So who is making money out of the Madeleine McCann disappearance?

[Redblossom]

Of course ms odowd is the next person on ferrymans and others list as frauds crooksters liars and people with hard of hearing and bad memories lol, the list is getting soooooo long, almost as long as the tabloids list of suspects on this cade, which mustbe over 200 by now
 

There are 3 possibilities

1.  Law in the Irish Republic governing charitable status is different from law in England and O'dowd got the (disparate) legislations mixed up.

2. Ms O'dowd just got it plain wrong

3. Ms O'Dowd didn't write the article

Which?

4. You are in denial, oops a daisy

[ferryman]

Seems the Charity Commission is, too.

They say the same as me ...

[Redblossom]

Seems the Charity Commission is, too.

They say the same as me ...

You are wrong as always, oh well, dont worry about it dear

[Carana]

@Redblossom

What was the "little compromise" about?

[Mrs. B]

Seems the Charity Commission is, too.

They say the same as me ...

Yes, but they may by just as delusional as Scotland Yard apparently is.

[muratfan]

You are incorrect

If the Madeleine Fund were a registered charity  it would be obliged to submit full and detailed accounts to the charity commission, which would, in turn,  make the full accounts freely available to download on it's website

In submitting abbreviated accounts, therefore,  the Fund is  not following best practice requirements for charities

But the fund is not a bleeding charity. You cannot set a charity up for one person, hence it had to be a limited fund. All the tax returns and everything else submitted on time, and in accordance with the law

[gilet]

As far as I can see the fund conforms with every single law required of it. It discloses everything that is necessary.

Why should they waste time and money to satisfy the nosey parkers (anti [ censored word ]s) who think the managers of the charity should be at their beck and call?

When anyone points out a single illegal or immoral action by the fund then I will start to look into it. But no-one has ever shown a single such illegal or immoral action by the fund.

Of course there are a few other funds which have been set up related to the McCann case. Bennett has set up at least one, and there is one on behalf of Amaral I believe. None of these are in any way open to any form of legal or financial scrutiny. I feel that is quite disgraceful and I further believe that anyone who demands further exposition of the Madeleine Fund accounts which are already fully in conformity with all legal requirements and are financially scrutinised annually, is simply a rank hypocrite. When they demand scrutiny of all accounts and not just the one belonging to the McCanns then they might be worth my attention. Till then I look down on them as hypocrites.

[Carana]

Pages and pages have been devoted to the Fund aspect.

Yet surely the subject of this thread is broader than that?

What about the media in general? TV and press?

Journalists?

Wannabe journos via various blogs?

People who may have sold their latest sighting or suspicion to the media?

Those who may have been handed a comfortable sum for turning on the fan on a paper-strewn desk in front of an open window (virtually or not)?

Authors and their publishers?

Guest "experts" on a steady stream of TV chat shows?

[Mrs. B]

Putting it that way, the list is almost endless....

[Eleanor]

Have any Pros actually made any money out of  Madeleine?

[icabodcrane]

As far as I can see the fund conforms with every single law required of it. It discloses everything that is necessary.

Why should they waste time and money to satisfy the nosey parkers (anti [ censored word ]s) who think the managers of the charity should be at their beck and call?

When anyone points out a single illegal or immoral action by the fund then I will start to look into it. But no-one has ever shown a single such illegal or immoral action by the fund.

Of course there are a few other funds which have been set up related to the McCann case. Bennett has set up at least one, and there is one on behalf of Amaral I believe. None of these are in any way open to any form of legal or financial scrutiny. I feel that is quite disgraceful and I further believe that anyone who demands further exposition of the Madeleine Fund accounts which are already fully in conformity with all legal requirements and are financially scrutinised annually, is simply a rank hypocrite. When they demand scrutiny of all accounts and not just the one belonging to the McCanns then they might be worth my attention. Till then I look down on them as hypocrites.

The Fund is promoted by the McCanns on their website with the claim  that it ensures  the  "highest standards of transparency and accountability"

The Fund ( and the McCanns )  have the opportunity to justify that claim by presenting full and detailed accounts   

They don't legally  have  to file full accounts, of course,   but if they are going to claim highest standards of transparecy then they really  should be filing full accounts

Why wouldn't they, afterall  ?  ...  why wouldn't they take the opportunity to be seen  to be open and transparent where the Fund is concerned ?

[DCI]

Have any Pros actually made any money out of  Madeleine?

I don't believe so, Eleanor! 

Unless our wages count, we are always being accused of being paid, aren't we? 

[Eleanor]

Have any Pros actually made any money out of  Madeleine?

I don't believe so, Eleanor! 

Unless our wages count, we are always being accused of being paid, aren't we? 

So, apart from us and our Villas in Portugal, no one else then?  Thought not.

Apart from that and by the by, has The Inland Revenue lodged a complaint against The Fund?

[DCI]

Have any Pros actually made any money out of  Madeleine?

I don't believe so, Eleanor! 

Unless our wages count, we are always being accused of being paid, aren't we? 

So, apart from us and our Villas in Portugal, no one else then?  Thought not.

Apart from that and by the by, has The Inland Revenue lodged a complaint against The Fund?

Don't think so 

[debunker]

As far as I can see the fund conforms with every single law required of it. It discloses everything that is necessary.

Why should they waste time and money to satisfy the nosey parkers (anti [ censored word ]s) who think the managers of the charity should be at their beck and call?

When anyone points out a single illegal or immoral action by the fund then I will start to look into it. But no-one has ever shown a single such illegal or immoral action by the fund.

Of course there are a few other funds which have been set up related to the McCann case. Bennett has set up at least one, and there is one on behalf of Amaral I believe. None of these are in any way open to any form of legal or financial scrutiny. I feel that is quite disgraceful and I further believe that anyone who demands further exposition of the Madeleine Fund accounts which are already fully in conformity with all legal requirements and are financially scrutinised annually, is simply a rank hypocrite. When they demand scrutiny of all accounts and not just the one belonging to the McCanns then they might be worth my attention. Till then I look down on them as hypocrites.

The Fund is promoted by the McCanns on their website with the claim  that it ensures  the  "highest standards of transparency and accountability"

The Fund ( and the McCanns )  have the opportunity to justify that claim by presenting full and detailed accounts   

They don't legally  have  to file full accounts, of course,   but if they are going to claim highest standards of transparecy then they really  should be filing full accounts

Why wouldn't they, afterall  ?  ...  why wouldn't they take the opportunity to be seen  to be open and transparent where the Fund is concerned ?

Because hounders on the internet would do to the accounts what they did to the first set of more detailed accounts- build myths, lies and distortions.

No wonder they went to abbreviated reports after the shitstorm that followed the first set.