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

[Eleanor]

Have any Pros actually made any money out of  Madeleine?

I don't believe so, Eleanor! 

Unless our wages count, we are always being accused of being paid, aren't we? 

So, apart from us and our Villas in Portugal, no one else then?  Thought not.

Apart from that and by the by, has The Inland Revenue lodged a complaint against The Fund?

Don't think so 

Thought not.

Not much else to say, is there.

[icabodcrane]

As far as I can see the fund conforms with every single law required of it. It discloses everything that is necessary.

Why should they waste time and money to satisfy the nosey parkers (anti [ censored word ]s) who think the managers of the charity should be at their beck and call?

When anyone points out a single illegal or immoral action by the fund then I will start to look into it. But no-one has ever shown a single such illegal or immoral action by the fund.

Of course there are a few other funds which have been set up related to the McCann case. Bennett has set up at least one, and there is one on behalf of Amaral I believe. None of these are in any way open to any form of legal or financial scrutiny. I feel that is quite disgraceful and I further believe that anyone who demands further exposition of the Madeleine Fund accounts which are already fully in conformity with all legal requirements and are financially scrutinised annually, is simply a rank hypocrite. When they demand scrutiny of all accounts and not just the one belonging to the McCanns then they might be worth my attention. Till then I look down on them as hypocrites.

The Fund is promoted by the McCanns on their website with the claim  that it ensures  the  "highest standards of transparency and accountability"

The Fund ( and the McCanns )  have the opportunity to justify that claim by presenting full and detailed accounts   

They don't legally  have  to file full accounts, of course,   but if they are going to claim highest standards of transparecy then they really  should be filing full accounts

Why wouldn't they, afterall  ?  ...  why wouldn't they take the opportunity to be seen  to be open and transparent where the Fund is concerned ?

Because hounders on the internet would do to the accounts what they did to the first set of more detailed accounts- build myths, lies and distortions.

No wonder they went to abbreviated reports after the shitstorm that followed the first set.

That is hardly a credible excuse for giving as little information as legally allowed

If the McCanns  ( the Fund )  choose to take advantage of the legal right to present abbreviated, non detailed financial information then they really should stop claiming they ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability

[Eleanor]

As far as I can see the fund conforms with every single law required of it. It discloses everything that is necessary.

Why should they waste time and money to satisfy the nosey parkers (anti [ censored word ]s) who think the managers of the charity should be at their beck and call?

When anyone points out a single illegal or immoral action by the fund then I will start to look into it. But no-one has ever shown a single such illegal or immoral action by the fund.

Of course there are a few other funds which have been set up related to the McCann case. Bennett has set up at least one, and there is one on behalf of Amaral I believe. None of these are in any way open to any form of legal or financial scrutiny. I feel that is quite disgraceful and I further believe that anyone who demands further exposition of the Madeleine Fund accounts which are already fully in conformity with all legal requirements and are financially scrutinised annually, is simply a rank hypocrite. When they demand scrutiny of all accounts and not just the one belonging to the McCanns then they might be worth my attention. Till then I look down on them as hypocrites.

The Fund is promoted by the McCanns on their website with the claim  that it ensures  the  "highest standards of transparency and accountability"

The Fund ( and the McCanns )  have the opportunity to justify that claim by presenting full and detailed accounts   

They don't legally  have  to file full accounts, of course,   but if they are going to claim highest standards of transparecy then they really  should be filing full accounts

Why wouldn't they, afterall  ?  ...  why wouldn't they take the opportunity to be seen  to be open and transparent where the Fund is concerned ?

Because hounders on the internet would do to the accounts what they did to the first set of more detailed accounts- build myths, lies and distortions.

No wonder they went to abbreviated reports after the shitstorm that followed the first set.

As ever, you are correct.  The McCanns do precisely what is required of them.

But then some people have no idea of what an Accountant is.  They think that Accountants work for them.  Wrong.  Accountants work for The Inland Revenue.  And no honest Accountant risks losing their livelihood and reputation by submitting anything that wouldn't pass muster.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

As far as I can see the fund conforms with every single law required of it. It discloses everything that is necessary.

Why should they waste time and money to satisfy the nosey parkers (anti [ censored word ]s) who think the managers of the charity should be at their beck and call?

When anyone points out a single illegal or immoral action by the fund then I will start to look into it. But no-one has ever shown a single such illegal or immoral action by the fund.

Of course there are a few other funds which have been set up related to the McCann case. Bennett has set up at least one, and there is one on behalf of Amaral I believe. None of these are in any way open to any form of legal or financial scrutiny. I feel that is quite disgraceful and I further believe that anyone who demands further exposition of the Madeleine Fund accounts which are already fully in conformity with all legal requirements and are financially scrutinised annually, is simply a rank hypocrite. When they demand scrutiny of all accounts and not just the one belonging to the McCanns then they might be worth my attention. Till then I look down on them as hypocrites.

The Fund is promoted by the McCanns on their website with the claim  that it ensures  the  "highest standards of transparency and accountability"

The Fund ( and the McCanns )  have the opportunity to justify that claim by presenting full and detailed accounts   

They don't legally  have  to file full accounts, of course,   but if they are going to claim highest standards of transparecy then they really  should be filing full accounts

Why wouldn't they, afterall  ?  ...  why wouldn't they take the opportunity to be seen  to be open and transparent where the Fund is concerned ?

Because hounders on the internet would do to the accounts what they did to the first set of more detailed accounts- build myths, lies and distortions.

No wonder they went to abbreviated reports after the shitstorm that followed the first set.

That is hardly a credible excuse for giving as little information as legally allowed

If the McCanns  ( the Fund )  choose to take advantage of the legal right to present abbreviated, non detailed financial information then they really should stop claiming they ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability

you do realise that it is not compulsory for you to question everything the Mccanns have ever done and it is even less compulsory for them to answer everything don't you?

If you contributed to the fund (which I doubt) then write to the fund direct and ask your questions.

[icabodcrane]

Is this something they keep on claiming?

Yes,  on the official website it is claimed that the Fund Aministrator ensures the highest standards of transparency and accountability

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Is this something they keep on claiming?

Yes,  on the official website it is claimed that the Fund Aministrator ensures the highest standards of transparency and accountability

that seems to upset you

[amaraltheofficeboy]

As far as I can see the fund conforms with every single law required of it. It discloses everything that is necessary.

Why should they waste time and money to satisfy the nosey parkers (anti [ censored word ]s) who think the managers of the charity should be at their beck and call?

When anyone points out a single illegal or immoral action by the fund then I will start to look into it. But no-one has ever shown a single such illegal or immoral action by the fund.

Of course there are a few other funds which have been set up related to the McCann case. Bennett has set up at least one, and there is one on behalf of Amaral I believe. None of these are in any way open to any form of legal or financial scrutiny. I feel that is quite disgraceful and I further believe that anyone who demands further exposition of the Madeleine Fund accounts which are already fully in conformity with all legal requirements and are financially scrutinised annually, is simply a rank hypocrite. When they demand scrutiny of all accounts and not just the one belonging to the McCanns then they might be worth my attention. Till then I look down on them as hypocrites.

The Fund is promoted by the McCanns on their website with the claim  that it ensures  the  "highest standards of transparency and accountability"

The Fund ( and the McCanns )  have the opportunity to justify that claim by presenting full and detailed accounts   

They don't legally  have  to file full accounts, of course,   but if they are going to claim highest standards of transparecy then they really  should be filing full accounts

Why wouldn't they, afterall  ?  ...  why wouldn't they take the opportunity to be seen  to be open and transparent where the Fund is concerned ?

Because hounders on the internet would do to the accounts what they did to the first set of more detailed accounts- build myths, lies and distortions.

No wonder they went to abbreviated reports after the shitstorm that followed the first set.

That is hardly a credible excuse for giving as little information as legally allowed

If the McCanns  ( the Fund )  choose to take advantage of the legal right to present abbreviated, non detailed financial information then they really should stop claiming they ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability

you do realise that it is not compulsory for you to question everything the Mccanns have ever done and it is even less compulsory for them to answer everything don't you?

If you contributed to the fund (which I doubt) then write to the fund direct and ask your questions.

PS - you did demand a receipt for your contribution didn't you?

[icabodcrane]

Is this something they keep on claiming?

Yes,  on the official website it is claimed that the Fund Aministrator ensures the highest standards of transparency and accountability

that seems to upset you

It baffles me

The McCanns seem to be their own worse enemies at times.  Here they are, presented with the perfect opportunity to be be seen as straightforward, above board,  and entirely transparent,  and what do they do  ?  ...   allow the Fund  to be shrouded in mystery by choosing to give the very minimum financial information that  the law allows

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Is this something they keep on claiming?

Yes,  on the official website it is claimed that the Fund Aministrator ensures the highest standards of transparency and accountability

that seems to upset you

It baffles me

The McCanns seem to be their own worse enemies at times.  Here they are, presented with the perfect opportunity to be be seen as straightforward, above board,  and entirely transparent,  and what do they do  ?  ...   allow the Fund  to be shrouded in mystery by choosing to give the very minimum financial information that  the law allows

only to people like you.

to me they are acting within the law and therefore are not enemies of anyone - nevermind themselves!

[amaraltheofficeboy]

it's only shrouded in mystery to someone who is baffled.

the rest of us find it perfectly reasonable, acceptable and understadable.

[Eleanor]

The Inland Revenue know.  Ask them.  Or is that too simple?  And likely to get a "Mind your own business?"

[Benice]

Is this something they keep on claiming?

Yes,  on the official website it is claimed that the Fund Aministrator ensures the highest standards of transparency and accountability

that seems to upset you

It baffles me

The McCanns seem to be their own worse enemies at times.  Here they are, presented with the perfect opportunity to be be seen as straightforward, above board,  and entirely transparent,  and what do they do  ?  ...   allow the Fund  to be shrouded in mystery by choosing to give the very minimum financial information that  the law allows

As a contributor myself (albeit a small one),  I have no complaints at all about the accounts.  I'm quite certain that the Inland Revenue receive letters pointing out to them that the fund is fraudulent, which only makes me believe that in light of such serious allegations the  IR take steps to scrutinise them very closely indeed.      And yet still they haven't identified any fraud.   That should tell you something.


 

[Eleanor]

Is this something they keep on claiming?

Yes,  on the official website it is claimed that the Fund Aministrator ensures the highest standards of transparency and accountability

that seems to upset you

It baffles me

The McCanns seem to be their own worse enemies at times.  Here they are, presented with the perfect opportunity to be be seen as straightforward, above board,  and entirely transparent,  and what do they do  ?  ...   allow the Fund  to be shrouded in mystery by choosing to give the very minimum financial information that  the law allows

As a contributor myself (albeit a small one),  I have no complaints at all about the accounts.  I'm quite certain that the Inland Revenue receive letters pointing out to them that the fund is fraudulent, which only makes me believe that in light of such serious allegations the  IR take steps to scrutinise them very closely indeed.      And yet still they haven't identified any fraud.   That should tell you something.


 

Of course it should.  The Inland Revenue aren't stupid.

Oh, I know.  The Inland Revenue are INNIT.

[icabodcrane]

Is this something they keep on claiming?

Yes,  on the official website it is claimed that the Fund Aministrator ensures the highest standards of transparency and accountability

that seems to upset you

It baffles me

The McCanns seem to be their own worse enemies at times.  Here they are, presented with the perfect opportunity to be be seen as straightforward, above board,  and entirely transparent,  and what do they do  ?  ...   allow the Fund  to be shrouded in mystery by choosing to give the very minimum financial information that  the law allows

As a contributor myself (albeit a small one),  I have no complaints at all about the accounts.  I'm quite certain that the Inland Revenue receive letters pointing out to them that the fund is fraudulent, which only makes me believe that in light of such serious allegations the  IR take steps to scrutinise them very closely indeed.      And yet still they haven't identified any fraud.   That should tell you something.


 

The McCanns choosing to withhold financial details  does not indicate  'fraud'   ...  it does indicate, though,  a baffling  reluctance to be open, transparent and fully accountable with regards to the Fund

[amaraltheofficeboy]

oh baffled again - what a day!