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

[debunker]

I do wis you would read what I post rather than guess at what you think I posted. Look Aabove.

I said:

"Small charities need to disclose as little in their accounts as a private company limited by guarantee. Even if it were a charity, it could still have published abbreviated accounts. The suggestion that they would have been forced to declare more detail as a charity is a myth."

Public disclosure is not required for Charities or for Private Companies. The Charity commission does not publish full accounts for charities that are not required to do so.

[ferryman]

Cutting to the chase, the Madeleine Fund cannot be a charity because its remit is too narrow.

That is just an objective fact.

[icabodcrane]

I do wis you would read what I post rather than guess at what you think I posted. Look Aabove.

I said:

"Small charities need to disclose as little in their accounts as a private company limited by guarantee. Even if it were a charity, it could still have published abbreviated accounts. The suggestion that they would have been forced to declare more detail as a charity is a myth."

Public disclosure is not required for Charities or for Private Companies. The Charity commission does not publish full accounts for charities that are not required to do so.

And what charities are those ?  (  that are not required to publish full accounts by the Charities Commission ) 

Those with funding of under £25,000  ?

If the Madeleine Fund was a charity it would  HAVE  to submit full and detailed accounts to the Charities Commission

By only making abbreviated accounts available the Fund is not following the  best practice which would  be required if it were a charity

[Carana]

From what Redblossom quoted:

The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.

Here is the Good Governance document (Oct. 2010 edition):
http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/Code_of_Governance_second_edition_v1.0_Final_Full_page_0.pdf

[ferryman]

If the Madeleine Fund was a charity it would  HAVE  to submit full and detailed accounts to the Charities Commission

(see my post above)

[debunker]

I do wis you would read what I post rather than guess at what you think I posted. Look Aabove.

I said:

"Small charities need to disclose as little in their accounts as a private company limited by guarantee. Even if it were a charity, it could still have published abbreviated accounts. The suggestion that they would have been forced to declare more detail as a charity is a myth."

Public disclosure is not required for Charities or for Private Companies. The Charity commission does not publish full accounts for charities that are not required to do so.

And what charities are those ?  (  that are not required to publish full accounts by the Charities Commission ) 

Those with funding of under £25,000  ?

If the Madeleine Fund was a charity it would  HAVE  to submit full and detailed accounts to the Charities Commission

By only making abbreviated accounts available the Fund is not following the  best practice which would  be required if it were a charity

But it would not have to publish accounts for nosey parkers like you to investigate!

[icabodcrane]

I do wis you would read what I post rather than guess at what you think I posted. Look Aabove.

I said:

"Small charities need to disclose as little in their accounts as a private company limited by guarantee. Even if it were a charity, it could still have published abbreviated accounts. The suggestion that they would have been forced to declare more detail as a charity is a myth."

Public disclosure is not required for Charities or for Private Companies. The Charity commission does not publish full accounts for charities that are not required to do so.

And what charities are those ?  (  that are not required to publish full accounts by the Charities Commission ) 

Those with funding of under £25,000  ?

If the Madeleine Fund was a charity it would  HAVE  to submit full and detailed accounts to the Charities Commission

By only making abbreviated accounts available the Fund is not following the  best practice which would  be required if it were a charity

But it would not have to publish accounts for nosey parkers like you to investigate!

The full accounts would be available to download from the Charities Commission website for anyone  to 'investigate' 

That is the whole point  ...  openess and transparency

[debunker]

I do wis you would read what I post rather than guess at what you think I posted. Look Aabove.

I said:

"Small charities need to disclose as little in their accounts as a private company limited by guarantee. Even if it were a charity, it could still have published abbreviated accounts. The suggestion that they would have been forced to declare more detail as a charity is a myth."

Public disclosure is not required for Charities or for Private Companies. The Charity commission does not publish full accounts for charities that are not required to do so.

And what charities are those ?  (  that are not required to publish full accounts by the Charities Commission ) 

Those with funding of under £25,000  ?

If the Madeleine Fund was a charity it would  HAVE  to submit full and detailed accounts to the Charities Commission

By only making abbreviated accounts available the Fund is not following the  best practice which would  be required if it were a charity

But it would not have to publish accounts for nosey parkers like you to investigate!

The full accounts would be available to download from the Charities Commission website for anyone  to 'investigate' 

That is the whole point  ...  openess and transparency

No they would not. read the pdf.


Here is the set of accounts published for Hope for Heroes. It turned over £17million. It has only abbreviated accounts published- very similar to the heading in NSU accounts (I hate that abbreviation- to a nurse it stands for non-specific urethritis- willy rot.)

[Carana]

Cutting to the chase, the Madeleine Fund cannot be a charity because its remit is too narrow.

That is just an objective fact.

Quite. The purpose is to find a specific child.

What were they supposed to do to comply with the broader public benefit requirement? Propose calling it "Find All Missing Rothley Children Who Disappeared in Praia da Luz in 2007"?

[Redblossom]

Cutting to the chase, the Madeleine Fund cannot be a charity because its remit is too narrow.

That is just an objective fact.

Quite. The purpose is to find a specific child.

What were they supposed to do to comply with the broader public benefit requirement? Propose calling it "Find All Missing Rothley Children Who Disappeared in Praia da Luz in 2007"?

Did you READ Enid Odowds report? If you did you wouldnt be asking such a silly question. It seems their enquiries to be being able to be registered as a charity were lip service, they had decided to make it a limited company and only gave the charities commission one day to sort this out

[Carana]

In terms of the thread title, I wonder if anyone has a rough estimate of how much the media has made out of it?

There were some interesting articles on the subject, many of which I can't lay my hands on at the moment.

[registrar]

Just going by memory here

so happy to be shot down in flames

But didn't Team McCann apply for charity status for the fund

And Gordon Brown said no?

[ferryman]

Cutting to the chase, the Madeleine Fund cannot be a charity because its remit is too narrow.

That is just an objective fact.

Quite. The purpose is to find a specific child.

What were they supposed to do to comply with the broader public benefit requirement? Propose calling it "Find All Missing Rothley Children Who Disappeared in Praia da Luz in 2007"?

Did you READ Enid Odowds report? If you did you wouldnt be asking such a silly question. It seems their enquiries to be being able to be registered as a charity were lip service, they had decided to make it a limited company and only gave the charities commission one day to sort this out

I didn't ask any questions.

I stated an irrefutable fact.

[Eleanor]

Is anyone suggesting that The Inland Revenue are so thick that they have missed a fraud here?

[Redblossom]

Cutting to the chase, the Madeleine Fund cannot be a charity because its remit is too narrow.

That is just an objective fact.

Quite. The purpose is to find a specific child.

What were they supposed to do to comply with the broader public benefit requirement? Propose calling it "Find All Missing Rothley Children Who Disappeared in Praia da Luz in 2007"?

Did you READ Enid Odowds report? If you did you wouldnt be asking such a silly question. It seems their enquiries to be being able to be registered as a charity were lip service, they had decided to make it a limited company and only gave the charities commission one day to sort this out

I didn't ask any questions.

I stated an irrefutable fact.

but it is not an irrefutable fact seeing as the charities commission were willing to bend over backwards and accommodate the mccanns with a few changes, but they were in too much of a hurry, having already set the fund launch date for the media, they were not in any way interested in charity status were they?