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

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[Brietta]

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

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[Alfred R Jones]

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??

[G-Unit]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[Mr Gray]

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

[Alfred R Jones]

in reality Mitchell has done no harm to the mccanns whatsoever

Of course he hasn't. 

[stephen25000]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[Mr Gray]

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

[Mr Gray]

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