Controversy as McCanns “use Find Madeleine Fund” to pursue former PJ cop through courts

jeanmonroe wrote:the 'same' EX MP EM who WAS on 'the board' that authorised £4,000, for mortgage re-payments, from the publicly donated to 'search fund', to the McCan'ts!

Verdi wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:the 'same' EX MP EM who WAS on 'the board' that authorised £4,000, for mortgage re-payments, from the publicly donated to 'search fund', to the McCan'ts!

Quite so - and I don't doubt still remains a source close to the family.  Not what you know it's who you know innit?

Verdi wrote:The crux of the matter is here methinks..

Former trustee and one-time GMTV presenter Esther McVey - who only a few months later resigned from the Fund and went on to become a Conservative MP - said the decision was taken despite the fact that “it would be legally permissible to use the money for a legal defence”.

There was a “spirit which underlies the generous donations to Madeleine’s fund”, she explained in 2007, and it was this spirit that trustees had the “responsibility to steer”.
----------

Whatever the Fund accounts specify at any given time, I strongly suspect there remains that hidden proviso that will cover all eventualities.

Excellent work again Natasha Donn!

HiDeHo wrote:

Verdi wrote:The crux of the matter is here methinks..

Former trustee and one-time GMTV presenter Esther McVey - who only a few months later resigned from the Fund and went on to become a Conservative MP - said the decision was taken despite the fact that “it would be legally permissible to use the money for a legal defence”.

There was a “spirit which underlies the generous donations to Madeleine’s fund”, she explained in 2007, and it was this spirit that trustees had the “responsibility to steer”.
----------

Whatever the Fund accounts specify at any given time, I strongly suspect there remains that hidden proviso that will cover all eventualities.

Excellent work again Natasha Donn!

We often presuming that people donated to one fund... They had the option of a second one.  Did they open it without telling anyone or did they refuse and turn it down?

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Verdi wrote:The crux of the matter is here methinks..

Former trustee and one-time GMTV presenter Esther McVey - who only a few months later resigned from the Fund and went on to become a Conservative MP - said the decision was taken despite the fact that “it would be legally permissible to use the money for a legal defence”.

There was a “spirit which underlies the generous donations to Madeleine’s fund”, she explained in 2007, and it was this spirit that trustees had the “responsibility to steer”.
----------

Whatever the Fund accounts specify at any given time, I strongly suspect there remains that hidden proviso that will cover all eventualities.

Excellent work again Natasha Donn!

We often presuming that people donated to one fund... They had the option of a second one.  Did they open it without telling anyone or did they refuse and turn it down?

Well, I for one ain't aware of any secondary fund to cover legal expenses.  I have however wondered about the purpose of the unrestricted funds and restricted funds, identified in the limited company accounts.  I understand the difference as regards the administration of a registered charity but what I can't understand is why the official Fund administrators are trying to emulate the operation of a charity.  It would appear that money is being juggled around, in and out of the fund - could the restricted funds be a reserved sum, possibly the profits from 'madeleine' by KATE MCCANN, put aside for a rainy day, like litigation the search?

The word search that appears so frequently in this case is the key word in my opinion, covering a multitude of sins.  In the light of the McCanns claimed reasoning behind their legal action against Dr. Amaral, could it be said that the damage to the search by publication of 'The Truth of the Lie' constitutes fund allocation for the search (if you get my drift)?  I know this sounds a bit daft but one things for sure - they will have away around this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6997429.stm
'Tycoon Sir Richard Branson is giving £100,000 to a fund to assist Kate and Gerry McCann with their legal costs.'

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post3249.html#p3249

I TRUST MCCANNS. SAYS SIR RICHARD

Monday September 17,2007


Multi millionaire Sir Richard Branson said he would be donating £100,000 to the McCanns' legal costs because he "trusted them implicitly" and wanted to ensure they had a fair trial if they were brought before a Portuguese court.

Sir Richard, who has spoken to the parents of missing Madeleine McCann on several occasions, said: "I wouldn't have got involved if I didn't feel good about them. I trust them implicitly and I can't think of anyone I know who's had a worse time." 

Explaining his decision, the entrepreneur and social campaigner, said: "I think they need proper representation and support."

He added: "I want to make sure they have the chance for their side of the story to be fairly told if they ever go to court, particularly in Portugal where they've already been tried by innuendo in the media.

"It's going to be tough for them to get a fair trial and they need all the help they can get."

Sir Richard confirmed he was in talks with other wealthy people to encourage them to contribute to a legal fund as well, and said at least one other anonymous donor was signed up already.


"I'm speaking to several people and hopefully there'll be others helping with the legal costs," he said. "One or two have already committed on an off-the-record basis."

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic4513.html
Madeleine's parents pray, while Branson pledges £100,000 for legal fight

Published Date: 17 September 2007 
By KATIE DAWSON

Last week, the family announced that it would not spend proceeds from the "Find Madeleine" fund on Mr and Mrs McCann's legal costs. 

However, a spokeswoman for Sir Richard Branson yesterday confirmed that the entrepreneur would be donating £100,000 to the McCanns' legal costs. 

"He wants to give them a chance to have a fair hearing," the spokeswoman said. "Over the last few weeks, Richard has been watching events as they have unfolded. There is a whole family involved here. 

"When the McCanns made it known that under no circumstances would they touch the Find Madeleine fund, and discussed selling their house, Richard felt that something had to be done."

Branson pledges cash for McCanns

September 17 2007 at 12:30am
By Peter Griffiths

London - British billionaire Richard Branson is to donate 100 000 pounds to create a fund to help the parents of missing girl Madeleine McCann pay their legal bills, his spokesperson said on Sunday.

The Virgin Group boss hopes other wealthy individuals will add to the fund as Gerry and Kate McCann try to clear their names after Portuguese police named them as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.

Since their return to England last Sunday, the McCanns have faced intense media speculation about their role in the case.

"In the midst of all of this speculation and rumour, we must remember there is a family in pain and a little four-year-old girl is still missing," Branson said in a statement. "We must not lose sight of this fact. It is the only solid fact we know.

"The search for Madeleine must not let up for one moment."

The couple have denied any involvement in their daughter's disappearance. She went missing while on holiday in southern Portugal on May 3. They are convinced she is still alive.

Branson has closely followed the case and is keen to "relieve the burden" from the McCanns, his spokesperson said.

Well-wishers have already donated more than a million pounds to a fund to help find the girl. However, the trust's directors decided last week that the money should not be used to pay the couple's legal bills.

The McCanns, both 39-year-old doctors, have hired lawyers in Portugal and England to defend them in case they are charged.

Portugal's public prosecutor has passed the case against the McCanns to a criminal judge who will decide whether there are grounds for a trial.

A spokesperson for the prosecutor's office gave no details of the evidence or what accusations the McCanns might face.

On Sunday, the McCanns held hands as they walked to church in their home village of Rothley, Leicestershire, watched by TV cameras and photographers.

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Verdi wrote:The crux of the matter is here methinks..

Former trustee and one-time GMTV presenter Esther McVey - who only a few months later resigned from the Fund and went on to become a Conservative MP - said the decision was taken despite the fact that “it would be legally permissible to use the money for a legal defence”.

There was a “spirit which underlies the generous donations to Madeleine’s fund”, she explained in 2007, and it was this spirit that trustees had the “responsibility to steer”.
----------

Whatever the Fund accounts specify at any given time, I strongly suspect there remains that hidden proviso that will cover all eventualities.

Excellent work again Natasha Donn!

We often presuming that people donated to one fund... They had the option of a second one.  Did they open it without telling anyone or did they refuse and turn it down?

Well, I for one ain't aware of any secondary fund to cover legal expenses.  I have however wondered about the purpose of the unrestricted funds and restricted funds, identified in the limited company accounts.  I understand the difference as regards the administration of a registered charity but what I can't understand is why the official Fund administrators are trying to emulate the operation of a charity.  It would appear that money is being juggled around, in and out of the fund - could the restricted funds be a reserved sum, possibly the profits from 'madeleine' by KATE MCCANN, put aside for a rainy day, like litigation the search?

The word search that appears so frequently in this case is the key word in my opinion, covering a multitude of sins.  In the light of the McCanns claimed reasoning behind their legal action against Dr. Amaral, could it be said that the damage to the search by publication of 'The Truth of the Lie' constitutes fund allocation for the search (if you get my drift)?  I know this sounds a bit daft but one things for sure - they will have away around this.

Restricted and unrestricted funds normally relates to charities accounting or the Charities SORP - oh the irony. I've never come across it in company accounts because it is specific to charity accounting rules.

It means the charity has raised money for a specific purpose or similarly was given a grant or donations to carry out such an action. If the charity doesn't spend the money by the end of its accounting year it must carry it forward to continue spending on the agreed purposes and NOT vire the income to any of its other different objectives. The unspent balance is carried forward in its restricted reserves for the next or subsequent years to defray the associated expenditure in those years.