Where has the £266,000 gone?

[faithlilly]

When the jam jar is empty the flies tend to gravitate to another one that is full.

Indeed Alice, indeed.

[Benice]

We are now in the position  where there is little money to renew the private investigation and very little chance of anyone donating further after they have seen their previous donations being squandered not on the search for a little girl but on unnecessary litigation ( and do not kid yourself Benice  that that is not how most but the diehard supporter will see it ). Add to that the public's view ( voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story ) that a disproportionate amount of public money has been spent on this case and short of another bestseller penned by Kate I really can't see how the McCanns will ever again be able to carry out an effective private investigation.

It's your opinion not mine that money has been squandered on litigation.     I have no criticism at all of their litigation against those people who have libelled them.

As for the public's view  ''voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story''   I refer you to the following quote from 'sceptic' and Amaral supporter Pat Brown:-

Quote

For all of you who say folks in the UK are waking up, you are living in a fishbowl. 99% of the country has NEVER read a Madeleine McCann forum or read the PJ files.  When you see a bunch of anti-McCann comments underneath a news story that isn't because the average people are getting the point: it is because YOU and others who comment HERE and on Internet forums are always looking for articles on the case and as soon as one pops up, YOU are posting comments.    It is the same small group of people that are vocal, not the majority of the country.   It is an ILLUSION.

End quote

At least she got that right -  IMO.

[faithlilly]

It's your opinion not mine that money has been squandered on litigation.     I have no criticism at all of their litigation against those people who have libelled them.

As for the public's view  ''voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story''   I refer you to the following quote from 'sceptic' and Amaral supporter Pat Brown:-

Quote

For all of you who say folks in the UK are waking up, you are living in a fishbowl. 99% of the country has NEVER read a Madeleine McCann forum or read the PJ files.  When you see a bunch of anti-McCann comments underneath a news story that isn't because the average people are getting the point: it is because YOU and others who comment HERE and on Internet forums are always looking for articles on the case and as soon as one pops up, YOU are posting comments.    It is the same small group of people that are vocal, not the majority of the country.   It is an ILLUSION.

End quote

At least she got that right -  IMO.

Then if the money hasn't been squandered Benice can you tell me exactly what the litigation has achieved?

As to the public's view, most of the thousands of negative comments that regularly appear beneath McCann articles are from people who have never read a McCann forum or the PJ files but nonetheless are angry that either the McCanns were never called to account for their negligence or that too much public money is being spent on the one child. These are the same public that are being asked to donate.

Do you think when the public see that at least over half a million pounds has been spent by the McCanns trying to suppress a book rather than looking for their child the public once again will be willing to donate?

The lack of donations to the fund in the last few years IMO speaks volumes.

[Brietta]

I haven't contributed to this thread.  In the main because I have no idea why members are discussing a notion which appears to have little or no provenance.
Actually that isn't quite accurate as I have my own ideas as to intention.

The OP states ...
Looking at  year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of  £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.

It is incredibly simple to check out any concerns at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history.
I am sure should there be any evidence (not just innuendo) of irregularity it would be easy enough to direct it through Companies House.

Perhaps it would be wise to wait till the end of year statement for the accounts of Madeleine's Fund when no doubt Enid O'Dowd will analyse them for us rather than indulge in what can only be meaningless tittle tattle at present.

[Angelo222]

I haven't contributed to this thread.  In the main because I have no idea why members are discussing a notion which appears to have little or no provenance.
Actually that isn't quite accurate as I have my own ideas as to intention.

The OP states ...
Looking at  year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of  £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.

It is incredibly simple to check out any concerns at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history.
I am sure should there be any evidence (not just innuendo) of irregularity it would be easy enough to direct it through Companies House.

Perhaps it would be wise to wait till the end of year statement for the accounts of Madeleine's Fund when no doubt Enid O'Dowd will analyse them for us rather than indulge in what can only be meaningless tittle tattle at present.

Nobody has mentioned irregularity Brietta and I'm sure there isn't any.  All members are asking is where have the funds all gone and since the FMF boasted open and transparent accounting from the beginning surely it isn't too much to ask?  No Stone Unturned what?

[Alice Purjorick]

I haven't contributed to this thread.  In the main because I have no idea why members are discussing a notion which appears to have little or no provenance.
Actually that isn't quite accurate as I have my own ideas as to intention.

The OP states ...
Looking at  year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of  £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.

It is incredibly simple to check out any concerns at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history.
I am sure should there be any evidence (not just innuendo) of irregularity it would be easy enough to direct it through Companies House.

Perhaps it would be wise to wait till the end of year statement for the accounts of Madeleine's Fund when no doubt Enid O'Dowd will analyse them for us rather than indulge in what can only be meaningless tittle tattle at present.

The operative word being "history". The only way to find out the "up to the minute" is by looking in the company day books. Forbidden territory for the general public I fear. So come 1st Jan 2017 we will have a set of figures made up to March 31st 2016 and if last year is owt to go by it will be no more than a signed off balance sheet. Who cares anyway?  if they run out of dosh there is only one way to point the finger.
No one misses a cupful from a full cask. There is however a limited number of times the cup can be dipped in before it becomes noticeable....simples.

[Brietta]

Nobody has mentioned irregularity Brietta and I'm sure there isn't any.  All members are asking is where have the funds all gone and since the FMF boasted open and transparent accounting from the beginning surely it isn't too much to ask?  No Stone Unturned what?

Sorry Angelo, when loose language such as ... "simply a rouse to explain ..." is used when talking about financial matters "irregularity" is the subliminal word which pops into my brain and perhaps the brains of other readers.

In my opinion members who may have evidenced past and present hostility to Madeleine's Fund which has been successful in its aim of keeping Madeleine McCann's case going until the PJ and SY took over may indeed have the legal right to 'question' that fund.
The problem comes with if they have the moral right so to do.

[Brietta]

The operative word being "history". The only way to find out the "up to the minute" is by looking in the company day books. Forbidden territory for the general public I fear. So come 1st Jan 2017 we will have a set of figures made up to March 31st 2016 and if last year is owt to go by it will be no more than a signed off balance sheet. Who cares anyway?  if they run out of dosh there is only one way to point the finger.
No one misses a cupful from a full cask. There is however a limited number of times the cup can be dipped in before it becomes noticeable....simples.

                                                     %£&)**#

[Alfie]

Yet we are now in the position  where there is little money to renew the private investigation and very little chance of anyone donating further after they have seen their previous donations being squandered not on the search for a little girl but on unnecessary litigation ( and do not kid yourself Benice  that that is not how most but the diehard supporter will see it ). Add to that the public's view ( voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story ) that a disproportionate amount of public money has been spent on this case and short of another bestseller penned by Kate I really can't see how the McCanns will ever again be able to carry out an effective private investigation.

It's not your problem though is it, so why concern yourself with it?  If the McCanns can't afford to carry on searching for their daughter, that might fill you with spiteful delight but apart from that, what's it got to do with you? 

[Alfie]

Nobody has mentioned irregularity Brietta and I'm sure there isn't any.  All members are asking is where have the funds all gone and since the FMF boasted open and transparent accounting from the beginning surely it isn't too much to ask?  No Stone Unturned what?

If no one believes there has been any irregularity in the way the fund has been spent, then what business is it of anyone's where the money has gone?  This is not a publicly owned company accountable to the general public we're discussing here, though some seem to think otherwise!

[G-Unit]

Sorry Angelo, when loose language such as ... "simply a rouse to explain ..." is used when talking about financial matters "irregularity" is the subliminal word which pops into my brain and perhaps the brains of other readers.

In my opinion members who may have evidenced past and present hostility to Madeleine's Fund which has been successful in its aim of keeping Madeleine McCann's case going until the PJ and SY took over may indeed have the legal right to 'question' that fund.
The problem comes with if they have the moral right so to do.

Legal rights are the same for everyone. Moral rights are a matter of opinion. [except in the legal sense when they seem to be something to do with copyright].

[G-Unit]

If no one believes there has been any irregularity in the way the fund has been spent, then what business is it of anyone's where the money has gone?  This is not a publicly owned company accountable to the general public we're discussing here, though some seem to think otherwise!

Perhaps you need to raise the point with the media? They printed figures relating to the Fund, presumably to inform the general public, so I see nothing wrong with discussing those figures. Particularly as a seemingly large chunk of the money has been spent with no hint in the media as t why.

[faithlilly]

If no one believes there has been any irregularity in the way the fund has been spent, then what business is it of anyone's where the money has gone?  This is not a publicly owned company accountable to the general public we're discussing here, though some seem to think otherwise!

As Brietta says this is not only about the legal right but 'moral right' to spend publicly donated money in a way that is not within the stated aims of the fund.

[Brietta]

I'm not sure how much if anything has been donated to Madeleine's Fund over the past few years by members of the public.  I have formed the impression gleefully suggested in some posts that it doesn't amount to a great deal.

However if people wish to donate ... that is entirely their choice.
If people do not wish to donate ... that is entirely their choice.

If they object donating indirectly via the tax route to investigating an active line of inquiry in the case of a missing child who hopefully may still be alive, I am sure there must be a complaint procedure they can follow.

In my opinion morality and legality enter the equation at the point of that particular objection.

[Alice Purjorick]

Let's leave morality out of it and deal with legality 
Precis.
A private limited company over a 9 year plus period had receipts totalling ca £4.5MM. Over the same period of time the expenditure was ca £4.00MM ( I am just using figures bandied about in the press so leave me alone. However if one trawls through Companies House stuff (how sad is that?)  it looks about right).
The responsibility for the effective running of the company lay with the board of directors.
After the musical chairs and Madhatter's tea party at the beginning with one or two "names" as directors who subsequently resigned, it finally distilled down to Drs McCann and a few others who appeared to be family friends or relatives but no matter.
If the place has run itself out of dosh and can no longer deliver on it's objectives the directors can blame no one but themselves. They were there to know what made the clock tick on their manor...........easy old stuff innit.