Mitchell: McCanns move funds from Madeleine Fund to another account.

[John]

What damage do you imagine he might have done with his mouth on this occasion?

Sounds a bit like Halligen all over again  &%+((£

[G-Unit]

Neigh          ...sorry G, couldn't resist that!

   No problem.

[pegasus]

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.

[G-Unit]

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..

[jassi]

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.

[Brietta]

                     Possibly time to get Enid O'Dowd on the case ... oooh ... wait a minute ...

[mercury]

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.

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[faithlilly]

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.

[mercury]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[pathfinder73]

Maybe they can predict the future. Must be psychic 

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/

[mercury]

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


 

[pegasus]

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" ?

[jassi]

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.