising that Madeleine's Fund would be 'entirely transparent', this information was not made public until it appeared in the UK press on 17 May 2009 - following its submission to Companies House in April.
3) Instead of satisfying the Companies House requirement to state his 'usual residential address', Gerry has used his work address of Glenfield Hospital. Gerry's boss at Glenfield, Douglas Skehan, is also on the board of directors.
What we have here is a public hospital with Trust status - funded by tax payers - being used as the residential address of a director of a privately run business.
4) There is no authorising director listed, and no accompanying signature, so it remains unclear who approved Gerry McCanns' election to the board of a fund of which he, and his family, are direct beneficiaries.
5) What assurance is there that Gerry won't get involved in making financial decisions from which he and his family will benefit?
Some of this appears to be mischief making when a more focused approach might be more appropriate.
Directors are appointed by the board. The whole deal only being legal when form AP01 is filed by Companies House.
A director by law must notify Companies House of two addresses a) residential address and b)an address at whcih official papers may be served. The latter is made available to the public so many directors for reasons of privacy choose not to use their residential address.Nothing illegal nothing sinister and common practice.
The Limited Company's Registered Address was never at Glenfield Hospital.
The Fund, Foundation call it what you will is a CLG not a Charity. For all I care they can turn over every granny for her crocheting wool money and every kid for his spliff/smarties money. But.......why oh why persist with this farce of using terminolgy associated with Charities ?
-
It appears to be a decision agreed to by the board of directors.
-
It appears to be a decision agreed to by the board of directors.
On what basis do you make that statement and why would the directors want to do a thing like that?
-
On what basis do you make that statement and why would the directors want to do a thing like that?
Whatever these Companies do is a decision approved by the board at some stage isn't it?
-
Whatever these Companies do is a decision approved by the board at some stage isn't it?
What definition of "These Companies" do you rely?
Do you believe that all of "These Companies" use atypical terminology then?
-
What definition of "These Companies" do you rely?
Do you believe that all of "These Companies" use atypical terminology then?
The few that are quasi charities might.
-
Is the SC decision merely an opinion?
ARE NOT ALL JUDGEMENTS OPINIONS? Rounding up, or summation, it would be the evidence has shown... blah blah
based on facts /evidence circumstantial and /or physical, and the rule of law applying to the situation. In many cases it comes down to who does the jury/judges believe... who has the best lawyer, who has the most money to buy the best legal team... all these things count.
-
You have already mentioned the word "insufficient". Insufficient evidence is not "no evidence". Didn't the attorney general say they lost the chance to prove their innocence IIR With reference to the McCanns fund I was not telling them how to run their fund or website it was just what I would do in the interests of transparency and accountability. All still IMO.
I agree, the goalposts were moved and so the criterion changed as to how the fund would be managed. The undertaking of transparency is but a distant concept.
-
I think now so is the fund i cant really see anyone donating to it.
Even though we still don't know what it was spent on.
The thing is imo - it served its purpose and did what it was intended for.
-
I think now so is the fund i cant really see anyone donating to it.
Even though we still don't know what it was spent on.
The thing is imo - it served its purpose and did what it was intended for.
Has Madeleine been found, as that was/is the purpose of the Fund?
-
Has Madeleine been found, as that was/is the purpose of the Fund?
So not to fund litigation?
-
So not to fund litigation?
The freely rendered version of the objects stated in the Articles of Association is to "Ensure that two police forces are doing their jobs properly"...... *%87
An interesting concept.
-
The freely rendered version of the objects stated in the Articles of Association is to "Ensure that two police forces are doing their jobs properly"...... *%87
An interesting concept.
How much would be required to do that?
-
How much would be required to do that?
How long is a piece of string?
More to the point why are a bunch of civilians trying to raise public subscriptions to form an organisation that monitors a police operation?
-
How long is a piece of string?
More to the point why are a bunch of civilians trying to raise public subscriptions to form an organisation that monitors a police operation?
Lack of confidence could be one.
-
Lack of confidence could be one.
Surely you are not suggesting there is a lack of confidence in OG ?.
More disturbingly are you really suggesting that there should be "open season" on police works by any bunch of civilians with a perceived grievance?
-
Surely you are not suggesting there is a lack of confidence in OG ?.
More disturbingly are you really suggesting that there should be "open season" on police works by any bunch of civilians with a perceived grievance?
That's been happening for years.
-
That's been happening for years.
Well said, Rob
It has been happening for years as as Alice MUST know.
Now has he taken part in it? I rather think he has, but let's hear from Alice before we make judgement
-
Well said, Rob
It has been happening for years as as Alice MUST know.
Now has he taken part in it? I rather think he has, but let's hear from Alice before we make judgement
I'm not talking about OG in particular but I imagined in every country "that there should be "open season" on police works by any bunch of civilians with a perceived grievance".
-
That's been happening for years.
So you agree with the principle of "If the upholders of the law don't do what you want them to do you can take the law into your own hands" ?
-
Well said, Rob
It has been happening for years as as Alice MUST know.
Now has he taken part in it? I rather think he has, but let's hear from Alice before we make judgement
Simple question, do you and few others think you are to sit in judgement of me?
That's a rhetorical question btw.
-
The freely rendered version of the objects stated in the Articles of Association is to "Ensure that two police forces are doing their jobs properly"...... *%87
An interesting concept.
Are you for real, these arrogant parents talk about 'monitoring the police to ensure they are doing their job properly to find the daughter they apparently lost due to them not doing their job properly? OMG!! hahahahaaha
YEAH...way to ironic.
So you agree with the principle of "If the upholders of the law don't do what you want them to do you can take the law into your own hands" ?
Yes, in the McCANN CASE it is OK. But what you cannot do is monitor the McCanns to make sure they are doing their job right.. them being directors of a fund and all that.
We do have a police complaints department. or you can just use the media to trash people you don't like. ^*&&
Simple question, do you and few raggle taggle diddys'o think you are to sit in judgement of me?
That's a rhetorical question btw.
@)(++(* Alice you should know to show respect to your 'betters'...*holds sick bag.. 8(>((
-
Gerry McCann is no fool;
Expresso interview September 2008
It’s that once the suspicion is installed, we can never prove our innocence again.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccanns-in-expresso-interview.html
-
Gerry McCann is no fool;
Expresso interview September 2008
It’s that once the suspicion is installed, we can never prove our innocence again.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccanns-in-expresso-interview.html
love this bit:"They are aged three and a half, and they are very, very happy.
"
This would be the same twins who the parents claimed at the trial were not affected by their sisters disappearance, but really affected by what Amaral wrote in his book!
what about Kate saying there is nothing to suggest anything bad happened to her....Oh I was thinking along the lines of : Kidnapped by from her bed in the middle of the night by a gang of paedophiles only nice things would happen? ok no worries there then.
-
Slightly off-topic so consider myself rebuked in advance. However, should Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited (http://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215), have been properly renamed the Gerry and Kate Litigation Fund to reflect recent endeavours? Any thoughts?
-
Slightly off-topic so consider myself rebuked in advance. However, should Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited (http://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215), have been properly renamed the Gerry and Kate Litigation Fund to reflect recent endeavours? Any thoughts?
Wouldn't have the same emotive pull - except to the truly faithful.
School kids would have held onto their pocket money and little old grannies onto their pensions
-
Wouldn't have the same emotive pull - except to the truly faithful.
School kids would have held onto their pocket money and little old grannies onto their pensions
If the "transparent figures" are anything to go by I would not worry too much about the pensioners and kids.
They appear to have worked out the full S.P. and given it the bird about nine years ago.
-
Slightly off-topic so consider myself rebuked in advance. However, should Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited (http://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215), have been properly renamed the Gerry and Kate Litigation Fund to reflect recent endeavours? Any thoughts?
What is the evidence that Madeleine's Fund financed any litigation?
-
If the "transparent figures" are anything to go by I would not worry too much about the pensioners and kids.
They appear to have worked out the full S.P. and given it the bird about nine years ago.
Yes , but they were lured in to begin with.
-
What is the evidence that Madeleine's Fund financed any litigation?
The fund has been considerably depleted and since hardly anything has been spent on any search for the child I think the answer is self evident.
-
Yes , but they were lured in to begin with.
Possibly they were so too but they caught on a kin sight quicker than a lot did [apparently]..... @)(++(*
-
What is the evidence that Madeleine's Fund financed any litigation?
Well we know it financed the failed litigation against Goncalo Amaral for a start & I wonder who paid Carter Ruck's retainer?
-
Well we know it financed the failed litigation against Goncalo Amaral for a start & I wonder who paid Carter Ruck's retainer?
You were asked for evidence.
-
You were asked for evidence.
The OFM accounts and Adam Tudor’s evidence to the select committee which was posted several times on the pro bono thread.
-
You were asked for evidence.
As faithlilly said there is evidence to be found on the McCann company accounts but who asked me for evidence. The first mention of this is yourself Robittybob1. I am confused. Could you point me to where I was asked please?
I will find a link to the relevant page of the accounts if you want.
-
As faithlilly said there is evidence to be found on the McCann company accounts but who asked me for evidence. The first mention of this is yourself Robittybob1. I am confused. Could you point me to where I was asked please?
I will find a link to the relevant page of the accounts if you want.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.msg478489#msg478489 You replied to the post asking for evidence.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.msg478489#msg478489 You replied to the post asking for evidence.
So are you saying Brietta's post was requesting evidence and myself by replying was agreeing to give evidence. If so please see these links
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2010.htm
And Adam Tudor of Carter Ruck
Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm
There is the evidence. I hope this answers your post.
-
So are you saying Brietta's post was requesting evidence and myself by replying was agreeing to give evidence. If so please see these links
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2010.htm
And Adam Tudor of Carter Ruck
Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm
There is the evidence. I hope this answers your post.
So what does that prove? It doesn't actually show me the money came from the fund. If it does correct me please?
-
Allow me to reiterate ...
What is the evidence that Madeleine's Fund financed any litigation?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.msg478478#msg478478
-
Allow me to reiterate ...
What is the evidence that Madeleine's Fund financed any litigation?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.msg478478#msg478478
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2010.htm
Director’s report.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2013.htm
Director’s report.
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2010.htm
Director’s report.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2013.htm
Director’s report.
Really??? Surely that information can't possibly exist. I've been told Madeleine's Fund was opaque with no-one being able to access information or penetrate its secrecy.
What a super sleuth you must be to have penetrated the veil 8((()*/
-
Really??? Surely that information can't possibly exist. I've been told Madeleine's Fund was opaque with no-one being able to access information or penetrate its secrecy.
What a super sleuth you must be to have penetrated the veil 8((()*/
On what line is the evidence?
-
On what line is the evidence?
Robittybob1 please look at page 7 of the fund 2017 accounts under creditors: amounts falling due within one year. There is a mention of an outstanding debt with Isabel Duarte
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2017.htm
I hope this is evidence that the fund was used for litigation
creditor
ˈkrɛdɪtə/Submit
noun
a person or company to whom money is owing.
"he sold his Ferraris to pay off his creditors"
-
Robittybob1 please look at page 7 of the fund 2017 accounts under creditors: amounts falling due within one year. There is a mention of an outstanding debt with Isabel Duarte
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2017.htm
I hope this is evidence that the fund was used for litigation
creditor
ˈkrɛdɪtə/Submit
noun
a person or company to whom money is owing.
"he sold his Ferraris to pay off his creditors"
Personally I don't have a problem with that.
-
Has Madeleine been found, as that was/is the purpose of the Fund?
As you know maddie hasn't been found - seems OYO that was the purpose of the fund IMO.
Its what my mother and sister also thought - much now to there regret for ever contributing to that fund
-
Robittybob1 please look at page 7 of the fund 2017 accounts under creditors: amounts falling due within one year. There is a mention of an outstanding debt with Isabel Duarte
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2017.htm
I hope this is evidence that the fund was used for litigation
creditor
ˈkrɛdɪtə/Submit
noun
a person or company to whom money is owing.
"he sold his Ferraris to pay off his creditors"
You are wrong on one point ... it wasn't a Ferrari ... it was a Jaguar.
Snip
Consequently, following the McCann family's claim for compensation, he decided through a precautionary procedure to arrest Amaral's share of the company, a third of his salary as a manager, and even the Jaguar that the former police officer leads - but that belongs to to the firm.
The car, with a displacement of 2700cc and a price of around 70,000 euros, was bought in May and registered on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral Unipessoal Lda., With a share capital of 5000 euros. The company, established in November last year, offers consultancy, studies and analysis in the area of criminal investigation and specializes in the dissemination, promotion and communication of technical works.
https://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/tribunal-fica-com-jaguar-de-goncalo-amaral=f544234#gs.uM3Es30
But it seems that the question asked in the tread title has been well and truly answered by the volume of information being released by members ... all of which uses various years for various cites emanating from publications released in the public domain and all concerning the audited Madeleine's Fund.
Categorically proof has been provided that Madeleine's Fund is anything but "secret" ... all legitimate and above board as no doubt expected by Companies House. Glad that's one issue solved.
-
Really??? Surely that information can't possibly exist. I've been told Madeleine's Fund was opaque with no-one being able to access information or penetrate its secrecy.
What a super sleuth you must be to have penetrated the veil 8((()*/
Stop deflecting Brietta. You asked for evidence for the fund money being used for litigation. I gave you it. Now a thank you wouldn’t go amiss.
As to the fund being transparent, do we know how much has been used on the ill-fated litigation?
-
Stop deflecting Brietta. You asked for evidence for the fund money being used for litigation. I gave you it. Now a thank you wouldn’t go amiss.
As to the fund being transparent, do we know how much has been used on the ill-fated litigation?
Thank you for providing the information I requested. But don't you think it rather odd the source of your information is from Madeleine's Fund.
Make up your mind time, Faithlilly, either Madeleine's Fund is transparent or it is not ... and if it is not transparent, how is it you and others are able to access it from the public domain and quote from it?
By the way ... no deflection from me as you well know ... but you've got a bit of a conundrum going there for you.
-
Thank you for providing the information I requested. But don't you think it rather odd the source of your information is from Madeleine's Fund.
Make up your mind time, Faithlilly, either Madeleine's Fund is transparent or it is not ... and if it is not transparent, how is it you and others are able to access it from the public domain and quote from it?
By the way ... no deflection from me as you well know ... but you've got a bit of a conundrum going there for you.
No conundrum. When the fund was launched we were told that the fund would be fully transparent. Do we know the exact sum spent on litigation?
-
As you know maddie hasn't been found - seems OYO that was the purpose of the fund IMO.
Its what my mother and sister also thought - much now to there regret for ever contributing to that fund
When the Fund was launched, the McCanns were not being accused of committing crimes by every Tom, Dick & Harry & Madeleine had not been written off as dead by the investigating police force. Needs changed.
IMO.
-
Really??? Surely that information can't possibly exist. I've been told Madeleine's Fund was opaque with no-one being able to access information or penetrate its secrecy.
What a super sleuth you must be to have penetrated the veil 8((()*/
What is recorded is an absolute bare minimum and makes a mockery of the original promise of transparency.
-
There is no end to detail.
-
No conundrum. When the fund was launched we were told that the fund would be fully transparent. Do we know the exact sum spent on litigation?
"When the Fund was launched, the McCanns were not being accused of committing crimes by every Tom, Dick & Harry & Madeleine had not been written off as dead by the investigating police force. Needs changed."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.msg478572#msg478572
This is not only Misty's opinion it is a dyed in the wool fact. In my opinion events in the real world circumvent the preserved in aspic notions of internet fora ... and move on apace with circumstances.
-
When the Fund was launched, the McCanns were not being accused of committing crimes by every Tom, Dick & Harry & Madeleine had not been written off as dead by the investigating police force. Needs changed.
IMO.
Well imo needs didn't change - they knew they needed that fund from the beginning.
That is why very early on it was made into a private fund ,,,the mccns fund imo
-
Well imo needs didn't change - they knew they needed that fund from the beginning.
That is why very early on it was made into a private fund ,,,the mccns fund imo
What would you be saying if they hadn't bothered to set up a company and just banked it into their private account and spent it without telling anyone?
-
What would you be saying if they hadn't bothered to set up a company and just banked it into their private account and spent it without telling anyone?
I would say.
Oh lol - so it isn't the same thing.
-
I would say.
Oh lol - so it isn't the same thing.
Why did they set up the company rather than just bank it and have a huge personal fortune they could have spent on themselves?
-
What is recorded is an absolute bare minimum and makes a mockery of the original promise of transparency.
It provided sufficient information to enable our members to trawl it and find what they wanted ... so I think it may be less opaque than is made out.
-
Well imo needs didn't change - they knew they needed that fund from the beginning.
That is why very early on it was made into a private fund ,,,the mccns fund imo
In my opinion Madeleine's Fund did not meet the criteria for it to be a charity therefore short of banking it with friends - a propos the Amaral model - it was necessary to turn it into a Fund.
-
Why did they set up the company rather than just bank it and have a huge personal fortune they could have spent on themselves?
Actually most of the money in it was theirs anyway ... from the profits made by Kate's best seller.
-
In my opinion Madeleine's Fund did not meet the criteria for it to be a charity therefore short of banking it with friends - a propos the Amaral model - it was necessary to turn it into a Fund.
Yes - but they still had control what it was spent on...they made sure of that.
Eventually using it on what ever they wanted to use it for.
It may as well of been in there bank imo
-
Actually most of the money in it was theirs anyway ... from the profits made by Kate's best seller.
Obviously thats IYO.
IIRC The fund topped well over 3 million - donated by the public
-
Actually most of the money in it was theirs anyway ... from the profits made by Kate's best seller.
As it was announced when the book was released, all profits were to go to the Find Madeleine Fund, so technically it never really was the McCann's money.
-
Actually most of the money in it was theirs anyway ... from the profits made by Kate's best seller.
The last time we could put a proper handle on this was for 2007 through 2014.
That shows a gross income for the period of £4.25MM with £1.87MM being contributed by book sales and damages awards.
There would seem to be something wrong there somewhere with your arithmetic.
Maybe you should make a correction.......unless of course the hidden subtitle is that all documents filed at Companies House have been tampered with....... *%87
-
The last time we could put a proper handle on this was for 2007 through 2014.
That shows a gross income for the period of £4.25MM with £1.87MM being contributed by book sales and damages awards.
There would seem to be something wrong there somewhere with your arithmetic.
Maybe you should make a correction.......unless of course the hidden subtitle is that all documents filed at Companies House have been tampered with....... *%87
Well Alice, some people are good at 'google latin' and not so good at mafffs.
People were donating at the beginning to assist the family,as they felt sorry for them. I have no issue with that, or if they spent that money on the twins and gave to another charity,However, my own and others observation is: they sought to exploit this by setting up a company in the guise of searching for Madeleine -in effect they made her a 'commodity'. And they had no shame in promoting this commodity for financial gain.No sooner had they done this it was discovered that they were going to use the money for their legal defence as this was expected early on. Regarding the book- this was another 'company' promotion for financial gain. No one would be even remotely interested in KM if her daughter didn't 'disappear'. So as good authors go- she isn't one of them story telling > welll yes, good at that IMO.
-
"When the Fund was launched, the McCanns were not being accused of committing crimes by every Tom, Dick & Harry & Madeleine had not been written off as dead by the investigating police force. Needs changed."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9775.msg478572#msg478572
This is not only Misty's opinion it is a dyed in the wool fact. In my opinion events in the real world circumvent the preserved in aspic notions of internet fora ... and move on apace with circumstances.
So did the aims say ‘ we will do x,y and z with the money but remain alert because we might just change things if the need arises ?
-
So did the aims say ‘ we will do x,y and z with the money but remain alert because we might just change things if the need arises ?
It would be interesting to know why the directors decided at the end of 2011 to take away object 3.3; to provide financial assistance to Madeleine's family.
-
The last time we could put a proper handle on this was for 2007 through 2014.
That shows a gross income for the period of £4.25MM with £1.87MM being contributed by book sales and damages awards.
There would seem to be something wrong there somewhere with your arithmetic.
Maybe you should make a correction.......unless of course the hidden subtitle is that all documents filed at Companies House have been tampered with....... *%87
Thank you. I was hoping you'd make a post that really contributed one day, and it arrived. Cheers.
-
Thank you. I was hoping you'd make a post that really contributed one day, and it arrived. Cheers.
I'm no expert, but that sounds like goading to me.
-
As it was announced when the book was released, all profits were to go to the Find Madeleine Fund, so technically it never really was the McCann's money.
That is a thought ... I wonder if Madeleine's parents just didn't want to profit from her disappearance ... which had already proved a cash cow for so many.
In my opinion far better to put it into Madeleine's Fund ... at a time when only they were paying to look for her, as no-one else was bothering with an archived case.
So well done them!
But nonetheless ... don't you find it extraordinary that members have managed to get all the information they want from it for their purposes ... so logic dictates it can't be very secret.
-
I'm no expert, but that sounds like goading to me.
No more so than the multiple of posters complaining they find Alice's posts too cryptic. From one extreme to the other.
I sit here as a moderator wondering if I should delete Alice's posts, and I thought "one day there will be one I can understand", and it payed off.
-
No more so than the multiple of posters complaining they find Alice's posts too cryptic. From one extreme to the other.
I sit here as a moderator wondering if I should delete Alice's posts, and I thought "one day there will be one I can understand", and it payed off.
Ir you don't understand Alice's posts how can you say they don't 'really contribute'.
-
Ir you don't understand Alice's posts how can you say they don't 'really contribute'.
From what the others say, I do get what the posts mean. I work it out. But should we allow posts to be so difficult? How would we feel if someone wrote posts in Klingon?
The Klingon Language For Humans (Basics) https://youtu.be/s16pdi2JeqU
-
That is a thought ... I wonder if Madeleine's parents just didn't want to profit from her disappearance ... which had already proved a cash cow for so many.
In my opinion far better to put it into Madeleine's Fund ... at a time when only they were paying to look for her, as no-one else was bothering with an archived case.
So well done them!
But nonetheless ... don't you find it extraordinary that members have managed to get all the information they want from it for their purposes ... so logic dictates it can't be very secret.
Have "members found all they want from it" as you say? Personally I very much doubt it. I don't see the percentage spend on searching, on lawyers, on the "awareness campaign". IMO those who donated wouldn't expect to have to go to companies house to find the information we have found
-
From what the others say, I do get what the posts mean. I work it out. But should we allow posts to be so difficult? How would we feel if someone wrote posts in Klingon?
The Klingon Language For Humans (Basics) https://youtu.be/s16pdi2JeqU
You would prefer that posters didn't use such complex language?
-
You would prefer that posters didn't use such complex language?
Personally, I would prefer it if posters didn’t post in riddles or use off-topic esoteric and obscure references in an attempt to make themselves look oh-so-very learned, for their own amusement, but each to their own I guess.
-
Personally, I would prefer it if posters didn’t post in riddles or use off-topic esoteric and obscure references in an attempt to make themselves look oh-so-very learned, for their own amusement, but each to their own I guess.
But as a moderator I don't think it right to lose the plot and remove a post for that reason alone, but on that score I might have failed now and then.
-
Have "members found all they want from it" as you say? Personally I very much doubt it. I don't see the percentage spend on searching, on lawyers, on the "awareness campaign". IMO those who donated wouldn't expect to have to go to companies house to find the information we have found
The reality is that Madeleine's Fund was on its financial uppers prior to Kate writing a best seller ... the proceeds of which went to a bail out and enable the search for Madeleine to have a cash injection.
Snip
All proceeds from the book will go to the McCanns’ official fund to look for Madeleine, which had been in danger of running out next year.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/kate-gerry-mccann-sign-deal-3390447
In those circumstances don't you think your post reflects arrogance by claiming an unwarranted entitlement.
-
The reality is that Madeleine's Fund was on its financial uppers prior to Kate writing a best seller ... the proceeds of which went to a bail out and enable the search for Madeleine to have a cash injection.
Snip
All proceeds from the book will go to the McCanns’ official fund to look for Madeleine, which had been in danger of running out next year.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/kate-gerry-mccann-sign-deal-3390447
In those circumstances don't you think your post reflects arrogance by claiming an unwarranted entitlement.
Not particularly no. How many people bought Kate's book believing that every penny would go into the search for Madeleine. How will they know how much is spent on the search?
-
Not particularly no. How many people bought Kate's book believing that every penny would go into the search for Madeleine. How will they know how much is spent on the search?
Every penny? How foolish is that? When I bought mine I read the sticker on the front and I understood exactly what was going to continue the search for Madeleine
What makes you think that anyone who bought Kate's book has the slightest interest further than that?
-
Personally, I would prefer it if posters didn’t post in riddles or use off-topic esoteric and obscure references in an attempt to make themselves look oh-so-very learned, for their own amusement, but each to their own I guess.
You appear to be here for the same reason old stick so part of the solution is in your own hands as it were.
-
No more so than the multiple of posters complaining they find Alice's posts too cryptic. From one extreme to the other.
I sit here as a moderator wondering if I should delete Alice's posts, and I thought "one day there will be one I can understand", and it payed off.
Well they know what they can do about that don't they now.[multiple posters? are there that many on here?]
Delete the lot for all I care Rob if you are on some kind of power kick.
-
Not particularly no. How many people bought Kate's book believing that every penny would go into the search for Madeleine. How will they know how much is spent on the search?
Any organisation is going to have its administration costs to deal with.
-
That is a thought ... I wonder if Madeleine's parents just didn't want to profit from her disappearance ... which had already proved a cash cow for so many.
In my opinion far better to put it into Madeleine's Fund ... at a time when only they were paying to look for her, as no-one else was bothering with an archived case.
So well done them!
But nonetheless ... don't you find it extraordinary that members have managed to get all the information they want from it for their purposes ... so logic dictates it can't be very secret.
Absolutely not secret but how could it be ? Even they need to file accounts, even if it is the bare minimum.
What it isn’t is transparent as promised and what it hasn’t done, as promised, is used every penny to help in the search for Madeleine.
-
Absolutely not secret but how could it be ? Even they need to file accounts, even if it is the bare minimum.
What it isn’t is transparent as promised and what it hasn’t done, as promised, is used every penny to help in the search for Madeleine.
But they really don't ... they choose to do so. They could set up a society of friends to do it all for them and squirrel away every penny in a really secret account controlled by them could they not? There is precedent.
Thankfully at the moment they have used their resources so skilfully that they have achieved the end of having Madeleine looked for by those whose task it always was to do so.
I have no idea why that sticks in the craw of those who question the cost of looking for Madeleine now.
Just as I have no idea why they have opposed that there was ever money available in the first instance to enable Madeleine's parents to keep looking for the little girl that no-one else was looking for.
Funny old world.
-
Any organisation is going to have its administration costs to deal with.
Of course Robittybob1 but they didn't mention spending tens of thousands suing an ex PJ officer though.
Kate McCann in an interview
"However, in the last few months, with the depletion of Madeleine's fund, it is a decision that has virtually been taken out of our hands. Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/15/mcanns-book-search-madeleine
One reviewer on Amazon who thought she was donating to the search and didn't have a lot of money either.
I wasn't sure I wanted to buy this book as I felt I knew the story, but I wanted to donate so this was a good way of giving, not a lot to spare !! OAP and all that.
This book is well written and puts a very different light on things,made me feel if I was younger I'd be out there trying to do something to find Madeline. Hopefully one day we'll all find out where she is and best of all to have her reunited with her family.
Sandra
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R21MXI1DY0ZAAQ/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0552165158
-
That is a thought ... I wonder if Madeleine's parents just didn't want to profit from her disappearance ... which had already proved a cash cow for so many.
In my opinion far better to put it into Madeleine's Fund ... at a time when only they were paying to look for her, as no-one else was bothering with an archived case.
So well done them!
But nonetheless ... don't you find it extraordinary that members have managed to get all the information they want from it for their purposes ... so logic dictates it can't be very secret.
What is a though - is the fact they wasted so much money on trying to discredit G A.
That is why M3 were employed not to look for maddie - even though that is what everyone thought .
What was it they implied - we will have maddie home for christmas. and you say the fund not secret.
When were Metodo 3 hired and why was it kept secret for nearly 2 months?
Metodo 3 are the team of private investigators hired by the McCanns when they returned to the UK, after the Policia Judiciaria had made them 'arguidos'.
It is reported that the final bill for Metodo 3's work could be anywhere between £300,000 and £750,000 - but what were they doing for nearly two months before the McCanns announced that they had been hired?
And why was the decision to hire them, and release £300,000 of Madeleine's Funds' money, not taken by the board of directors but by Gerry McCann and the family's lawyers and financial backers?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id76.htm
-
What is a though - is the fact they wasted so much money on trying to discredit G A.
That is why M3 were employed not to look for maddie - even though that is what everyone thought .
What was it they implied - we will have maddie home for christmas. and you say the fund not secret.
When were Metodo 3 hired and why was it kept secret for nearly 2 months?
Metodo 3 are the team of private investigators hired by the McCanns when they returned to the UK, after the Policia Judiciaria had made them 'arguidos'.
It is reported that the final bill for Metodo 3's work could be anywhere between £300,000 and £750,000 - but what were they doing for nearly two months before the McCanns announced that they had been hired?
And why was the decision to hire them, and release £300,000 of Madeleine's Funds' money, not taken by the board of directors but by Gerry McCann and the family's lawyers and financial backers?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id76.htm
I think you are at risk of going off at a tangent which is what happens when you rely on opinion ... while ignoring the required caveat ... and personal prejudice (as verified by your post) to rail about the costs to Madeleine's Fund of being in the position of having to pay private investigators to investigate her case.
In my opinion your reply to my post in which I pointed out the anomaly of a missing little child being ignored by the police and thus forcing her parents to fund the search for her speaks volumes.
Where exactly does Madeleine and her rights figure in your post? in which you are using information gleaned from Madeleine's Fund which you and others insist is shrouded in secrecy.
Why is it there is no anomaly being observed here?
How is it possible to assert Madeleine's Fund is secret while using information provided by the fund to assert that secrecy?
-
But they really don't ... they choose to do so. They could set up a society of friends to do it all for them and squirrel away every penny in a really secret account controlled by them could they not? There is precedent.
Thankfully at the moment they have used their resources so skilfully that they have achieved the end of having Madeleine looked for by those whose task it always was to do so.
I have no idea why that sticks in the craw of those who question the cost of looking for Madeleine now.
Just as I have no idea why they have opposed that there was ever money available in the first instance to enable Madeleine's parents to keep looking for the little girl that no-one else was looking for.
Funny old world.
Keep looking? Do you remember the article in the Times about Metodo3 ?
Or the investigation by the Mail that found that Edgar not even carried out rudimentary questioning at the bar in Barcelona where the ‘businessman’ met the Victoria Beckham lookalike.
Or indeed the Metodo3 employs who warned the fund directors that money wasn’t being used by the company appropriately and yet the directors did nothing.
Or the report by their own investigators that stated that the Smith sighting was more important than their friend’s and that the fund should be used to follow this lead rather than Tanners but were ignored. A lead that OG subsequently followed themselves.
Looking for Madeleine? It appeared so but look a little deeper and it would seem that the money merely gave them the ability to appear to the public as if they were searching when in actuality that couldn’t have been further from the truth.
-
Keep looking? Do you remember the article in the Times about Metodo3 ?
Or the investigation by the Mail that found that Edgar not even carried out rudimentary questioning at the bar in Barcelona where the ‘businessman’ met the Victoria Beckham lookalike.
Or indeed the Metodo3 employs who warned the fund directors that money wasn’t being used by the company appropriately and yet the directors did nothing.
Or the report by their own investigators that stated that the Smith sighting was more important than their friend’s and that the fund should be used to follow this lead rather than Tanners. A position that OG themselves followed.
Looking for Madeleine? It appeared so but look a little deeper and it would appear the money merely gave them the ability to appear to the public as if they were when in actuality that couldn’t have been further from the truth.
That reflects your interpretation of events, and to do which you are entitled ... however opinion should carry a caveat.
Isn't it amazing that small firms of private detectives were unable to match the resources available to national law enforcement bodies.
Isn't it even more amazing and more remarkable that in the absence of anyone else bothering ... it was necessary that they ad to be employed to do so.
If the fund was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine ... in my opinion that is what indeed it did.
-
Absolutely not secret but how could it be ? Even they need to file accounts, even if it is the bare minimum.
What it isn’t is transparent as promised and what it hasn’t done, as promised, is used every penny to help in the search for Madeleine.
Every penny made by Kate’s book was promised to be used in the search for Madeleine so perhaps you can provide a cite to prove this promise has been broken?
-
We know what Metodo 3 brought to the party and part of it had very little to do with any search for Maddie.
What money do you think they used for investing - does anyone know what they invested in.
The Mirror reported that the fund had total assets of £714,000 - taking into account the invested $490,839.
A source told the paper: "They are making best use of the fund's remaining cash. It makes sense to make sure the money earns as much as possible."
Most of the money raised by the fund, believed to be more than £3million, has gone towards campaigns and paying private investigators to look into the case.
Since then, the couple have worked to find their daughter, slamming claims that they plan to make money from her disappearance.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3068822/maddie-mccann-parents-plough-500000-into-investment-fund-as-they-try-to-keep-hunt-for-missing-daughter-up-ten-years-since-she-disappeared/
-
But they really don't ... they choose to do so. They could set up a society of friends to do it all for them and squirrel away every penny in a really secret account controlled by them could they not? There is precedent.
Thankfully at the moment they have used their resources so skilfully that they have achieved the end of having Madeleine looked for by those whose task it always was to do so.
I have no idea why that sticks in the craw of those who question the cost of looking for Madeleine now.
Just as I have no idea why they have opposed that there was ever money available in the first instance to enable Madeleine's parents to keep looking for the little girl that no-one else was looking for.
Funny old world.
With the initial donations, well yes, but they went into serious ,marketing mode! selling wares like a REAL COMPANY. Unashamedly, doing the rounds for publicity- to increase the company's cash flow/profits. promising transparency- that never happened and neither did 'using this money to find Madeleine' did it?
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
-
Those PI firms don't come cheap.
-
Every penny made by Kate’s book was promised to be used in the search for Madeleine so perhaps you can provide a cite to prove this promise has been broken?
Its not the search for madeleine fund - its the madeleine fund..that is at the mccs disposable to use as they wish
-
Its not the search for madeleine fund - its the madeleine fund..that is at the mccs disposable to use as they wish
Their expressed wish is to search for Madeleine ... but fortunately at the moment and thanks to their efforts the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard are carrying out that task.
-
Its not the search for madeleine fund - its the madeleine fund..that is at the mccs disposable to use as they wish
I don't think using the name Madeleine was an accident- if it was called the Kate n Gerry Fund and no marketing was taking place ... well it would have perhaps have shown how much THOSE two parents were held in high esteem and for how long.
-
Their expressed wish is to search for Madeleine ... but fortunately at the moment and thanks to their efforts the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard are carrying out that task.
It wasn't an expressed wish. It was a company set up within in a short period of time- to sell a product/service and that was very specific- to search for Madeleine. on setting up that cocmpany did this take them away from their search? oh yeah they didn't search after the first night... oops forgot about that.