Is the maddie fund.... now a secret fund

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Sunny]

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.

[Robittybob1]

I haven't used the word insufficient... The SC did

Is the SC decision merely an opinion?

[Angelo222]

... 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.

[Angelo222]

Is the SC decision merely an opinion?

A legally binding one.

[Mr Gray]

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

[John]

Posters are reminded to stay on topic. TY

[Alice Purjorick]

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 ?

[Robittybob1]

It appears to be a decision agreed to by the board of directors.

[Alice Purjorick]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Alice Purjorick]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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.   

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.