The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Accounts to 31.03.10

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by pauline on 17.10.11 23:33

@steevo1962 wrote:2008-09
It looks like unless there is a major public outcry via the media over these non-disclosure's......then we're fecked?


if enough people write to the ICEAW and the auditors it will make it harder for the 2011 accs to be as uninformative as 2009 and 2010. I would be great to get some letters in the letters columns of the papers but as we know the media is reluctant to print anything. When the 2011 accounts are filed which they will have to be by the end of the year, we can comment on them to the letters pages. These accounts should show much more income - since all the royalties from the book are going to the Fund apparently. But doubtless there have been a lot more expenses to use up this income - like paying the costs of the defeats in the Portuguese courts last october and this March.

pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by steevo1962 on 18.10.11 0:40

It's really frustrating, it's like handing your kid £100 for a day out with their promise that they wont squander it.

They return with a Happy meal and no change!

You ask them what they spent it on and they just say "On a day out"....fine but what did you SPECIFICALLY spend it on......"On a day out" is the reply again!

Ok, well you cant argue because you did after all give them the money for a day out, but you'll never know what they spent the money on that day out and your kid isn't exactly lying or obliged to tell you when he/she answers your question?

Anyway, less of the gibberish...I noticed on the 2008-09 accounts that they have put Madeleines disappearance down as 3rd May 2008, obviously a 'typo'?

Here are a couple of links to the Good Governance Codes which the McCanns pledge their Board's allegience to. The codes are not mandatory, but if a small company claims to use them, then they are obliged to follow them.

Governance Codes 2005

Governance Codes 2010


steevo1962

Posts : 77
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-12
Age : 53
Location : Edinburgh

View user profile

Back to top Go down

???

Post by russiandoll on 18.10.11 11:28

what was the anticipated legal expenditure only 2 weeks after Maddies " abduction" ?

russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by steevo1962 on 18.10.11 12:04

A huge amount more than they anticipated I would assume?


steevo1962

Posts : 77
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-12
Age : 53
Location : Edinburgh

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by pauline on 18.10.11 12:20

@russiandoll wrote:what was the anticipated legal expenditure only 2 weeks after Maddies " abduction" ?

Perhaps the fees for setting up the limited company, getting a copyright for madeleine, applying for her to be a ward of court. They made the decisions to incur these costs VERY soon after she disappeared, which is of course odd as she could have been found at that early stage..

but they could not have anticipated surely all the costs involved in suing the media/individuals? How did they know that things would be said and printed that they would not like?

pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by steevo1962 on 18.10.11 20:22

Wow! I got a reply from the campaign!



Dear Steven,

Thank you for your messages

I apologise for not getting back to you sooner but I have been away on holiday.

I am not sure if I can help with your query, we file everything with companies house that we should, and as far as we are aware everything is available from them should it be requested.

We do not have anything to hide at all but perhaps the error is with companies house and what they do or do not make available for download. It may just be that they have changed what is available in the last couple of years.

I hope this has helped you and thank you for your continued support

Kindest regards

Karen

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/madeleinemccann_case_review/

Take a minute for Madeleine: http://www.ceop.police.uk/Minute-For-Madeleine/
I'll try companies house and see what they can tell me about the missing pages

steevo1962

Posts : 77
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-12
Age : 53
Location : Edinburgh

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by Guest on 18.10.11 20:33

@steevo1962 wrote:Wow! I got a reply from the campaign!



Dear Steven,

Thank you for your messages

I apologise for not getting back to you sooner but I have been away on holiday.

I am not sure if I can help with your query, we file everything with companies house that we should, and as far as we are aware everything is available from them should it be requested.

We do not have anything to hide at all but perhaps the error is with companies house and what they do or do not make available for download. It may just be that they have changed what is available in the last couple of years.

I hope this has helped you and thank you for your continued support

Kindest regards

Karen

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/madeleinemccann_case_review/

Take a minute for Madeleine: http://www.ceop.police.uk/Minute-For-Madeleine/
I'll try companies house and see what they can tell me about the missing pages

Well done Steevo - leave "No Stone Unturned" in finding those missing accounts big grin

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by steevo1962 on 18.10.11 21:10

According to Clarence Mitchell the McCanns were awarded £550,000 libel damages.



As we already know, the Tapas mob were awarded £350,000 which in total amounts to £900,000 total awards which should have been paid into 2008-09 accounts?

Why is it then that only £629,181 has been declared as income on their accounts?

Where has the other £300,000 + gone as there would also be any contributions during that 2008-09 year to include aswell?

Curious sir...curious?


steevo1962

Posts : 77
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-12
Age : 53
Location : Edinburgh

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by Gillyspot on 18.10.11 21:53

Perhaps you should forward the letter to Companies House I am sure they would appreciate the kind criticism from Karen from findmadeleine although I do note "we file everything with companies house that we should, and as far as we are aware everything is available from them should it be requested".

True if everything "we should" is just the legal minimum to gain tax transparency for HMRC and Companies House not what they offer on the website.

Interesting that there is still a link about the review on the bottom of her letter.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by pauline on 18.10.11 22:23

Stevo

Just wondering, if you're getting a reply to your email might just be related to the fact that you put on this website the fact that you emailed and hadn't got a reply.

it might be very cynical of me to suggest this?

But the Fund has staff according to gerry so how long does it take to reply to a simple email. If she was on holiday, surely someone else there could reply?

pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Accounts to 31.03.10

Post by Letterwriter on 20.10.11 18:57

From someone who files things with Companies House:

- They don't really check things that are filed. They just run it through a document scanner and make it available for access over the internet. So if you have spotted missing pages I'd contact them and ask them to check their original paper copy - to make sure some havent gone through the scanner with another - which does happen. For two years in a row (and btw I haven't looked at the filed docs, I'm just taking all this as fact) bit of a coincidence.

Are they definitely missing? Are they middle pages or the last 2? Just that small companies can file abbreviated accounts which say very little - they don't provide an income and expenditure breakdown for example. Usually an accountant will prepare abbreviated accounts then staple 2/3 extra pages to the back when they are sent to the client for review and signature. The extra/not required pages are removed before filing. Though I have seen a couple of example of Co Hse where the accountants have forgotten to remove them or have accidentally picked something else up from the photocopier!!

- If the pages are missing on the paper copies then Co Hse should probably request the company to refile. Whether employees of a public sector body will make work for themselves like this or just ignore it and knock off and head to the golf course at 3pm as usual - decide yourself depending on your prejudices!

- As a last resort I guess you could write to the auditors and request a refile and if they don't complain to their Institute (as has been suggested). Really its the Fund that is obliged to file the accounts not the auditors so this is a bit of a last ditch attempt. Auditors are obliged to consider whether any laws have been breached as part of their audit - albeit within the general audit caveats of 'materiality', the ability to rely on information provided by directors etc etc. Without going into it in detail - there is a large gap between what most people assume an auditor does/is liable for (everything) and what he actually does/is liable for (not a lot of any real value).

I'm now interested to check for myself whether there are numbered pages missing - if so I'm amazed at the blatantness (wrong word Im sure) of it.


Btw - just to make myself unpopular, I may as well voice the view that just because an organisation is a charity, doesn't mean that it is beyond reproach/transparent/awesome. In a lot of large charities an awful lot of the donations do not go to the cause. Plenty of big charities have posh offices, highly paid directors, commission grabbing chuggers etc etc. I'm also aware of some smaller charities set up to raise money for some cause or another, and do put some money into it I'm sure, but after paying a salary to the founder/manager/disbursing donations to causes involving fellow businessmen. That is not to discredit all charities by any means - but some people do view charities as an alternative business structure by which to make money - either as working for a big one or founding a small one. Its a terrible world and i wish the public would cotton on to half of things like this that go on in plain view.

Letterwriter

Posts : 68
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum