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

Can Someone Explain Please

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Can Someone Explain Please

Post by Dr_Evil on 25.06.11 23:18

If you have given to the Mccanns money to help find Madeleine, can you sue them if they have used money for the mortgage on their house? I haven't, thankfully

Dr_Evil

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by pauline on 26.06.11 0:04

@Dr_Evil wrote:If you have given to the Mccanns money to help find Madeleine, can you sue them if they have used money for the mortgage on their house? I haven't, thankfully

Apparently the mortgage payments covered only 2 months. They stayed in PDL for about 4 months after Madeline vanished. Both McCanns got some compassionate pay while away but would have been out of pocket to some extent. I don't have a problem with anyone in their circumstances being helped financially to stay there and be free to be involved with the search for Madeleine. now I don't believe their story - but it hasn't been proved wrong yet so in that context there was nothing fraudulent in helping them short term with their mortgage.

pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by Tigers Eye on 26.06.11 9:11

@pauline wrote:
@Dr_Evil wrote:If you have given to the Mccanns money to help find Madeleine, can you sue them if they have used money for the mortgage on their house? I haven't, thankfully

Apparently the mortgage payments covered only 2 months. They stayed in PDL for about 4 months after Madeline vanished. Both McCanns got some compassionate pay while away but would have been out of pocket to some extent. I don't have a problem with anyone in their circumstances being helped financially to stay there and be free to be involved with the search for Madeleine. now I don't believe their story - but it hasn't been proved wrong yet so in that context there was nothing fraudulent in helping them short term with their mortgage.

Wow, gosh really, Pauline?

You don't have a problem with these payments from the Fund? And in what way was it acceptable that it was "only 2 months"? Would 5 or 10 months have troubled you more? Even our totally sychophantic, (sp?) fawning press took issue with the greedy McCanns using money being sent from pensioners and children with that one. The Fund (Leaving no Stone Unturned Ltd - note: a limited company) was established merely days after the little girl disappeared with one its clauses including something like "provision of financial support to the Family".

Quite a wide definition, then!

____________________


Tigers Eye

Posts : 22
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by pauline on 26.06.11 9:48

@Tigers Eye wrote:
@pauline wrote:
@Dr_Evil wrote:If you have given to the Mccanns money to help find Madeleine, can you sue them if they have used money for the mortgage on their house? I haven't, thankfully

Apparently the mortgage payments covered only 2 months. They stayed in PDL for about 4 months after Madeline vanished. Both McCanns got some compassionate pay while away but would have been out of pocket to some extent. I don't have a problem with anyone in their circumstances being helped financially to stay there and be free to be involved with the search for Madeleine. now I don't believe their story - but it hasn't been proved wrong yet so in that context there was nothing fraudulent in helping them short term with their mortgage.

Wow, gosh really, Pauline?

You don't have a problem with these payments from the Fund? And in what way was it acceptable that it was "only 2 months"? Would 5 or 10 months have troubled you more? Even our totally sychophantic, (sp?) fawning press took issue with the greedy McCanns using money being sent from pensioners and children with that one. The Fund (Leaving no Stone Unturned Ltd - note: a limited company) was established merely days after the little girl disappeared with one its clauses including something like "provision of financial support to the Family".

Quite a wide definition, then!

I understand the payment of mortgage related to 2 months only. If that was the case as I see it covers a period when they had no income coming in and a mortgage to pay. Remember you are innocent until proved guilty. While they got some special leave pay It didn't apparently cover all the time before Gerry returned to work. He initially returned part time I think. If the mortgage had been paid when he was back and getting his full salary I would have a BIG problem with that.

The limited company does permit financial support as you say so the payments were not in breach of the rules of the company.

This is a non issue for me. The company does however need investigation.

On another discussion thread about a book review that actually questions some issues, the journalist says that while Kate promised transparency re the company, apart from the first year of filed accounts, very little detail was given for years 2 and 3 because the company merely complied with the basic statutory filing requirements.

In the first year they filed a lot of expenditure detail which is not a legal requirement. I presume the change to minimum disclosure in years 2 and 3 happened because filing the detail in year 1 lead to questions so the McCanns told the auditors just to prepare accounts to comply with company law but to give as little info as is legally possible re expenditure.

Now the auditor should have said that given the reason for and profile of the company it would be BEST PRACTICE to continue to give full information. I wonder if the auditor in this case actually did try to convince them to file more info, or whether the auditor just did as the McCanns instructed.


pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by Tigers Eye on 26.06.11 9:58

The fact that point 3. of the Leaving no Stone Unturned Ltd ALLOWS for financial support to the family doesn't in any way make it OK! It was clear from the police files and in retrospect, the opinions of Mark Harrison and Martin Grime AND the Leicestershire Police that the McCanns were suspects in their daughter's disappearance from early on, which therefore makes mortgage payments by the Fund even more jarring.

As I said, school children, pensioners et al sent money in good faith thinking that would be used for a search for the child. Additionally, even given their lack of income, they were both highly paid individuals and money paid in such a way sticks in one's throat in no small measure. If you've read extracts from Kate's book you'll also see that the partners in her GP practice funded her income during this early period.

Anyway, others who know much more about this disturbing aspect will no doubt pitch in at some points....don't mean to diss you, I guess we just disagree on this one!

____________________


Tigers Eye

Posts : 22
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by lj on 26.06.11 15:52

It also would make a lot of difference if the McCanns had shown they were willing to sacrifice.
However they seem to be enjoying the "little" luxuries of life (Kate's strawberry story), that, very likely, some of their donors would have given up on to help the search for Madeleine.

That all might be legally ok, but is morally very wrong.

Atleast in my world.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3274
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by LittleMissMolly on 26.06.11 16:19

@lj wrote:It also would make a lot of difference if the McCanns had shown they were willing to sacrifice.
However they seem to be enjoying the "little" luxuries of life (Kate's strawberry story), that, very likely, some of their donors would have given up on to help the search for Madeleine.

That all might be legally ok, but is morally very wrong.

Atleast in my world.

I think that's the point really lj... morally it's wrong but in terms of the law that expenditure was covered for under the company terms so no-one would have any grounds to sue i don\'t know

____________________
Joseph Goebbels (a man who ought to know):
If you tell a lie big enough and repeat it often enough then the public will eventually believe it

LittleMissMolly

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by pauline on 26.06.11 16:39

Morality and the legality can be very different things.

the McCanns pay so many lawyers to ensure that what they do is 'legal' and therefore cannot be subject to legal prosecution. Morality, half truth, downright lies and attacks on those who say things that contradict their version (like the late Mrs Fenn) do not concern them.

the book says that two lawyers, flew out to Portugal and they had meetings with them over the weekend of May 11,12 13. Now why the need for lawyers just after a week since Madeleine vanished on May 3rd. In other cases - like Sara Payne and Holly and Jessica (Soham murders) - the parents did not call in lawyers - at any stage. Why did these parents not feel the need for lawyers, and limited companies?

The limited company is meeting the legal requirements re the information provided in the audited accounts which are filed in the UK companies office - but the last two years filed (to march 2009, to march 2010) have given such limited financial information as to be meaningless - crucially you cant tell what % has been spent 'looking for Madeleine.' This to me is unsatisfactory to be polite about it, and many would say 'immoral.'

I suspect that if the company had charity status, much more information would have to be available to the public. Does anyone know specifically the legal reguirements for disclosure by charities? I think this is why the Mccanns did not bother to negotiate with the authorities to get charity status - this would probably have been possible by amending the draft company docs - they wanted a standard company where the filing requirements are not onerous and they could do what they liked. The board of their company is not exactly packed with independent outsiders.

pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by Cherry on 28.06.11 18:25

Does anyone know anyone who donated to the Fund and if so did they get an acknowledgement and thank you letter from the Fund?

Cherry

Posts : 2150
Reputation : 33
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : Emirates Stadium

View user profile

Back to top Go down

McCann Fund

Post by juliet on 28.06.11 19:48

I remember wondering why on earth the McCanns set up that fund so quickly when a massive police investigation was underway. What could they need money for?

And then within a week it was obvious - they were spending the money on lawyers to protect their own backs.

It was, IIRC, months before they got round to employing anyone to look for Madeleine. And while they were paying for the most expensive lawyers in Britain (Carter Ruck) for themselves, they used that Mickey Mouse outfit Metodo 3 (who had NO experience of looking for missing children) for Madeleine.

The couple's actions were blatantly corrupt from the start.

Anyone who gave them money (and anyone who STILL gives them money!) must have a screw loose.

juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

McCann Pension Fund

Post by Marian on 28.06.11 19:57

I'm thinking that this case is unique in British history. Has there ever been another instance where the relatives of a missing person have set up a website and limited company in record time, supposedly to raise funds to help them find that person? No doubt someone will tell me if I'm wrong but I certainly can't think of anything before even remotely similar to the situation we have here.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by pauline on 28.06.11 20:37

marian, I don't find anything odd in setting up a website - this is just an effective modern communication tool - and can be done quickly. Useful to put up pics of the missing child and other information.

I read somewhere they spent £37,000 on their website (maybe I have this wrong) which seems totally excessive.

Setting up the company is the thing I cant get my head round and especially one that was not a charity. Why not just set up a separate bank account for donations coming in? And have an independent person as honorary Treasurer looking after that bank account.

pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by Kololi on 02.07.11 17:26

As a charity, if I recall rightly, they would have been expected to be very transparent and showing the public that the charity was being run so that it benefitted those who were meant to benefit from it and not those who ran it.

Well obviously there was a problem in so much as their company was only to benefit one person, hence they had to form a limited company rather than a charity, but had they managed to obtain charitable status I would not have thought that paying their mortgage would be viewed by the Charities Commission as fitting the objectives that all charities are meant to aim to meet.

I understand that anybody buying a wristband for instance is purchasing something from a company and that has its own set of rules but I have wondered when people have just donated money to them how it pans out. It is a charitable act that has been committed by many so why wouldn't they be under some form of obligation to meet the objectives of the Charities Commission for that part of the income that they have gained?

The forming of the company so quickly and how it is run certainly is odd but then so is a lot of what we see of this set of parents.

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by pauline on 02.07.11 17:35

I dont think they ever wanted charity status because that had the drawback of more regulation.

if they had wanted it, the solicitors could have amended the articles of association to make the aims wider re missing children. they could have done something about other missing children, maybe made donations from the fund to say Ben needhams's mum, and then continued to devote most of the funds to 'look for Madeleine..'

I think this would have kept them within the law.

It suited them to have people assume the Fund had charitable status. They have on their website that it is not a charity but does anyone know when that statement was put up?

pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by merina on 02.07.11 17:49

They investigated Charity Status - 22nd May 2007
"Gordon Brown has pledged his support. Last Friday John McCann was dining with friends when Downing Street called to say that the Chancellor was on the line. Minutes later Mr McCann’s mobile – on which he takes hundreds of calls daily – ran out of power, cutting off Britain’s next Prime Minister in mid-sentence. Yesterday morning, as Mr McCann was talking to The Times, his mobile rang again. It was Revenue & Customs, calling at Mr Brown’s request to discuss how the fund could gain charitable status."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1821286.ece

By 9th May, there was a reward package of £2.6 million; by 11th May an anonymous donor had set aside a “considerable sum” to put towards hiring PI – CRG had been primed to help (via IFLG)

merina

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by pauline on 02.07.11 18:08

As i posted earlier, if charity status had been wanted, they had very experienced solicitors who could have amended the Articles of Association to meet Revenue requirements. But clearly the Mccanns did not really want the extra regulation such status would have brought so they just spin that in effect the problem with the Revenue who wouldn't facilitate them, when the problem was with them, that they wouldn't amend their articles of association. The solicitors could do nothing if their clients the McCanns did not agree.

pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by merina on 02.07.11 18:17

@pauline wrote:As i posted earlier, if charity status had been wanted, they had very experienced solicitors who could have amended the Articles of Association to meet Revenue requirements. But clearly the Mccanns did not really want the extra regulation such status would have brought so they just spin that in effect the problem with the Revenue who wouldn't facilitate them, when the problem was with them, that they wouldn't amend their articles of association. The solicitors could do nothing if their clients the McCanns did not agree.

They weren't eligible for charity status as the fund was solely for the purpose of one named individual. And that's the way they wanted it to stay. To be eligible for charitable status it had to be for non-named individuals, missing children generally (for example). As it says in Kates book (assuming it's true) it was IFLG who drafted the Objectives and instructed BWB. The McCanns wanted the fund for Madeleine and her family - and no-one else. They would have liked to have had the tax perks of charitable status - but without conforming to their criteria.

merina

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by pauline on 02.07.11 18:31

Its interesting if the IFLG (International Family Law group) drafted the articles of association for the Fund - i mean if they did, why then instruct the solicitors to set up the company. The main work in setting up a company is in drafting the Articles of Association. If IFLG had already done this, it doesn't make sense to me. Why didn't they then deal with the other matters involved and incorporate the company.

And such work wouldn't really be what IFLG normally did surely?

Is this another instance of the McCanns deliberately confusing things?

pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Can Someone Explain Please

Post by merina on 02.07.11 20:51

@pauline wrote:Its interesting if the IFLG (International Family Law group) drafted the articles of association for the Fund - i mean if they did, why then instruct the solicitors to set up the company. The main work in setting up a company is in drafting the Articles of Association. If IFLG had already done this, it doesn't make sense to me. Why didn't they then deal with the other matters involved and incorporate the company.

And such work wouldn't really be what IFLG normally did surely?

Is this another instance of the McCanns deliberately confusing things?

Hi - I'm only quoting what Kate says in her book. Whether it's right or wrong I haven't a clue. I was quite interested in that bit when Hugh joins them and informs them that there is an "anonymous donor" who has made a 'significant contribution' and had primed CRG. Has there ever been any discussion on who that donor might be?? There was talk at one time about a T10??? Inriguing winkwink

merina

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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