Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[slartibartfast]

This is simply not true.

From the cite it appears to be.

[mercury]

From the cite it appears to be.

Indeed it does, the mccans refused the charity status it seems which is in direct opposition to ferrymans alledged they had no choice

[Alfie]

Indeed it does, the mccans refused the charity status it seems which is in direct opposition to ferrymans alledged they had no choice

so to be clear, you're suggesting that a charity can be legally registered to raise funds to find one individual person?

[Alfie]

Instead of relying on Enid O'Dowd cites, perhaps some of you should read the following government guidelines on setting up a charity and then tell me how a fund to find one child could qualify as a charity?

The public benefit requirement
Your charity’s ‘purpose’ is what it is set up to achieve. For an organisation to be a charity, each of its purposes must be for the public benefit. The Charities Act 2011 calls this the ‘public benefit requirement’.

The public benefit requirement has two aspects:

The ‘benefit aspect’
To satisfy this aspect:

a purpose must be beneficial - this must be in a way that is identifiable and capable of being proved by evidence where necessary and which is not based on personal views
any detriment or harm that results from the purpose (to people, property or the environment) must not outweigh the benefit - this is also based on evidence and not on personal views
The ‘public aspect’
To satisfy this aspect the purpose must:

benefit the public in general, or a sufficient section of the public - what is a ‘sufficient section of the public’ varies from purpose to purpose
not give rise to more than incidental personal benefit - personal benefit is ‘incidental’ where (having regard both to its nature and to its amount) it is a necessary result or by-product of carrying out the purpose
In general, for a purpose to be a charitable purpose it must satisfy both the benefit and the public aspects. However, charities for the relief (and in some cases the prevention) of poverty need only satisfy the benefit aspect.

[mercury]

so to be clear, you're suggesting that a charity can be legally registered to raise funds to find one individual person?

Im not suggesting anything, i posted a link to a professional accountant who said the commission were willing to do so,take it up with them

[mercury]

Instead of relying on Enid O'Dowd cites, perhaps some of you should read the following government guidelines on setting up a charity and then tell me how a fund to find one child could qualify as a charity?

The public benefit requirement
Your charity’s ‘purpose’ is what it is set up to achieve. For an organisation to be a charity, each of its purposes must be for the public benefit. The Charities Act 2011 calls this the ‘public benefit requirement’.

The public benefit requirement has two aspects:

The ‘benefit aspect’
To satisfy this aspect:

a purpose must be beneficial - this must be in a way that is identifiable and capable of being proved by evidence where necessary and which is not based on personal views
any detriment or harm that results from the purpose (to people, property or the environment) must not outweigh the benefit - this is also based on evidence and not on personal views
The ‘public aspect’
To satisfy this aspect the purpose must:

benefit the public in general, or a sufficient section of the public - what is a ‘sufficient section of the public’ varies from purpose to purpose
not give rise to more than incidental personal benefit - personal benefit is ‘incidental’ where (having regard both to its nature and to its amount) it is a necessary result or by-product of carrying out the purpose
In general, for a purpose to be a charitable purpose it must satisfy both the benefit and the public aspects. However, charities for the relief (and in some cases the prevention) of poverty need only satisfy the benefit aspect.

What a waste of bandwidth
The POINT is the mccanns were apparently given the chance to make it a charity, do keep up

[Alfie]

Im not suggesting anything, i posted a link to a professional accountant who said the commission were willing to do so,take it up with them

You posted a link to a well known McCann basher's internet blog, I'd take everything written in it with a large pinch of salt if I were you.

[Brietta]

Im not suggesting anything, i posted a link to a professional accountant who said the commission were willing to do so,take it up with them

Then your professional accountant quite obviously needs to do a refresher course on the legislation relating to setting up a charity.

Any fundraising for an individual cannot be done by setting up a charity as this only
benefits one person (i.e. it is not for public benefit). For more information about methods
to fundraise for an individual, please go to: www.institute-offundraising.org.uk/fundraisingforanindividual.

[Alfie]

What a waste of bandwidth
The POINT is the mccanns were apparently given the chance to make it a charity, do keep up

Given a chance to bend the rules and set up a charity to benefit one person, namely Madeleine McCann?  Please let's have a direct cite for that that doesn't come from a sceptic blog, many thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[mercury]

You posted a link to a well known McCann basher's internet blog, I'd take everything written in it with a large pinch of salt if I were you.

Try and be accurate,  posted a lnk to a specific analysis, dint matter where it came from

[mercury]

Then your professional accountant quite obviously needs to do a refresher course on the legislation relating to setting up a charity.

Any fundraising for an individual cannot be done by setting up a charity as this only
benefits one person (i.e. it is not for public benefit). For more information about methods
to fundraise for an individual, please go to: www.institute-offundraising.org.uk/fundraisingforanindividual.

Shes not MY professional accountant, she just is one, and I suggest you READ the accoutn and then counter anythng in it instead of asking ME as IM bot an accountant just a messenger ok?

[Alice Purjorick]

Try this for size. More tomorrow 
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-set-up-a-charity-cc21a

[mercury]

Given a chance to bend the rules and set up a charity to benefit one person, namely Madeleine McCann?  Please let's have a direct cite for that that doesn't come from a sceptic blog, many thanks in advance for your cooperation.

The facts are contaned therein
Im sure the hmrc will not be sending soca  or the squad police..did you actually read  as far as who offered them charity status? And they refused????

[ShiningInLuz]

I doubt very much that the journalist for CMTV said anything of the sort. I was interviewed by them 2 years ago in Praia da Luz and I was asked what I thought had happened to Madeleine. The journalist certainly did not give his opinion about the case, that is not their job. That would have been highly unprofessional on their part. BTW there have been articles in CdM about the botched burglary theory.

Then look up the piece CdMTV did in Luz on the 9th anniversary and we will have it straight from the horse's mouth.

Or it's about what was discussed with me, and your opinion of how journalists conduct themselves.  Neither of which really matters.

[ShiningInLuz]

So if you think the McCanns dunnit then that automatically means you think Amaral's a top fella, is that how it works?  OK, so let's move the debate on to the UK - how popular is Amaral with the GBP do you think?

Outside a certain small and vociferous percentage of the UK population, I would think he is almost unheard of.

When it comes to that small percentage of the population, I would think, judging by everything I can see, he is more popular.

This is not a popularity contest.

The issue was PR, and whether Amaral or the McCanns are better at it.  The McCanns have been much more prominent in the UK, but they have managed too many PR gaffes.  They don't need Amaral to win.  They simply need to stop losing.

Relating this to the thread topic, the McCanns are akin to playing a game of sport that will only ever be played under Portuguese rules, without understanding those rules, whilst Amaral does.

Nowt to do with the case.  Everything to do with the damages trial.