The McCann's said they couldn't run Madeleine's fund as a charity, it wasn't just the McCann's involved they had lawyers too, so it doesn't look as though it was possible does it. If you have a problem with how the money was spent then contact the fund.
So you don't think the McCann's should have had a campaign to find their daughter and keep her in the public eye? So parents of the missing shouldn't put posters up with the face of their child on them, because the Police are searching for their child. How can the Police apart from contacting the Police in other countries, get the child's face known to the public of other countries?
The Portuguese shelved the case anyway so there wasn't a Police force searching for Madeleine they had to employ private detectives.
The twins were being entertained by family members, remember they went to the creche by themselves, neither Madeleine or their parents were there then. Would it have been better for the twins to have stayed around their parents crying hysterically all the time? The Pope was close to God in the McCann's eyes they wanted him to bless Madeleine. Also it advertised the fact that Madeleine was missing to those in Rome and anyone else who saw it on the tv.
There you go, Ben Needham's Mum wanted Bens name out there, that is what the McCann's wanted too, yet you put Ben's Mum on a pedestal, that is so cruel. Ben's mum said in her book [have you read it?] she would have done EXACTLY the same as the McCann's if she had been in their position.
Now you are asking why they are NOT keeping Madeleine's name out there, how strange. I can only presume they have been told to keep quiet at the moment. Yes it is about them, something they never wanted.
As I said the Charity Commission was willing to work with the parents to help them achieve charitable status. Unfortunately the parents couldn’t wait that long.
From Enid O’Dowd’s investigation of the fund.
“
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Charity Commission revealed several emails, telephone calls and a telephone conference between BWB and the Charity Commission about the possibility of charity status, for the then unincorporated company, between Monday afternoon May 14 and Tuesday May 15.
BWB emailed Alice Holt, Head of Legal Services (Status and Advice) at 9.39 pm on Monday evening with draft documents for the company as a charity. The email stated there was to be a press launch of the Foundation on Wednesday May 16 and that they awaited instructions on how the founders proposed to operate.
The minutes of the telephone conference held between BWB and the Charity Commission on the morning of Tuesday May 15 record that Alice Holt would look at revising the draft document to a form more acceptable to the Commission. The minutes also record that Commission official Kenneth Dibble was concerned that the press conference set for the next day might send out confused messages to the public unless it was settled what the fund could and could not be used for.
At 1.10 pm on May 15 the Charity Commission received an email from BWB saying their clients were likely to go the ordinary company route rather than pursue charity status. When that email was received Ms Holt was just finalising her promised revisions to the documents submitted to her the previous day. She sent her revised document anyway at 1.28 pm. To meet the Fund launch date of May 16, the McCanns had obviously decided to abandon the apparently hopeful charity negotiations in order to meet the deadline for same day company incorporation. Documents must be filed by 3pm for the company to be incorporated on that day.
It is odd that the McCanns committed themselves to a launch date, set it would appear, before BWB were engaged. In an email to the Charity Commission, BWB refer to being instructed 'this afternoon' (i.e. Monday May 14). What difference would a couple of days delay have made? 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.
Charity status is valuable because it gives an organisation credibility with the public, grant making bodies and local government, making it easier to obtain funds. It also gives the organisation tax advantages. Individuals, sole traders and companies can also benefit from giving to registered charities. Higher rate tax payers may be able to claim a tax refund. Under the Gift Aid scheme a donation is treated as if standard rate tax (20%) has been deducted and this is equivalent to an extra 25p in the £ for the charity. For donations between 6.4.2008 and 5.4.2011 the government gave an extra 3p in the £ supplement. Individuals can also have charitable donations deducted from their salaries, and this is tax efficient as their income tax is calculated on their salary after the donation. See
www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities-donors/ for more information on the benefits to an organisation of charity status.
Charities must give an annual report and accounts to the Charity Commission and make these documents available to the public on request. There are also rules relating to fundraising. The trustees (directors) cannot normally receive salary, fees or contracts from the charity and nor can their spouses or other close family members. These requirements are not onerous or unreasonable. Having hired charity experts BWB on the advice of the paralegal, it is surprising that Kate did not let them have a day or two more to explore charity status. And it is surprising that the McCanns have not apparently revisited this issue.
In Chapter 9 in which Kate describes her activities of May 14 she does not mention any dealings with BWB who must have worked very hard that day. Nor does she mention dealing with the paralegal or anyone else at IFLG. There must have been urgent emails and phone calls that day from her advisors. She just states that charity status would not be forthcoming as it was deemed that the 'public benefit' test would not be met, and adds that it (the Fund) 'was set up with great care and due diligence by experts in their field.'
It would be more accurate to state it was set up with great haste and with no apparent reason for that haste.”
Of course parents should publicise their child’s disappearance but how much exactly did they spend on ‘the search’ in the first year ?
The parents didn’t know at the time they were squirrelling away all that money that they’d need private detectives and that Madeleine wouldn’t be found sooner rather than later. To help other missing families with that money would have been the ultimate act of kindness....and please don’t try to justify their action with the old chestnut that people wanted the McCanns to use it to find Madeleine...most probably donated because they couldn’t think of any other way to help...however if that’s so why was it acceptable then to spend the money on litigation?
As to Rome, it was normal for the twins to go to the crèche by themselves, what wasn’t normal was for their parents not to be there when they got back and I really don’t care what spiritual support the parents felt they needed, their remaining children should have been their priority. As to the Rome visit producing publicity, the parents were on every television news report so how would it have helped ?
Benn’s mother did want his name out there and used her own money and money raised by jumble sales etc to achieve that and used not one penny of the money raised on litigation.
It would appear raising awareness of Madeleine’s plight is the only thing the parents aren’t willing to talk about. Walk and wandered is reported to be a theory, the parents talk through their mouthpiece, Netflix is releasing a documentary, the parents speak through their mouthpiece, German paedophile is a suspect, the parents speak through their mouthpiece. Risible.
