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

[Mrs. B]

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.

Interesting, would you happen to know where it was reported?

[Redblossom]

Im not sure of the ins and outs,

Nothing new there ....

I am honeat at least, as opposed to you
 

[Redblossom]

Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited is an Active business incorporated in England & Wales on 15th May 2007. Their business activity is recorded as Other Social Work Activities Without Accommodation N.e.c.. Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited is run by 6 current members. and 1 company secretary.  It has no share capital.  It is not part of a group.

The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/03/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £173,321, 'liabilities' worth £52,906, 'net worth' of £125,175 and 'assets' worth £178,081. Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited's risk score was amended on 16/01/2013.

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06248215

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.

Madeleine's fund time-line

Indeed and this very important analysis


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html

[Mrs. B]

The truth is that a charity cannot be set up for the benefit of ONE person. Therefore, every fund set up for any ONE missing child or person can simply not have charitable status.
http://hullcvs.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/12893154731287650571settingupacharityfaqsfactsheet_a4.pdf

There is nothing unpalatable about it as far as I am concerned.  Nor do I think the public are unaware of this fact.

[Redblossom]

The truth is that a charity cannot be set up for the benefit of ONE person. Therefore, every fund set up for any ONE missing child or person can simply not have charitable status.
http://hullcvs.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/12893154731287650571settingupacharityfaqsfactsheet_a4.pdf

There is nothing unpalatable about it as far as I am concerned.  Nor do I think the public are unaware of this fact.

The mccanns were near to be given charity status they refused it and went ahead to a plc, read enid odowds report linked earlier for the facts on this matter

[debunker]

The truth is that a charity cannot be set up for the benefit of ONE person. Therefore, every fund set up for any ONE missing child or person can simply not have charitable status.
http://hullcvs.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/12893154731287650571settingupacharityfaqsfactsheet_a4.pdf

There is nothing unpalatable about it as far as I am concerned.  Nor do I think the public are unaware of this fact.

The mccanns were near to be given charity status they refused it and went ahead to a plc, read enid odowds report linked earlier for the facts on this matter

A charity has to be for a public good and cannot be for a single person's benefit.

[ferryman]

George Galloway set up the Mariam appeal as a private company.

The charity commission investigated and found that its remit was sufficiently wide for it to be set up as a charity, but gave Galloway the benefit of the doubt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3847287.stm

The Madeleine appeal was set up exclusively for Madeleine, too narrow a remit for it be set up as a charity.

[DCI]

The truth is that a charity cannot be set up for the benefit of ONE person. Therefore, every fund set up for any ONE missing child or person can simply not have charitable status.
http://hullcvs.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/12893154731287650571settingupacharityfaqsfactsheet_a4.pdf

There is nothing unpalatable about it as far as I am concerned.  Nor do I think the public are unaware of this fact.

The mccanns were near to be given charity status they refused it and went ahead to a plc, read enid odowds report linked earlier for the facts on this matter

Is that so, Red? You really should do your homework  8-)(--)

Fund raising

Madeleine's Fund

A fund-raising company, known as Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, was launched in Leicester on 16 May 2007. The Fund is a limited company, not a registered charity, because its objectives are not wide enough to satisfy Charity Commission criteria for UK charities. The objectives include helping the extended family with their expenses (to prevent abuse, payments can only be authorised by the independent members of the board who are not family members) and continuing the investigation independently should that prove necessary. Any excess funds would be used to help search for other abducted children. The Fund's website reportedly received 58 million hits and 16,000 messages of support by 18 May, only two days after its launch. Over £1,095,000 had been raised by 30 October 2007.

[Mrs. B]

Here's Mr. Bennett on Havern's "Especial thanks to Enid O'Dowd, the accountant who wrote up an excellent analysis of the Fund. She flew over from the Irish Republic to help me. She was not allowed to be a witness for me at today's hearing, because Mr Justice Tugendhat deemed it irrelevant to the issues he had to decide. He did however say that her evidence might well be relevant at a future hearing."

Nothing to do with Bennett, indeed. Nothing at all it seems. LOL

[debunker]

BUMPED

And just who is O'Dowd?

Waht are her specific qualifications?

She is an Irish accountant. Unsure whether she specialises in English charity law. I wonder what she says anyway.

Is she chartered?

Is she with a reputable firm?

Please

Is she chartered.  In what discipline of accountancy is she?

She seems to be a polemic writer as well in Irish politics as well as being a chartered accountant.

Until we see what she claims about English charity status we shall not know how much she knows about it. Cite awaited.

[sadie]

Thank you debunker

[Mrs. B]

I'm sorry but they do really need to come up with something a bit more substantial to accuse the McCann of fund fraud. Maybe that's why nobody has seen any investigations into the fund, no arrests, no charges etc?

It certainly hasn't been due to the lack of TRYING from the anti McCann side. But sadly, no takers it seems.

[DCI]

Here's Mr. Bennett on Havern's "Especial thanks to Enid O'Dowd, the accountant who wrote up an excellent analysis of the Fund. She flew over from the Irish Republic to help me. She was not allowed to be a witness for me at today's hearing, because Mr Justice Tugendhat deemed it irrelevant to the issues he had to decide. He did however say that her evidence might well be relevant at a future hearing."

Nothing to do with Bennett, indeed. Nothing at all it seems. LOL

I think he would have done better, taking Enid Blyton 

[DCI]

I'm sorry but they do really need to come up with something a bit more substantial to accuse the McCann of fund fraud. Maybe that's why nobody has seen any investigations into the fund, no arrests, no charges etc?

It certainly hasn't been due to the lack of TRYING from the anti McCann side. But sadly, no takers it seems.

 

Lets see some of Bennetts and Amarals accounts. And what they have used them for 

[Redblossom]

Here's Mr. Bennett on Havern's "Especial thanks to Enid O'Dowd, the accountant who wrote up an excellent analysis of the Fund. She flew over from the Irish Republic to help me. She was not allowed to be a witness for me at today's hearing, because Mr Justice Tugendhat deemed it irrelevant to the issues he had to decide. He did however say that her evidence might well be relevant at a future hearing."

Nothing to do with Bennett, indeed. Nothing at all it seems. LOL

I didnt know that but in no way proves enid odowd was working for bennett when she wrote her article just that she decided to support him