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: faithlilly on September 03, 2015, 12:20:24 PM
-
Madeleine McCann's parents ready to continue search if police end investigation into her disappearance
(http://i.imgur.com/Bf313qt.jpg?1)
2 September 2015
A spokesman said the couple accepted police could not continue to fund an investigation indefinitely and have set aside cash to continue the search themselves.
The parents of Madeleine McCann are preparing for the police probe into their daughter’s disappearance to be shelved, their spokesman said today.
Kate and Gerry McCann continue to pump thousands of pounds into a special fund for use when the official investigation, codenamed Operation Grange and launched more than four years ago, finally ends.
Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said today: “They realise it cannot go on forever.”
He added: “Kate and Gerry remain incredibly grateful to the Met Police for their continuing work and effort and are grateful to everyone who continues to make Operation Grange possible.
“The Government and police make the decision about funding, it is not Kate and Gerry’s role.”
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”
A source close to the family said: “Kate and Gerry firmly believe Madeleine could still be alive and when the police investigation ends, they have vowed to continue looking for her.
"They don’t know when this will be, there has been so suggestion yet, but they want to be ready and have set aside huge chunks of money for this reason.”
Three-year-old Maddie was snatched during a family holiday in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007. She would now be aged 12.
As Maddie’s parents brace themselves for being told Operation Grange will end, the family source said: “Kate and Gerry know the investigation will come to an end at some point, especially with police budget cuts but they haven’t been advised when.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The Home Office remains committed to supporting the search for Madeleine McCann.
"Over the last four years we have given the Metropolitan Police the resources they say they need to investigate her disappearance, and we continue to do so.”
Sources in Portugal today insisted there was no evidence to suggest Operation Grange was going to be shelved in the short or medium term.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-ready-continue-6370581
Clarence Michell is quoted in the article as saying that the McCanns have moved huge amounts of money from the Find Madeleine Fund into another account to be used for the search for Madeleine if SY close their investigation. As the original fund was set up to search for Madeleine why the need for another account ?
Is it possible that the recent press reports around the cost of the investigation is simply to proffer a reason why large amounts of money are being transferred from the Fund ? Clarence Mitchell could have said nothing, he chose not to and I for one find that highly significant.
Post edited
161
-
I imagine that The McCanns have done this to achieve the maximum amount of interest possible while it sits there. While they wait so see for how long Scotland Yard are able to pursue the disappearance of their daughter.
-
I imagine that The McCanns have done this to achieve the maximum amount of interest possible while it sits there. While they wait so see for how long Scotland Yard are able to pursue the disappearance of their daughter.
If so why not open a high interest account in the name of the Fund?
Mr Mitchell said: ".In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search"
-
I imagine that The McCanns have done this to achieve the maximum amount of interest possible while it sits there. While they wait so see for how long Scotland Yard are able to pursue the disappearance of their daughter.
So why not have the whole of the fund in a high interest account to begin with ?
-
Who says another fund has been started?
Perhaps one has for some reason... No idea.
-
If so why not open a high interest account in the name of the Fund?
Mr Mitchell said: ".In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search"
How do you know that it isn't?
-
Who says another fund has been started?
Perhaps one has for some reason... No idea.
Some of the money from the fund is certainly being siphoned off to another account. Mitchell has told us as much.
-
So why not have the whole of the fund in a high interest account to begin with ?
Some ongoing bills to pay, I expect. The On Line Shop is still in action. They have transaction to deal with.
-
Some of the money from the fund is certainly being siphoned off to another account. Mitchell has told us as much.
No, what he said was 'kept back from the Fund'. That suggests money which would have been paid into the Fund hasn't been paid in, it's been 'kept back'.
-
Some of the money from the fund is certainly being siphoned off to another account. Mitchell has told us as much.
So what are we talking about? An ear-marked amount of money if Op Grange closes down? A reserved-access bank account? A new and separate legal entity?
-
No, what he said was 'kept back from the Fund'. That suggests money which would have been paid into the Fund hasn't been paid in, it's been 'kept back'.
Some of Kate's Book Money, I expect. Her's to do with as she pleases. So she has probably stashed it in a high interest account.
-
No, what he said was 'kept back from the Fund'. That suggests money which would have been paid into the Fund hasn't been paid in, it's been 'kept back'.
No this is what he said G-Unit :
'He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.'
-
Some of Kate's Book Money, I expect. Her's to do with as she pleases. So she has probably stashed it in a high interest account.
So the comment on the book dust cover about royalties from the book going to "The Fund" was a load of kidology then ?
-
Is the "Mirror" a reliable source of information?
-
Is the "Mirror" a reliable source of information?
Of course it is. The McCanns were once 37 years old, after all. ;)
-
So the comment on the book dust cover about royalties from the book going to "The Fund" was a load of kidology then ?
Not necessarily. I am certain that it will be used to find Madeleine wherever it is.
-
Is the "Mirror" a reliable source of information?
That depends on whether or not it is saying what you want to hear.
It used to do a nice line in elephant jokes at the bottom of Rex North's column each day.
-
No this is what he said G-Unit :
'He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.'
Where is the verbatim quote that confirms this statement?
-
Is the "Mirror" a reliable source of information?
I think the direct quote from Mitchell is.
-
I think the direct quote from Mitchell is.
Which says?
-
Where is the verbatim quote that confirms this statement?
Where is the retraction of an inaccurate quote ?
-
Where is the retraction of an inaccurate quote ?
Which quote?
-
Am I reading the wrong article?
The Mirror
Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”
A source close to the family said: “Kate and Gerry firmly believe Madeleine could still be alive and when the police investigation ends, they have vowed to continue looking for her.
"They don’t know when this will be, there has been so suggestion yet, but they want to be ready and have set aside huge chunks of money for this reason.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-ready-continue-6370581
-
Where is the retraction of an inaccurate quote ?
Inaccurate quote? Which quote is inaccurate?
-
Not necessarily. I am certain that it will be used to find Madeleine wherever it is.
In Here? Restricted fund
Excerpt:
(see Note 5 on page 8) are for 'the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id475.html
-
No this is what he said G-Unit :
'He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.'
The whole quote is;
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.
When they say 'he told' it's not a direct quote. The second paragraph is what he actually said. Kept back or moved? There's a difference isn't there. Kept back means it never reached the fund. Moved means it reached the Fund and was then removed. Kept back means the money never came under the control of the Trustees (some of them might wonder which money had been kept back if they read the article. Moved means all the Trustees had to agree. The money in the Fund doesn't belong to the parents, after all.
-
The whole quote is;
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.
When they say 'he told' it's not a direct quote. The second paragraph is what he actually said. Kept back or moved? There's a difference isn't there. Kept back means it never reached the fund. Moved means it reached the Fund and was then removed. Kept back means the money never came under the control of the Trustees (some of them might wonder which money had been kept back if they read the article. Moved means all the Trustees had to agree. The money in the Fund doesn't belong to the parents, after all.
Thanks.
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.
Is that it?
This thread is entitled: Why Do the McCanns Need Another Fund ?
I'm still confused.
-
Thanks.
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.
Is that it?
This thread is entitled: Why Do the McCanns Need Another Fund ?
I'm still confused.
Me too. The Fund is for the search, so all the money in it is for the search. Why would any money be either moved or kept back therefore? Is it another non-story?
-
Perhaps they are about to do a runner to South America. That seems to be the favourite place for people who are about to be arrested and don't want to be extradited.
Or there's always The Ecuadorian Embassy if whatshisname budges up a bit.
-
The whole quote is;
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.
When they say 'he told' it's not a direct quote. The second paragraph is what he actually said. Kept back or moved? There's a difference isn't there. Kept back means it never reached the fund. Moved means it reached the Fund and was then removed. Kept back means the money never came under the control of the Trustees (some of them might wonder which money had been kept back if they read the article. Moved means all the Trustees had to agree. The money in the Fund doesn't belong to the parents, after all.
I'm sure all will be revealed in the fullness of time G-Unit.
-
Me too. The Fund is for the search, so all the money in it is for the search. Why would any money be either moved or kept back therefore? Is it another non-story?
Questions may have been:
Now that Op Grange is investigating, what's the purpose of keeping the Fund open for Madeleine?
And / or (later): If Op Grange shuts down, what are you going to do?
Answer: Keep funds back (retain funds) to carry on if that situation happens.
-
Thanks.
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.
Is that it?
This thread is entitled: Why Do the McCanns Need Another Fund ?
I'm still confused.
I'm not in the least confused ... I think it is yet another thread with the sole purpose of denigrating Madeleine McCann's parents.
-
I'm not in the least confused ... I think it is yet another thread with the sole purpose of denigrating Madeleine McCann's parents.
But don't they give us so much opportunity Brietta.
-
But don't they give us so much opportunity Brietta.
They're the gift that just keeps on giving.
-
They're the gift that just keeps on giving.
That's what tabloids do: create a rumpus out of nothing, then make up another story to state the latest non-scoop wasn't true.
-
But don't they give us so much opportunity Brietta.
yes, simply breathing in and breathing out is plenty!
-
They're the gift that just keeps on giving.
A candid admission that opportunities to slag off the McCanns are seen as gifts by the "sceptic" community! Why do you think Clarence handed you the ammunition on this occasion?
-
A candid admission that opportunities to slag off the McCanns are seen as gifts by the "sceptic" community! Why do you think Clarence handed you the ammunition on this occasion?
????? !!!!!
-
A candid admission that opportunities to slag off the McCanns are seen as gifts by the "sceptic" community! Why do you think Clarence handed you the ammunition on this occasion?
Or maybe just for once he told the the truth. Now there's a novel concept.
-
????? !!!!!
what's the problem - keyboard jamming?
-
Or maybe just for once he told the the truth. Now there's a novel concept.
Clarence tell the truth?! Impossible surely!
-
Clarence tell the truth?! Impossible surely!
You'd think wouldn't you !!
-
Clarence tell the truth?! Impossible surely!
Remember Blair, remember Mitchell.
2 of a kind. 8(0(*
-
You'd think wouldn't you !!
So you think Clarence is lying to the Mirror do you? &%+((£
-
So you think Clarence is lying to the Mirror do you? &%+((£
I think he's spinning the truth for reasons yet to be ascertained.
-
I think he's spinning the truth for reasons yet to be ascertained.
of course you do! @)(++(*
-
That's what tabloids do: create a rumpus out of nothing, then make up another story to state the latest non-scoop wasn't true.
They would have nothing to write if someone didn't feed them something to write about, so in this case, why did anyone tell them about the Fund and changes to it? Rather than just say, the search will continue? Under our own expense.
Must admit, it is a bit of a conundrum....it's not as if the Fund is really low in monies and/or the directors are worried that the almost negligible costs of merchandise,eg, which many will have stopped ordering for a few years now, and paying for a phone line and other such low cost items are going to strip it of huge resources needed for new investigators or any other major expense? I am sure Enid is working on it as we speak though.
As for interest, if this was the reason, it will have been done a long time ago, and if anyone knows of any UK banks that pay high interest, give us a tip
@)(++(*
-
I think he's spinning the truth for reasons yet to be ascertained.
Well could it be anything to do with the fact that the appeal court has just agreed to hear Mr Amaral's appeal?
-
Well could it be anything to do with the fact that the appeal court has just agreed to hear Mr Amaral's appeal?
how are the two things linked in your view?
-
how are the two things linked in your view?
PR people are employed to use their experience to know what to release and when to do it. They are rarely random occurrences.
-
So you think Clarence is lying to the Mirror do you? &%+((£
I believe that it is a preemptive strike by Clarence. It is possible that an investigation is being made into the fund and they found out about these monies being taken out of it.
It seems to me that the McCanns, according to this article, don't seem too upset about the possibility of the investigation coming to a close. How strange, since they accused GA of hampering the search.
-
I believe that it is a preemptive strike by Clarence. It is possible that an investigation is being made into the fund and they found out about these monies being taken out of it.
It seems to me that the McCanns, according to this article, don't seem too upset about the possibility of the investigation coming to a close. How strange, since they accused GA of hampering the search.
We all interpret things in different ways...
To me, The Sun is on some warpath for whatever reason (more London policing / less "wastage" vis-à-vis the police / Home Office (who's the editor these days?) and Madeleine is collateral damage.
Other tabloids saw an easy opportunity to ride on the tail wind of the still-lucrative "Madeleine" key word.
The Mirror attempts a quick, vaguely sympathetic, cut and paste of various comments that Clarence has made before, in the wake: if the investigation were to shut down, the McCanns would carry on themselves thanks to money that they still have in the Fund.
Evidently, the use of the words "kept back" by the journo appears suspicious to some.
Yet others appear to find that it was to deflect attention in case the world's media cancelled all front-page headlines on major news to lead with "McCann fury: Ex-cop Amaral's appeal request rubberstamped to higher court".
-
PR people are employed to use their experience to know what to release and when to do it. They are rarely random occurrences.
The above is true imo. They don't simply put out a press release with random words for no purpose. These PR people always choose their words very carefully and usually have an agenda or strategy. What that is is up for debate imo...
Could just be that the investigation is near to winding down and hope to get more money in to continue the search. Could be the fund is being investigated. Could be, could be... We all agree there is some purpose behind these words, or no?
-
The above is true imo. They don't simply put out a press release with random words for no purpose. These PR people always choose their words very carefully and usually have an agenda or strategy. What that is is up for debate imo...
Could just be that the investigation is near to winding down and hope to get more money in to continue the search. Could be the fund is being investigated. Could be, could be... We all agree there is some purpose behind these words, or no?
How do you know this article was the result of a press release.
All I see is the usual wild speculation.
-
I assume it must be. PR guys don't just go around gabbing to whoever will listen imo. That would be unprofessional and this is Clarence Mitchell and he's supposed to be good at his job. Everything is stage managed and prepared, so I don't see how this couldn't be a press release of some kind unless the papers made it up. I agree on the speculation point though, but what else is there?
-
How do you know this article was the result of a press release.
All I see is the usual wild speculation.
What press release?
They are rehashed stories dating back to the run-up to the UK elections.
-
In the mirror article it details that Clarence Mitchell said today, yada, yada, yada...
Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said today: “They realise it cannot go on forever.”
He added: “Kate and Gerry remain incredibly grateful to the Met Police for their continuing work and effort and are grateful to everyone who continues to make Operation Grange possible.
“The Government and police make the decision about funding, it is not Kate and Gerry’s role.”
PAMadeleine was three years old when she disappearedVanished: Madeleine was three years old when she disappeared in 2007
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”
And in the same article a source close to the family goes on to say:
A source close to the family said: “Kate and Gerry firmly believe Madeleine could still be alive and when the police investigation ends, they have vowed to continue looking for her.
"They don’t know when this will be, there has been so suggestion yet, but they want to be ready and have set aside huge chunks of money for this reason.”
Sounds like PR to me... I use the word press release generally...
-
I believe that it is a preemptive strike by Clarence. It is possible that an investigation is being made into the fund and they found out about these monies being taken out of it.
It seems to me that the McCanns, according to this article, don't seem too upset about the possibility of the investigation coming to a close. How strange, since they accused GA of hampering the search.
The McCanns are not being investigated....they are totally innocent
You have been taken in by amarals lies
-
I must admit as davel says 'wild speculation' does come to mind. If you sat down and wrote down a list of all the reasons why this press release was made I think the fund being investigated would be one possible reason made in ignorance as would many other possible reasons. The fact that Montclair thinks this reason is perhaps most likely just means you have a bias imo like most people. The most likely reason imo is the investigation is being wound down, but with a mind open to other possibilities.
-
In the mirror article it details that Clarence Mitchell said today, yada, yada, yada...
Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said today: “They realise it cannot go on forever.”
He added: “Kate and Gerry remain incredibly grateful to the Met Police for their continuing work and effort and are grateful to everyone who continues to make Operation Grange possible.
“The Government and police make the decision about funding, it is not Kate and Gerry’s role.”
PAMadeleine was three years old when she disappearedVanished: Madeleine was three years old when she disappeared in 2007
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”
And in the same article a source close to the family goes on to say:
A source close to the family said: “Kate and Gerry firmly believe Madeleine could still be alive and when the police investigation ends, they have vowed to continue looking for her.
"They don’t know when this will be, there has been so suggestion yet, but they want to be ready and have set aside huge chunks of money for this reason.”
Sounds like PR to me... I use the word press release generally...
It may well have originated from a statement... but when? There has been backpedalling by people in certain quarters - who were launching petitions to get the case reopened - ever since it dawned on them that the McCanns weren't suspects in the new / renewed investigation. All of a sudden, some of these same people suddenly found it a waste of money (other children, other priorities).
If it was a press release, when did the grumbles start?
“Kate and Gerry remain incredibly grateful to the Met Police for their continuing work and effort and are grateful to everyone who continues to make Operation Grange possible.
“The Government and police make the decision about funding, it is not Kate and Gerry’s role.”
-
I must admit as davel says 'wild speculation' does come to mind. If you sat down and wrote down a list of all the reasons why this press release was made I think the fund being investigated would be one possible reason made in ignorance as would many other possible reasons. The fact that Montclair thinks this reason is perhaps most likely just means you have a bias imo like most people. The most likely reason imo is the investigation is being wound down, but with a mind open to other possibilities.
In my opinion it is actually very bad PR from Madeleine McCann's point of view for the cessation of the investigation to be anticipated on the strength of one or two individuals objecting to the costs.
Whatever the misinformation propagated by those who for some reason best known to themselves have done everything in their power to thwart her parents efforts on her behalf ... it is entirely due to them that the investigation was ever reviewed and reopened.
They are the real Truth seekers and Justice seekers on behalf of Madeleine ... not those who have spent eight years alleging that every penny contributed by well wishers was swallowed by a "fraudulent fund".
Pathetic ~ when without that fund the Drs McCann would have been unable to keep Madeleine in the public eye and eventually succeed in having detectives enjoying powers unavailable to the private detectives they have been funding to start their investigation.
It is worth remembering Rebecca Brooks is back at the helm of the Murdoch Empire after the slight hiccup of her court appearance in the hacking scandal ... there has been a general reshuffling of editors ... so make of that what you will.
-
In my opinion it is actually very bad PR from Madeleine McCann's point of view for the cessation of the investigation to be anticipated on the strength of one or two individuals objecting to the costs.
Whatever the misinformation propagated by those who for some reason best known to themselves have done everything in their power to thwart her parents efforts on her behalf ... it is entirely due to them that the investigation was ever reviewed and reopened.
They are the real Truth seekers and Justice seekers on behalf of Madeleine ... not those who have spent eight years alleging that every penny contributed by well wishers was swallowed by a "fraudulent fund".
Pathetic ~ when without that fund the Drs McCann would have been unable to keep Madeleine in the public eye and eventually succeed in having detectives enjoying powers unavailable to the private detectives they have been funding to start their investigation.
It is worth remembering Rebecca Brooks is back at the helm of the Murdoch Empire after the slight hiccup of her court appearance in the hacking scandal ... there has been a general reshuffling of editors ... so make of that what you will.
I noticed that, hence my earlier question. ;)
-
I agree that the grumbles that have started are among those perhaps who are not sympathetic to the plight of the McCanns and have since became disillusioned once they realised the parents were not in the frame. I think unless the mirror was straight out lying it says in the article "Clarence Mitchell said today", so I assume this info is very current. Of course I use the word press release liberally as that actually refers to a written release, but Clarence is their spokesperson, so he generally speaks to and manages the press on their behalf. What we can infer from what he says imo is that the investigation may be winding down. And that isn't from McCann naysayers - it's from the horse's mouth; who I would assume would know more about the inner workings of Operation Grange then most. FWIW I would like to see the investigation continue as long as there is progress being made. Many cases are of course opened and closed several times before they are solved.
Can't stand Brooks! Hideous that she is back at the helm. Nasty woman.
-
I agree that the grumbles that have started are among those perhaps who are not sympathetic to the plight of the McCanns and have since became disillusioned once they realised the parents were not in the frame. I think unless the mirror was straight out lying it says in the article "Clarence Mitchell said today", so I assume this info is very current. Of course I use the word press release liberally as that actually refers to a written release, but Clarence is their spokesperson, so he generally speaks to and manages the press on their behalf. What we can infer from what he says imo is that the investigation may be winding down. And that isn't from McCann naysayers - it's from the horse's mouth, who I would assume would know more about the inner workings of Operation Grange then most. FWIW I would like to see the investigation continue as long as there is progress being made. Many cases are of course opened and closed several times before they are solved.
Can't stand Brooks! Hideous that she is back at the helm. Nasty woman.
I'm actually not too sure that the use of the word "today" is indicative of anything more than a copy and paste of something said in the past including it ... it certainly resonated with me as it did with others as a deja vu thing ... as was the quote attributed to Madeleine's parents.
It is not to Madeleine's benefit to acquiesce publicly that the investigation may be "winding down". I really don't think it is proper to speculate ~ instead people should step back and allow the police here and in Portugal to take it as far as it will go. I was heartened by the positive statements from Portugal ... and I don't think that would have been the case a couple of years ago.
As you say the police know best when they have exhausted possibilities and they will wind down when appropriate to do so ... and now that the case has officially been reopened, that can be just as readily be reinstated should they have to shut down.
My impression is that it hasn't yet reached that stage ... I think it has a way to go yet and I think the current SY and PJ investigations are the best chance Madeleine has.
It makes good sense for Madeleine's parents to have a contingency fund in reserve whatever the circumstances.
I find it extraordinary that those who contentedly suggest that donations will have dried up in the wake of the reopening of Madeleine's case ... cannot see that any substantial funding coming in must therefore be as a result of the Dr McCann's own endeavours and is therefore theirs to do with as they see fit.
-
I'm actually not too sure that the use of the word "today" is indicative of anything more than a copy and paste of something said in the past including it ... it certainly resonated with me as it did with others as a deja vu thing ... as was the quote attributed to Madeleine's parents.
It is not to Madeleine's benefit to acquiesce publicly that the investigation may be "winding down". I really don't think it is proper to speculate ~ instead people should step back and allow the police here and in Portugal to take it as far as it will go. I was heartened by the positive statements from Portugal ... and I don't think that would have been the case a couple of years ago.
As you say the police know best when they have exhausted possibilities and they will wind down when appropriate to do so ... and now that the case has officially been reopened, that can be just as readily be reinstated should they have to shut down.
My impression is that it hasn't yet reached that stage ... I think it has a way to go yet and I think the current SY and PJ investigations are the best chance Madeleine has.
It makes good sense for Madeleine's parents to have a contingency fund in reserve whatever the circumstances.
I find it extraordinary that those who contentedly suggest that donations will have dried up in the wake of the reopening of Madeleine's case ... cannot see that any substantial funding coming in must therefore be as a result of the Dr McCann's own endeavours and is therefore theirs to do with as they see fit.
If money is paid into the fund, it is fir the fund to decide how it is used according to the company aims. Legally if not morally, all the money could be paid to a private individual as long as it fits into the funds aims. I don't think it would go down well if one of the early benefactors suddenly decided they wanted their money back.
-
I noticed that, hence my earlier question. ;)
'Drs mccanns own efforts' ???
Interesting choice of phrase, bearing in mind their actions triggered this case.
-
If money is paid into the fund, it is fir the fund to decide how it is used according to the company aims. Legally if not morally, all the money could be paid to a private individual as long as it fits into the funds aims. I don't think it would go down well if one of the early benefactors suddenly decided they wanted their money back.
It may very well be that one or more of the early benefactors who donated to Mr Amaral's fund may have concerns that Leanne Baulch appears to have inexplicably transmogrified into Portimao PC and decide they want their money back.
-
'Drs mccanns own efforts' ???
Interesting choice of phrase, bearing in mind their actions triggered this case.
The abductor the PJ and SY are seeking is the originator ... you seem to keep on overlooking that ... no abductor = no case.
-
'Drs mccanns own efforts' ???
Interesting choice of phrase, bearing in mind their actions triggered this case.
I've lost you there. My comment related to wondering who was now at the helm of The Sun.
-
Most likely scenario AFAIAC is that paper have contacted CM re the story re Sy
CM cannot say no comment.... Which he probably would like to do as this would be misinterpreted .
so he gives a response to the question and posters here think he has approached the press with a statement....barmy as usual
-
The above is true imo. They don't simply put out a press release with random words for no purpose. These PR people always choose their words very carefully and usually have an agenda or strategy. What that is is up for debate imo...
Could just be that the investigation is near to winding down and hope to get more money in to continue the search. Could be the fund is being investigated. Could be, could be... We all agree there is some purpose behind these words, or no?
Did the McCanns put out a press release then?
-
I agree that the grumbles that have started are among those perhaps who are not sympathetic to the plight of the McCanns and have since became disillusioned once they realised the parents were not in the frame. I think unless the mirror was straight out lying it says in the article "Clarence Mitchell said today", so I assume this info is very current. Of course I use the word press release liberally as that actually refers to a written release, but Clarence is their spokesperson, so he generally speaks to and manages the press on their behalf. What we can infer from what he says imo is that the investigation may be winding down. And that isn't from McCann naysayers - it's from the horse's mouth; who I would assume would know more about the inner workings of Operation Grange then most. FWIW I would like to see the investigation continue as long as there is progress being made. Many cases are of course opened and closed several times before they are solved.
Can't stand Brooks! Hideous that she is back at the helm. Nasty woman.
I certainly agree that investigations should continue until all information is logged for future reference, all leads have been exhausted (as far as possible). This might mean leaving a few pending red flags that can't be taken any further. A team, perhaps working on a different investigation might find the missing clue - if the info is correctly logged in the first place.
-
Did the McCanns put out a press release then?
Precisely it is pure speculation and in my mind totally false to say the mccanns have put out a press release
But it seems posters make things up and then convince themselves and others its true
-
Precisely it is pure speculation and in my mind totally false to say the mccanns have put out a press release
But it seems posters make things up and then convince themselves and others its true
Yup, but I did LMAO at the reaction this non-story has had in "Sceptic" Land. The excitement is palpable as arrests are obviously imminent... 8(*(
-
How long is it until the next Accounts are released? Can I wait?
-
Yup, but I did LMAO at the reaction this non-story has had in "Sceptic" Land. The excitement is palpable as arrests are obviously imminent... 8(*(
I wonder if arrests might be immenent too, but not the people that the sceptics are thinking of ! ?{)(**
-
How long is it until the next Accounts are released? Can I wait?
The sanctimonious bleating about the late filing of the accounts begins in the first week of January as it does every year.
-
Even if Operation Grange closes it doesn't mean no-one is investigating. The PJ may continue. 8(0(*
-
The abductor the PJ and SY are seeking is the originator ... you seem to keep on overlooking that ... no abductor = no case.
Their prime suspect is a spitting image of the person who last saw Maddy. You can't escape the inevitable.
-
Most likely scenario AFAIAC is that paper have contacted CM re the story re Sy
CM cannot say no comment.... Which he probably would like to do as this would be misinterpreted .
so he gives a response to the question and posters here think he has approached the press with a statement....barmy as usual
So u think he just got all chitty chatty as a professional PR man when they rang him up for a statement and wanted to say nothing but started banging on about moving chunks of money around etc and how the McCanns feel about the investigation ending. I think you are naive. Although I withdraw the press release comment. Wrong choice of words. Let's just say it looks like their spokesman has deliberately spoken.
-
Even if Operation Grange closes it doesn't mean no-one is investigating. The PJ may continue. 8(0(*
As the Portuguese have primacy in the case I doubt it matters a toss what The Met do.
-
How long is it until the next Accounts are released? Can I wait?
You should be able to buy a copy from Companies House sometime in January 2016.
I expect some one will buy them and stick them on that tinternet for all to see.
-
You should be able to buy a copy from Companies House sometime in January 2016.
I expect some one will buy them and stick them on that tinternet for all to see.
January? Bloomin Hell. I'll be a wreck by them.
-
So u think he just got all chitty chatty as a professional PR man when they rang him up for a statement and wanted to say nothing but started banging on about moving chunks of money around etc and how the McCanns feel about the investigation ending. I think you are naive. Although I withdraw the press release comment. Wrong choice of words. Let's just say it looks like their spokesman has deliberately spoken.
You are making even more assumptions
I would think he was asked specific questions which he answered....
If you think I am naive you have very poor judgement
-
January? Bloomin Hell. I'll be a wreck by them.
Just look at the posts for earlier this year they will be repeated next year, less or more with some believing the Companies House register is lying ?{)(**
Mind you we will find out whether or not vast sums have been shoveled about in 2014/15. We will have to wait until January 2017 to find out if anything happened from March this year. Oh deep joy in the anticipay cells of the brainlode.
-
Even if Operation Grange closes it doesn't mean no-one is investigating. The PJ may continue. 8(0(*
What about the cost to the poor Portuguese tax payer? Surely you don't expect them to shell out indefinitely to look for some foreign kid?
-
What about the cost to the poor Portuguese tax payer? Surely you don't expect them to shell out indefinitely to look for some foreign kid?
They shouldn't have had to in the first place.
-
It may very well be that one or more of the early benefactors who donated to Mr Amaral's fund may have concerns that Leanne Baulch appears to have inexplicably transmogrified into Portimao PC and decide they want their money back.
Pure speculation.
-
No....... Mad dies abduction was as a direct result of her being on holiday there..she was a tourist
Who took her to Portugal ?
Who left her and her siblings by themselves for prolonged periods ?
Nothing to do with the Portuguese, was it.
-
Who took her to Portugal ?
Who left her and her siblings by themselves for prolonged periods ?
Nothing to do with the Portuguese, was it.
So you think the police have no duty to investigate
Don't be silly
-
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search."
According to Mr Mitchell then, if The Mirror is to be believed, some of it ain't in the company account ergo it's somewhere else. So in general terms, again according to Mr Mitchell , there are two funds.
-
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search."
According to Mr Mitchell then, if The Mirror is to be believed, some of it ain't in the company account ergo it's somewhere else. So in general terms, again according to Mr Mitchell , there are two funds.
What evidence do you have that is an accurate quote
None
-
Mr Mitchell said: "In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search."
According to Mr Mitchell then, if The Mirror is to be believed, some of it ain't in the company account ergo it's somewhere else. So in general terms, again according to Mr Mitchell , there are two funds.
You yourself speculated that it could have been ring-fenced as shown in the company accounts. Changed your mind have you?
-
What evidence do you have that is an accurate quote
None
What evidence do you have it is an inaccurate quote?
None
So we can only take it at face value.
-
You yourself speculated that it could have been ring-fenced as shown in the company accounts. Changed your mind have you?
I did and no. The tautology notwithstanding 8(0(*
I was merely taking the Mirror article at face value in the absence of proof that it was a fabrication.
-
So you think the police have no duty to investigate
Don't be silly
They have.
-
I did and no. The tautology notwithstanding 8(0(*
I was merely taking the Mirror article at face value in the absence of proof that it was a fabrication.
Part of the learning curve involves taking red top articles at face value only to later discover the error of doing so.
-
Even taking the Mirror article at face value, there is nothing that Clarence said which states a separate fund has been set up is there?
Only one fund as always, but split into two parts, allowing funds to be reserved for search expenses only. See below.
Excerpt:
In the accounts for the year to March 2012, for the first time, Income and Expenditure was divided into Restricted and Unrestricted Funds.
Excerpt
Restricted funds
(see Note 5 on page 8) are for 'the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id475.html
-
Only one fund as always, but split into two parts, allowing funds to be reserved for search expenses only. See below.
Excerpt:
In the accounts for the year to March 2012, for the first time, Income and Expenditure was divided into Restricted and Unrestricted Funds.
Excerpt
Restricted funds
(see Note 5 on page 8) are for 'the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id475.html
Thank you, Anna ... yet another storm in a teacup.
-
Thank you, Anna ... yet another storm in a teacup.
We shall see what develops.
-
Part of the learning curve involves taking red top articles at face value only to later discover the error of doing so.
Well you appear to be well off the back and have not read my earlier posts on this and the other thread on the topic of the fund.
-
Even taking the Mirror article at face value, there is nothing that Clarence said which states a separate fund has been set up is there?
It is implied.
-
Part of the learning curve involves taking red top articles at face value only to later discover the error of doing so.
only the Mail that you often link to as it's the font of truth somehow runs an identical to the tee story to the Redtops
@)(++(*
edited
-
how are the two things linked in your view?
They happened simultaneously Alfred.
ID learning the appeal would be heard, and CM announcing the second fund.
(However there is possibly much more to it than that IMO)
-
Members are reminded that answers to insulting and abusive posts may be deleted along with the offending posts in their entirety.
Requests for part removal will not necessarily be granted.
-
only the Mail that you often link to as it's the font of truth somehow runs an identical to the tee story to the Redtops
@)(++(*
edited
I have even been known to quote from Joana Morais blog ... another well known supporter of funding the search for Madeleine McCann ... oh wait a minute, need to amend that.
-
i.e. A few fellow mccann supporters.
Sometimes The Mail Comments tell us more than you think.
-
Sometimes The Mail Comments tell us more than you think.
The Mail comments have also bee screened.
As to the what they say. One merely has to read them.
-
The Mail comments have also bee screened.
As to the what they say. One merely has to read them.
One only has to read the sceptic comments wherever they make a sour appearance to form an idea of the lack of substance on which they are based. Much more of a belief system than anything else down to the haloed images.
I don't think at the end of Operation Grange there is going to be any requirement for continued funding to continue the search for Madeleine ... I think the money will be disbursed as we have been told and as has already been demonstrated ... with any residue being deservedly used to enable a stolen child to be reconnected with her family.
I have a firm hope that Madeleine McCann is still alive ~ I think it is probably known where she is ~ very difficult to recover but she will be.
I base that on the fact that there is absolutely nothing which indicates her death and that in the days after her disappearance sightings of a child which may or may not have been her do not appear to have been investigated in the way one would expect of a professional body responsible for doing so.
-
If the directors of a not-for-profit limited company amend its "objects", and/or pass a special resolution, how soon does that have to be notified to Companies House?
-
One only has to read the sceptic comments wherever they make a sour appearance to form an idea of the lack of substance on which they are based. Much more of a belief system than anything else down to the haloed images.
I don't think at the end of Operation Grange there is going to be any requirement for continued funding to continue the search for Madeleine ... I think the money will be disbursed as we have been told and as has already been demonstrated ... with any residue being deservedly used to enable a stolen child to be reconnected with her family.
I have a firm hope that Madeleine McCann is still alive ~ I think it is probably known where she is ~ very difficult to recover but she will be.
I base that on the fact that there is absolutely nothing which indicates her death and that in the days after her disappearance sightings of a child which may or may not have been her do not appear to have been investigated in the way one would expect of a professional body responsible for doing so.
That is your opinion.
It may be shared by a few people.
However, I suspect by this point most members of the public are completely fed up with the case, going nowhere, and seemingly forever in the headlines.
-
That is your opinion.
It may be shared by a few people.
However, I suspect by this point most members of the public are completely fed up with the case, going nowhere, and seemingly forever in the headlines.
And that's your opinion
-
And that's your opinion
Of course.
Now dave, do you really think most people are still interested in this case ?
-
If the directors of a not-for-profit limited company amend its "objects", and/or pass a special resolution, how soon does that have to be notified to Companies House?
Within 15 days of it being agreed by the board of directors.
-
Within 15 days of it being agreed by the board of directors.
Thanks Alice, so if directors pass a resolution does it take effect immediately, or only after it's been registered at CH?
-
Thanks Alice, so if directors pass a resolution does it take effect immediately, or only after it's been registered at CH?
It takes effect immediately. These are the filings for this year so far with the dates filed:
Company Filing History
Type Date Description
Document
AR01
16/06/2015 15/05/15 NO MEMBER LIST
Document
CH01 03/03/2015 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MRS KATE MARIE MCCANN / 01/03/2015
Document
AD01 02/03/2015 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 02/03/2015 FROM
2/6 CANNON STREET
LONDON
EC4M 6YH
Document
CH04 02/03/2015 CORPORATE SECRETARY'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS BWB SECRETARIAL LIMITED / 02/03/2015
Document
AA 15/01/2015 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/14
-
Thanks Alice.
However I just found this at Companies House
"The amendment to the objects is not effective until the form has been registered by Companies House"
Just wondering if setting up a seperate account would involve registering something at CH?
-
The appeal court decision (to hear Mr Amaral's appeal) was made in Lisbon daytime 2nd Sept.
Evening 2nd Sept in the Mirror (online) a spokesperson reportedly says "they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund ..."
-
Thanks Alice.
However I just found this at Companies House
"The amendment to the objects is not effective until the form has been registered by Companies House"
Just wondering if setting up a seperate account would involve registering something at CH?
I thought it was effective from passing the resolution but I wouldn't argue with Companies House! We learn something new each day!.
The Company may have as many bank accounts as it wishes and that is nothing to do with Companies House.
Most companies would have as few accounts as possible to make administration and credit rating simpler.
Any money transferred out of the company would have to be properly accounted for and be done in accordance with the company's articles.
-
The appeal court decision (to hear Mr Amaral's appeal) was made in Lisbon daytime 2nd Sept.
Evening 2nd Sept in the Mirror (online) a spokesperson reportedly says "they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund ..."
I think as a rule of thumb it is preferable to disregard anything attributed to an unnamed 'spokesperson' ... it is unusual for one as punctilious as you are to reiterate it without caveat.
-
Admittedly I haven't read the thread in its entirety so can anyone explain why it has suddenly become necessary to move money from the Madeleine Fund into a seperate account? Wasn't the MF set up for that very purpose?
-
Admittedly I haven't read the thread in its entirety so can anyone explain why it has suddenly become necessary to move money from the Madeleine Fund into a seperate account? Wasn't the MF set up for that very purpose?
It is being punted about in the media that Mr Mitchell said it is happening but the supporters believe Mr Mitchell is being misrepresented by the media for nefarious reasons. Droll is that !
-
It is being punted about in the media that Mr Mitchell said it is happening but the supporters believe Mr Mitchell is being misrepresented by the media for nefarious reasons. Droll is that !
Yet no correction from Mr Mitchell in a McCann- friendly tabloid yet ! Mmmm !!
-
It is being punted about in the media that Mr Mitchell said it is happening but the supporters believe Mr Mitchell is being misrepresented by the media for nefarious reasons. Droll is that !
Could you please supply the quote where Mitchell says a separate account has been set up? Thanking you in advance.
-
Could you please supply the quote where Mitchell says a separate account has been set up? Thanking you in advance.
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
Seems clear enough to me unless you are calling Mitchell a liar and a promoter of false facts? ...heaven forbid!
-
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
That's not a verbatim quote John, that's newspaper journo putting his or her own interpretation of events into a "nothing" story.
-
That's not a verbatim quote John, that's newspaper journo putting his or her own interpretation of events into a "nothing" story.
It states quite clearly in the intro that "Clarence Mitchell said today..."
-
Admittedly I haven't read the thread in its entirety so can anyone explain why it has suddenly become necessary to move money from the Madeleine Fund into a seperate account? Wasn't the MF set up for that very purpose?
Is it possible that TMFLNSU hypothetically may have been legally advised that funding libel cases can no longer reasonably be considered to fall within its two stated objects registered at companies house?
-
It states quite clearly in the intro that "Clarence Mitchell said today..."
What did he say? They usually put quotation marks around verbatim quotes so let's have it.
-
It states quite clearly in the intro that "Clarence Mitchell said today..."
It is third party John ... and as such possible subject to the Chinese Whispers syndrome. Most especially so as he is a journalist after a bit of sensationalism.
-
It is third party John ... and as such possible subject to the Chinese Whispers syndrome. Most especially so as he is a journalist after a bit of sensationalism.
It hasn't been retracted.
-
Ahhh. So the original title that the McCanns had set up a new "fund" has been modified.
Ok.
But we're still back to what "keeping funds back" means in the context of reigniting the search / private investigation should the funding for the UK / PT investigations end.
If ever that was ever said in the first place.
Some in the sceptic community suddenly now advocate to end the investigation, having previously done everything that they could think of when they falsely assumed that the McCanns would automatically be made arguidos again.
Others, including myself, feel that it should wind down once the work that can be done has been and wherever red flags may need to be left open.
-
It hasn't been retracted.
Many distorted and factually inaccurate stories have been published in the press about the McCann case that haven't been retracted - so what? Does that confer on them all "truth" status?
-
It states quite clearly in the intro that "Clarence Mitchell said today..."
Are you referring to the same article that stated that the McCanns are aged 37?
-
Ahhh. So the original title that the McCanns had set up a new "fund" has been modified.
Ok.
But we're still back to what "keeping funds back" means in the context of reigniting the search / private investigation should the funding for the UK / PT investigations end.
If ever that was ever said in the first place.
Some in the sceptic community suddenly now advocate to end the investigation, having previously done everything that they could think of when they falsely assumed that the McCanns would automatically be made arguidos again.
Others, including myself, feel that it should wind down once the work that can be done has been and wherever red flags may need to be left open.
You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some. They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.
-
Hypothetically if there was any amendment on the 2nd that requires registration at CH we would see it by the 18th.
-
You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some. They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.
If all money from all sources was supposed to be used to search for Madeleine why would you need to ring - fence any of it ?
-
If all money from all sources was supposed to be used to search for Madeleine why would you need to ring - fence any of it ?
No you wouldn't but clearly not ALL the money was intended for that specific purpose. There have been other expenditures as you well know.
-
You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some. They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.
If you want to ensure that money is available for a specific purpose, does it even need a separate bank account? If the directors know what that amount (that must not be touched) is, then they can presumably bear that in mind.
I would have thought it sensible, once the Met investigation was underway, to place some of it into a time-limited interest-bearing account if that was all that was available in view of the banking crisis.
-
You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some. They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.
It would appear in the SAME set of annual financial statements as "Restricted Funds". There may have been one or more bank accounts for the company from the word go we don't know. Whatever it will all be bundled up in one set of annual financial statements. The MSM article suggests money is being held without the company.
Who knows for sure ?
-
No you wouldn't but clearly not ALL the money was intended for that specific purpose. There have been other expenditures as you well know.
So why the necessity now to ring-fence money when it has never been necessary before ?
-
If you want to ensure that money is available for a specific purpose, does it even need a separate bank account? If the directors know what that amount (that must not be touched) is, then they can presumably bear that in mind.
I would have thought it sensible, once the Met investigation was underway, to place some of it into a time-limited interest-bearing account if that was all that was available in view of the banking crisis.
And if the SY investigation was closed prematurely what then ?
BTW where is the evidence of the movement of any such money in the accounts ?
-
It would appear in the SAME set of annual financial statements as "Restricted Funds". There may have been one or more bank accounts for the company from the word go we don't know. Whatever it will all be bundled up in one set of annual financial statements. The MSM article suggests money is being held without the company.
Who knows for sure ?
No one knows for sure, but one thing that is for sure is - it's really nobody's business but the McCanns and the Fund's and HMRC or whoever it is that cares about these things. If it really is a matter of such pressing import then a "sceptic" journo like Natasha Donn or Sonia Poulton should go harangue Clarence until he gives them what they want.
-
So why the necessity now to ring-fence money when it has never been necessary before ?
I don't know Faithlilly - why don't you write to the McCanns or the Fund and ask for clarification as this matter obviously vexes you quite considerably.
-
I don't know Faithlilly - why don't you write to the McCanns or the Fund and ask for clarification as this matter obviously vexes you quite considerably.
So can I take it from your answer that you have no reasonable explanation Alfie ?
-
So can I take it from your answer that you have no reasonable explanation Alfie ?
I do, but it would be speculating and that's (allegedly) frowned upon on this forum.
-
I do, but it would be speculating and that's (allegedly) frowned upon on this forum.
So if it's only allegedly you won't mind bending the rules too.
-
You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some. They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.
IMO any money ring-fenced within TMF or transferred out of TMF should still only be spent on TMF's two stated objects.
-
No one knows for sure, but one thing that is for sure is - it's really nobody's business but the McCanns and the Fund's and HMRC or whoever it is that cares about these things. If it really is a matter of such pressing import then a "sceptic" journo like Natasha Donn or Sonia Poulton should go harangue Clarence until he gives them what they want.
Presumably The Mirror thought it was a public interest story. Unless Tracy Kandohlar(?) went UDI.
-
And if the SY investigation was closed prematurely what then ?
BTW where is the evidence of the movement of any such money in the accounts ?
What was the original title of this thread and who started it?
-
What was the original title of this thread and who started it?
Faithlily.
And I said on page one that it has probably been moved to a High Interest Account. What would be so strange about that.
-
So if it's only allegedly you won't mind bending the rules too.
I have no idea why the McCanns are keeping funds back specifically for the search, however if it was me I would rationalise it like this: In the early days when the money was pouring in and the bank balance healthy there was plenty to pay for private investigators to conduct a parallel investigation, so no need to ring fence anything. Then money started to dwindle which flagged up the fact that cash was not an infinite, renewable resource and that income would need to be generated to keep the search going, so alternative means of raising money were sought eg: writing a book. In the meantime there were mounting legal costs to finance but also the re-opening of the case, meaning no need to pay for a private investigation, but still lawyers fees to shell out for. As time has dragged on however and the missing child not located as hoped, attention has returned to the need to mount and pay for a private investigation again, hence the need to ring-fence a percentage of the remaining fund to finance this.
Now over to you to pour scorn over. 8((()*/
-
What was the original title of this thread and who started it?
You are saying the movement of any money may have happened at the time SY launched the investigatio. I am asking for proof from the account.
-
Faithlily.
And I said on page one that it has probably been moved to a High Interest Account. What would be so strange about that.
Indeed it was Eleanor but I believe the movement is far more recent then either you or Carana are contending otherwise it would have shown up in the accounts.
-
I have no idea why the McCanns are keeping funds back specifically for the search, however if it was me I would rationalise it like this: In the early days when the money was pouring in and the bank balance healthy there was plenty to pay for private investigators to conduct a parallel investigation, so no need to ring fence anything. Then money started to dwindle which flagged up the fact that cash was not an infinite, renewable resource and that income would need to be generated to keep the search going, so alternative means of raising money were sought eg: writing a book. In the meantime there were mounting legal costs to finance but also the re-opening of the case, meaning no need to pay for a private investigation, but still lawyers fees to shell out for. As time has dragged on however and the missing child not located as hoped, attention has returned to the need to mount and pay for a private investigation again, hence the need to ring-fence a percentage of the remaining fund to finance this.
Now over to you to pour scorn over. 8((()*/
So, correct me if I am wrong, you are saying the main portion of the fund ( that part not ring fenced ) is being used to pay for the McCann's litigation ?
-
Indeed it was Eleanor but I believe the movement is far more recent then either you or Carana are contending otherwise it would have shown up in the accounts.
Wasn't there some contention back along about how much of Kate's Book earnings went into The Fund? The Book must have earned more than the original advance. Perhaps some of it was "Held Back,"
-
Wasn't there some contention back along about how much of Kate's Book earnings went into The Fund? The Book must have earned more than the original advance. Perhaps some of it was "Held Back,"
But it would still have shown up in the accounts if it went into the fund.
-
So, correct me if I am wrong, you are saying the main portion of the fund ( that part not ring fenced ) is being used to pay for the McCann's litigation ?
See, I knew you'd do this. Trying to turn my speculation about something to which I don't have the answers into ammunition that you can then try to use against the McCanns. Sneaky.
-
But it would still have shown up in the accounts if it went into the fund.
Do you know, I really don't think I can get off on this. What they do with the money and where they put it isn't actually any of our business. And they won't have broken the law. So what is the problem?
-
Assuming that the Mirror article is true and I see no reason to disbelieve it, it is curious that the McCanns feel the need to siphon off funds so soon after they realised that half a million quoid wouldn't be floating their way from a numbered account in Lisbon.
Mitchell had no need to brief the Press in relation to any transfer of funds so I agree with earlier posters, there has to be a reason for him going public and I don't accept for a moment that that reason was to stir up the sceptics. Mitchell doesn't do anything without a good reason.
-
Do you know, I really don't think I can get off on this. What they do with the money and where they put it isn't actually any of our business. And they won't have broken the law. So what is the problem?
One wonders then, why Mitchell choose to put it in the public domain. His mouth is the nearest we have to the horse's, so he should be careful with it.
-
One wonders then, why Mitchell choose to put it in the public domain. His mouth is the nearest we have to the horse's, so he should be careful with it.
Neigh @)(++(* ...sorry G, couldn't resist that!
-
Faithlily.
And I said on page one that it has probably been moved to a High Interest Account. What would be so strange about that.
In the PO tea room this letter fell out of my postbag onto the kettle and accidentally steamed itself open.
"Dear C, we've moved some money into an account, please can you urgently get that on the front pages tomorrow for us, confidentially the real reason is simply to get a slightly higher interest rate, but shsssh don't tell them that, make up something about keeping money for searching separate from money for searching, that should throw them off the higher interest scent. Ta."
-
One wonders then, why Mitchell choose to put it in the public domain. His mouth is the nearest we have to the horse's, so he should be careful with it.
What damage do you imagine he might have done with his mouth on this occasion?
-
The term "Restricted Funds" first appeared in 2012 financial statements. There have been two chunks of revenue described as "Restricted Funds" £550k in FY 2011/2012 and £400k in FY 2013/2014 of which £371k has been spent on "merchandising and campaign costs".
Income from unrestricted funds in FY 2013/2014 was only £21k.
-
What damage do you imagine he might have done with his mouth on this occasion?
Sounds a bit like Halligen all over again &%+((£
-
Neigh @)(++(* ...sorry G, couldn't resist that!
@)(++(* No problem.
-
The term "Restricted Funds" first appeared in 2012 financial statements. There have been two chunks of revenue described as "Restricted Funds" £550k in FY 2011/2012 and £400k in FY 2013/2014 of which £371k has been spent on "merchandising and campaign costs".
Income from unrestricted funds in FY 2013/2014 was only £21k.
IMO money (whether "restricted" or "unconstricted") can be spent only on TMF's two stated objects.
-
What damage do you imagine he might have done with his mouth on this occasion?
Did I say that? I was replying to Eleanor who said it's none of our business what the McCanns do with their money. I said why speak about it to the papers then? Mitchell choose to put it in the public domain, and everyone is entitled to discuss what's in the newspapers..
-
IMO money (whether "restricted" or "unconstricted") can be spent only on TMF's two stated objects.
While that might apply to donated money. money from other sources can clearly be spent on anything whatsoever.
-
Possibly time to get Enid O'Dowd on the case ... oooh ... wait a minute ...
-
I have even been known to quote from Joana Morais blog ... another well known supporter of funding the search for Madeleine McCann ... oh wait a minute, need to amend that.
I think the point went over your head on this occasion.
-
See, I knew you'd do this. Trying to turn my speculation about something to which I don't have the answers into ammunition that you can then try to use against the McCanns. Sneaky.
So the only explanation for moving funds you can come up with is so it is not used for litigation. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it ?
-
Do you know, I really don't think I can get off on this. What they do with the money and where they put it isn't actually any of our business. And they won't have broken the law. So what is the problem?
With the greatest respect ' what you can get off on' concern me ' is of no concern to me.
-
Wondering why Mitchell is being paid to and /or speak for them anymore anyway...after all this time....hardly as if the media are attacking the Mccanns as they were in 2007
Can't they speak for themselves for some reason! What's the proboem that Mitchell can solve and they can't by moving their lips?
-
Wondering why Mitchell is being paid to and /or speak for them anymore anyway...after all this time....hardly as if the media are attacking the Mccanns as they were in 2007
Can't they speak for themselves for some reason! What's the proboem that Mitchell can solve and they can't by moving their lips?
Because if push comes to shove they can distance themselves from a comment not made personally.
-
Maybe they can predict the future. Must be psychic 8**8:/:
The name ‘Madeleine’ came through strongly to her, she says, and when she asked where she was the girl kept talking about Portugal and water.
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9018093.Missing_Madeleine_McCann__spoke__to_psychic/
-
Because if push comes to shove they can distance themselves from a comment not made personally.
Oh dear
Two wrongs there, if that's the case
Tarnishing his reputation and wasting Maddies Fund, oh well
PS I doubt that in any month of any Sunday's including pork chop synagogue ones lol they would dare take HIM on
@)(++(*
-
While that might apply to donated money. money from other sources can clearly be spent on anything whatsoever.
In which of the TMF documents at companies house does it say "oh BTW just ignore all that legal blurb about strictly adhering to the two stated objects, feel free to spend all the money (except donations by joe public) on absolutely anything you want" ?
-
In which of the TMF documents at companies house does it say "oh BTW just ignore all that legal blurb about strictly adhering to the two stated objects, feel free to spend all the money (except donations by joe public) on absolutely anything you want" ?
Perhaps I could have been clearer.
I was meaning that monies from sources other than public donation might never have made it into the fund at all and therefore would not be subject to the same rules.
-
Perhaps I could have been clearer.
I was meaning that monies from sources other than public donation might never have made it into the fund at all and therefore would not be subject to the same rules.
We know from the accounts filed at Companies House that the restriction is not on what the funds are spent on.
-
Did I say that? I was replying to Eleanor who said it's none of our business what the McCanns do with their money. I said why speak about it to the papers then? Mitchell choose to put it in the public domain, and everyone is entitled to discuss what's in the newspapers..
You said he should take more care about what he says implying that his words have been damaging in some way, no? Or what did you mean exactly?
-
So the only explanation for moving funds you can come up with is so it is not used for litigation. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it ?
Litigation and any other expenses incurred to do with managing the Fund, the website, the merchandise etc, yes. Any problem with that, in your view?
-
Perhaps I could have been clearer.
I was meaning that monies from sources other than public donation might never have made it into the fund at all and therefore would not be subject to the same rules.
That is probably correct ... why add to administration costs when the whole exercise can be conducted electronically between the source paying out ... in this case the Sunday Times ... and the recipients ... as detailed below.
Hardly the action typical of the alleged money grabbing people they are portrayed to be.
It was their money to do with exactly as they wished and what they do with their own money really shouldn't be the subject of discussion in a polite society.
**Snip
Date 3 October 2014
Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages (all of which they will donate to two charities - Missing People and the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust).
*** *** ***
The Sunday Times has also agreed to pay the McCanns' legal costs of bringing the complaint.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
-
Litigation and any other expenses incurred to do with managing the Fund, the website, the merchandise etc, yes. Any problem with that, in your view?
Litigation yes I do have a problem with especially litigation launched to save the couple's reputation but that's not the point. The point is why start moving money about now when the expenses above came from the one fund in the past ?
-
Litigation yes I do have a problem with especially litigation launched to save the couple's reputation but that's not the point. The point is why start moving money about now when the expenses above came from the one fund in the past ?
Perhaps because there is a realisation that there is a finite amount of money left to play with, which was less apparent in the early days? That's only MY opinion Faithlilly, so don't take this to mean it is the actual reason. What difference does it make anyway? Why should moving money about concern you and what do you infer from this - something nefarious obviously, but what??
-
You said he should take more care about what he says implying that his words have been damaging in some way, no? Or what did you mean exactly?
Oh dear, sometimes the English language isn't enough.
Brietta said we shouldn't be discussing what the McCanns do with their money. it's none of our business.
My reply; Mitchell speaks for the McCanns and he chose to discuss their finances with a newspaper and there is nothing wrong with people discussing news from the newspaper.
Hence if Mitchell and the McCanns don't want us to discuss their finances then Mitchell should be more careful what he says.
-
Oh dear, sometimes the English language isn't enough.
Brietta said we shouldn't be discussing what the McCanns do with their money. it's none of our business.
My reply; Mitchell speaks for the McCanns and he chose to discuss their finances with a newspaper and there is nothing wrong with people discussing news from the newspaper.
Hence if Mitchell and the McCanns don't want us to discuss their finances then Mitchell should be more careful what he says.
Fair enough. English is my third language and I do struggle sometimes, however it seems that you do believe Mitchell has harmed the McCanns by handing the gossips and critics more yet more ammunition, unless I have completely misunderstood?
-
Fair enough. English is my third language and I do struggle sometimes, however it seems that you do believe Mitchell has harmed the McCanns by handing the gossips and critics more yet more ammunition, unless I have completely misunderstood?
in reality Mitchell has done no harm to the mccanns whatsoever
-
in reality Mitchell has done no harm to the mccanns whatsoever
Of course he hasn't.
-
Mitchell is nothing more than a PR man.
Controlling the 'truth' revealed to the public , just as he did when attached to Blair's government.
It shows on every line on his face.
-
Mitchell is nothing more than a PR man.
Controlling the 'truth' revealed to the public , just as he did when attached to Blair's government.
It shows on every line on his face.
Mitchel does not have the power to control the truth and the idea that he does is ridiculous
-
Mitchel does not have the power to control the truth and the idea that he does is ridiculous
Rubbish.
Mitchell releases to the press what he wants to tell them and as with the Blair government that doesn't always mean the truth.
Now tell me dave when was there ever a press conference in the UK organised by Mitchell where the mccanns were asked awkward questions ?
-
Rubbish.
Mitchell releases to the press what he wants to tell them and as with the Blair government that doesn't always mean the truth.
Now tell me dave when was there ever a press conference in the UK organised by Mitchell where the mccanns were asked awkward questions ?
Why should there be
Where has there been a press conference where the parents of any missing child has been asked awkward questions
-
Rubbish.
Mitchell releases to the press what he wants to tell them and as with the Blair government that doesn't always mean the truth.
Now tell me dave when was there ever a press conference in the UK organised by Mitchell where the mccanns were asked awkward questions ?
If Mitchel has any control over the press why did he allow the press to publish libellous articles
-
If Mitchel has any control over the press why did he allow the press to publish libellous articles
Maybe so that the McCanns could then press for a retraction and a financial recompense ?
Seems to have worked in a couple of cases.
-
Maybe so that the McCanns could then press for a retraction and a financial recompense ?
Seems to have worked in a couple of cases.
So you think Mitchell was responsible for placing stories so the canna could sue
I didn't think I had asked a stupid question but judging by your answer it appears I did
-
If Mitchel has any control over the press why did he allow the press to publish libellous articles
Read what I said.
Now give me an example of a press conference organized by Mitchell where the mccanns were asked awkward questions in the UK ?
-
So you think Mitchell was responsible for placing stories so the canna could sue
I didn't think I had asked a stupid question but judging by your answer it appears I did
Now you're just put out because you don't like the answer @)(++(*
-
If Mitchel has any control over the press why did he allow the press to publish libellous articles
When in the UK was an he last libellous article ??
Don't bother referring to the Times and the photofits.
-
When in the UK was an he last libellous article ??
Don't bother referring to the Times and the photofits.
The last libellous article was the one in the Times
What's the point in asking me a question and asking me not to give the answer
-
Fair enough. English is my third language and I do struggle sometimes, however it seems that you do believe Mitchell has harmed the McCanns by handing the gossips and critics more yet more ammunition, unless I have completely misunderstood?
Mitchell put into the public domain something that was guaranteed to result in discussion. If that harms the McCanns then he is to blame in this instance, yes. On the other hand we don't know why he said it. He may have had another more helpful goal in mind which may have been achieved, we don't know. Brietta's point that we shouldn't discuss the McCanns finances has been answered, which was the original point of my post.
-
Mitchell put into the public domain something that was guaranteed to result in discussion. If that harms the McCanns then he is to blame in this instance, yes. On the other hand we don't know why he said it. He may have had another more helpful goal in mind which may have been achieved, we don't know. Brietta's point that we shouldn't discuss the McCanns finances has been answered, which was the original point of my post.
Discussion where... On news night... In parliament
Or by six people on this forum
-
The last libellous article was the one in the Times
What's the point in asking me a question and asking me not to give the answer
He libel is arguable.
That has been discussed numerous times.
Now try for another example. 8**8:/:
-
He libel is arguable.
That has been discussed numerous times.
Now try for another example. 8**8:/:
When you were all wetting yourselves over the article in the Times I immediately said that the McCanns would sue
I was derided at the time by many but was proved to be absolutely correct
It's all still there
-
When you were all wetting yourselves over the article in the Times I immediately said that the McCanns would sue
I was derided at the time by many but was proved to be absolutely correct
It's all still there
Well you can wet itself yourself if you wish, but I passed that decades ago.
Now come up with an example other than the one I gave.
-
Well you can wet itself yourself if you wish, but I passed that decades ago.
Now come up with an example other than the one I gave.
You seem to have a problem with your waterworks
Either itself or yourself has wet himself
Pop to the lavatory and I'll catch you later
-
You seem to have a problem with your waterworks
Either itself or yourself has wet himself
Pop to the lavatory and I'll catch you later
Perhaps you should learn to read.
Now come up with another example.
P.S. your comment was gibberish.
-
He libel is arguable.
That has been discussed numerous times.
Now try for another example. 8**8:/:
If there had been no libel - the Times would not have settled out of court or apologised. They did so on the advice of their lawyers who are obviously experts in that field.
Or are you now saying you know better than the lawyers employed by newspapers?
-
Perhaps you should learn to read.
Now come up with another example.
P.S. your comment was gibberish.
You asked for the last libellous article
I gave it to you
There cannot be another last libellous article
-
You asked for the last libellous article
I gave it to you
There cannot be another last libellous article
Try to give me an example, as I asked where at a press conference in the UK organized by Mitchell, where the mccanns were asked awkward questions.
I have asked this several times.
-
If there had been no libel - the Times would not have settled out of court or apologised. They did so on the advice of their lawyers who are obviously experts in that field.
Or are you now saying you know better than the lawyers employed by newspapers?
Who produced the photo fits, and who were they given to ?
-
He libel is arguable.
That has been discussed numerous times.
Now try for another example. 8**8:/:
No it's not.
The only essential difference between Portuguese libel and English libel is where burden of proof lies.
In Portugal, burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action to demonstrate statements that lower reputation, also, to be untrue.
The McCanns (or at least Isabelle on their behalf) has demonstrated numerous of Amaral's allegations (that also lower the reputations of Kate and Gerry) to be manifestly (and proven!) untrue.
Ergo, the question at issue is what level of compensation (for proven libel!) is appropriate for the McCanns.
Pretty much the only thing Amaral can contest is the size of the award ....
-
No it's not.
The only essential difference between Portuguese libel and English libel is where burden of proof lies.
In Portugal, burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action to demonstrate statements that lower reputation, also, to be untrue.
The McCanns (or at least Isabelle on their behalf) has demonstrated numerous of Amaral's allegations (that also lower the reputations of Kate and Gerry) to be manifestly (and proven!) untrue.
Ergo, the question at issue is what level of compensation (for proven libel!) is appropriate for the McCanns.
Pretty much the only thing Amaral can contest is the size of the award ....
Let's wait for the appeal.
-
Try to give me an example, as I asked where at a press conference in the UK organized by Mitchell, where the mccanns were asked awkward questions.
I have asked this several times.
I've already answered that post as well
I'm probably just a bit too quick for you
-
I've already answered that post as well
I'm probably just a bit too quick for you
You most certainly haven't, and as to being quicker... 8(*(
-
No it's not.
The only essential difference between Portuguese libel and English libel is where burden of proof lies.
In Portugal, burden of proof lies with the party bringing the action to demonstrate statements that lower reputation, also, to be untrue.
The McCanns (or at least Isabelle on their behalf) has demonstrated numerous of Amaral's allegations (that also lower the reputations of Kate and Gerry) to be manifestly (and proven!) untrue.
Ergo, the question at issue is what level of compensation (for proven libel!) is appropriate for the McCanns.
Pretty much the only thing Amaral can contest is the size of the award ....
As I said in his statement amaral talks of appealing against the sentence rather than the judgement
-
You most certainly haven't, and as to being quicker... 8(*(
b
I have
-
b
I have
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
7.55pm this evening
Have another look einstein
-
7.55pm this evening
Have another look einstein
Good journalists would ask questions of the mccanns as they did in Portugal.
However, never happened at a Mitchell organized conference.
and the mccanns are no one special.
Just 2 parents who didn't know how to take proper care of their children.
-
Let's wait for the appeal.
At what stage do you think Amaral will file for bankruptcy?
-
the Times did not libel the Mccanns...they printed facts......and the Mccanns didn't sue either despite some bright sparks thinking they did...the Times probably couldn't be bothered to get into a legal wrangle and a negligent 50k was paid out, it was after all to charity
What the Times printed was factual, the Mccanns had the efits which Redwood plastered all over Crimewatch for years before he did so
To this day (as before) the Mccanns have not publicised these efits in any substantial way anywhere...they must not be important in their minds, like, you know, they know better etc
Even when SY have discounted Tannerman they continue to promote him and ignore Smithman thereby IGNORING SY..something is not right here, IS IT??
Edited to add
-
the Times did not libel the Mccanns...they printed facts......and the Mccanns didn't sue either despite some bright sparks thinking they did...the Times probably couldn't be bothered to get into a legal wrangle and a negligent 50k was paid out, it was after all to charity
What the Times printed was factual, the Mccanns had the efits which Redwood plastered all over Crimewatch for years before he did so
To this day (as before) the Mccanns have not publicised these efits in any substantial way anywhere...they must not be important in their minds, like, you know, they know better etc
Did SY have to get permission from the McCanns to get the Smithman file?
In 2008, the McCanns used money from their charity fund to hire investigators from a firm called Oakley International, led by former MI5 surveillance officer Henri Exton, to look into the mystery – and they focused on the Smith sighting.
One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme…It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things…And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.
Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
-
Yes,there is a thread here somewhere (or two or three) about the whole fiasco but I need to go now
Will find it all tomorrow if need to, tara
-
the Times did not libel the Mccanns...they printed facts......and the Mccanns didn't sue either despite some bright sparks thinking they did...the Times probably couldn't be bothered to get into a legal wrangle and a negligent 50k was paid out, it was after all to charity
What the Times printed was factual, the Mccanns had the efits which Redwood plastered all over Crimewatch for years before he did so
To this day (as before) the Mccanns have not publicised these efits in any substantial way anywhere...they must not be important in their minds, like, you know, they know better etc
Even when SY have discounted Tannerman they continue to promote him and ignore Smithman thereby IGNORING SY..something is not right here, IS IT??
Edited to add
You are mistaken ... as the award of £55,000 in libel damages to the Drs McCann and the payment of their legal fees confirms.
**Snip
Eventually, two months later, the Sunday Times acknowledged that its article had been completely false and published a full retraction and apology.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
-
Yes,there is a thread here somewhere (or two or three) about the whole fiasco but I need to go now
Will find it all tomorrow if need to, tara
Night Mercury and everyone.
-
You are mistaken ... as the award of £55,000 in libel damages to the Drs McCann and the payment of their legal fees confirms.
**Snip
Eventually, two months later, the Sunday Times acknowledged that its article had been completely false and published a full retraction and apology.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
Then CR are lying because that is NOT what the The Times said in their "apology" IE that their article was "completely false" it is impossible their whole article was false......they apologised for one thing and one thing ONLY........lawyers hey? night PF
-
Then CR are lying because that is NOT what the The Times said in their "apology" IE that their article was "completely false" it is impossible their whole article was false......they apologised for one thing and one thing ONLY........lawyers hey? night PF
I imagine the Sunday Times article writers had a good chuckle if they saw this CR document, Mercury 8)--))
It's easily demonstrated to be just spin for their clients.
-
Then CR are lying because that is NOT what the The Times said in their "apology" IE that their article was "completely false" it is impossible their whole article was false......they apologised for one thing and one thing ONLY........lawyers hey? night PF
You are still mistaken on two points ~ one of which is your accusation that Carter Ruck are lying, patently they are not.
The other is ... do you think the proprietor of the Sunday Times would not have been taking legal action for the return of his fifty five grand and legal costs if you are not mistaken?
Of course he would ... particularly as he would be selling more papers on the back of the headlines ... as we know, use of Madeleine's name sells newsprint.
**Snip
The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false. As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
-
I imagine the Sunday Times article writers had a good chuckle if they saw this CR document, Mercury 8)--))
It's easily demonstrated to be just spin for their clients.
I'm not sure they would be having a chuckle about being exposed as incompetents who had failed to carry out proper research.
-
I'm not sure they would be having a chuckle about being exposed as incompetents who had failed to carry out proper research.
The writers of the article couldn't possibly have known at the time of publication of the article about the exact timing of exchange of information between McCanns and authorities because that information wasn't in the public domain.
Apart from that the article was correct, and still is as far as we know.
By the way the Mail, Telegraph and one other (Star I think) also published articles based on the Sunday Times one, and none of them later printed corrections.
-
Actually I think the 55k was paid because the Sunday Times hadn't printed everything Mitchell wanted them to.
Whatever else he wanted them to say on his behalf we still don't know because he hasn't told us.
(Why didn't he just write in another paper at the time, or later?)
-
The writers of the article couldn't possibly have known at the time of publication of the article about the exact timing of exchange of information between McCanns and authorities because that information wasn't in the public domain.
Apart from that the article was correct, and still is as far as we know.
By the way the Mail, Telegraph and one other (Star I think) also published articles based on the Sunday Times one, and none of them later printed corrections.
The same article also includes the following information :
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote
Martin Smith has not threatened legal action over that statement - which - if it was untrue would be hugely libellous. M.Smith has threatened legal action against other newspapers who have misrepresented him.
Anyone who thinks the McCanns were not libelled in that article and were paid £55,000 and given an apology for some other reason - have convinced themselves that black is white IMO. Newspapers do not employ expensive Libel lawyers for the fun of it.
-
I wonder why 'all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier'?
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
In October 2009 neither force was investigating Madeleine's disappearance. I wonder what they did with it, and why the McCanns waited a year before passing the information on. They sacked Oakley in late 2008.
-
You are still mistaken on two points ~ one of which is your accusation that Carter Ruck are lying, patently they are not.
The other is ... do you think the proprietor of the Sunday Times would not have been taking legal action for the return of his fifty five grand and legal costs if you are not mistaken?
Of course he would ... particularly as he would be selling more papers on the back of the headlines ... as we know, use of Madeleine's name sells newsprint.
**Snip
The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false. As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
What was in the Tmes' apology does not match what CR alledged, IE, "the whole article was completely false and printed a full retraction" surely even you can see this simple and basic fact.!
-
The writers of the article couldn't possibly have known at the time of publication of the article about the exact timing of exchange of information between McCanns and authorities because that information wasn't in the public domain.
Apart from that the article was correct, and still is as far as we know.
By the way the Mail, Telegraph and one other (Star I think) also published articles based on the Sunday Times one, and none of them later printed corrections.
The Sunday Times shouldn't have resorted to tabloid sensationalism when they hadn't verified their "scoop". Shoddy journalism.
-
The Sunday Times shouldn't have resorted to tabloid sensationalism when they hadn't verified their "scoop". Shoddy journalism.
Part of the same empire that boasts a well know Red Top.
Maybe they share journos?
-
I wouldn't say having an efit in their possession of a man on the night at the right tme carrying a 4 year old blonde child and not mentioning it ever anywhere and threatening their PI with legal action if he divulged this was sensationalism...more a scoop would you say?
What is sensationalism is their spokesman calling a press conference on Vicky Beckham and other extremely tenuous so called sightngs, which weren't even sightings anyway but bits of heard conversations by a man who couldn't even be bothered to report them until two years later! Pffft
Priorities?
Hmmmm
&%+((£
-
The Sunday Times shouldn't have resorted to tabloid sensationalism when they hadn't verified their "scoop". Shoddy journalism.
No, not shoddy. Brave. And Mail, Telegraph and Star also published articles based on the Sunday Times one.
Do you want to live in a country in which nobody is brave enough to publish any articles about someone represented by CR?
-
Quoting from the Press Gazette:
The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".
This is a couple who could have pages and pages of their chosen text published in any of the papers any day they wanted to. Yet they did not do so. They create problems themselves.
-
No, not shoddy. Brave. And Mail, Telegraph and Star also published articles based on the Sunday Times one.
Do you want to live in a country in which nobody is brave enough to publish any articles about someone represented by CR?
Especially when they LIE
Oh the irony
-
Has anyone contributing to this thread actually come up with a valid cite confirming the allegation that funds were moved from Madeleine's Fund to another account?
Or is it just another unsubstantiated accusation?
-
Best to deal with /admit your mistakes before deflecting
-
Has anyone contributing to this thread actually come up with a valid cite confirming the allegation that funds were moved from Madeleine's Fund to another account?
Or is it just another unsubstantiated accusation?
It was stated in The Mirror Online as was linked on here early doors so who knows?
Up until 31st March 2014 it would appear it hadn't happened according the financial statements filed. After that we will have to wait until Jan 2016 and Jan 2017 to look at the accounts for FY 2014/2015 and FY 2015/2016. By which time we will have lost interest I expect. So in real terms it can be neither proved nor disproved.
-
Has anyone contributing to this thread actually come up with a valid cite confirming the allegation that funds were moved from Madeleine's Fund to another account?
Or is it just another unsubstantiated accusation?
&%+((£ Do you think the Mirror would invent words attributed to Mitchell?
(Sunday Times maybe 8)-))) but the Mirror?)
-
&%+((£ Do you think the Mirror would invent words attributed to Mitchell?
(Sunday Times maybe 8)-))) but the Mirror?)
Heaven forfend that the Mirror should twist an interviewee's words to suit. It's never happened before has it?!
-
It was stated in The Mirror Online as was linked on here early doors so who knows?
Up until 31st March 2014 it would appear it hadn't happened according the financial statements filed. After that we will have to wait until Jan 2016 and Jan 2017 to look at the accounts for FY 2014/2015 and FY 2015/2016. By which time we will have lost interest I expect. So in real terms it can be neither proved nor disproved.
In other words this is simply an example of yet another thread designed to get the boot into Madeleine McCann's parents. Based on nothing more than a badly rehashed tabloid story. Pathetic.
-
Heaven forfend that the Mirror should twist an interviewee's words to suit. It's never happened before has it?!
Not with Mitchell in this case, and especially not in the Mirror.
-
Not with Mitchell in this case, and especially not in the Mirror.
Why not? Does he own the Mirror?
-
In other words this is simply an example of yet another thread designed to get the boot into Madeleine McCann's parents. Based on nothing more than a badly rehashed tabloid story. Pathetic.
It's about time dont you think Brie that you realised that everyone who doesn't believe the Mccanns doesn't just put the proverbial boot in...change your tune it's boring and peurile...you really do have to accept there are questions and unless you want to morph into hitler territory you have no right to stop them, challenge them? Yes, question them? Yes but no right to lay down any law
-
It's about time dont you think Brie that you realised that everyone who doesn't believe the Mccanns doesn't just put the proverbial boot in...change your tune it's boring and peurile...you really do have to accept there are questions and unless you want to morph into hitler territory you have no right to stop them, challenge them? Yes, question them? Yes but no right to lay down any law
May one enquire as to the reason for your 25% warning status?
-
Why not? Does he own the Mirror?
Why would they? It's hardly a sensational story.
-
May one enquire as to the reason for your 25% warning status?
yes you may I challenged a mod over and over that was all...happy now? Good
-
Why would they? It's hardly a sensational story.
It seems to have caused a sensation in some quarters! However a story doesn't have to be sensational or controversial for journos to misreport and get facts wrong. Over the years I have been interviewed by the press for various reasons on numerous occasions and pretty much every time have had words attributed to me that I did not actually say. I don't know why journos do this but it seems to be part of their job description.
-
yes you may I challenged a mod over and over that was all...happy now? Good
You wouldn't let it lie!
-
It seems to have caused a sensation in some quarters! However a story doesn't have to be sensational or controversial for journos to misreport and get facts wrong. Over the years I have been interviewed by the press for various reasons on numerous occasions and pretty much every time have had words attributed to me that I did not actually say. I don't know why journos do this but it seems to be part of their job description.
You're not Mitchell though.
(I assume).
You'll have me weeping for him in a minute.
-
You're not Mitchell though.
(I assume).
You'll have me weeping for him in a minute.
Your post makes no sense. What has me not being Mitchell got to do with what I wrote? And what did I write that gave you the impression I was asking you to be shedding tears for the man?
-
Your post makes no sense. What has me not being Mitchell got to do with what I wrote? And what did I write that gave you the impression I was asking you to be shedding tears for the man?
You're proposing that the Mirror didn't just slightly misquote him, but that they completely invented a story about a new account being used. That scenario hasn't anything to do with your experience of being slightly misquoted has it. It's an absurd scenario.
-
You're proposing that the Mirror didn't just slightly misquote him, but that they completely invented a story about a new account being used. That scenario hasn't anything to do with your experience of being slightly misquoted has it. It's an absurd scenario.
No, I'm not proposing that the Mirror completely invented the story, please don't misquote me now! See how easily it's done?!
-
No, I'm not proposing that the Mirror completely invented the story, please don't misquote me now! See how easily it's done?!
The Sunday Times article was a big story, to a great many, but the words attributed to Mitchell in the Mirror (fair enough, it isn't actually a direct quotation) barely even interests us fanatics. Ergo, why would anyone bother inventing them or exaggerating/twisting what was actually said? Nobody would.
-
The Sunday Times article was a big story, to a great many, but the words attributed to Mitchell in the Mirror (fair enough, it isn't actually a direct quotation) barely even interests us fanatics. Ergo, why would anyone bother inventing them or exaggerating/twisting what was actually said? Nobody would.
the papers don't have to change anything...just quoting out of context is enough to change the meaning. The sceptics just want to ignore any evidence or quote which doesn't fit with their conclusions...mercury is a perfect example of this...
-
The Times settled out of court because they had printed libel...they also printed an apology. The other papers did not print the Times story...they printed a different version which did not blame the McCanns....those are the facts...posters are posting more and more untruths on here...that's why I post..to expose the lies
-
The Times settled out of court because they had printed libel...they also printed an apology. The other papers did not print the Times story...they printed a different version which did not blame the McCanns....those are the facts...posters are posting more and more untruths on here...that's why I post..to expose the lies
On whose behalf were the photo fits produced ?
and who didn't release them to help search for their 'beloved' daughter ?
-
On whose behalf were the photo fits produced ?
and who didn't release them to help search for their 'beloved' daughter ?
As a general rule and not necessarily referring to you...I'm getting a bit fed up getting involved in discussions with idiots...if you get my drift
-
The Times settled out of court because they had printed libel...they also printed an apology. The other papers did not print the Times story...they printed a different version which did not blame the McCanns....those are the facts...posters are posting more and more untruths on here...that's why I post..to expose the lies
the mcanns dont care about you davel they dont even know you exist or do they??
-
As a general rule and not necessarily referring to you...I'm getting a bit fed up getting involved in discussions with idiots...if you get my drift
As a general rule I tend to prefer to converse with people who can present a logical argument and not repeatedly BS.....if you get my drift.
-
the mcanns dont care about you davel they dont even know you exist or do they??
see the above post
-
The Sunday Times article was a big story, to a great many, but the words attributed to Mitchell in the Mirror (fair enough, it isn't actually a direct quotation) barely even interests us fanatics. Ergo, why would anyone bother inventing them or exaggerating/twisting what was actually said? Nobody would.
It interested one fanatic enough to start a new thread about it on here didn't it?! I'm not repeat NOT suggesting that the Mirror invented anything, simply that they rather carelessly in the rush to post stories put their own interpretation on what Clarence actually said. I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong, but either way it really matters not a jot, unless (like the fanatic who started this thread) you think there is something wrong or deeply worrying about them putting money aside in a separate account?
-
As a general rule I tend to prefer to converse with people who can present a logical argument and not repeatedly BS.....if you get my drift.
then you and carly have a good discussion...enjoy
-
As a general rule I tend to prefer to converse with people who can present a logical argument and not repeatedly BS.....if you get my drift.
also not biased like davel
-
also not biased like davel
What, like you you mean? @)(++(*
-
It interested one fanatic enough to start a new thread about it on here didn't it?! I'm not repeat NOT suggesting that the Mirror invented anything, simply that they rather carelessly in the rush to post stories put their own interpretation on what Clarence actually said. I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong, but either way it really matters not a jot, unless (like the fanatic who started this thread) you think their is something wrong or deeply worrying about tyem putting money aside in a seoprate account?
As there is no real evidence indicating any criminal actions by the McCanns the only asking questions brigade have to try and find any tiny piece of mud they can throw in the hope some will stick... It's what amaral did
-
What, like you you mean? @)(++(*
don't be so rude as to interrupt carly and Stephen having an intelligent discussion
-
don't be so rude as to interrupt carly and Stephen having an intelligent discussion
Ooops, soz la. 8)--))
-
then you and carly have a good discussion...enjoy
Read my previous comment.
...AND THE ONE BEFORE THAT, WHICH YOU CANNOT REFUTE.
-
Read my previous comment.
...AND THE ONE BEFORE THAT, WHICH YOU CANNOT REFUTE.
you are absolutely right..maddie was a beloved child
-
you are absolutely right..maddie was a beloved child
A beloved child who disappeared as a result of the demonstration of 'responsible parenting skills'.
-
you are absolutely right..maddie was a beloved child
I see you endorsed 'was'.
-
I see you endorsed 'was'.
I believe Maddie is sadly almost certainly deceased
-
In other words this is simply an example of yet another thread designed to get the boot into Madeleine McCann's parents. Based on nothing more than a badly rehashed tabloid story. Pathetic.
I thought it was a thread to discuss the Mirror Online article.
It was also to do with Mr Mitchell and "The Fund Ltd" which is legal person in its own right quite distinct from the McCanns.
-
I thought it was a thread to discuss the Mirror Online article.
It was also to do with Mr Mitchell and "The Fund Ltd" which is legal person in its own right quite distinct from the McCanns.
Oh I do agree ... we really do not give ourselves much time at all to pore over the minutia of how many boxes of paper clips the fund has perhaps fraudulently used over the past couple of weeks ... way beyond time we got our priorities right.
-
The Times settled out of court because they had printed libel...they also printed an apology. The other papers did not print the Times story...they printed a different version which did not blame the McCanns....those are the facts...posters are posting more and more untruths on here...that's why I post..to expose the lies
That is very altruistic of you, but do you really believe that your posts on here will make any difference in the general scheme of things?
To whom are you exposing the lies? less than 100 people?
-
Oh I do agree ... we really do not give ourselves much time at all to pore over the minutia of how many boxes of paper clips the fund has perhaps fraudulently used over the past couple of weeks ... way beyond time we got our priorities right.
@)(++(*
-
Oh I do agree ... we really do not give ourselves much time at all to pore over the minutia of how many boxes of paper clips the fund has perhaps fraudulently used over the past couple of weeks ... way beyond time we got our priorities right.
The point of your post being?
-
The point of your post being?
Well it made me laugh!
-
That is very altruistic of you, but do you really believe that your posts on here will make any difference in the general scheme of things?
To whom are you exposing the lies? less than 100 people?
Do you believe yours will?
-
It interested one fanatic enough to start a new thread about it on here didn't it?! I'm not repeat NOT suggesting that the Mirror invented anything, simply that they rather carelessly in the rush to post stories put their own interpretation on what Clarence actually said. I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong, but either way it really matters not a jot, unless (like the fanatic who started this thread) you think there is something wrong or deeply worrying about them putting money aside in a separate account?
The thing is, just like with the Sunday Times article, Mitchell could simply ask one of his journalist mates - and he has many of course - to write another article sharpish in which he could be quoted correctly.
But that's not the way he works is it. The Press Gazette stated action was taken against the Sunday Times because they did not print everything Mitchell and McCanns wanted them to. Ok, so they go and ask a friend-journalist somewhere else to explain just what the heck went on with those efits and 'private investigator' report.
But they didn't. And that's how they create their own problems. Just as they did in 2007/8.
-
The thing is, just like with the Sunday Times article, Mitchell could simply ask one of his journalist mates - and he has many of course - to write another article sharpish in which he could be quoted correctly.
But that's not the way he works is it. The Press Gazette stated action was taken against the Sunday Times because they did not print everything Mitchell and McCanns wanted them to. Ok, so they go and ask a friend-journalist somewhere else to explain just what the heck went on with those efits and 'private investigator' report.
But they didn't. And that's how they create their own problems. Just as they did in 2007/8.
Actually the Sunday Times libelled the Drs McCann ... which is why they had to fork out fifty grand to them and pay the court expenses.
However sceptics present it it does not obliterate the fact that Madeleine McCann's parents were libelled ... and that is the fact of the matter.
-
Actually the Sunday Times libelled the Drs McCann ... which is why they had to fork out fifty grand to them and pay the court expenses.
However sceptics present it it does not obliterate the fact that Madeleine McCann's parents were libelled ... and that is the fact of the matter.
That's just a word, though it's one you do love so much. If it doesn't get to a court nobody can state what a judge would have finally ruled or not can they.
Here's what the Press Gazette said, which is as far as I know the only information we have on that action:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police)
There's accuracy (assuming the Press Gazette were accurate). Saying it was "libel!" isn't accurate.
-
That's just a word, though it's one you do love so much. If it doesn't get to a court nobody can state what a judge would have finally ruled or not can they.
Here's what the Press Gazette said, which is as far as I know the only information we have on that action:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police)
There's accuracy (assuming the Press Gazette were accurate). Saying it was "libel!" isn't accurate.
The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
-
The thing is, just like with the Sunday Times article, Mitchell could simply ask one of his journalist mates - and he has many of course - to write another article sharpish in which he could be quoted correctly.
But that's not the way he works is it. The Press Gazette stated action was taken against the Sunday Times because they did not print everything Mitchell and McCanns wanted them to. Ok, so they go and ask a friend-journalist somewhere else to explain just what the heck went on with those efits and 'private investigator' report.
But they didn't. And that's how they create their own problems. Just as they did in 2007/8.
As you've already pointed out, only a barmy fanatic would get their knickers in a twist about the Mirror article so, as no libel was commited and as no one normal would raise an eyebrow about what was said in the article, why would Clarence seek a re-write or raise an objection? It's not worth the price of a phone call.
-
The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
They're press releases 8(0(*
-
Do you believe yours will?
I never did.
That's not why I am here old stick.
-
Well it made me laugh!
I would expect nothing less; it being the bagman's duty to laugh at the honchos jokes 8(0(*
-
I would expect nothing less; it being the bagman's duty to laugh at the honchos jokes 8(0(*
Respect for right conduct is felt by everybody, ORLY?
-
They're press releases 8(0(*
Sigh ... so when one launches an action for libel due to damaging misrepresentation of facts ... precipitating a payout and payment of legal costs and an apology ... the payout, payment of legal fees and apology has ~ in your opinion ~ nothing whatsoever to do with ... paying damages for ... libel.
What an extraordinary interpretation of events ... quite bizarre in fact.
-
I would expect nothing less; it being the bagman's duty to laugh at the honchos jokes 8(0(*
What a rude comment. &%&£(+
-
I never did.
That's not why I am here old stick.
No, you've made it clear you are here to wind up and insult, see post above. How mature.
-
Sigh ... so when one launches an action for libel due to damaging misrepresentation of facts ... precipitating a payout and payment of legal costs and an apology ... the payout, payment of legal fees and apology has ~ in your opinion ~ nothing whatsoever to do with ... paying damages for ... libel.
What an extraordinary interpretation of events ... quite bizarre in fact.
CR aren't CR for no reason you know. Notice how the costs figure aid isn't mentioned, because it was probably nominal. But prior to settlement they intimidate with costs (just as they did with you know who over at a certain forum), and if a newspaper perhaps has no real interest in taking the issue to the court anyway why wouldn't they settle for £55k plus nominal costs? The correction to the article changed a date. It didn't change the question posed by the article, and that's clear for everyone to see.
There was no apology printed after the settlement. There was only the correction printed the previous year.
-
CR aren't CR for no reason you know. Notice how the costs figure aid isn't mentioned, because it was probably nominal. But prior to settlement they intimidate with costs (just as they did with you know who over at a certain forum), and if a newspaper perhaps has no real interest in taking the issue to the court anyway why wouldn't they settle for £55k plus nominal costs? The correction to the article changed a date. It didn't change the question posed by the article, and that's clear for everyone to see.
There was no apology printed after the settlement. There was only the correction printed the previous year.
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review.
We apologise for the distress caused."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police
The Sunday Times libelled Madeleine McCann's parents ... paid out for it ... and apologised for it. That you are incapable of recognising that seems rather odd.
-
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review.
We apologise for the distress caused."
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police
The Sunday Times libelled Madeleine McCann's parents ... paid out for it ... and apologised for it. That you are incapable of recognising that seems rather odd.
Five years, down to one year. Needs expaining, does it not? It hasn't been. I'm not remotely interested in what the court might have said if the paper had wished to take the matter there. Libel or not libel is clearly foremost in your mind, because it enables people to claim the McCanns are 'victims' (yet again), but curiously you're not interested in why there was a one year delay. That's what's odd actually.
-
Five years, down to one year. Needs expaining, does it not? It hasn't been. I'm not remotely interested in what the court might have said if the paper had wished to take the matter there. Libel or not libel is clearly foremost in your mind, because it enables people to claim the McCanns are 'victims' (yet again), but curiously you're not interested in why there was a one year delay. That's what's odd actually.
Please do not presume to determine what may or may not be in my mind ... I have stuck rigidly to the facts of the matter ... no speculation ... no interpretation ... only fact. Which is a practice I thoroughly recommend to you.
-
Please do not presume to determine what may or may not be in my mind ... I have stuck rigidly to the facts of the matter ... no speculation ... no interpretation ... only fact. Which is a practice I thoroughly recommend to you.
Well, if the one year delay does bother you you've been remarkably silent about it.
-
Five years, down to one year. Needs expaining, does it not? It hasn't been. I'm not remotely interested in what the court might have said if the paper had wished to take the matter there. Libel or not libel is clearly foremost in your mind, because it enables people to claim the McCanns are 'victims' (yet again), but curiously you're not interested in why there was a one year delay. That's what's odd actually.
A one-year delay in what?
-
A one-year delay in what?
Giving those efits to police.
-
Five years, down to one year. Needs expaining, does it not? It hasn't been. I'm not remotely interested in what the court might have said if the paper had wished to take the matter there. Libel or not libel is clearly foremost in your mind, because it enables people to claim the McCanns are 'victims' (yet again), but curiously you're not interested in why there was a one year delay. That's what's odd actually.
Why does it need explaining? What business is it of yours anyway? Do the McCanns owe you an explanation for every question you have about this case?
-
Why does it need explaining? What business is it of yours anyway? Do the McCanns owe you an explanation for every question you have about this case?
No, not me. They don't care what I think. But they do care very much about what the public thinks.
-
No, you've made it clear you are here to wind up and insult, see post above. How mature.
I don't think I ever said that tacitly, implicitly or explicitly. But have it your way if you wish. I just give back what I get. I have never really been that turn the other cheek type; more Old Testament me.
You wouldn't be trying to start another flame war would you Alf?
-
No, not me. They don't care what I think. But they do care very much about what the public thinks.
And you think "the public" cares about a supposed one year delay in handing over some e-fits to the police...don't make me laugh! The ONLY people who care are the small minority of people on this planet who obsess about this case online, in particular the variety of obsessives who ain't all that keen on the McCanns. The McCanns already know those people can't stand 'em so why should they start pandering to them now? It isn't going to make any difference to the attitude of the "Only Asking Questions" brigade, now is it?
-
I don't think I ever said that tacitly, implicitly or explicitly. But have it your way if you wish. I just give back what I get. I have never really been that turn the other cheek type; more Old Testament me.
You wouldn't be trying to start another flame war would you Alf?
Me starting a flame war? Let's get something straight - the first person flinging insults on this thread today was you. If you don't wish to criticised for your childish postings then perhaps you could quit with the insults and wisecracks?
-
No, not me. They don't care what I think. But they do care very much about what the public thinks.
If they do care what the public think they have a funny way of dealing with it. Every statement they ever make raises more questions than answers. Is that deliberate?
We know they sacked Oakley in 2008. They said they gave the e-fits to the Portuguese police and LP in 2009. We don't know why, because neither force was actively investigating the case at the time. Then in 2011 they gave the e-fits and the report produced by Oakley to Operation Grange. They sat on it all for two years, then unveiled the e-fits on Crimewatch.
Operation Grange have said the e-fits are both of the same man and were created by members of the Irish family who saw a man carrying a child. They declined to say when the e-fits were produced and when they were first shown to Operation Grange. They also declined a request asking when they met or had contact with the Irish family. No one has actually said that the Irish family were named Smith.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_about_two_e_fits_of_a?unfold=1#incoming-574640
In their first statements to the PJ the Smith family all said they would not recognise the man again.
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Perhaps another Irish family also saw this person and produced the e-fits?
-
And you think "the public" cares about a supposed one year delay in handing over some e-fits to the police...don't make me laugh! The ONLY people who care are the small minority of people on this planet who obsess about this case online, in particular the variety of obsessives who ain't all that keen on the McCanns. The McCanns already know those people can't stand 'em so why should they start pandering to them now? It isn't going to make any difference to the attitude of the "Only Asking Questions" brigade, now is it?
If nobody cares why do the papers still keep putting the case on their front pages? Behave, Alfred. The case is unique in this country.
-
If they do care what the public think they have a funny way of dealing with it. Every statement they ever make raises more questions than answers. Is that deliberate?
We know they sacked Oakley in 2008. They said they gave the e-fits to the Portuguese police and LP in 2009. We don't know why, because neither force was actively investigating the case at the time. Then in 2011 they gave the e-fits and the report produced by Oakley to Operation Grange. They sat on it all for two years, then unveiled the e-fits on Crimewatch.
Operation Grange have said the e-fits are both of the same man and were created by members of the Irish family who saw a man carrying a child. They declined to say when the e-fits were produced and when they were first shown to Operation Grange. They also declined a request asking when they met or had contact with the Irish family. No one has actually said that the Irish family were named Smith.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_about_two_e_fits_of_a?unfold=1#incoming-574640
In their first statements to the PJ the Smith family all said they would not recognise the man again.
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Perhaps another Irish family also saw this person and produced the e-fits?
Yep, G. No wonder there's interest in all that mystery.
-
If nobody cares why do the papers still keep putting the case on their front pages? Behave, Alfred. The case is unique in this country.
Could that uniqueness mean that "what about all the others" really never had any relevance.
-
Could that uniqueness mean that "what about all the others" really never had any relevance.
Not with you there.
-
Giving those efits to police.
Has it been established that the McCanns had them / had legal use of them at the time of writing the book?
There appears to have been all sorts of litigation going on behind the scenes with Oakley (not helped by Halligen's arrest and conviction for other matters).
It's possible that the Met was able to force Oakley (or individuals) to hand over what the McCanns hadn't been able to obtain. Don't know, but I find that plausible.
Edited for clarity.
-
Has it been established that the McCanns had them / had legal use of them at the time of writing the book?
There appears to have been all sorts of litigation going on behind the scenes with Oakley (not helped by Halligen's arrest and conviction for other matters).
It's possible that the Met was able to force Oakley (or individuals) to hand over what the McCanns hadn't. Don't know, but I find that plausible.
Why would they need to do that when they could have easily obtained all the information from Leicestershire police?
-
Has it been established that the McCanns had them / had legal use of them at the time of writing the book?
There appears to have been all sorts of litigation going on behind the scenes with Oakley (not helped by Halligen's arrest and conviction for other matters).
It's possible that the Met was able to force Oakley (or individuals) to hand over what the McCanns hadn't. Don't know, but I find that plausible.
Of course it's possible there were legal reasons why it took a year. There might be other reasons too, but why not just say so?
There may be reasons why they can't say so. But the Press Gazette said the Sunday Times didn't print everything Mitchell wanted them to, so if there was more to say in October 2013 there's more to say now. Mitchell still hasn't said what he says the Sunday Times declined to print. Why not?
-
police?
Why would they need to do that when they could have easily obtained all the information from Leicestershire
Would a live review with an investigative aspect have made a difference to legally force handing over information?
If some legal entities or sub-contractors were based in the US or elsewhere, there could have been a massive legal nightmare involved.
-
If nobody cares why do the papers still keep putting the case on their front pages? Behave, Alfred. The case is unique in this country.
You misunderstand. Of course people are interested in the McCann saga, but I very much doubt they are all clamouring to know why the McCanns felt it necessary to start a separate account for monies to be used to search for Madeleine, nor about the precise details of when e-fits were handed over to the police. Behave yourself Lyall.
-
Of course it's possible there were legal reasons why it took a year. There might be other reasons too, but why not just say so?
There may be reasons why they can't say so. But the Press Gazette said the Sunday Times didn't print everything Mitchell wanted them to, so if there was more to say in October 2013 there's more to say now. Mitchell still hasn't said what he says the Sunday Times declined to print. Why not?
Because it's none of your business for crying out loud!!!
-
That is very altruistic of you, but do you really believe that your posts on here will make any difference in the general scheme of things?
To whom are you exposing the lies? less than 100 people?
of course I don't think my posts will make any difference in the grand scheme of life the universe and everything...I don't post to make any such difference...I just like to throw a pebble in the pond and see the ripples..if you get my drift
-
Because it's none of your business for crying out loud!!!
No, but in October 2013 it was the Sunday Times, Telegraph, Mail and Star's business ?{)(**
-
What substantiates even the (revised) heading of this thread?
Is it still based on a reported summary of what Clarence is supposed to have said about "keeping back" funds in the context of the official investigations shutting down?
"Keeping back" can simply mean mentally ensuring that reserves are available to continue searching.
-
No, but in October 2013 it was the Sunday Times, Telegraph, Mail and Star's business ?{)(**
Which means zilch. The rule used to be to find three independent sources for "facts". Cribbing on each other doesn't count.
-
deleted.
-
No, but in October 2013 it was the Sunday Times, Telegraph, Mail and Star's business ?{)(**
Business being the operative word.
-
Which means zilch. The rule used to be to find three independent sources for "facts". Cribbing on each other doesn't count.
It does mean something. It means interest exists beyond the forums, blogs and other social media.
Or it did in October 2013 at least.
-
It does mean something. It means interest exists beyond the forums, blogs and other social media.
Or it did in October 2013 at least.
Of course interest exists beyond the forums, but interest in the minutiae of who handed what to whom on which date is of lesser interest. Can you not see that there is 'interest' and then there is 'obsessive scrutiny'?
-
Of course interest exists beyond the forums, but interest in the minutiae of who handed what to whom on which date is of lesser interest. Can you not see that there is 'interest' and then there is 'obsessive scrutiny'?
Of course. Some people are too fanatical, there's no doubt about that. I was in 2007, so I can understand it. But it's not healthy.
(That goes for both 'sides').
-
Should those who post a dozen times a day or more be called fanatical, or just interested, I wonder?
-
Should those who post a dozen times a day or more be called fanatical, or just interested, I wonder?
called fanatical by whom...and who cares
-
Should those who post a dozen times a day or more be called fanatical, or just interested, I wonder?
A dozen times a day is nothing (I get that it's a dig at me btw, thanks for that), you should take a look at twitter where some obsessives tweet dozens of time a day, and that's just twitter - what they're also posting on FB and forums god only knows. But of course I'm a fanatic, as are you albeit only half as fanatical as I am (if post count is indicative of fanaticism).
-
A dozen times a day is nothing (I get that it's a dig at me btw, thanks for that), you should take a look at twitter where some obsessives tweet dozens of time a day, and that's just twitter - what they're also posting on FB and forums god only knows. But of course I'm a fanatic, as are you albeit only half as fanatical as I am (if post count is indicative of fanaticism).
Absolutely, alternate days of fanaticism in my case @)(++(*
Don't take it personally - there are others.
-
The Others. (That's who I was thinking of too, jassi)
Not us relatively sane peeps ?>)()<
-
The Others. (That's who I was thinking of too, jassi)
Not us relatively sane peeps ?>)()<
Que?
-
It does mean something. It means interest exists beyond the forums, blogs and other social media.
Or it did in October 2013 at least.
I was referring to journalistic standards.
-
Of course. Some people are too fanatical, there's no doubt about that. I was in 2007, so I can understand it. But it's not healthy.
(That goes for both 'sides').
Out of curiosity, what made you step back a bit (if ever you have done)?
-
Out of curiosity, what made you step back a bit (if ever you have done)?
I definitely did in 2008, because of the aggro on the forums and it becoming obvious you couldn't tell anymore who was genuine and who was playing games. I still followed the case on TV and in the papers though.
-
I was referring to journalistic standards.
Ok, my mistake. But the Sunday Times article was barely changed by the correction that was printed. All that changed was the date of transfer of information to the authorities. If anything else was wrong in that article - and those printed a day or so later in the other papers - we're yet to be told. So as far as we know, except for the one correction, the journalists wrote a good article.
-
Did the C of A decision, and the odd press feed, both happen on the 2nd?
2nd + 15 = 17th
If completely hypothetically on 2nd there was any alteration of company constitution, or director list, it be appearing at CH around then.
-
I can think of a few reasons why they would want to open another account to 'ring fence' money.
Non of them for a good reason I fear.
They can up the interest rate by transferring all the bank account funds, instead of splitting it.
I also wonder if SY and PJ lock the case and stop the level of investigations, and the millions already spent on achieving nothing so far (as we are aware)- what do the McCanns expect their paltry few 100grand will do to 'find Maddie'.
Good question - any good answers?
-
I can think of a few reasons why they would want to open another account to 'ring fence' money.
Non of them for a good reason I fear.
They can up the interest rate by transferring all the bank account funds, instead of splitting it.
I also wonder if SY and PJ lock the case and stop the level of investigations, and the millions already spent on achieving nothing so far (as we are aware)- what do the McCanns expect their paltry few 100grand will do to 'find Maddie'.
Good question - any good answers?
I don't know the answer, maybe will will know a bit more in about a week's time?
-
I don't know the answer, maybe will will know a bit more in about a week's time?
Why, what's happening in about a week's time?
-
Why, what's happening in about a week's time?
If hypothetically any significant change of the fund was made on Sept 2nd (date of that PR press release about fund changes), it might be visible at CH after about 15 days. Probably nothing - it's only a guess.
-
I wonder if the Mccanns would hire new PIs if SY and PJ end their investigations with no result and if so, what they think it might achieve that Multi millions and untold number of experienced officers working for years, not to mention all their other PIs and the previous investigations, not to mention worldwide media courage and untold appeals, couldn't
Can't see it myself, anyone any ideas?
-
I wonder if the Mccanns would hire new PIs if SY and PJ end their investigations with no result and if so, what they think it might achieve that Multi millions and untold number of experienced officers working for years, not to mention all their other PIs and the previous investigations, not to mention worldwide media courage and untold appeals, couldn't
Can't see it myself, anyone any ideas?
I would say its quite possible...intelligent people see failure as a learning tool and don't give up
-
I wonder if the Mccanns would hire new PIs if SY and PJ end their investigations with no result and if so, what they think it might achieve that Multi millions and untold number of experienced officers working for years, not to mention all their other PIs and the previous investigations, not to mention worldwide media courage and untold appeals, couldn't
Can't see it myself, anyone any ideas?
TBH Mercury I very much doubt anyone but the truly deluded will donate to a further search by the McCanns when so much time and publicans private money has already been thrown at it with zero results.
-
I wonder if the Mccanns would hire new PIs if SY and PJ end their investigations with no result and if so, what they think it might achieve that Multi millions and untold number of experienced officers working for years, not to mention all their other PIs and the previous investigations, not to mention worldwide media courage and untold appeals, couldn't
Can't see it myself, anyone any ideas?
Some people have called for Op Grange to end, the only reason being cost, because we don't know if they have achieved anything or not. The McCanns, we were led to believe, have more information about it than we do (regular updates?). Can we assume that Op Grange have no viable leads? When the McCanns mention 'continuing the search' does that suggest that they aren't expecting Op Grange to find out what happened? Could SY survive admitting that they have found nothing after all this time? Would their investigation really have been allowed to continue all this time if no progress was being made?
-
Some people have called for Op Grange to end, the only reason being cost, because we don't know if they have achieved anything or not. The McCanns, we were led to believe, have more information about it than we do (regular updates?). Can we assume that Op Grange have no viable leads? When the McCanns mention 'continuing the search' does that suggest that they aren't expecting Op Grange to find out what happened? Could SY survive admitting that they have found nothing after all this time? Would their investigation really have been allowed to continue all this time if no progress was being made?
[/b]
1 Probably as nothing has been found to date that has lead to an arrest or locating the child.
2 Don't know.
3 Yes.
4 Yes.
8(0(*
-
Thanks FL, GU and AP
I would imagine donations to the MF are more or less dry and won't really pick up at all....my main question was can anyone be hired to find their child when so many have tried already and everything that has come with it...manpower, media, millions, ...IE what exactly can continuing the search mean that is not happening already or has happened, and would need large sums of money, never mind, not that curious, was just a thought
-
Thanks FL, GU and AP
I would imagine donations to the MF are more or less dry and won't really pick up at all....my main question was can anyone be hired to find their child when so many have tried already and everything that has come with it...manpower, media, millions, ...IE what exactly can continuing the search mean that is not happening already or has happened, and would need large sums of money, never mind, not that curious, was just a thought
Well, it is illegal to hire investigators while a police file is still open in Portugal.. so how will they get round that?
What witnesses will they question? It just isn't going to happen- the McCanns want to slip into a comfortable life- with a public persona to drag out on an as and when needs be case.
-
Did anyone ever do the research to find out what percentage of public donations (not from the McCanns' income or commercial activities) were spent on searching for Madeleine? To be specifically clear: on private investigators / press events with direct appeals.
And if so, do you have the financial figures to go with the percentages?
Thanks, Gadfly
-
--
Again -- for anyone who has done any research on this:
Did anyone ever do the research to find out what percentage of public donations (not from the McCanns' income or commercial activities) were spent on searching for Madeleine? To be specifically clear: on private investigators / press events with direct appeals.
And if so, do you have the financial figures to go with the percentages?
Thanks, Gadfly
-
Sadie, give me something on the forum other than skewed logic and judgement, and I'll give you something in response to your Q.
--
Again -- for anyone who has done any research on this:
Did anyone ever do the research to find out what percentage of public donations (not from the McCanns' income or commercial activities) were spent on searching for Madeleine? To be specifically clear: on private investigators / press events with direct appeals.
And if so, do you have the financial figures to go with the percentages?
Thanks, Gadfly
As the accounts are less than transparent and most of what we know regarding PIs etc comes from tabloid articles I think it would be a very difficult subject to research in any depth.
-
(snip) Did anyone ever do the research to find out what percentage of public donations (not from the McCanns' income or commercial activities) were spent on searching for Madeleine? To be specifically clear: on private investigators / press events with direct appeals.
And if so, do you have the financial figures to go with the percentages?
Thanks, Gadfly
I think the accounts are not sufficiently detailed to allow that calculation Gadfly.
Even if the figures were available, it would be a subjective matter as to which activities constitute "search".
(BTW what happened to the middle initial you were considering adopting?)
-
Thanks Pegasus/Faithlily. Would be nice to have a breakdown of expenses -- scrutiny might reveal if the Fund provides value for money.
Pegasus - after Sadie's signature line re: Alfred, or was it Arthur, I think she would literally self-combust while screaming about lies, agendas, disinformation, insinuation, propaganda and strangely 'pee' (check the Eddie thread) if I did anything to besmirch his memory. Poor lady. The R is his.
-
Thanks Pegasus/Faithlily. Would be nice to have a breakdown of expenses -- scrutiny might see if the Fund provides value for money.
Pegasus - after Sadie's signature line re: Alfred, or was it Arthur, I think she would literally self-combust while screaming about lies, agendas, disinformation, insinuation, propaganda and strangely 'pee' (check the Eddie thread) if I did anything to besmirch his memory. Poor lady. The R is his.
You can see all the accounts for free at companies house website Gadfly.
O'Dowd has published some examinations of them.
(And I'm glad you're not going to steal someone's initial, that really would be taking the p if you'll excuse the pun).
-
As the accounts are less than transparent and most of what we know regarding PIs etc comes from tabloid articles I think it would be a very difficult subject to research in any depth.
Only the first year accounts are detailed to a degree* though still not clear as to what was lumped together (see thread at top of ths forum for documents and reports) for yearly records
But as Pegasus says, its a matter of speculation and interpretation "re the search"
However GM is on record as saying in 2010 that the vast majority of the funds were spent directly on search fees
*
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesfundgraphic.jpg&target=tlx_picamk1
-
Sadie, give me something on the forum other than skewed logic and judgement, and I'll give you something in response to your Q.
--
Again -- for anyone who has done any research on this:
Did anyone ever do the research to find out what percentage of public donations (not from the McCanns' income or commercial activities) were spent on searching for Madeleine? To be specifically clear: on private investigators / press events with direct appeals.
And if so, do you have the financial figures to go with the percentages?
Thanks, Gadfly
Gadfly, I dont think that you are using logic at all, or else you haven't read my posts using statements to verify facts ... but you are just following myths and perpetuating them.
-
Gadfly, I dont think that you are using logic at all, or else you haven't read my posts using statements to verify facts ... but you are just following myths and perpetuating them.
and your not ............
-
Snip) However GM is on record as saying in 2010 that the vast majority of the funds were spent directly on search fees (snip)
At http://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history you can find the 2009-2010 accounts which lists all the search expenditures but it also depends on how search is defined for example do you include only actual searching or do you also include actions which are considered essential to enable the search?
-
At http://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history you can find the 2009-2010 accounts which lists all the search expenditures but it also depends on how search is defined for example do you include only actual searching or do you also include actions which are considered essential to enable the search?
Thanks Pegasus, handy link there. WHat I was referring to was the comment made in 2010 referred to all the monies received from 2007 and that the vast majority had been spent in direct search fees.....
You can listen to part two of that interview or read it here
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id343.html
-
Thanks Pegasus, handy link there. WHat I was referring to was the comment made in 2010 referred to all the monies received from 2007 and that the vast majority had been spent in direct search fees.....
You can listen to part two of that interview or read it here
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id343.html
The fund has two clearly stated aims:
to find the child
to ensure the perp is caught
Therefore 100% of all money spent is (directly or indirectly) on those 2 aims.
-
The fund has two clearly stated aims:
to find the child
to ensure the perp is caught
Therefore 100% of all money spent is (directly or indirectly) on those 2 aims.
Is that last line a statement of the fund or your opinion?
-
We have some idea what the Fund money has been spent on.
Almost immediately legal and professional fees were incurred to set up the Fund, set up the website, pursue the ward of court ruling and obtain a disclosure notice to get information to help the search. Trade marks were applied for to protect fundraising, internet and print promotions. All this was done by the IFLG and BWB.
Some money was spent to support the family while they remained in Portugal.
Various Private Investigators were paid between 2007 and 2011.
Various PR companies and individuals were paid.
A media monitoring unit was paid for in Portugal.
When it comes to legal fees the 2009 and 2010 accounts say the costs of legal action to ban Amaral's book were paid by the Fund. I assume costs were payable when the first book ban was denied in 2011.
Travel costs were paid for witnesses in the Amaral trial. The justification was that the book harmed the search, despite that not being provable.
Lots of detail here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/81jan14/MccannFiles_14_01_2014.htm
Income/Expenditure 2007/8 to 2013/14
Income 4233899
Interest receivable 56213
Total 4290112
Merchandise/Campaign Costs 3212141
Admin. Expenses 299234
Total 3511375
Oper. Surplus/Deficit 778737
Taxation -25681
Surplus/deficit for year 753056
Audit 50085
The accounts for 2014/2015 were even less detailed, with only a Balance Sheet published. There seems to be around £7k less than the 753056 carried forward from the previous year; 746152
-
We have some idea what the Fund money has been spent on.
Almost immediately legal and professional fees were incurred to set up the Fund, set up the website, pursue the ward of court ruling and obtain a disclosure notice to get information to help the search. Trade marks were applied for to protect fundraising, internet and print promotions. All this was done by the IFLG and BWB.
Some money was spent to support the family while they remained in Portugal.
Various Private Investigators were paid between 2007 and 2011.
Various PR companies and individuals were paid.
A media monitoring unit was paid for in Portugal.
When it comes to legal fees the 2009 and 2010 accounts say the costs of legal action to ban Amaral's book were paid by the Fund. I assume costs were payable when the first book ban was denied in 2011.
Travel costs were paid for witnesses in the Amaral trial. The justification was that the book harmed the search, despite that not being provable.
Lots of detail here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/81jan14/MccannFiles_14_01_2014.htm
Income/Expenditure 2007/8 to 2013/14
Income 4233899
Interest receivable 56213
Total 4290112
Merchandise/Campaign Costs 3212141
Admin. Expenses 299234
Total 3511375
Oper. Surplus/Deficit 778737
Taxation -25681
Surplus/deficit for year 753056
Audit 50085
The accounts for 2014/2015 were even less detailed, with only a Balance Sheet published. There seems to be around £7k less than the 753056 carried forward from the previous year; 746152
If only Madeleine's fund were as transparent as Amaral's fund ... sigh
-
If only Madeleine's fund were as transparent as Amaral's fund ... sigh
The fund for Amaral was clearly for his legal expenses.
Sigh and sigh again.
-
I haven't been following this thread much.
Going back to the article cited in the Faith's OP:
He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.
Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”
And Faith's comment below the article:
Clarence Michell is quoted in the article as saying that the McCanns have moved huge amounts of money from the Find Madeleine Fund into another account to be used for the search for Madeleine if SY close their investigation. As the original fund was set up to search for Madeleine why the need for another account ?
Is it possible that the recent press reports around the cost of the investigation is simply to proffer a reason why large amounts of money are being transferred from the Fund ? Clarence Mitchell could have said nothing, he chose not to and I for one find that highly significant.
All I can see as a direct quote from Clarence is:
Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”
It was Tracey Kandohla who mentioned funds moved to a "special account".
Is this anything more than the "restricted funds" under Capital and Assets?
-
I would have assumed that all the money in the Fund was available for the search, but the 2011-2012 accounts reveal Restricted Funds of £ 550k and Unrestricted Funds of £ 306,393.
A note to the accounts (note 5) says that after the publication of the book 'Madeleine' £550k was donated specifically to be used for 'the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.'
Under the usual heading of Merchandise and Campaign Costs;
£ 242,727 was spent from the Unrestricted Funds and £ 234,086 from the Restricted Funds. It would appear therefore that the amount spent from the Unrestricted Funds were indirect costs, with the other expenditure being direct costs as detailed in note 5.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id429.html
Direct and indirect costs are accounting terms with a specific meaning. Direct costs are those which can be assigned to a specific area, so a company making and selling 'widgets' would have raw materials and worker's wages in their direct costs. If they branched out into making and selling knitted goods also, there would be more direct costs associated with that.
The indirect costs are those which are shared by both sides of the business, such as premises costs, audit and accountancy costs and admin. staff wages.
In the case of the Fund it's difficult to see what other activities the company is involved in apart from the search and the investigation, apart from some fairly small scale trading of goods. Consequently it's difficult to understand the need for restricted funds.
-
I'm not an accountant.
In my limited understanding, "restricted funds" can mean funds set aside within the overall accounts, but with restrictions attached as to the use (as the term implies).
Or have I misunderstood?
-
I'm not an accountant.
In my limited understanding, "restricted funds" can mean funds set aside within the overall accounts, but with restrictions attached as to the use (as the term implies).
Or have I misunderstood?
The purposes of the Fund are;
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice
The purpose of the Restricted Funds are;
to pay for the direct cost of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.
I can't really see any difference, so why the restriction? Perhaps the Restricted Funds have other conditions attached which we aren't privy to.
-
Hopefully, the Restricted Funds are earning High Interest. That's what I would do.
-
Hopefully, the Restricted Funds are earning High Interest. That's what I would do.
Is there such a thing these days?
-
I'm not an accountant.
In my limited understanding, "restricted funds" can mean funds set aside within the overall accounts, but with restrictions attached as to the use (as the term implies).
Or have I misunderstood?
The term restricted funds is more usually applied in charity accounts where a donor may give money on the basis that a condition of the gift is it must be used for a specific nominated purpose.
-
Is there such a thing these days?
Yes. If it is Deposited for a fixed term. Six months, or a year is included in this sort of provision.
-
Grants or donations that require that the funds be used in a specific way or for a specific purpose. They can be considered a contract between the donating party and the receiving party. Restricted funds are often associated with non-profit organizations, since a donation might be made to the organization for a specific use only. If the funds are used for something other than what was stipulated, the organization could be required to pay the funds back. For example, a restricted funds gift to a university could indicate that the funds only be used for scholarships in a specific department.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/restricted-funds.html#ixzz45oyk0gAv
So if the restricted funds are used for a purpose other than the one specified by the donor the Fund could find itself having to repay the money.
-
Grants or donations that require that the funds be used in a specific way or for a specific purpose. They can be considered a contract between the donating party and the receiving party. Restricted funds are often associated with non-profit organizations, since a donation might be made to the organization for a specific use only. If the funds are used for something other than what was stipulated, the organization could be required to pay the funds back. For example, a restricted funds gift to a university could indicate that the funds only be used for scholarships in a specific department.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/restricted-funds.html#ixzz45oyk0gAv
So if the restricted funds are used for a purpose other than the one specified by the donor the Fund could find itself having to repay the money.
What Donor are you thinking of? Since Kate herself donated a large amount to The Fund.
-
The term restricted funds is more usually applied in charity accounts where a donor may give money on the basis that a condition of the gift is it must be used for a specific nominated purpose.
Thanks. That's what I understood it to mean.
-
I assume the money was related to the book, as the note mentions it. Was the book money Kate's money? Legally it was, I'm sure, but it was written because the Fund was running low and every penny earned was pledged to the search.
What tipped the balance in our decision is the continuing need to fund the search for Madeleine.....Every penny we raise through the sales of this book will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.
Kate McCann Madeleine.
-
What Donor are you thinking of? Since Kate herself donated a large amount to The Fund.
Donated from what exactly ?
Her earnings as a doctor ?
Or from the book which should never have been written, if she and her husband had taken care of their children ?
Mind you, they have been happy to use donated money, again which should not have been necessary in the first place.
-
I assume the money was related to the book, as the note mentions it. Was the book money Kate's money? Legally it was, I'm sure, but it was written because the Fund was running low and every penny earned was pledged to the search.
What tipped the balance in our decision is the continuing need to fund the search for Madeleine.....Every penny we raise through the sales of this book will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.
Kate McCann Madeleine.
So what else do you think The McCanns are going to do with this money? They are going to use it to Search.
-
Donated from what exactly ?
Her earnings as a doctor ?
Or from the book which should never have been written, if she and her husband had taken care of their children ?
Mind you, they have been happy to use donated money, again which should not have been necessary in the first place.
It doesn't matter how she earned it. It was her money. But you would be complaining if she had never earned a penny.
-
So what else do you think The McCanns are going to do with this money? They are going to use it to Search.
You mean physically ?
They've employed a useless rabble so far.
-
It doesn't matter how she earned it. It was her money. But you would be complaining if she had never earned a penny.
It bloody well does.
I would like to see how much she HAS EARNED from working which has been put in the fund.
Tax payers money is funding the investigation.
-
You mean physically ?
They've employed a useless rabble so far.
Don't be silly - they expect others to do that.
-
It bloody well does.
I would like to see how much she HAS EARNED from working which has been put in the fund.
Tax payers money is funding the investigation.
You think all woman with small children should work, do you? Fortunately my husband didn't require that of me.
-
You think all woman with small children should work, do you? Fortunately my husband didn't require that of me.
These children go to school, so why not ?
-
You mean you don't know what searching themselves means ?
....and the question which invariably doesn't get a reply to..
Why should other people pay for the incompetence of the mccanns ?
-
So what else do you think The McCanns are going to do with this money? They are going to use it to Search.
Of course they are. But in the unlikely event that they don't the terms of the restriction suggest it could be returned to them rather than being used to help in other similar cases.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
-
These children go to school, so why not ?
You think all women with small, school aged children should work, do you?
-
You think all women with small, school aged children should work, do you?
Some women have no choice.
You are trying to make excuses.
Did I say all women should or can work ?
She was working before 2007 as a locum when the children were younger, so your view holds no logic.
-
Some women have no choice.
You are trying to make excuses.
Did I say all women should or can work ?
She was working before 2007 as a locum when the children were younger, so your view holds no logic.
I seem to remember something life changing happening in 2007 without which her life might have just followed its natural course where she would never have met Clarence Mitchell and would never have had to set up a fund on behalf of her elder daughter.
-
I seem to remember something life changing happening in 2007 without which her life might have just followed its natural course where she would never have met Clarence Mitchell and would never have had to set up a fund on behalf of her elder daughter.
....and whose fault is it that in the first place ?
-
Some women have no choice.
You are trying to make excuses.
Did I say all women should or can work ?
She was working before 2007 as a locum when the children were younger, so your view holds no logic.
Kate was on Maternity Leave. Before that she worked for one day a week.
But you seem to have something against women who aren't at the coal face 24/7. Or at least, Kate McCann.
Perhaps you resent the fact that she didn't have to. Did her husband earn a bit too much for you?
-
Kate was on Maternity Leave. Before that she worked for one day a week.
But you seem to have something against women who aren't at the coal face 24/7. Or at least, Kate McCann.
Perhaps you resent the fact that she didn't have to. Did her husband earn a bit too much for you?
Are you trying the jealousy angle yet again ?
I find that a totally empty argument.
-
The McCanns are innocent
I fully understand why that truth would grate.
When will we have final confirmation that the McCanns have prevailed over Amaral in the libel trial?
-
Maybe never.
-
Maybe never.
May be soon.
-
Of course they are. But in the unlikely event that they don't the terms of the restriction suggest it could be returned to them rather than being used to help in other similar cases.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
the mccanns will only use any left over fund mney for other chldren IF MM is returned safely and IF the persons responsible are brought to justice
-
Could we keep to topic please ladies and gents! TY 8((()*/
-
the mccanns will only use any left over fund mney for other chldren IF MM is returned safely and IF the persons responsible are brought to justice
So we can pretty much rule that out, then.
-
Kate was on Maternity Leave. Before that she worked for one day a week.
But you seem to have something against women who aren't at the coal face 24/7. Or at least, Kate McCann.
Perhaps you resent the fact that she didn't have to. Did her husband earn a bit too much for you?
Madeleine was born in May 2003 and the family went to Amsterdam in January 2004. For some of the period between Madeleine's birth and the Amsterdam move when she was 7 months old Madeleine was cared for by Amanda Coxon, Kate's cleaner, while Kate worked. Kate says in her book that Madeleine was at nursery from November 2003. Janet Kennedy, Kate's aunt, seemed unaware of this fact.
When the family returned from Amsterdam Kate got Madeleine settled in nursery for the mornings only. The twins were born in February 2005. By around May 2005 when Madeleine was two she was doing three full days at nursery. From around February 2006 Kate was working as a GP and also tutoring medical students for a half day each week.
During the time I worked there, Kate had her first daughter, Madeleine. Kate asked me whether I would look after Madeleine twice a week when she returned to work part time. I agreed and she would leave Madeleine at my house and come and pick her up later in the day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMANDA-COXON.htm
Madeleine initially went to the nursery in the mornings but as she got older she would spend the whole day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at the nursery – which she enjoyed very much. Kate would take care of Madeleine on Mondays and Fridays, often taking her for swimming lessons. I have known Madeleine for about three years and she was always under my responsibility at the Laurels nursery.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HAYLEY_PLUMBER.htm
I got to know Madeleine and her parents Kate and Gerry through my work at the nursery school. Madeleine started at the nursery when she was about two years old.
When she was two and a half she joined the group supervised by me, I think it was in 2006, and she remained there for about 6 months. Madeleine attended on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
She would be dropped off between 08.00 and 08.30 and would return home at about 17.00.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SHARON_LEWIN.htm
I took care of Madeleine some afternoons or days.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KA-LEMc.htm
Kate who did not return to work as she felt her place was at home. Following the birth of the twins, she only returned to work part-time when they were one year old.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
-
So we can pretty much rule that out, then.
Yup
-
Off Topic, Again. Please don't waste my time or yours.
-
You are just following myths and perpetuating them.
Perché?
-
If there is another fund seperate from MF then where is it?
-
Panama, perhaps, or maybe the Isle of Man 8(0(*
-
Panama, perhaps, or maybe the Isle of Man 8(0(*
The Isle of Man where Kate spent her childhood holidays &%+((£
-
Sorry when I asked "where" I was just wondering if the thing seperate from the MF which CM reportedly announced is a company or a trust or simply a bank account with multiple signatories which is probably all that would be needed and perhaps they modelled it after the efficently run PJGA fund. I was not asking about geography as anyone can see obviously it would be in UK.
-
Sorry when I asked "where" I was just wondering if the thing seperate from the MF which CM reportedly announced is a company or a trust or simply a bank account with multiple signatories which is probably all that would be needed and perhaps they modelled it after the efficently run PJGA fund. I was not asking about geography as anyone can see obviously it would be in UK.
There's nothing obvious about it at all. Money can located anywhere in the world in these days of electronic banking
-
There's nothing obvious about it at all. Money can located anywhere in the world in these days of electronic banking
Yes but there is no tax avoidance benefit to a non-profit organsation by locating offshore. Of course the PM has recently told us about a completely different and honorable reason for placing funds offshore, which is nothing to do with tax but is simply to enable investing in dollar-denominated shares. Again that would be of absolutely no benefit to a search fund. What I meant is, what form in the UK does the money announced by CM as separate from the MF take? Would it be just a bank account modelled after the successful PJGA fund, or would it be something more structured and registered at CH?
-
I'm afraid that due to the degree of transparency of the fund, we have absolutely no way of knowing.
-
I'm afraid that due to the degree of transparency of the fund, we have absolutely no way of knowing.
But we are discussing a different fund, separate from MFLNSUL, if the Mirror correctly quoted Mitchell as saying
"they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund".
-
But we are discussing a different fund, separate from MFLNSUL, if the Mirror correctly quoted Mitchell as saying
"they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund".
A Trust Fund with Madeleine as the beneficiary would be the obvious solution and legally all details could be kept secret.
-
A Trust Fund with Madeleine as the beneficiary would be the obvious solution and legally all details could be kept secret.
I suppose a lawyer could set up a trust so that the money would be used exclusively for search?
-
But we are discussing a different fund, separate from MFLNSUL, if the Mirror correctly quoted Mitchell as saying
"they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund".
Is that necessarily anything different from the amount in the "restricted funds"?
-
Is that necessarily anything different from the amount in the "restricted funds"?
I don't understand why that company has "restricted" and "unrestricted" funds.
The articles at Companies House state clearly that the current aims of the fund are: finding what they assume is an abducted child, and bringing the perp(s) to justice, nothing else.
But yes why does the Mirror article claim that Mitchell said they are holding back money from a fund dedicated to finding the child, for a fund dedicated to finding the child? It defies understanding. Maybe the Mirror misquoted him?
-
I don't understand why that company has "restricted" and "unrestricted" funds.
The articles at Companies House state clearly that the current aims of the fund are: finding what they assume is an abducted child, and bringing the perp(s) to justice, nothing else.
Would that wording cover any recovery action necessary should Madeleine be located in a country not a signatory to the Hague Convention?
-
Would that wording cover any recovery action necessary should Madeleine be located in a country not a signatory to the Hague Convention?
You can read the current two objects of the documented fund at Companies House Misty it's free.
In the hypothetical event of recovery being needed from a non-HC country that would be handled by police and government not PIs.
-
I think JP might be able to shed more light on this in general terms of UK legislation if he pops in.
-
I think JP might be able to shed more light on this in general terms of UK legislation if he pops in.
Sorry but anything french sounding reminds me of the original SIO's astounding claim that some people visited someone with a french sounding name in portugal to discuss, of all things, a minor provincial election. How ludicrous. But back to search expenditure, yes I imagine a trust fund could be set up to pay for search.
-
Sorry but you mentioning french sounding names reminds me of the original SIO's astounding claim that some people visited someone with a french sounding name to discuss, of all things, a minor provincial election. How ludicrous. But back to search expenditure, yes I imagine a trust fund could be set up to pay for search.
LOL Sorry, but I haven't the faintest idea what you're referring to.
-
A Trust Fund with Madeleine as the beneficiary would be the obvious solution and legally all details could be kept secret.
Once you put money int a Trust Fund you have no say in it's use (the trustees administer it) and you never get it back. If Madeleine was the beneficiary and she was never found the money would just sit there.
-
LOL Sorry, but I haven't the faintest idea what you're referring to.
Pegasus is referring to Amaral's contention of the "devious events involving the McCanns" surrounding his removal as a candidate in the Olhao elections.
But yes, JP's input would be helpful. It's difficult in parental abduction cases to achieve repatriation & there was recently a programme on TV about people who have sustained massive personal expense in attempts to recover a child living outside the signatory countries. I am struggling to find details at present as to who pays for repatriation of human trafficking victims or children who are adopted abroad with false documentation.
-
I think JP might be able to shed more light on this in general terms of UK legislation if he pops in.
"In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-ready-continue-6370581
Yes an expert opinion on how that might be structured would be welcome.
-
This really doesn't make much sense to me at all. I was under the impression that the 'fund' was meant to be used searching for Madeleine. if it is not, quite what do people donate to it for?
-
If the fund within a fund is for searching, it would imply that the other money in the fund is not for searching, but for some other, as yet, undisclosed purpose.
-
If the fund within a fund is for searching, it would imply that the other money in the fund is not for searching, but for some other, as yet, undisclosed purpose.
Court costs?
-
PR fees?
-
The Wider Agenda.
-
If the fund within a fund is for searching, it would imply that the other money in the fund is not for searching, but for some other, as yet, undisclosed purpose.
"kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund" implies a fund completely seperate from the MF
-
"kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund" implies a fund completely seperate from the MF
It could equally mean that family money e.g, an inheritance, which may have otherwise been put into the FMF, can be used in future for any type of searching not deemed appropriate by the Fund.
-
It could equally mean that family money e.g, an inheritance, which may have otherwise been put into the FMF, can be used in future for any type of searching not deemed appropriate by the Fund.
Surely once money is donated to the fund it should remain as fund property, or can people who have donated ask for their money back?
-
Surely once money is donated to the fund it should remain as fund property, or can people who have donated ask for their money back?
Once funds are in a limited company's bank account it belongs to the limited company, which is a legal person.
-
Surely once money is donated to the fund it should remain as fund property, or can people who have donated ask for their money back?
Wonder what Mr Amaral will do with the money donated to him?
If he proceeds with his action against Madeleine's parents we are probably going to learn more about his financial situation than we do of our own ... so no doubt all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
-
It could equally mean that family money e.g, an inheritance, which may have otherwise been put into the FMF, can be used in future for any type of searching not deemed appropriate by the Fund.
The number one objective of the existing fund is to find the child.
What kind of searching do you think might require a separate fund Misty?
-
It wasn't donated to him - it went to a fund for his legal expenses. I imagine he might request some of it to be used to sue the McCanns.
-
Wonder what Mr Amaral will do with the money donated to him?
If he proceeds with his action against Madeleine's parents we are probably going to learn more about his financial situation than we do of our own ... so no doubt all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
Amarals fund was for his legal expenses in the libel case wasn't it?
As such as the McCanns (from what I gather) are paying HIS costs in the case..the money is not technically Amarals. Or if I have this right it isn't. As such I would expect it may be donated to some kind of charity or something. IMO it would be wrong to now use said money to pursue a new legal case against the McCanns.
-
Once funds are in a limited company's bank account it belongs to the limited company, which is a legal person.
What happens to the existing money in the Fund if the company is wound up? They probably have few creditors & stranger donations were gifts?
-
What happens to the existing money in the Fund if the company is wound up? They probably have few creditors & stranger donations were gifts?
Good question - donation to a child charity perhaps?
-
"kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund" implies a fund completely seperate from the MF
Does "kept back from" mean the same as "removed from"?
-
It is bloody weird that every time the limited company is mentioned, by return of post there is a "what abaht Amaral's fund then". But the discussion was about the limited company............... &%+((£
Press this button here and that motor over there will fire up @)(++(*
-
It is bloody weird that every time the limited company is mentioned, by return of post there is a "what abaht Amaral's fund then". But the discussion was about the limited company............... &%+((£
Press this button here and that motor over there will fire up @)(++(*
They can't help themselves, it's part of the script.
-
The number one objective of the existing fund is to find the child.
What kind of searching do you think might require a separate fund Misty?
The sort that requires cash-in-hand, Pegasus.
-
What happens to the existing money in the Fund if the company is wound up? They probably have few creditors & stranger donations were gifts?
That is covered in the articles of association.
Winding up
2F. If any property remains after the Foundation has been wound up or dissolved and the debts and liabilities have been satisfied it may not be paid to or distributed among the members of the Foundation, but must be given to some other institution or institutions with similar objects. The institution or institutions to benefit shall be chosen by the Directors at or before the time of winding up or dissolution.
-
That is covered in the articles of association.
Winding up
2F. If any property remains after the Foundation has been wound up or dissolved and the debts and liabilities have been satisfied it may not be paid to or distributed among the members of the Foundation, but must be given to some other institution or institutions with similar objects. The institution or institutions to benefit shall be chosen by the Directors at or before the time of winding up or dissolution.
Someone could set up an institution and the money transferred.
-
Someone could set up an institution and the money transferred.
True 8(0(*
I wonder about this:
"The Fund" paid the legal fees to date on the basis that the publication of the book [TOTL] impeded the search.
If the case is finally resolved in favour of Sr Amaral then the justification has vanished. So is it then kosher for two directors to have their legal fees paid for a personal law suit paid from a limited company's funds ?. After all The Fund is not the plaintiff.
-
True 8(0(*
I wonder about this:
"The Fund" paid the legal fees to date on the basis that the publication of the book [TOTL] impeded the search.
If the case is finally resolved in favour of Sr Amaral then the justification has vanished. So is it then kosher for two directors to have their legal fees paid for a personal law suit paid from a limited company's funds ?. After all The Fund is not the plaintiff.
Perhaps that's why the McCanns keep repeating; 'It was about the effect of the libels on our children and the harm to the search'. The judge didn't see either point as proven but that was still their motivation. That was how they justified using the Fund and to continue using the Fund they have to keep on saying it.
-
Perhaps that's why the McCanns keep repeating; 'It was about the effect of the libels on our children and the harm to the search'. The judge didn't see either point as proven but that was still their motivation. That was how they justified using the Fund and to continue using the Fund they have to keep on saying it.
Yes G, I found that to be most abhorrant,using their children in that way. One point missing from the UK press was they were claiming money on behalf of Madeleine for the harm his booked caused even though there was no evidence from Maddie if she had been harmed by the book, also, The judge was expected to find in favour of this claim even thought her mortal state was /is still unknown! How crass is that? If Maddie was found alive she could appoint her own lawyer to sue Sr Amaral for his book....but would she do that from the comfort of her 'loving family home' the family who left her to...." come to NO harm"
-
Well, funds have moved during 2015/6, but not off the Balance Sheet, so still within the company.
2015 Cash at Bank £ 763,772 2016 Cash at Bank £ 235,506 2016 Investments £ 490,839
2015 Unrestricted funds £ 185,507 2016 Unrestricted funds £ 167,574
2015 Restricted funds £ 560,645 2016 Restricted funds £ 547,226
-
Well, funds have moved during 2015/6, but not off the Balance Sheet, so still within the company.
2015 Cash at Bank £ 763,772 2016 Cash at Bank £ 235,506 2016 Investments £ 490,839
2015 Unrestricted funds £ 185,507 2016 Unrestricted funds £ 167,574
2015 Restricted funds £ 560,645 2016 Restricted funds £ 547,226
Investments ? That's certainly the first time that's appeared.