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

[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"?

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

Yes, I have read the bit in question. I would have liked to have read the documentation for myself.

And it is clear from the documentation that the Charity Commission officials were helpful, and that it was likely that charity status could have been obtained with only minor delay with a little compromise by the McCanns.


As it stands, I don't see what the "little compromise" relates to. And, yes, I did read the Charity Commission guidance documents at some point.

The Charities Act 2011 defines a charitable purpose, explicitly, as one that falls within the following list of thirteen descriptions of purposes and is for the public benefit

    The prevention or relief of poverty
    The advancement of education
    The advancement of religion
    The advancement of health or the saving of lives
    The advancement of citizenship or community development
    The advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
    The advancement of amateur sport
    The advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
    The advancement of environmental protection or improvement
    The relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
    The advancement of animal welfare
    The promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
    Any other purposes currently recognised as charitable and any new charitable purposes which are similar to another charitable purpose

- See more at: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/detailed-guidance/charitable-purposes-and-public-benefit/guidance-on-charitable-purposes/#sthash.TR5Qpn6T.dpuf


Which category would the search for Madeleine have come under?

[registrar]

Guess this one

The advancement of health or the saving of lives

[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.

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?

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/start-up-a-charity/setting-up-a-charity/about-charities/

Very first sentence:

Charities exist to benefit the public, not specific individuals.

Does Enid O'dowd deny that fact?

[Redblossom]

Carana  and ferryman both ignoring the fact that they COULD have got charity status ho hum

[debunker]

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

Cite from a reliable source please.

[Carana]

Charities exist to benefit the public, not specific individuals.
 - See more at: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/start-up-a-charity/setting-up-a-charity/about-charities/#sthash.DIcaOA9Y.dpuf

[debunker]

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?

Cite from a reliable source please.

[debunker]

Carana  and ferryman both ignoring the fact that they COULD have got charity status ho hum

Cite from a reliable source please.

[ferryman]

Carana  and ferryman both ignoring the fact that they COULD have got charity status ho hum

We appear to be heeding what the Charity Commission says and ignoring what you say.

Very remiss of us, I'm sure ...

[registrar]

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?

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/start-up-a-charity/setting-up-a-charity/about-charities/

Very first sentence:

Charities exist to benefit the public, not specific individuals.

Does Enid O'dowd deny that fact?

Genuine question

Help for heroes is a charity - is it not?

So if rifleman A. Smith (an individual) gets his legs blown off in that useless war in Afghanistan

He will not get any help from said charity - as he is an individual - rather than the 'public'?

Please illucidate

[Carana]

Guess this one

The advancement of health or the saving of lives

Not to save a specific child's life, as far as I can work out.

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/detailed-guidance/charitable-purposes-and-public-benefit/guidance-on-charitable-purposes/the-advancement-of-health-or-the-saving-of-lives/

[debunker]

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?

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/start-up-a-charity/setting-up-a-charity/about-charities/

Very first sentence:

Charities exist to benefit the public, not specific individuals.

Does Enid O'dowd deny that fact?

Genuine question

Help for heroes is a charity - is it not?

So if rifleman A. Smith (an individual) gets his legs blown off in that useless war in Afghanistan

He will not get any help from said charity - as he is an individual - rather than the 'public'?

Please illucidate

Charities may benefit individuals as part of groups (Find All Missing Children) but not just aimed at one child (NSU).

[registrar]

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?

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/start-up-a-charity/setting-up-a-charity/about-charities/

Very first sentence:

Charities exist to benefit the public, not specific individuals.

Does Enid O'dowd deny that fact?

Genuine question

Help for heroes is a charity - is it not?

So if rifleman A. Smith (an individual) gets his legs blown off in that useless war in Afghanistan

He will not get any help from said charity - as he is an individual - rather than the 'public'?

Please illucidate

Charities may benefit individuals as part of groups (Find All Missing Children) but not just aimed at one child (NSU).

ok that makes sense - thanks

[ferryman]

Charities may benefit individuals as part of groups (Find All Missing Children) but not just aimed at one child (NSU).
[/quote]

Yes.

That is where Galloway's Marianne appeal went wrong. 

The remit was wider than just Marianne and therefore it ought to have been set up as a charity.

[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"?

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?

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/start-up-a-charity/setting-up-a-charity/about-charities/

Very first sentence:

Charities exist to benefit the public, not specific individuals.

Does Enid O'dowd deny that fact?

Genuine question

Help for heroes is a charity - is it not?

So if rifleman A. Smith (an individual) gets his legs blown off in that useless war in Afghanistan

He will not get any help from said charity - as he is an individual - rather than the 'public'?

Please illucidate

Help for Heroes exists to help people in such situations - it wasn't (and couldn't have been) set up as a charity to solely assist A Smith and his / her family in assisting that individual.