Does the Madeleine Fund have a moral obligation to transparency?

[Jean-Pierre]

Do the job they're told to and paid for.

Thereby betraying a complete lack of knowledge of the function and responsibilities of an auditor.  Thank you Stephen - don't callus, we'll call you......

[stephen25000]

Thereby betraying a complete lack of knowledge of the function and responsibilities of an auditor.  Thank you Stephen - don't callus, we'll call you......

Auditors can only deal with the information they are given.

Not with with-held data.

[stephen25000]

and what of Enid O'Dowd JP ?

[Jean-Pierre]

Auditors can only deal with the information they are given.

Not with with-held data.

Have any of the accounts been qualified?

[Benice]

Apart from the sceptics who walk among us whose motives Benice has succinctly summed up ... is there anyone who really matters expressing concerns about alleged "lack of transparency" ~ for example ~ the auditors?

And what about the Inland Revenue.  I can just imagine the letters that go to them every year putting them right about the 'fraudulent fund'.

IMO the Tax inspector involved would make absolutely certain that there was nothing untoward in the accounts to prevent any possibility of a come-back at a later date.    Because of that  it is probably the case that the Fund accounts are examined far more closely than other accounts before they are approved.

AFAIK the Inland Revenue have found nothing amiss re the accounts.

The fact that the only people finding fault are sceptics - says it all IMO.   Full stop.

[Jean-Pierre]

and what of Enid O'Dowd JP ?

What of her?

[slartibartfast]

And what about the Inland Revenue.  I can just imagine the letters that go to them every year putting them right about the 'fraudulent fund'.

IMO the Tax inspector involved would make absolutely certain that there was nothing untoward in the accounts to prevent any possibility of a come-back at a later date.    Because of that  it is probably the case that the Fund accounts are examined far more closely than other accounts before they are approved.

AFAIK the Inland Revenue have found nothing amiss re the accounts.

The fact that the only people finding fault are sceptics - says it all IMO.   Full stop.

What have HMRC got to do with it? As long as they aren't incorrectly declaring income and claiming allowances, then they don't care what the fund does?

[Jean-Pierre]

What have HMRC got to do with it? As long as they aren't incorrectly declaring income and claiming allowances, then they don't care what the fund does?

I think the point is that it would be surprising  if companies house, HMRC, HaysMac et al have not received a deluge of letters and emails about the "fraudulent fund" - it will therefore have been subject to closer than usual scrutiny.

Good Audit firms are jealous of their reputation, and if in doubt about the quality of the information being provided will qualify the accounts.  I have not seen any such qualification on any of the fund accounts.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I think the point is that it would be surprising  if companies house, HMRC, HaysMac et al have not received a deluge of letters and emails about the "fraudulent fund" - it will therefore have been subject to closer than usual scrutiny.

Good Audit firms are jealous of their reputation, and if in doubt about the quality of the information being provided will qualify the accounts.  I have not seen any such qualification on any of the fund accounts.

Indeed JP.

It would be better if they had just shown themselves to be trustworthy,by being transparent  -even if they got a little criticism from zealots about buying expensive carrots or other silly items.

 They have just brought about suspicion by being 'secretive' or less open. by that I mean not breaking down income and expendature. A few rows on the trial balance is all it takes for a non trading company.

[G-Unit]

Yes they have - just not to your exacting standards.  Get over it.   *&*%£

It depends on your definition of transparent. The 2007-2008 accounts were acceptably transparent. Subsequent accounts haven't been.

[G-Unit]

              LOL ... have you ever had the auditors in??  ... rhetorical question ... quite obviously you have not.

I have worked with auditors and transparency is not one of the items they are interested in. LOL

[Miss Taken Identity]

I have worked with auditors and transparency is not one of the items they are interested in. LOL

LOL  quite. Auditors work with GIVEN figures, they do not insert them into accounts records/apps. Tsk.
also, they do not question about income or expenditure unless there is an anomaly ie over or under at trial balance.

[Alfred R Jones]

All this righteous indignation about broken promises and transparency is just a smoke-screen IMO.

You only have to read elsewhere to see how sceptics look forward with fevered anticipation to the release of the accounts.  It's as plain as day that  as far as they are concerned it's a source of ammunition - which they can then venomously fire at the McCanns.    And it's a new source - so a nice change from going over and over old stuff all the time.  They watch like vultures, their first hope being that the accounts will have been submitted late.

IMO The only reason they want to have more detailed accounts is because that will provide them with even more things to find fault with and to slag off the McCanns.    One thing they won't be doing is commenting on how transparent the accounts are.

Why on earth would the McCanns want to help them to do that!

IMO Those sceptics are complaining because the McCanns won't oblige those people whose only aim is to attack and vilify them and who use the accounts for that purpose.

Anyone who thinks that isn't the case is deluding themselves IMO.

[Alfred R Jones]

It depends on your definition of transparent. The 2007-2008 accounts were acceptably transparent. Subsequent accounts haven't been.

Do we as civilised human beings have a moral obligation not to continually keep criticising and harping on about this (non) issue until the end of days? 

[Mr Gray]

Do we as civilised human beings have a moral obligation not to continually keep criticising and harping on about this (non) issue until the end of days?

Could the mccanns be doing this on purpose. File as little information as pos then having a good laugh at the indignation of their detractors on the net.....what a brilliant idea