Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[Miss Taken Identity]

Nor would Amaral have had the chance to profit off the back of a tragedy.

It is rather satisfying that his immoral earnings have been removed from him and given to a fund which will try to make up for the failure of his police colleagues to solve the case in the first place.

No one should profit from this. At least the McCanns have donated each tranche of money to the fund year after year.

Their OWN money? or other peoples? If you are going to show bias then please at least have some integrity, either it is WRONG for anyone to make money or it isn't. 

The McCanns did not /have not had to pay for anything!

..and the fund is there to provide what?

[Alfred R Jones]

I'm sure it was part of the contract.

What are you sure of?  In my experience publishers don't bother with a paperback edition of a book no one bothered to buy as a hardback, especially one that was heavily discounted to the price of a paperback. So, let's see some basis for your belief please.

[OxfordBloo]

I'm sure it was part of the contract.

Publishers have the whip hand with contracts. Authors have no chance.

If its being published in paper back the publisher sees money to be made there.

[faithlilly]

And equally you have no evidence that it has been used for enrichment.

What we can say is that the lifestyle of the McCanns differs little from other Doctors at that level, if anything involving fear expensive holidays or school fees or other signs of high expenditure.

But you agree that they could have made money from the media's interest in their daughter yet show no outward signs of the enrichment ?

[OxfordBloo]

Their OWN money? or other peoples? If you are going to show bias then please at least have some integrity, either it is WRONG for anyone to make money or it isn't. 

The McCanns did not /have not had to pay for anything!

..and the fund is there to provide what?

I am talking about each tranche of libel money over the years. The McCanns would have been within their rights to retain the monies ( and the tapas crew as well) but we have seen the money bolster the Madeleine Fund year after year.

We know that no money has been paid to the McCanns because any payment or loan to a company director must be included in the summary of accounts to be published annually.

[OxfordBloo]

But you agree that they could have made money from the media's interest in their daughter yet show no outward signs of the enrichment ?

True.

[faithlilly]

Publishers have the whip hand with contracts. Authors have no chance.

If its being published in paper back the publisher sees money to be made there.

If a contract was signed which included the release of a paperback and if the publishers then refused to release the paperback the author would have a prima facia case for breach of contract I'm sure you'll agree ?

[Alfred R Jones]

But you agree that they could have made money from the media's interest in their daughter yet show no outward signs of the enrichment ?

That would be a bit risky wouldn't it?  We know how the media likes to stitch people up at the drop of a hat if it thinks it would make a good story.  "We paid the McCanns thousands  to appear on our studio sofa and the money never reached the Fund" would be a good angle don't you think?

[faithlilly]

I am talking about each tranche of libel money over the years. The McCanns would have been within their rights to retain the monies ( and the tapas crew as well) but we have seen the money bolster the Madeleine Fund year after year.

We know that no money has been paid to the McCanns because any payment or loan to a company director must be included in the summary of accounts to be published annually.

But if either of the McCanns fulfills another position with the campaign in addition to their directorship ?

[Alfred R Jones]

If a contract was signed which included the release of a paperback and if the publishers then refused to release the paperback the author would have a prima facia case for breach of contract I'm sure you'll agree ?

It doesn't work like that.  Publishers decide on what editions, how many re-prints etc dependent on reader demand, not the author's demands.  Ask your mate the Stud Muffin.

[Miss Taken Identity]

And equally you have no evidence that it has been used for enrichment.

What we can say is that the lifestyle of the McCanns differs little from other Doctors at that level, if anything involving fear expensive holidays or school fees or other signs of high expenditure.

Apart from a meeting with heads of state, appearing on the Oprah show in USA where Maddie was not 'abducted from  or to- as we believe, tripping round the world- NOT SEARCHING FOR MADDIE AT ALL, just bemoaning about people not searching...and dissing a whole country. Staying in exclusive hotels, having funds to pay top dollars for  top lawyers...oh yes, many consultants live that life!..Heehee

[Miss Taken Identity]

I am talking about each tranche of libel money over the years. The McCanns would have been within their rights to retain the monies ( and the tapas crew as well) but we have seen the money bolster the Madeleine Fund year after year.

We know that no money has been paid to the McCanns because any payment or loan to a company director must be included in the summary of accounts to be published annually.

Money removed for expenses and other items are not included as 'income' we all know that ole chestnut abot charities as well don't we?

[faithlilly]

That would be a bit risky wouldn't it?  We know how the media likes to stitch people up at the drop of a hat if it thinks it would make a good story.  "We paid the McCanns thousands  to appear on our studio sofa and the money never reached the Fund" would be a good angle don't you think?

Why ? They would have been paid the money perfectly legally so where would the angle be ? Further by insinuating that they had done something ' not quite above board' with the money I'm sure the media outlet would be inviting the McCann's resident legal rottweilers to take a chunk of their profits.

[faithlilly]

It doesn't work like that.  Publishers decide on what editions, how many re-prints etc dependent on reader demand, not the author's demands.  Ask your mate the Stud Muffin.

Contracts is contracts Alfie boy. Ask any lawyer !

[OxfordBloo]

Money removed for expenses and other items are not included as 'income' we all know that ole chestnut abot charities as well don't we?

Publishing directors expenses in the accounts is one of the requirements of the Companies Acts