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: Lace on October 11, 2018, 10:56:24 AM
-
Who started the bucket in the foyer?
34
-
Who started the bucket in the foyer?
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-sauce-said.html
-
Who started the bucket in the foyer?
Looks a bit like Gerry's handwriting too.
-
Who started the bucket in the foyer?
kmcc.........bit like there's a hole in my bucket dear liza... ...
this has been mentioned before....
-
kmcc.........bit like there's a hole in my bucket dear liza... ...
this has been mentioned before....
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.
Did the McCann's put the bucket there or the collegues of Gerry?
-
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.
Did the McCann's put the bucket there or the collegues of Gerry?
You were asking about the foyer bucket. The one at the hospital is clearly a different one.
-
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.
Did the McCann's put the bucket there or the collegues of Gerry?
so when was that done......in the first three days ....
that your post was talking about...in the first place...
-
Looks a bit like Gerry's handwriting too.
a bit doesn't say it was...
IIRC....it was established it was kmcc
-
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-sauce-said.html
Ok, but that was in July, not immediately then as xtina said in her post to me.
-
a bit doesn't say it was...
IIRC....it was established it was kmcc
One or the other.
-
Ok, but that was in July, not immediately then as xtina said in her post to me.
What are you talking about here....
The foyer bucket was there immediately......you mentioned the colleges one....
different altogether....dont twist what i said
think you better see your post ...that first mentioned the first three days....of the mccs
post 187 & 188
-
What are you talking about here....
The foyer bucket was there immediately......you mentioned the colleges one....
different altogether....dont twist what i said
you better see your post ...that first mentioned the first three days....of the mccs
post 187 & 188
This is what it says under the picture of the bucket in the foyer {not the one in the hospital that I posted about
Collection box at entrance to Ocean Club Tapas Bar in Praia da Luz, July 2007,
July not straight away at all.
-
This is what it says under the picture of the bucket in the foyer {not the one in the hospital that I posted about
Collection box at entrance to Ocean Club Tapas Bar in Praia da Luz, July 2007,
July not straight away at all.
I'm talking about the first bucket ....the staff complained it affected there tip box
put there in the first couple of days....not july
-
Just pedantry - the photo shows there was a box with Kate's handwritten notice. which shows they were responsible for putting them out. That box may very well not have been the first.
Regarding a hospital collection box, I have found no reference which shows such a box.
-
Just pedantry - the photo shows there was a box with Kate's handwritten notice. which shows they were responsible for putting them out. That box may very well not have been the first.
Regarding a hospital collection box, I have found no reference which shows such a box.
Nor have I....perhaps lace can provide a cite for that ...
seeing how she politely asks for cites on other matters...
-
a bit doesn't say it was...
IIRC....it was established it was kmcc
Not that I think it really matters ... but for the record, where and when exactly was that established?
-
Not that I think it really matters ... but for the record, where and when exactly was that established?
That is why I put....IIRC....for the record....
-
Nor have I....perhaps lace can provide a cite for that ...
seeing how she politely asks for cites on other matters...
I got the info from here - www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
Can you give me a link to where you read about a bucket being placed outside the Ocean Club in the first few days to collect money for Madeleine, which the staff complainedabout saying that their tips were affected please?
-
I got the info from here - www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id58.htm
Can you give me a link to where you read about a bucket being placed outside the Ocean Club in the first few days to collect money for Madeleine, which the staff complainedabout saying that their tips were affected please?
That just shows when the... no stone unturned fund was started.....12 may....
It wasn't outside ....
a collection bucket placed in Ocean Club reception....
-
That just shows when the... no stone unturned fund was started.....12 may....
It wasn't outside ....
a collection bucket placed in Ocean Club reception....
Link please.
-
Link please.
What for....what are you trying to prove....
That there wasn't a begging bucket in the foyer....
-
What for....what are you trying to prove....
That there wasn't a begging bucket in the foyer....
I can find no information stating that a bucket was put in the foyer of the Ocean Club in the few days following Madeleine's disappearance, please provide a link.
-
I can find no information stating that a bucket was put in the foyer of the Ocean Club in the few days following Madeleine's disappearance, please provide a link.
The fund was started by the 12th more or less 5 working days...
and you don't believe there was a bucket in the foyer...before that
gmcc was arranging a remembrance day for maddie...imo
usually done when your child is dead ....and you don't believe gmcc didn't think maddie was.....
he wanted to arrange this yet maddie could have turned up at any time if alive..........
“We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing (...) It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that.” Gerry McCann, 3 weeks after Madeleine McCann was allegedly kidnapped - picture above taken 9 days after, at Our Lady of Luz church, at a mass for Madeleine, on her birth day, 12 May 2007.
LET'S HOLD A MADELEINE DAY FOR THE WHOLE WORLD
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/looking-back-at-mccanns.html
-
The fund was started by the 12th more or less 5 working days...
and you don't believe there was a bucket in the foyer...before that
gmcc was arranging a remembrance day for maddie...imo
usually done when your child is dead ....and you don't believe gmcc didn't think maddie was.....
he wanted to arrange this yet maddie could have turned up at any time if alive..........
“We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing (...) It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that.” Gerry McCann, 3 weeks after Madeleine McCann was allegedly kidnapped - picture above taken 9 days after, at Our Lady of Luz church, at a mass for Madeleine, on her birth day, 12 May 2007.
LET'S HOLD A MADELEINE DAY FOR THE WHOLE WORLD
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/looking-back-at-mccanns.html
Where is the proof that there was a bucket in the foyer of the Ocean club that the McCann's put there in the first few days of Madeleine going missing.
Yes they wanted to hold a Madeleine day, as it was stated the media focus on Madeleine was dying down they wanted Madeleine to be remembered, not that she had died but that she was still missing!!!
So are you trying to make out that they wanted a remembrance day because they knew Madeleine was dead? It doesn't matter that they were planning something for the future, it would have been cancelled obviously if Madeleine had been found. They wanted to keep the media looking for Madeleine don't you get that?
-
Where is the proof that there was a bucket in the foyer of the Ocean club that the McCann's put there in the first few days of Madeleine going missing.
Yes they wanted to hold a Madeleine day, as it was stated the media focus on Madeleine was dying down they wanted Madeleine to be remembered, not that she had died but that she was still missing!!!
So are you trying to make out that they wanted a remembrance day because they knew Madeleine was dead? It doesn't matter that they were planning something for the future, it would have been cancelled obviously if Madeleine had been found. They wanted to keep the media looking for Madeleine don't you get that?
remembrance day.....
well what else was it.......why didn't it happen... what happened to don't forget about me.....
So they were so composed and thinking so rationally.....
yet knew maddie was not going to be found some time soon....
Source: 'The Times', May 22, 2007
-----
I wonder why John McCann gave up his full time, well-paid job, so quickly after Maddie 'disappeared', despite having a mortgage, a wife and children to support?
How did he know Maddie wouldn't be found soon?
-
remembrance day.....
well what else was it.......why didn't it happen... what happened to don't forget about me.....
So they were so composed and thinking so rationally.....
yet knew maddie was not going to be found some time soon....
Source: 'The Times', May 22, 2007
-----
I wonder why John McCann gave up his full time, well-paid job, so quickly after Maddie 'disappeared', despite having a mortgage, a wife and children to support?
How did he know Maddie wouldn't be found soon?
Erm, can you clarify that cite please xtina. Because I cant find it.
-
The campaign has two nerve centres. One is in Praia da Luz. The other is the Glasgow sitting room of John McCann, 48, who is on indefinite leave from his job as a medical rep for the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. There he fields endless e-mails and telephone calls.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/family-move-the-world-in-battle-to-bring-their-22--t2247.html
-
remembrance day.....
well what else was it.......why didn't it happen... what happened to don't forget about me.....
So they were so composed and thinking so rationally.....
yet knew maddie was not going to be found some time soon....
Source: 'The Times', May 22, 2007
-----
I wonder why John McCann gave up his full time, well-paid job, so quickly after Maddie 'disappeared', despite having a mortgage, a wife and children to support?
How did he know Maddie wouldn't be found soon?
John McCann did not give up his full time job, he went on indefinite leave and so he could have gone back at any time if Madeleine was found.
He didn't know if Madeleine would be found soon after he went on leave, that is why he didn't give up his job.
All this diverts from the question, where is the link to the bucket that you say was in front of the Ocean Club put there by the McCann's in the three days after Madeleine went missing?
-
John McCann did not give up his full time job, he went on indefinite leave and so he could have gone back at any time if Madeleine was found.
He didn't know if Madeleine would be found soon after he went on leave, that is why he didn't give up his job.
All this diverts from the question, where is the link to the bucket that you say was in front of the Ocean Club put there by the McCann's in the three days after Madeleine went missing?
Actually I have no problem with the concept of collection buckets for a good cause ... but nowhere can I find anything at all confirming the allegation made on this forum about such a bucket in the Ocean Club foyer.
In my opinion confirmation from a reputable source is required for the sake of accuracy.
-
John McCann did not give up his full time job, he went on indefinite leave and so he could have gone back at any time if Madeleine was found.
He didn't know if Madeleine would be found soon after he went on leave, that is why he didn't give up his job.
All this diverts from the question, where is the link to the bucket that you say was in front of the Ocean Club put there by the McCann's in the three days after Madeleine went missing?
obviously, there were two buckets ...I'm talking about the first one ....unfortunately has no date...
the megabucks one was started in just over a week ...so why your concern over the begging bucket...
so the begging bucket in the foyer must have kept them going.... till the money came rolling in ....
strange to call it a fighting fund .....who were they fighting lol..
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42944000/jpg/_42944719_madeleine_pa203b.jpg) (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQp8zcY7Iag/Vj8cG-hL2OI/AAAAAAAArtU/Fe6xOTHs5A8/s640/%2523McCann%2BBegging%2BBucket.jpg)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=collection+bucket+put+in+foyer+for+mccanns+in+pdl&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=rWdJ3WQHH_aeSM%253A%252CewjAck-p1qEjcM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kQrpamRXX9bGT4X-f1E-akcl79kbA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6rb3Bpv7dAhWCDuwKHaXCADYQ9QEwBHoECAYQDA#imgdii=SaGX5I3P6uC4aM:&imgrc=NcpACDsTMAx_3M:
-
Actually I have no problem with the concept of collection buckets for a good cause ... but nowhere can I find anything at all confirming the allegation made on this forum about such a bucket in the Ocean Club foyer.
In my opinion confirmation from a reputable source is required for the sake of accuracy.
as you can see in my post to lace .....there are two........
also this what jassi posted ...
so you cant have looked far......
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-sauce-said.html?m=1
-
as you can see in my post to lace .....there are two........
also this what jassi posted ...
so you cant have looked far......
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-sauce-said.html?m=1
Where did the yellow wrist bands come? And where is the long shot showing the location of the collection bucket ... which no one was placed under any duress to throw a coin into?
-
Where did the yellow wrist bands come? And where is the long shot showing the location of the collection bucket ... which no one was placed under any duress to throw a coin into?
no, no one is under duress to throw a coin into a begging bucket.....
suppose at least it was a start for them ....to go onto bigger things ...imo
-
I'm talking about the first bucket ....the staff complained it affected there tip box
put there in the first couple of days....not july
xtina the post above is what you said. 'Put there in the first couple of days' the link you have given me shows a bucket that was there in July, and a picture of another bucket which doesn't show where it was situated or at what time, you haven't given a picture or any written proof that a bucket was put outside of the Ocean Club by the McCann's in the first couple of days as you stated.
-
xtina the post above is what you said. 'Put there in the first couple of days' the link you have given me shows a bucket that was there in July, and a picture of another bucket which doesn't show where it was situated or at what time, you haven't given a picture or any written proof that a bucket was put outside of the Ocean Club by the McCann's in the first couple of days as you stated.
Look... well that just has to be tough then lace.....
I stick to what I said ...about the first bucket put in reception ...
maybe...best I put IIRC ..for you...
by the way,..... the doctor's bucket was at the hospital,,,not OC foyer...
I don't know why this bothers you so much.....
I think you should be more concerned about this...
Companies House ‘Current Appointments Report’ shows that Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited’ was created on this day:
Current Appointments Report for:
MADELEINE’S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED
06248215
company was created 12th May 2007
It was initially set up, on behalf of the McCanns, in 48 hours, by the International Family Law Group (IFLG). This does appear to be something of a rush job. When jobs are rushed mistakes can be made.
Business, charity, or scam?
“It is thought the original idea was to set the fund up as a charity but this was rejected, according to The Times, when it became clear that a charity cannot be operated for the sole benefit of one person. The Charity Commission later denied this.
One of the things that distinguishes a limited company from a charity is that it does not have all the rules and regulations which govern the conduct of the fundraising and which controls the proportion of the charities funds that are spent on overheads, expenses and wages etc.
It was also reported at the time that the Charity Commission was extremely disturbed at the way the Fund was being advertised as it gave people the impression that they were donating to a charity – not a private limited company.
The reality is, however unpalatable, that Madeleine’s Fund is a private limited company and can therefore spend the money donated in any way it so chooses. The memorandum of association is so wide that practically any expenditure could be approved by the board of directors“.
read more...
https://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2010/02/madeleine-mccann-fund-scam.html
-
By the 18th May 2007 donations were being requested by text with no mention that the fund wasn't a charity.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wvmj0JCSJVk/VsHP6mxjylI/AAAAAAAAATo/aS1MjQGpZxY/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2016-02-13%2Bat%2B11_18_08%2BAM.png)
(https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-website-for-madeleines-fund-findmadeleine-com-which-was-news-photo/833013160)
-
Neither of the buckets can have been anywhere before the 12th of May as The Fund is mentioned on both of them.
-
Neither of the buckets can have been anywhere before the 12th of May as The Fund is mentioned on both of them.
Well,... what happened to the fighting fund ....what were they fighting ....
IMO that was the start of the maddie fund to come....
doesn't prove when it was put in foyer ....more to me they had every intention of starting one ....
-
Well,... what happened to the fighting fund ....what were they fighting ....
IMO that was the start of the maddie fund to come....
doesn't prove when it was put in foyer ....more to me they had every intention of starting one ....
The McCanns started The Fund because so much money was being donated and they didn't know what else to do with it. It would have cause outrage if they had put the money in their own bank account.
-
The McCanns started The Fund because so much money was being donated and they didn't know what else to do with it. It would have cause outrage if they had put the money in their own bank account.
if they had put the money in their own bank account.
[/quote]
In my opinion ....they more or less did...
when they made it a company ....sad really when most people thought they were donating to a charity fund ...imo
-
Just as no-one was forced to contribute to Amaral's fund as far as I am aware ... no-one was forced to contribute to Madeleine's. So what on earth is all the angst about?
-
if they had put the money in their own bank account.
In my opinion ....they more or less did...
when they made it a company ....sad really when most people thought they were donating to a charity fund ...imo
It had to be a Company because the remit didn't meet Charity rules.
Are you accusing The McCanns of using the money for their own personal benefit?
-
It had to be a Company because the remit didn't meet Charity rules.
Are you accusing The McCanns of using the money for their own personal benefit?
That is perfectly within the rules.
-
Just as no-one was forced to contribute to Amaral's fund as far as I am aware ... no-one was forced to contribute to Madeleine's. So what on earth is all the angst about?
People who donated to GA fund knew exactly what it was for....
Very happy with the outcome of that donation....
Whereas I think you will find ....
there are a lot of people who donated to maddie fund
Who are angry and not very happy how it was spent etc..........IMO
-
It had to be a Company because the remit didn't meet Charity rules.
Are you accusing The McCanns of using the money for their own personal benefit?
Oh please....what do you think paid for lawyers trips abroad ...
The M3 to find things on GA...
that was for there benefit IMO ...
would they have done any of that out there own money....
-
Look... well that just has to be tough then lace.....
I stick to what I said ...about the first bucket put in reception ...
maybe...best I put IIRC ..for you...
by the way,..... the doctor's bucket was at the hospital,,,not OC foyer...
I don't know why this bothers you so much.....
I think you should be more concerned about this...
Companies House ‘Current Appointments Report’ shows that Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited’ was created on this day:
Current Appointments Report for:
MADELEINE’S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED
06248215
company was created 12th May 2007
It was initially set up, on behalf of the McCanns, in 48 hours, by the International Family Law Group (IFLG). This does appear to be something of a rush job. When jobs are rushed mistakes can be made.
Business, charity, or scam?
“It is thought the original idea was to set the fund up as a charity but this was rejected, according to The Times, when it became clear that a charity cannot be operated for the sole benefit of one person. The Charity Commission later denied this.
One of the things that distinguishes a limited company from a charity is that it does not have all the rules and regulations which govern the conduct of the fundraising and which controls the proportion of the charities funds that are spent on overheads, expenses and wages etc.
It was also reported at the time that the Charity Commission was extremely disturbed at the way the Fund was being advertised as it gave people the impression that they were donating to a charity – not a private limited company.
The reality is, however unpalatable, that Madeleine’s Fund is a private limited company and can therefore spend the money donated in any way it so chooses. The memorandum of association is so wide that practically any expenditure could be approved by the board of directors“.
read more...
https://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2010/02/madeleine-mccann-fund-scam.html
Ah, so I'm meant to believe you, nothing to back up what you said. In the first few days the McCann's as they have said were not functioning, you want me to think that they in the midst of being absolutely devastated that Madeleine went missing, they went out and put a bucket outside the reception of the Ocean Club, as you put it a 'begging bucket' well I'm sorry no I don't believe that at all, it's a myth.
Why should I be concerned by the rest of your post?
-
Oh please....what do you think paid for lawyers trips abroad ...
The M3 to find things on GA...
that was for there benefit IMO ...
would they have done any of that out there own money....
Yesterday the family's spokesman David Hughes said: "Gerry and Kate are not seeking any money from the fund for any legal costs
. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481329/McCanns-We-wont-use-Madeleine-fund-pay-legal-costs.html
-
Yesterday the family's spokesman David Hughes said: "Gerry and Kate are not seeking any money from the fund for any legal costs
. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481329/McCanns-We-wont-use-Madeleine-fund-pay-legal-costs.html
This article is dated 2007. A lot of things have changed since then.
-
This article is dated 2007. A lot of things have changed since then.
This was a discussion about events in the first few days of Madeleine’s disappearance - it helps if you read things in context.
-
This was a discussion about events in the first few days of Madeleine’s disappearance - it helps if you read things in context.
What was the date,Brian Kennedy said it would be used mainly for legal expenditure?
-
This was a discussion about events in the first few days of Madeleine’s disappearance - it helps if you read things in context.
My statement is still valid 8)--))
-
Yesterday the family's spokesman David Hughes said: "Gerry and Kate are not seeking any money from the fund for any legal costs
. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481329/McCanns-We-wont-use-Madeleine-fund-pay-legal-costs.html
And yet Brian Kennedy said on 17th May 2007 that the fund was mainly for legal expenditure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jsLkwa7cc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jsLkwa7cc)
Thank you Barrier. Now changed to Kennedy
-
What was the date,Brian Kennedy said it would be used mainly for legal expenditure?
In answering some one else you've answered my question,thank you,ps it was Kennedy not Healy
And yet Brian Kennedy said on 17th May 2007 that the fund was mainly for legal expenditure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jsLkwa7cc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jsLkwa7cc)
-
Ah, so I'm meant to believe you, nothing to back up what you said. In the first few days the McCann's as they have said were not functioning, you want me to think that they in the midst of being absolutely devastated that Madeleine went missing, they went out and put a bucket outside the reception of the Ocean Club, as you put it a 'begging bucket' well I'm sorry no I don't believe that at all, it's a myth.
Why should I be concerned by the rest of your post?
I have no interest in what YOU believe...
Or trying to convince you otherwise....
If you have no interest in my post .....just don't reply...
It's as simple as that....
-
Yesterday the family's spokesman David Hughes said: "Gerry and Kate are not seeking any money from the fund for any legal costs
. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481329/McCanns-We-wont-use-Madeleine-fund-pay-legal-costs.html
Really.... @)(++(*
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131284/Where-2m-gave-Madeleine-McCann-gone.html
That was just the start.........The libel trial was to follow
The fund spent £111,522 on legal fees and expenses and £81,904 on posters and television and newspaper adverts appealing for information about Madeleine. Mr and Mrs McCann, both 40, set up the fund in May 2007.
http://mccannfundfraud.info/2009/01/fund-pays-for-luxury-hotel/
-
In answering some one else you've answered my question,thank you,ps it was Kennedy not Healy
I wonder what legal fees he was expecting?
-
My statement is still valid 8)--))
but off topic.
-
Really.... @)(++(*
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131284/Where-2m-gave-Madeleine-McCann-gone.html
That was just the start.........The libel trial was to follow
The fund spent £111,522 on legal fees and expenses and £81,904 on posters and television and newspaper adverts appealing for information about Madeleine. Mr and Mrs McCann, both 40, set up the fund in May 2007.
http://mccannfundfraud.info/2009/01/fund-pays-for-luxury-hotel/
Legal fees did not include the McCann's lawyers, read it again.
-
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.
-
I wonder what legal fees he was expecting?
Actually he said 'legal expenditure'.
Gerry's Mum was in Rothley too on 17th May for some reason. She reported that Gerry sounded brighter. When asked why she gave several reasons.
1. 'Us' being here with 'the family'.
2. The Fund 'stacking up'
3. Gerry's boss being helpful.
-
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.
IMO the fund money was to look for maddie ....
who was looking for her when the case was shelved....
Was the mccs .........or were they too busy going after GA....
Madeleine McCann's parents launch fresh legal battle over police claims they faked daughter's abduction
Lawyer confirms money from 'Find Madeleine' fund will be used to fight ruling that failed to clear couple of involvement in child's disappearance
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-missing-abduction-parents-legal-battle-goncalo-amaral-police-claims-portugal-a7588281.html
-
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.
Brian Kennedy wasn't likely to be referring to the costs of setting up the company when he said 'mainly legal expenditure', so what else was he anticipating?
-
IMO the fund money was to look for maddie ....
who was looking for her when the case was shelved....
Was the mccs .........or were they too busy going after GA....
Madeleine McCann's parents launch fresh legal battle over police claims they faked daughter's abduction
Lawyer confirms money from 'Find Madeleine' fund will be used to fight ruling that failed to clear couple of involvement in child's disappearance
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-missing-abduction-parents-legal-battle-goncalo-amaral-police-claims-portugal-a7588281.html
Who was looking for her when the case was shelved? The McCann's were. Using the Find Madeleine fund to take telephone calls for anyone seeing a sighting of her. Then they employed private investigators.
I don't think money from the Find Madeleine fund was taken to pay for legal fees against Amaral. Richard Branson for one put a lot of money in the fighting fund for such legal costs. IMO
-
Who was looking for her when the case was shelved? The McCann's were. Using the Find Madeleine fund to take telephone calls for anyone seeing a sighting of her. Then they employed private investigators.
I don't think money from the Find Madeleine fund was taken to pay for legal fees against Amaral. Richard Branson for one put a lot of money in the fighting fund for such legal costs. IMO
Madeleine's Fund paid for Duarte's work against Amaral.
-
Madeleine's Fund paid for Duarte's work against Amaral.
Cite for that, please.
-
Who was looking for her when the case was shelved? The McCann's were. Using the Find Madeleine fund to take telephone calls for anyone seeing a sighting of her. Then they employed private investigators.
I don't think money from the Find Madeleine fund was taken to pay for legal fees against Amaral. Richard Branson for one put a lot of money in the fighting fund for such legal costs. IMO
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/public-fund-to-find-madeleine-mccann-could-be-wiped-out-if-kate-and-gerry-are-forced-to-pay-£750000-to-detective-who-claimed-they-covered-
A fund set up to help find Madeleine McCann could be wiped out if her parents lose a court case which is due to start in the next few weeks.
Kate and Gerry McCann are returning to court to fight against the ex-detective who claimed they were responsible for Madeleine's death.
If they lose the case Madeleine's parents will be forced to pay Goncalo Amaral £750,000, after he made a bid to sue them for compensation.
However it could be completely wiped out if the decision stands to award Amaral £430,000 as well as paying costs on top.
-
Cite for that, please.
You didn't know? I'm sure it's been posted quite a few times. but here you are;
Read the bottom of Page 5 of the 2016-2017 accounts.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
-
You didn't know? I'm sure it's been posted quite a few times. but here you are;
Read the bottom of Page 5 of the 2016-2017 accounts.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
Please make reference to the specific cite requested ... don't ask me to look for it. Thank you
-
Please make reference to the specific cite requested ... don't ask me to look for it. Thank you
I'm afraid it's not possible to copy or cite the exact pages on the Companies House website. I have attached the file to help you, however.
-
I'm afraid it's not possible to copy or cite the exact pages on the Companies House website. I have attached the file to help you, however.
Please note for future reference that it is appropriate when making a statement of fact to provide a cite along with your post. Thank you.
-
You didn't know? I'm sure it's been posted quite a few times. but here you are;
Read the bottom of Page 5 of the 2016-2017 accounts.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
Is it me, I can't find a page 5.
That isn't paying Amaral anyway, that's helping the McCann's.
-
Is it me, I can't find a page 5.
That isn't paying Amaral anyway, that's helping the McCann's.
G-Unit didn't say the money was for paying Goncalo Amaral Lace, she said this:
Madeleine's Fund paid for Duarte's work against Amaral.
Which it did.
Page 5 of this https://document-api-images-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/0Irp3UzkoDKD1M9-5c_x54VMWHl8ADKCyM4gBfTvy2A/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3J2KV6OHQ%2F20181016%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20181016T151243Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=FQoGZXIvYXdzED0aDPeZi1M%2FB32Ci%2FMSuSK3A%2B0ClhQyHfzDKcEeHUWJbJ9g%2BjbzFUHb0Vik%2Fsauw6VuJRKaI4xdjZ7%2FF%2B2P0cz5M5eVtMQxl%2BUWntiH7FjGLNvgZ8%2Fkyru2kWwT2C6lHaYn6%2B0tG6TuzhgCwhxxU%2BP5Ky3jx%2FJR4KyFYF6cXXGIH7Fd%2BRariExMqSm8SlkyLQmGeirSknpz7sbrjxSVlduaDDHiL1c3oMPVA6BzAmOBUu5byT6yIESW3gjHkI1rvZ2tX8dSXRk%2F1S38mQWPVh6maZ%2FIR7MZ2RvNrTBGnKUtDhC5F9W8KUQ3Mr720x47ARcbxMjaewd5glYNvCFuoni9%2Fa7iaR32P1NzVF%2F0fKstoJM2tQqpiCsj7yKs0zvzq93%2FsW9lxJH6h3FQ%2BOPVqeVmDb1zP6i37UYAb%2BUKSpG2xdmwgJg7ziXc5DMw%2FUVtFu1bziEseAA3ZWuWR[Name removed]MI50th9SaewRo%2BYNlqFUWw2u1jTpf47xkgTAt9mLdus4d%2FVYsaufX43a%2BIskqWMjdcKeMkyM7ZQnqmhvKwlkOx%2F7nWkY8Ww1BIAVDl6vxgwyKbvsvSra1MmFxw6T4HwVXl%2BlXqezpHepCgR8oiJuX3gU%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=6d01b1cc3a82c4e5d484a61e3801d6528d6b437644df836e1f9cf15e15a6a667
Shows it all.
-
G-Unit didn't say the money was for paying Goncalo Amaral Lace, she said this:
Madeleine's Fund paid for Duarte's work against Amaral.
Which it did.
Page 5 of this https://document-api-images-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/0Irp3UzkoDKD1M9-5c_x54VMWHl8ADKCyM4gBfTvy2A/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3J2KV6OHQ%2F20181016%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20181016T151243Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=FQoGZXIvYXdzED0aDPeZi1M%2FB32Ci%2FMSuSK3A%2B0ClhQyHfzDKcEeHUWJbJ9g%2BjbzFUHb0Vik%2Fsauw6VuJRKaI4xdjZ7%2FF%2B2P0cz5M5eVtMQxl%2BUWntiH7FjGLNvgZ8%2Fkyru2kWwT2C6lHaYn6%2B0tG6TuzhgCwhxxU%2BP5Ky3jx%2FJR4KyFYF6cXXGIH7Fd%2BRariExMqSm8SlkyLQmGeirSknpz7sbrjxSVlduaDDHiL1c3oMPVA6BzAmOBUu5byT6yIESW3gjHkI1rvZ2tX8dSXRk%2F1S38mQWPVh6maZ%2FIR7MZ2RvNrTBGnKUtDhC5F9W8KUQ3Mr720x47ARcbxMjaewd5glYNvCFuoni9%2Fa7iaR32P1NzVF%2F0fKstoJM2tQqpiCsj7yKs0zvzq93%2FsW9lxJH6h3FQ%2BOPVqeVmDb1zP6i37UYAb%2BUKSpG2xdmwgJg7ziXc5DMw%2FUVtFu1bziEseAA3ZWuWR[Name removed]MI50th9SaewRo%2BYNlqFUWw2u1jTpf47xkgTAt9mLdus4d%2FVYsaufX43a%2BIskqWMjdcKeMkyM7ZQnqmhvKwlkOx%2F7nWkY8Ww1BIAVDl6vxgwyKbvsvSra1MmFxw6T4HwVXl%2BlXqezpHepCgR8oiJuX3gU%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=6d01b1cc3a82c4e5d484a61e3801d6528d6b437644df836e1f9cf15e15a6a667
Shows it all.
I know what G-unit said, and I replied that is not using the fund to pay Amaral it was to pay Duarte the McCann's lawyer and so helping the McCann's. I can't get a link from what you posted.
-
G-Unit didn't say the money was for paying Goncalo Amaral Lace, she said this:
Madeleine's Fund paid for Duarte's work against Amaral.
Which it did.
Page 5 of this https://document-api-images-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/0Irp3UzkoDKD1M9-5c_x54VMWHl8ADKCyM4gBfTvy2A/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3J2KV6OHQ%2F20181016%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20181016T151243Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=FQoGZXIvYXdzED0aDPeZi1M%2FB32Ci%2FMSuSK3A%2B0ClhQyHfzDKcEeHUWJbJ9g%2BjbzFUHb0Vik%2Fsauw6VuJRKaI4xdjZ7%2FF%2B2P0cz5M5eVtMQxl%2BUWntiH7FjGLNvgZ8%2Fkyru2kWwT2C6lHaYn6%2B0tG6TuzhgCwhxxU%2BP5Ky3jx%2FJR4KyFYF6cXXGIH7Fd%2BRariExMqSm8SlkyLQmGeirSknpz7sbrjxSVlduaDDHiL1c3oMPVA6BzAmOBUu5byT6yIESW3gjHkI1rvZ2tX8dSXRk%2F1S38mQWPVh6maZ%2FIR7MZ2RvNrTBGnKUtDhC5F9W8KUQ3Mr720x47ARcbxMjaewd5glYNvCFuoni9%2Fa7iaR32P1NzVF%2F0fKstoJM2tQqpiCsj7yKs0zvzq93%2FsW9lxJH6h3FQ%2BOPVqeVmDb1zP6i37UYAb%2BUKSpG2xdmwgJg7ziXc5DMw%2FUVtFu1bziEseAA3ZWuWR[Name removed]MI50th9SaewRo%2BYNlqFUWw2u1jTpf47xkgTAt9mLdus4d%2FVYsaufX43a%2BIskqWMjdcKeMkyM7ZQnqmhvKwlkOx%2F7nWkY8Ww1BIAVDl6vxgwyKbvsvSra1MmFxw6T4HwVXl%2BlXqezpHepCgR8oiJuX3gU%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=6d01b1cc3a82c4e5d484a61e3801d6528d6b437644df836e1f9cf15e15a6a667
Shows it all.
I know what G-unit said, and I replied that is not using the fund to pay Amaral it was to pay Duarte the McCann's lawyer and so helping the McCann's. I can't get a link from what you posted.
Try again Lace. I have just had another try and it worked for me. It is a link to the fund accounts with the relevant statement on the bottom of page 5.
-
Try again Lace. I have just had another try and it worked for me. It is a link to the fund accounts with the relevant statement on the bottom of page 5.
Sorry still doesn't work for me.
-
Sorry still doesn't work for me.
Not for me either!
-
The cite was "go look it up in Companies House records".
Reasonable enough, one would have thought, for any one with the wit to do so and for those who do not make a career out of standing on their dignity.
Do you seriously believe that CH records will change just because you wish to be a stickler for arbitrary rules on a small forum ?.
Nah! It's there for all to see.
In this instance you lose and make yourself look somewhat petty minded and unwilling to accept you have lost.
I was unaware that some see the forum as a game with winners and losers. 😊 But there you go.
However if that is how it is viewed ~ all games are played to rules governing all players.
Forum rules as well as I would think, good manners, require statements posted to be supported by a cite. It isn't too difficult to achieve if one puts one's mind to it and it is for the poster to supply one supporting the post at time of posting.
If he or she neglects to do so and a cite is requested ... it is not for other members to have to take time out to search for it, it is for the poster to do so. As was done in this instance.
-
Is it me, I can't find a page 5.
That isn't paying Amaral anyway, that's helping the McCann's.
I was answering your post, which was also not about paying Amaral
snip/[post #62
"I don't think money from the Find Madeleine fund was taken to pay for legal fees against Amaral."
Well it was.
-
I was answering your post, which was also not about paying Amaral
snip/[post #62
"I don't think money from the Find Madeleine fund was taken to pay for legal fees against Amaral."
Well it was.
I was thinking more on the lines of paying costs to Amaral.
-
I was unaware that some see the forum as a game with winners and losers. 😊 But there you go.
However if that is how it is viewed ~ all games are played to rules governing all players.
Forum rules as well as I would think, good manners, require statements posted to be supported by a cite. It isn't too difficult to achieve if one puts one's mind to it and it is for the poster to supply one supporting the post at time of posting.
If he or she neglects to do so and a cite is requested ... it is not for other members to have to take time out to search for it, it is for the poster to do so. As was done in this instance.
In light of your post above, perhaps now is the moment to repeat my repeated requests for a cite to support a statement made by you?
Snip/
There is no record of it. Nor is there any record of Mr and Mrs Moyes who were in the apartment above Mrs fenn being interviewed either.
Or the people who left apartment 5J on May 4th. Does anyone even know who they were, where they went or where they are now?
Is it a fact that people left 5J on 4th May? I think a cite could be required.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9683.msg469449#msg469449
-
I was thinking more on the lines of paying costs to Amaral.
Which is the McCann's responsibility, but rumour so far suggests the Fund money could be used.
-
Not for me either!
OK This one does work
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2017.htm
Page 5 but I am sure you both already know that by now.
-
I was unaware that some see the forum as a game with winners and losers. 😊 But there you go.
However if that is how it is viewed ~ all games are played to rules governing all players.
Forum rules as well as I would think, good manners, require statements posted to be supported by a cite. It isn't too difficult to achieve if one puts one's mind to it and it is for the poster to supply one supporting the post at time of posting.
If he or she neglects to do so and a cite is requested ... it is not for other members to have to take time out to search for it, it is for the poster to do so. As was done in this instance.
Tell others about good manners and enforce the rules there instead of protecting them and I'll follow suit.
Until then I am happy to play by the "unofficial" rules which, by your silence, you condone. Points or no points.
-
I was unaware that some see the forum as a game with winners and losers. 😊 But there you go.
However if that is how it is viewed ~ all games are played to rules governing all players.
Forum rules as well as I would think, good manners, require statements posted to be supported by a cite. It isn't too difficult to achieve if one puts one's mind to it and it is for the poster to supply one supporting the post at time of posting.
If he or she neglects to do so and a cite is requested ... it is not for other members to have to take time out to search for it, it is for the poster to do so. As was done in this instance.
I must have asked for at least 6 cites in the last few days and received NONE. Brietta perhaps you could chase them up with the consistency you have chased this one.
-
I was unaware that some see the forum as a game with winners and losers. 😊 But there you go.
However if that is how it is viewed ~ all games are played to rules governing all players.
Forum rules as well as I would think, good manners, require statements posted to be supported by a cite. It isn't too difficult to achieve if one puts one's mind to it and it is for the poster to supply one supporting the post at time of posting.
If he or she neglects to do so and a cite is requested ... it is not for other members to have to take time out to search for it, it is for the poster to do so. As was done in this instance.
Yet, another senior mod advocated this was the way.
This is correct, Sadie. We cannot be expected to rehash and reprovided cites on subjects already discussed every time someone new joins.
There is an adequate Search Facility and everyone can look up another members Posts.
-
If you really want me to I will. I see Rob has created a new thread with one of them. Shall go for the others too Davel, as I remember at least 2 are requests from yourself. So not a "wsdte" of time.
-
If you really want me to I will. I see Rob has created a new thread with one of them. Shall go for the others too Davel, as I remember at least 2 are requests from yourself. So not a "wsdte" of time.
That could be the solution of this cite problem. If you want a cite start a thread asking for the cite. That then becomes the long term reference for that issue.
-
That could be the solution of this cite problem. If you want a cite start a thread asking for the cite. That then becomes the long term reference for that issue.
Is that one for each cite request Rob? Will someone ensure I get an answer as I generally haven't been getting any on here lately.
-
That could be the solution of this cite problem. If you want a cite start a thread asking for the cite. That then becomes the long term reference for that issue.
Cites aren't the problem, it's the attitudes to them that is the problem.
-
I have asked for a cite... Either provide cite or remove post as per forum rukes
OK Davel I will provide cites (of my cite requests) on a new thread. Then on that same thread I will share all the times I have requested cites from yourself and failed to have them. You will reciprocate by removing all the posts that I requested cites to- or actually giving me the requested cites.
Is that a deal?
-
OK Davel I will provide cites (of my cite requests) on a new thread. Then on that same thread I will share all the times I have requested cites from yourself and failed to have them. You will reciprocate by removing all the posts that I requested cites to- or actually giving me the requested cites.
Is that a deal?
Hmm deal or no deal...as I understand cites should be provided.. You seen to be refusing... No surprise
-
Hmm deal or no deal...as I understand cites should be provided.. You seen to be refusing... No surprise
Why is it hard Davel. I have confirmed I am prepare to give the cites for my cite requests and you will agree to answer my cite requests to you or delete posts.
I am agreeable it is you who appear to be refusing. Question is why - if it is only fun as you say it is.
-
I wouldn't let it bother you Davel. Enforcing forum rules isn't your job, your job is to follow them.
-
Still no cite. As expected
OK I am going to start a new thread. I will post my cite requests in the past few days from everyone and I will also post ALL my requests for cites from yourself. It may take a while to find them but assuming that thread doesn't get deleted it will show you for what you are davel.
-
I wouldn't let it bother you Davel. Enforcing forum rules isn't your job, tour job is to follow them.
A bit much coming from someone who was on the naughty step this week
-
A bit much coming from someone who was on the naughty step this week
Which rule did I break?
-
Which rule did I break?
Didn't you have points
-
Didn't you have points
I did, but I've no idea why. I thought you might know.
-
I have asked for a cite... Either provide cite or remove post as per forum rukes
I don't know anything about forum rukes but I have a new thread awaiting a moderator's approval.
-
You must have broken the rules then
Well I certainly hope so. I can remember the discussion which preceded the awarding of the points. I wasn't convinced that cites should be denied to new members, because I hadn't seen that in the rules. Weren't you involved btw?
-
Is that one for each cite request Rob? Will someone ensure I get an answer as I generally haven't been getting any on here lately.
At least we will be able to see if they have been answered. One thread per cite yes. See how the idea evolves.
-
I must have asked for at least 6 cites in the last few days and received NONE. Brietta perhaps you could chase them up with the consistency you have chased this one.
I am owed one from about eight weeks ago from lady herself plus a few others.
-
At least we will be able to see if they have been answered. One thread per cite yes. See how the idea evolves.
Sorry rob I have only just noticed this post. I put them all one one. Oops.
-
Tell others about good manners and enforce the rules there instead of protecting them and I'll follow suit.
Until then I am happy to play by the "unofficial" rules which, by your silence, you condone. Points or no points.
Well earned point there Alice heehee!
So bringing this back on topic as even mods are playing the disruption game!
It is very clear that many people were making money from a missing child- personally I find this vile and disgusting. April Jones's mum felt real guilt and shame for doing something which most parents do, let their children play in caul de sacs with neighbours.
The fact that the McCanns were asking for money and marketing their daughter in an aggressive push for sale tactic makes it even more vile and disgusting.
I find it quite astonishing that supporters have no qualms about top lawyers, PR teams, newspaper mo gouls- and TV executives all gaining financially,not to mention a nice earner for the McCanns and their wee shop- but hate the fact that Amaral wrote one book.
-
I am owed one from about eight weeks ago from lady herself plus a few others.
Ignore this.
-
Sorry rob I have only just noticed this post. I put them all one one. Oops.
It is all good. But do you really expect answers to your questions?
-
It is all good. But do you really expect answers to your questions?
They weren't questions Rob they were reasonable requests for cites which as per forum rules should have been provided. I didn't expect this to happen as I find that some supporters (not all) seem to despise the provision of cites and some moderators don't enforce it.
-
They weren't questions Rob they were reasonable requests for cites which as per forum rules should have been provided. I didn't expect this to happen as I find that some supporters (not all) seem to despise the provision of cites and some moderators don't enforce it.
How were we to enforce it? But if you really think the claim needs an answer, I'd start a new thread and let the topic be discussed.
-
How were we to enforce it? But if you really think the claim needs an answer, I'd start a new thread and let the topic be discussed.
What is the point if it isn't enforced though Rob. Only Misty has made an attempt to provide a cite and the others? Nothing and no penalties. It looks like to me like some supporters can't discuss things reasonably.
-
What is the point if it isn't enforced though Rob. Only Misty has made an attempt to provide a cite and the others? Nothing and no penalties. It looks like to me like some supporters can't discuss things reasonably.
There was no easy method of enforcing it. We were asked to delete the post with the claim. Major problem going back to find it. I don't have the time to do that.
-
They weren't questions Rob they were reasonable requests for cites which as per forum rules should have been provided. I didn't expect this to happen as I find that some supporters (not all) seem to despise the provision of cites and some moderators don't enforce it.
Some Moderators know that Cites have already been provided.
-
So yet more rubbish designed to derail discussion. Why is that, I wonder?
This is a Discussion Forum. Absolutes are impossible to prove and actually not required anyway, since they are mostly impossible to prove.
So could we get back to what we think might have happened, without any Libellous intention. There is too much Libel going on here for my liking. And I am no longer prepared to tolerate this.
I am a Senior Moderator, and I didn't get there by being biased toward my own kind. So do be warned. I will no longer be quite so kind.
-
OK Davel I will provide cites (of my cite requests) on a new thread. Then on that same thread I will share all the times I have requested cites from yourself and failed to have them. You will reciprocate by removing all the posts that I requested cites to- or actually giving me the requested cites.
Is that a deal?
Yet you have failed to give cites, at least once when I have aked for them, and that was since your new signature.
-
They weren't questions Rob they were reasonable requests for cites which as per forum rules should have been provided. I didn't expect this to happen as I find that some supporters (not all) seem to despise the provision of cites and some moderators don't enforce it.
How would you like it if I asked you for a cite every time you write a post? In this instance I demand cites for supprters seeimg to despise the provision of cites and some moderators not enforcing cite provision. Perhaps Rob could start a new thread for my request?
-
OK This one does work
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2017.htm
Page 5 but I am sure you both already know that by now.
What do you mean 'I am sure you both already know that by now' the other link definitely did not work for me. This one does. They are paying Duarte money she had earned over a number of years, she was helping the McCann's.
-
What do you mean 'I am sure you both already know that by now' the other link definitely did not work for me. This one does. They are paying Duarte money she had earned over a number of years, she was helping the McCann's.
The Fund was paying legal expenses incurred by the McCann family, not by the Fund itself. If I was a director of a company I wouldn't expect the company to pay for me to sue someone for libelling me.
-
How would you like it if I asked you for a cite every time you write a post? In this instance I demand cites for supprters seeimg to despise the provision of cites and some moderators not enforcing cite provision. Perhaps Rob could start a new thread for my request?
We don't ask for cites for opinions.
When Sunny says "I didn't expect this to happen as I find that some supporters (not all) seem to despise the provision of cites and some moderators don't enforce it", that is obvious her opinion.
-
What do you mean 'I am sure you both already know that by now' the other link definitely did not work for me. This one does. They are paying Duarte money she had earned over a number of years, she was helping the McCann's.
IMO this is why the fund was started in the first place....
and made into a private company.
how does anyone know what that money was spent on....
-
IMO this is why the fund was started in the first place....
and made into a private company.
how does anyone know what that money was spent on....
Hmmm ... that explains why Kate deposited the profits from her best selling book into the fund set up for Madeleine.
Bit of a strange way of getting her hands on her own money I would have thought ... but it takes all kinds
-
Hmmm ... that explains why Kate deposited the profits from her best selling book into the fund set up for Madeleine.
Bit of a strange way of getting her hands on her own money I would have thought ... but it takes all kinds 🤣
This post is my opinion only.
If all my efforts were directed at convincing people that I was innocent of any wrongdoing I would need to appear to be beyond reproach. Writing a book and donating all the profits to a good cause might give that impression.
If my family and I are able to influence how my donation is used, and if I and my family benefit from that use, then
my actions might be seen as self-interested rather than philanthropic.
-
This post is my opinion only.
If all my efforts were directed at convincing people that I was innocent of any wrongdoing I would need to appear to be beyond reproach. Writing a book and donating all the profits to a good cause might give that impression.
If my family and I are able to influence how my donation is used, and if I and my family benefit from that use, then
my actions might be seen as self-interested rather than philanthropic.
But I doubt kates intentions are trying to convince anyone of anything
-
This post is my opinion only.
If all my efforts were directed at convincing people that I was innocent of any wrongdoing I would need to appear to be beyond reproach. Writing a book and donating all the profits to a good cause might give that impression.
If my family and I are able to influence how my donation is used, and if I and my family benefit from that use, then
my actions might be seen as self-interested rather than philanthropic.
In my opinion they achieved the impossible when their tireless efforts on Madeleine's behalf resulted in Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria reviewing Madeleine's case.
This led to the full blown investigation into Madeleine's disappearance we have today. RESULT!! I would say ~ and impossible without Madeleine's parents and the fund set up on her behalf.
-
How would you like it if I asked you for a cite every time you write a post? In this instance I demand cites for supprters seeimg to despise the provision of cites and some moderators not enforcing cite provision. Perhaps Rob could start a new thread for my request?
Seem = opinion.
-
Hmmm ... that explains why Kate deposited the profits from her best selling book into the fund set up for Madeleine.
Bit of a strange way of getting her hands on her own money I would have thought ... but it takes all kinds
what else could she do ....the book was written for the fund....
people bought it ...to add to the fund....
but don't forget the money it seems still belonged to the mccs...
to spend IMO how they wished .....
-
what else could she do ....the book was written for the fund....
people bought it ...to add to the fund....
but don't forget the money it seems still belonged to the mccs...
to spend IMO how they wished .....
How the fund directors decided.
-
How the fund directors decided.
seems the account of what it was spent on are still well overdue ...are they not....
-
what else could she do ....the book was written for the fund....
people bought it ...to add to the fund....
but don't forget the money it seems still belonged to the mccs...
to spend IMO how they wished .....
She could have administered her money from her own private bank account or taken a leaf out of Amaral's friends' book who opened a private account where appeal money from public donations for him was deposited ... ??
She didn't have to put her own money into the public domain subject to law ... but she did.
-
Seem = opinion.
Sunny seems to be quite mistaken.
-
IMO this is why the fund was started in the first place....
and made into a private company.
how does anyone know what that money was spent on....
Rubbish, the fund was set up as so many people wanted to help find Madeleine, where were they supposed to put all the money donated? The hospital where Gerry worked donated £10,000.
Richard Branson and others give a lot of money to meet lawyers fees.
Where does it say they paid court costs out of the fund?
-
Rubbish, the fund was set up as so many people wanted to help find Madeleine, where were they supposed to put all the money donated? The hospital where Gerry worked donated £10,000.
Richard Branson and others give a lot of money to meet lawyers fees.
Where does it say they paid court costs out of the fund?
the book is still there ....he won...
the mccs were not cleared of any involvement ....
says it all really ....
-
the book is still there ....he won...
the mccs were not cleared of any involvement ....
says it all really ....
Amaral said that the British police agreed with his conclusion, then he goes on to say the British police wanted to follow the abduction, that is why he got annoyed and why he was removed. Make up his mind.
-
How the fund directors decided.
The Fund directors at the moment are;
Family members;
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Brian Kennedy
Family friends;
Jon Corner
Other;
Edward Smethurst
John Griffin
The McCann family could be said to have a majority on the board at present.
-
The Fund directors at the moment are;
Family members;
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Brian Kennedy
Family friends;
Jon Corner
Other;
Edward Smethurst
John Griffin
The McCann family could be said to have a majority on the board at present.
How so?
-
The Fund directors at the moment are;
Family members;
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Brian Kennedy
Family friends;
Jon Corner
Other;
Edward Smethurst
John Griffin
The McCann family could be said to have a majority on the board at present.
Three of the founding directors, namely, John McCann, Esther McVey and Doug Skehan subsequently left the Fund leaving only the parents and Brian McCann as part of the original Company.
Madeleine Fund Won't Pay For Legal Costs
7:11am UK, Thursday September 13, 2007
Money from the Find Madeleine campaign will not be used to fund Kate and Gerry McCann's legal costs, the trustees have announced.
They announced the decision after discussing the matter at a special meeting.
The McCanns had already said they would not use the cash - more than £1m - to pay any legal bills, even if the trust had let them.
But the trustees decided to meet anyway to consider whether the money could be used in principle.
Fund director Esther McVey said the decision had been taken despite legal advice that it would be legally permissible to use the money for a legal defence.
She said the trustees understood that as well as a "legal answer" there was a "spirit which underlies the generous donations to Madeleine's fund", which it was their responsibility to steer.
Ms McVey thanked contributors to the fund for their kindness, support and generosity, and then explained that the fund had been set up to find Madeleine, support the McCanns and bring the abductor to justice.
She stressed that the McCanns had not asked to use the money to pay for their legal costs, and went on to say that any future fund set up to pay such costs would have to be separately administered.
A family spokesman earlier confirmed the McCanns would not seek to use the money to pay their legal bills.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/madeleine-fund-wont-pay-for-legal-costs.html
-
In my opinion they achieved the impossible when their tireless efforts on Madeleine's behalf resulted in Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria reviewing Madeleine's case.
This led to the full blown investigation into Madeleine's disappearance we have today. RESULT!! I would say ~ and impossible without Madeleine's parents and the fund set up on her behalf.
Documenting what has happened as a result of the McCann's efforts says nothing about the motives driving those efforts.
-
Documenting what has happened as a result of the McCann's efforts says nothing about the motives driving those efforts.
What do you think their motives are for being instrumental in achieving the launching full scale police investigations in two countries into Madeleine's disappearance?
-
The Fund directors at the moment are;
Family members;
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Brian Kennedy
Family friends;
Jon Corner
Other;
Edward Smethurst
John Griffin
The McCann family could be said to have a majority on the board at present.
That would make it a bit easier to have funds spent on legal costs and liabilities.
-
What do you think their motives are for being instrumental in achieving the launching full scale police investigations in two countries into Madeleine's disappearance?
They asked for an independent, transparent and comprehensive review of the case. I have seen no evidence of them asking for a full scale police investigation in two countries.
-
That would make it a bit easier to have funds spent on legal costs and liabilities.
Directors are expected to make decisions which benefit the company. Some might think that directors who were demonstrably unconnected with the case might be more likely to put the company's interests first. The important question is whether the Fund benefited from spending it's assets on the legal costs incurred by the McCann's decision to sue Amaral.
-
Rubbish, the fund was set up as so many people wanted to help find Madeleine, where were they supposed to put all the money donated? The hospital where Gerry worked donated £10,000.
Richard Branson and others give a lot of money to meet lawyers fees.
Where does it say they paid court costs out of the fund?
They were given the £10,000 from the hospital but why did they feel the need to put the begging bucket out in PDL, create a new Ltd company and call it a fund, and launch it in a blaze of publicity. Why did they need to keep the running total on the front page of their website and ask for donations on the same page.
This wasn't just a response to some money being given it was a huge request for more IMO.
-
They asked for an independent, transparent and comprehensive review of the case. I have seen no evidence of them asking for a full scale police investigation in two countries.
Why would guilty people ask for an independent, transparent and comprehensive review of their own crimes, knowing full well that this might lead to the investigation into their crimes being reopened? How exactly do you rationalise that one to yourself and others?
-
They were given the £10,000 from the hospital but why did they feel the need to put the begging bucket out in PDL, create a new Ltd company and call it a fund, and launch it in a blaze of publicity. Why did they need to keep the running total on the front page of their website and ask for donations on the same page.
This wasn't just a response to some money being given it was a huge request for more IMO.
The larger the target audience the more probability there is of receiving the desired result ... as the Amaral donation request sites have proved.
As we have seen financing investigation into a missing child case most certainly does not come cheap and the McCanns were tasked with financing their own when no-one else was bothered ... right from the archiving in 2008 until Madeleine's case was officially opened by Scotland Yard in 2013.
No mean feat for two private individuals in keeping Madeleine's case going for six years on the strength of fund raising.
Exactly what is it you resent about their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye over that period? How do you suggest they might have achieved that without money to do it with?
-
Why would guilty people ask for an independent, transparent and comprehensive review of their own crimes, knowing full well that this might lead to the investigation into their crimes being reopened? How exactly do you rationalise that one to yourself and others?
I didn't bother to respond to that one (I think) even although it was addressed to me because in my opinion it is too self evident to be bothered with.
-
The larger the target audience the more probability there is of receiving the desired result ... as the Amaral donation request sites have proved.
As we have seen financing investigation into a missing child case most certainly does not come cheap and the McCanns were tasked with financing their own when no-one else was bothered ... right from the archiving in 2008 until Madeleine's case was officially opened by Scotland Yard in 2013.
No mean feat for two private individuals in keeping Madeleine's case going for six years on the strength of fund raising.
Exactly what is it you resent about their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye over that period? How do you suggest they might have achieved that without money to do it with?
we are not discussing GA fund ....isn't that off topic.....
so that is all they were doing for six years.....appealing for money....
and starting a libel case .....out of the funds....
still not actually looking for maddie it seems....imo
-
The larger the target audience the more probability there is of receiving the desired result ... as the Amaral donation request sites have proved.
As we have seen financing investigation into a missing child case most certainly does not come cheap and the McCanns were tasked with financing their own when no-one else was bothered ... right from the archiving in 2008 until Madeleine's case was officially opened by Scotland Yard in 2013.
No mean feat for two private individuals in keeping Madeleine's case going for six years on the strength of fund raising.
Exactly what is it you resent about their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye over that period? How do you suggest they might have achieved that without money to do it with?
I don't resent their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye but question why they thought it necessary to create and publicise the fund and keep the fund totals on the front of the website whilst asking for more money.
Did they know whether Madeleine would be found dead or alive on the 12th May 2007. No they didn't and police in the UK and Portugal were working on the case so why the immediate need for £millions. Perhaps you can explain that as that was the point of my post.
Goncalo Amaral's fund was to help him fight (and win) his case against the McCanns. Any money was given soley for that use and it enabled him to do it. This was of course whilst the McCanns had ensured his assets were frozen for years.
-
I don't resent their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye but question why they thought it necessary to create and publicise the fund and keep the fund totals on the front of the website whilst asking for more money.
Did they know whether Madeleine would be found dead or alive on the 12th May 2007. No they didn't and police in the UK and Portugal were working on the case so why the immediate need for £millions. Perhaps you can explain that as that was the point of my post.
Goncalo Amaral's fund was to help him fight (and win) his case against the McCanns. Any money was given soley for that use and it enabled him to do it. This was of course whilst the McCanns had ensured his assets were frozen for years.
You have not answered the question as to how the parents of a missing child can keep an investigation going without the enabling resource of finance.
The rest of your post is easily explained with reference to the first of many headlines on May 5th of "The Badly Told Story" which in my opinion flags up the forthcoming storm of the mismanagement of Madeleine's case.
-
You have not answered the question as to how the parents of a missing child can keep an investigation going without the enabling resource of finance.
The rest of your post is easily explained with reference to the first of many headlines on May 5th of "The Badly Told Story" which in my opinion flags up the forthcoming storm of the mismanagement of Madeleine's case.
How many millions does it take to keep a missing childs story in the public eye, Brietta? I was barely aware of the case at the time but I was aware of the millions being donated and the requests for more. As regards the "Badly Told Story" part of your post I don't believe that had any input in their reasons for wanting the fund.
IMO the intention was to use it "mainly for legal expenses" as Brian Kennedy said.
-
How many millions does it take to keep a missing childs story in the public eye, Brietta? I was barely aware of the case at the time but I was aware of the millions being donated and the requests for more. As regards the "Badly Told Story" part of your post I don't believe that had any input in their reasons for wanting the fund.
IMO the intention was to use it "mainly for legal expenses" as Brian Kennedy said.
The fund paid for "feet on the ground" such as no doubt invoiced by Halligen's company which actually may have carried out some valuable work.
There has been constant furore about the cost of Operation Grange since inception.
Therefore logic dictates that conducting a missing child investigation costs a great deal more than buttons and in my opinion the constant complaints about financing such a venture shows a side of human nature which I find most unappealing.
Contributions to Madeleine's fund were voluntary ... contributions to Amaral's fund were voluntary ... to criticise one while condemning the other is in my opinion ... illogical.
-
I didn't bother to respond to that one (I think) even although it was addressed to me because in my opinion it is too self evident to be bothered with.
Actually my post was addressed to G-Unit, though I'm not expecting an answer as she tends not to like questions like that from me.
-
Directors are expected to make decisions which benefit the company. Some might think that directors who were demonstrably unconnected with the case might be more likely to put the company's interests first. The important question is whether the Fund benefited from spending it's assets on the legal costs incurred by the McCann's decision to sue Amaral.
I would correct you.. The directors ate responsible for making decisions that benefit the aims of the company... The McCann's believed the court case would... Which is reasonable IMO... They could not predict the court would come up with such an unreasonable decision.. Imo
-
Directors are expected to make decisions which benefit the company. Some might think that directors who were demonstrably unconnected with the case might be more likely to put the company's interests first. The important question is whether the Fund benefited from spending it's assets on the legal costs incurred by the McCann's decision to sue Amaral.
I think you are wrong on two points... Directors should make decisions which benefit the AIMS of the company and no one has shown their decisions were not genuine... The important question is not has, the fund benefitted... It's whether it was a reasonable thing to do... That's, a matter of opinion
-
Director's duties are fairly well defined in The Companies Act 2006.
-
Director's duties are fairly well defined in The Companies Act 2006.
And without looking the mccanns have not been judged to have contravened the act
-
And without looking the mccanns have not been judged to have contravened the act
Why do you mention the McCanns? They are just two of six directors. You make it sound as if they're in charge. @)(++(*
-
And without looking the mccanns have not been judged to have contravened the act
Did I say they had? They would need to be charged first would they not?
I posted the CH reference because it defines directors duties properly.
-
Why would guilty people ask for an independent, transparent and comprehensive review of their own crimes, knowing full well that this might lead to the investigation into their crimes being reopened? How exactly do you rationalise that one to yourself and others?
IMO they wanted a review expecting to be given all of the evidence in the original investigation by the police carrying it out. They probably never expected that it would turn into a full investigation. Remember they had already gone to court trying to get the evidence from the Leicestershire police and they failed because the police stated that although one or both could be innocent, there was no evidence which excluded from the case.
-
IMO they wanted a review expecting to be given all of the evidence in the original investigation by the police carrying it out. They probably never expected that it would turn into a full investigation. Remember they had already gone to court trying to get the evidence from the Leicestershire police and they failed because the police stated that although one or both could be innocent, there was no evidence which excluded from the case.
Why would calling for a full and exhaustive review by the police give the McCanns full and exhaustive access to all the evidence? Sorry that doesn’t really make any sense to me. Where is the precedent for this?
-
Where was the precedence in asking Leicester police for information?
There has to be a first time for everything.
-
Where was the precedence in asking Leicester police for information?
There has to be a first time for everything.
Not on this manor!
If it hasn't happened before it can't happen @)(++(* [remember the old mantra]
-
Where was the precedence in asking Leicester police for information?
There has to be a first time for everything.
I don’t think you quite understand. We are being asked to believe that the only reason the McCanns asked for a full and exhaustive review of the evidence was so that they could get their grubby mitts on all the evidence. What gave them the idea that that would happen as a result of a police review? Where is the precedent for that, which they would have based their hopes on?
-
I don’t think you quite understand. We are being asked to believe that the only reason the McCanns asked for a full and exhaustive review of the evidence was so that they could get their grubby mitts on all the evidence. What gave them the idea that that would happen as a result of a police review? Where is the precedent for that, which they would have based their hopes on?
Smart-arse lawyers probably
-
How many millions does it take to keep a missing childs story in the public eye, Brietta? I was barely aware of the case at the time but I was aware of the millions being donated and the requests for more. As regards the "Badly Told Story" part of your post I don't believe that had any input in their reasons for wanting the fund.
IMO the intention was to use it "mainly for legal expenses" as Brian Kennedy said.
That article was in a Portuguese paper and may not have been read by the McCanns at all.
-
They asked for an independent, transparent and comprehensive review of the case. I have seen no evidence of them asking for a full scale police investigation in two countries.
They couldn't ask for an investigation as that would have required new evidence... By asking fir a review it made it possible to look for new evidence... I thought you would have realised that
-
They couldn't ask for an investigation as that would have required new evidence... By asking fir a review it made it possible to look for new evidence... I thought you would have realised that
Perhaps you can explain why the McCanns didn't request the Portuguese police to carry out a review Davel.
-
Smart-arse lawyers probably
Law is based on precedent isn’t it? So for lawyers to tell the McCans that a full police review would result in them getting full access to the case files must be based on something more than wishful thinking surely?
-
The parents must have known that with the case shelved in Portugal and SY having no jurisdiction there if a review was granted it would be toothless. However it would make people think ‘well if they were guilty why would they have asked for a review ‘.
TBH I don’t think the parents believed a review would be granted and when Rebecca Brooks suggested the Sun spearhead a campaign in conjunction with the book serialisation to force the PM’s hand what could they say ?
-
The parents must have known that with the case shelved in Portugal and SY having no jurisdiction there if a review was granted it would be toothless. However it would make people think ‘well if they were guilty why would they have asked for a review ‘.
TBH I don’t think the parents believed a review would be granted and when Rebecca Brooks suggested the Sun spearhead a campaign in conjunction with the book serialisation to force the PM’s hand what could they say ?
So why ask for one in the first place? Why relentlessly try and keep the spotlight on your own crimes? Surely by asking for a review there is a real risk you will get one? It’s madness!
-
So why ask for one in the first place? Why relentlessly try and keep the spotlight on your own crimes? Surely by asking for a review there is a real risk you will get one? It’s madness!
Your post illustrates exactly why someone would ask for a review.
-
The parents must have known that with the case shelved in Portugal and SY having no jurisdiction there if a review was granted it would be toothless. However it would make people think ‘well if they were guilty why would they have asked for a review ‘.
TBH I don’t think the parents believed a review would be granted and when Rebecca Brooks suggested the Sun spearhead a campaign in conjunction with the book serialisation to force the PM’s hand what could they say ?
Thank you.
They must have been over the moon at such help, but Cameron seemed very much in support of the review to me. Are you sure he was "forced" ? Cos it didn't seem that way to me.
-
Your post illustrates exactly why someone would ask for a review.
Erm? Are we understanding the same language ? Your answer doesn't make sense to me.
-
So why ask for one in the first place? Why relentlessly try and keep the spotlight on your own crimes? Surely by asking for a review there is a real risk you will get one? It’s madness!
I think the idea was to shine a spotlight on the mishandling of crimes against children and the mistreatment of the McCanns by the authorities and by the media.
There are lessons to be learned for the future, in terms of both the handling of crimes against children and the
treatment we have received from the authorities and the media, and if some good can come out of our
experience, it is that the mistakes made will not be repeated.[madeleine]
If that's what Kate McCann was expecting from the review she's doomed to be disappointed in my opinion.
-
Thank you.
They must have been over the moon at such help, but Cameron seemed very much in support of the review to me. Are you sure he was "forced" ? Cos it didn't seem that way to me.
So you didn't watch Leveson then sadie. I had no interest in the case at the time but I did with the Leveson Enquiry and hacking.
-
So you didn't watch Leveson then sadie. I had no interest in the case at the time but I did with the Leveson Enquiry and hacking.
I posted this sometime ago:
https://www.scribd.com/document/93242009/Full-Transcript-of-Rebekah-Brooks-Testimony-to-Leveson-Inquiry
from roughly page 96 to about 120 as I recall.
Lest we forget.. 8(0(*
-
Perhaps you can explain why the McCanns didn't request the Portuguese police to carry out a review Davel.
they didnt trust them ..
-
they didnt trust them ..
Infamy,infamy,they've all got it in for me.
-
they didnt trust them ..
I wonder if the feeling was mutual Davel.