Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009

by Guest 30.11.09 12:25

Tony i understand that none of the members minded as this was not for anything personal you bought , but was to pay legal fees for the Madeleine Foundation as a whole.
But in insight maybe a fund should have been set up seperatly for any foundation eventualitys such as miscellanious/ Sundrys ect. do you think ?.
Smith as made some valuable points in regards to legality. Theirfore although in law it seems it could be veiwed in breech of law , it was not spent on personal items for yourself. What do you think regarding these points?

by Guest 30.11.09 12:27

Finally, I concede fully your point re identifying 'justagrannynow' (though of course not her real identity) in connection with the truly appalling email sent out by Ambersuz to one of her Moderators/Admin. We can be certain she did send this. We do not yet know who she sent this to.

No we can't. There are many things wrong with it, and as of now you are the only person I know who actually thinks it's genuine!!

by **Tony Bennett** 30.11.09 12:32

LadyBear wrote:Tony i understand that none of the members minded as this was not for anything personal you bought , but was to pay legal fees for the Madeleine Foundation as a whole.
But in insight maybe a fund should have been set up seperatly for any foundation eventualitys such as miscellanious/ Sundrys ect. do you think ?.
Smith as made some valuable points in regards to legality. Theirfore although in law it seems it could be veiwed in breech of law , it was not spent on personal items for yourself. What do you think regarding these points?

I think I've covered all these points quite fully in my long post two or three posts above your earlier one. If not, please say so.

by Guest 30.11.09 12:46

Tony was not in this foundation alone as their were other members , and when the Mccanns wanted the Madeleine Foundation closed and all the books printed sent to them. This was met by Tony and Debbie on behalf of the Foundation. Theirfore Tony did this in a Transparent way in regards to use of the said Money. And members were /are aware. So as this is only a small sum, what is the problem ? as Smith as already said , the legalities will not be used in this situation most likely.

by Guest 30.11.09 12:51

Perhaps you might like to ask Tony who exactly was at that meeting that was happy to OK this?

If this was the Kangaroo Court which installed three of TB's best mates as the new Committee, without even informing the Chairman as far as I am aware, then there are very serious questions about it anyway.

In fact Tony, when exactly did you tell Debbie Butler about the new Committee? When did she become aware that Grenville and his wife and Sharon had been 'co-opted' on this committee that had never actually existed before?

And why no vote by the membership?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.11.09 13:35

trunky wrote:Perhaps you might like to ask Tony who exactly was at that meeting that was happy to OK this?

If this was the Kangaroo Court which installed three of TB's best mates as the new Committee, without even informing the Chairman as far as I am aware, then there are very serious questions about it anyway.

In fact Tony, when exactly did you tell Debbie Butler about the new Committee? When did she become aware that Grenville and his wife and Sharon had been 'co-opted' on this committee that had never actually existed before?

And why no vote by the membership?

Join The Madeleine Foundation and then you will be entitled to ask these questions.

by Guest 30.11.09 13:41

Tony when are you going to answer my question.

ARE YOU GOING TO REFUND OR PAY BACK YOUR PART OF THE £500 PAID TO KIRWANS BY THE FUND, AFTER ALL YOU STATED IT WAS WRONG TO DO THAT.
IT WOULD BE A GOOD AND NICE GESTURE.

by Guest 30.11.09 13:42

I would rather boil my own mother alive in oil.

Presumably you are uttely assured of the unwavering devotion of however many members you have left out of the original three dozen.

But if you think that none of those questions have any bearing on your attempt to 'prove' that you are telling the truth then you are a fool. You are as bad as the government, claiming commercial confidentiality whenever the going gets tough.

by Guest 30.11.09 13:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
trunky wrote:Perhaps you might like to ask Tony who exactly was at that meeting that was happy to OK this?

If this was the Kangaroo Court which installed three of TB's best mates as the new Committee, without even informing the Chairman as far as I am aware, then there are very serious questions about it anyway.

In fact Tony, when exactly did you tell Debbie Butler about the new Committee? When did she become aware that Grenville and his wife and Sharon had been 'co-opted' on this committee that had never actually existed before?

And why no vote by the membership?
Join The Madeleine Foundation and then you will be entitled to ask these questions.

Ha ha ha, you will only answer questions to four people.

by Guest 30.11.09 16:18

Right, I said I didn't want to add to your longest suicide note in history but you appear to take exception to my remarks - although I am glad that you haven't threatened legal action against me like you have certain other forum owners and posters in the past.

So, it's simple. What is the legal status of the "Madeleine Foundation"? Is it a company and if so what sort of company - limited, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited by guarantee? If it is not a company what is its legal status?

I repeat my allegation. Any reasonable person sending money to something that calls itself "The Madeleine Foundation", whether in return for leaflets or not, would have the rational expectation that funds will not be diverted in a discretionary manner to an individual who is not named Madeleine. If that expectation is not met then taking funds in its name is potentially fraudulent.

I ask again, what is the legal status of the Madeleine Foundation, as confirmed by registration, memorandum and articles of association, registered office etc? What is it?

by Guest 30.11.09 17:41

No reply from Mr Bennett yet.

However I have now found out a little more.

Mr Bennett has stated voluntarily and on the record that the Madeleine Foundation is not a company.

He states that the Madeleine Foundation was set up as “a simple membership association, like an allotments association.”

He stated also that the bank account for the Madeleine Association was in no sense a trading account but would be used only in the way that a membership account would be used – (that is for subscriptions, raffles etc) in accordance with its written aims provided to the bank when the account was opened.

However as we all know The Madeleine Association has also been a trading venture – an entity for the production and sale of leaflets with a profit mark-up, .i.e. money left over. Such a trading entity is not a membership association. Altering the constitution retrospectively to enable distribution and production with a profit margin cannot legitimise such activity, amongst other reasons because, as Tony Bennett well knows, a membership association is beyond the remit of the Inland Revenue whereas trading of any sort is very much not.

In short only by the Madeleine Foundation setting up a quite separate entity – a company – and registering it and bringing it within the remit of trading law would its activities in selling leaflets be regularized and incontrovertibly legal. Doing so would still not, of course, cover the associated problems of misleading the public with the use of a term like Madeleine Foundation.

And this has not been done. Mr Bennett has abstracted funds from a membership association to which he has no right. The money is not his to do anything with.

by Pussycat 30.11.09 17:50

No, the money is not Mr Bennett's personal fund to use however he chooses. It is the moeny of the Foundation and unless you are a member of the Foundation, how can you be sure that the majority of members did not vote, or at least agree, for the money to be used in such a way? That's all it takes, a majority. Doesn't matter if the membership is four or 104

by littlepixie 30.11.09 18:02

Well I am quite happy for Mr Bennett to use my donation in whatever way he sees fit. If I hadnt felt like that I wouldnt have given it to the Foundation in the first place. Seeing as though many internet posters were involved in the construction of 60/10 Reasons I do not for one minute think it fair that one man and woman should alone be held accountable for the actions of many but that is what has happened.
On another note I can't believe that another website accepted £40 from the Foundation just for uploading a few photos but there you go.

by Pussycat 30.11.09 18:07

littlepixie wrote:Well I am quite happy for Mr Bennett to use my donation in whatever way he sees fit. If I hadnt felt like that I wouldnt have given it to the Foundation in the first place. Seeing as though many internet posters were involved in the construction of 60/10 Reasons I do not for one minute think it fair that one man and woman should alone be held accountable for the actions of many but that is what has happened.
On another note I can't believe that another website accepted £40 from the Foundation just for uploading a few photos but there you go.

Hello littlepixie, prepare to be banned from MM, if you haven't been already lol!

I was banned for making my first post on Jill's blog!

What other website?

by Guest 30.11.09 18:12

[quote="smith"]No reply from Mr Bennett yet.

However I have now found out a little more.

Mr Bennett has stated voluntarily and on the record that the Madeleine Foundation is not a company.

He states that the Madeleine Foundation was set up as “a simple membership association, like an allotments association.”

He stated also that the bank account for the Madeleine Association was in no sense a trading account but would be used only in the way that a membership account would be used – (that is for subscriptions, raffles etc) in accordance with its written aims provided to the bank when the account was opened.

However as we all know The Madeleine Association has also been a trading venture – an entity for the production and sale of leaflets with a profit mark-up, .i.e. money left over. Such a trading entity is not a membership association. Altering the constitution retrospectively to enable distribution and production with a profit margin cannot legitimise such activity, amongst other reasons because, as Tony Bennett well knows, a membership association is beyond the remit of the Inland Revenue whereas trading of any sort is very much not.

In short only by the Madeleine Foundation setting up a quite separate entity – a company – and registering it and bringing it within the remit of trading law would its activities in selling leaflets be regularized and incontrovertibly legal. Doing so would still not, of course, cover the associated problems of misleading the public with the use of a term like Madeleine Foundation.

And this has not been done. Mr Bennett has abstracted funds from a membership association to which he has no right. The money is not his to do anything with.[/quote]

So now that becomes THEFT

by Pussycat 30.11.09 18:18

So now that becomes THEFT

No it does not. As I said, if the majority of Foundation members are happy with TB using the money in this way, end of. There's at least half a dozen posts on this forum from posters who have donated to the Foundation and are more than happy for the money to be used for this purpose.

by littlepixie 30.11.09 18:21

Pussycat wrote:
Hello littlepixie, prepare to be banned from MM, if you haven't been already I was banned for making my first post on Jill's blog!

What other website?

I know Pussycat I weighed that up before I posted. I was already banned from the SSS last week presumably because I didnt agree with the way Debbie was going about things. affraid

I have seen Mr Bennett's wifes name posted up on the MM today and it sickened me. Why bring her into it, an old lady? She has the same name as my mum and I imagined my poor old mum having her name posted up for no good reason and that did it for me. I have never seen Mrs Bennett posting anywhere so why post her name up.

by Pussycat 30.11.09 18:24

How low can they go??

Have we got a 'puke' emoticon yet?

by **Jill Havern** 30.11.09 18:27

Whoever created the annabuffoon blog took the piss out of my mum on there too. A dying old woman. But then they didn't care about babies, so why would they care about old ladies?

by Guest 30.11.09 18:28

Hi littlepixie,

How does the SSS forum work then? I haven't ever understood. So you can be banned from the SSS, but not from the main forum, is that right. How many people on this SSS forum, and are they the usual suspects??

I

by Pussycat 30.11.09 18:30

JKH wrote:Whoever created the annabuffoon blog took the piss out of my mum on there too. A dying old woman. But then they didn't care about babies, so why would they care about old ladies?

Vile beggers they are, and there's you Jill, facing police interrogation for allowing someone to take the piss out of
big-I. What did they do? Question his humour?

I'd love to say,"I give up" and mean it, but I can't

by littlepixie 30.11.09 18:34

I was banned from the SSS but not the main forum and no explanation was given. To be truthful the SSS wasnt all that bad but then they started discussing Tony in there, posting up his emails and he didnt even know they were doing it. It was awful.

by Guest 30.11.09 19:27

Now this brings me to another point, How many people do keep with in the law who are running companies ect. Tony in my opinion as not stolen Money , because it was paid on behalf of the foundation and its members,because the Mccanns wanted the Foundation closed. Maybe had the Mccanns been more transparent we ALL would not be where we are today.Obsifucation of facts was bound to snowball into forums looking for some truth of where Madeleine was /is. Staged is a wored ive come very familiar with.

Smith you seem very astute so what about looking at the main players in all this The Mccanns, as on 3as before we were closed down people did take a interest in their financial goings on.Of course you may not wish to, but i would think its worth observing if you are as Astute as you seem. Shame to waste a sharp brain.

by Jolie 30.11.09 19:43

Blacksmith has his own blog about the McCann case, called "The Cracked Mirror." As you can imagine from reading smith's posts here, it is very well written and worth taking the time to read:

http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.com/

I hadn't seen this blog until yesterday, after reading a link posted in response to a question from Sym.

I hope everyone who isn't already familiar with it will check it out.

by Guest 30.11.09 19:43

littlepixie wrote:Well I am quite happy for Mr Bennett to use my donation in whatever way he sees fit. If I hadnt felt like that I wouldnt have given it to the Foundation in the first place. Seeing as though many internet posters were involved in the construction of 60/10 Reasons I do not for one minute think it fair that one man and woman should alone be held accountable for the actions of many but that is what has happened.
On another note I can't believe that another website accepted £40 from the Foundation just for uploading a few photos but there you go.

That`ll be 3A then

Why The Madeleine Foundation - not Tony and Debbie personally - paid Kirwans £500 on 2 October 2009