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

Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Page 4 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by friedtomatoes on 30.05.12 3:17

gerry mccann lied on tv in may 2011 when he said 2.5 million had been through the fund, it was more

he also lied when he stated in a c4 documentary that the vast majority of the money has gone directly on search fees

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by Hummingbird on 30.05.12 9:17

That video tells it all really.

This is supposed to be about a missing child, no one knows where she is, know one knows what on earth has happened to her. The family should be distraught, the God Parents should be distraught, everyone should look (IMO) as if they haven't slept for nights, and are starting to show the signs of stress and fatigue in their anquish over the whereabouts of a 3 (by then 4) year old beautiful little girl BUT

The Grandmother mentions how Gerry is sounding 'better in his voice'

'the fund starting has uplifted him'
'his boss has uplifted him'
all in all 'Good uplifting news'

(I began to think I'd been dreaming for the last 5 years and that Madeleine had been found, there was so much uplifting news!)

The Grandmother mentioned Madeleine - NEVER

The Godfather couldn't contain his excitement at the comment by the reporter about 'people coming all day and stuffing money in your hand'

'Oh yes' he says all big smiles 'it's very touching'

'The money will be used for all sorts of things' but then very pointedly 'probably legal expenses'

The Godfather mentions Madeleine only once and that was actually in connection with 'the Madeleine Fund' not actually about her directly.

Now why would Mr Kennedy after only 2 weeks feel the need to mention legal expenses? The child is hopefully going to be found alive and well at this point, no one has accused anyone of any wrong doing - yet. Everyone (almost) believes that she may have been abducted, no one is slandering your name in the papers or writing books about you - so what on earth are legal expenses need for?

Here we have two very close (supposedly) members of the family who are happy (over the moon in fact) to talk about the fund but NOT ONE THEM MENTIONS POOR MADELEINE!

Oh and for the record the reporter (who has never met her) mentions her name 4 times.

Absolutely disgusting, this isn't even recorded 5 years on when after crying that many tears over the years, you could be excused for now being able to talk in a more coherent manner about such a dreadful event - this was only 2 WEEKS AFTER MADELEINE DISAPPEARED!

Hummingbird

Posts : 248
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by Nina on 30.05.12 10:05

@Hummingbird wrote:That video tells it all really.

This is supposed to be about a missing child, no one knows where she is, know one knows what on earth has happened to her. The family should be distraught, the God Parents should be distraught, everyone should look (IMO) as if they haven't slept for nights, and are starting to show the signs of stress and fatigue in their anquish over the whereabouts of a 3 (by then 4) year old beautiful little girl BUT

The Grandmother mentions how Gerry is sounding 'better in his voice'

'the fund starting has uplifted him'
'his boss has uplifted him'
all in all 'Good uplifting news'

(I began to think I'd been dreaming for the last 5 years and that Madeleine had been found, there was so much uplifting news!)

The Grandmother mentioned Madeleine - NEVER

The Godfather couldn't contain his excitement at the comment by the reporter about 'people coming all day and stuffing money in your hand'

'Oh yes' he says all big smiles 'it's very touching'

'The money will be used for all sorts of things' but then very pointedly 'probably legal expenses'

The Godfather mentions Madeleine only once and that was actually in connection with 'the Madeleine Fund' not actually about her directly.

Now why would Mr Kennedy after only 2 weeks feel the need to mention legal expenses? The child is hopefully going to be found alive and well at this point, no one has accused anyone of any wrong doing - yet. Everyone (almost) believes that she may have been abducted, no one is slandering your name in the papers or writing books about you - so what on earth are legal expenses need for?

Here we have two very close (supposedly) members of the family who are happy (over the moon in fact) to talk about the fund but NOT ONE THEM MENTIONS POOR MADELEINE!

Oh and for the record the reporter (who has never met her) mentions her name 4 times.

Absolutely disgusting, this isn't even recorded 5 years on when after crying that many tears over the years, you could be excused for now being able to talk in a more coherent manner about such a dreadful event - this was only 2 WEEKS AFTER MADELEINE DISAPPEARED!

goodpost

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by tigger on 30.05.12 15:43

Great post and observations Hummingbird! Thanks - it's fantastic how much information is contained in these clips.

Yes - your point! Why did they get lawyered up so quickly? Lawyers visiting on the 11th May, allegedly lawyers suggesting a Fighting Fund - although I don't believe that for a minute. I believe there's a topic on the number of lawyers employed. I will look it up and post it.


From Enid O'Dowds' analysis (see link on page 1, post 1)

Legal Fees

A total of £180,321 has been paid (£111,522 under Merchandising and Campaign costs and £68,799 under Fund legal fees).

The cost of setting up the limited company (which did not involve acquiring charity status) could not have been more than £5,000 leaving £175,321 spent on other legal services.

What legal activities did this expenditure cover?

The Directors' Report is confusing in regard to legal fees. It states that the Fund 'has covered legal fees associated with Madeleine's abduction and the search for her...the Fund has not been used for any fees relating to their (Gerry and Kate's) legal defence.'

Why are there such apparently large legal fees associated with Madeleine's abduction? The only legal fees relating to this would be those involved with having her made a ward of court but this would not cost £175,321.

There would have been legal fees relating to the arguido status but the Directors' Report specifically states it did not pay fees relating to the McCanns' legal defence.

Director Brian Kennedy (uncle of Kate McCann) in an interview on a video made in May 2007 and available on the Internet states that the Fund money 'can be used for all sorts of reasons but probably mainly (will be used) for legal expenditure.' This seems to contradict the Directors' Report.

Thus there is great public confusion about the payment of legal costs which should be cleared up.
unquote



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by Hummingbird on 30.05.12 16:43

Why did they get 'lawyered up so quickly?' IMHO

GUILT

If you're not guilty you don't need lawyers.
If you're not guilty you answer all the questions the police are asking - they are trying to find your missing child for you, they need the answers
If you're not guilty you hand over everything the police ask for to assist in their search for your missing daughter
If you're not guilty you have nothing to fear from the authorities so no need to be cagey about questions -it's not 'no comment' just try a straight Yes or No!
If you're not guilty you don't need to sue anyone who says that they have other ideas about what has happened to your missing child or how it happened - you will just get on with the search for looking for her and just ignore those comments as 'nasty'
If you're not guilty you don't need to write a book to continue to tell everyone your side of the events
If you're not guilty you would agree to a lie detector test
If you're not guilty you would do a reconstruction or 2 or 3 or 4 or however many times it took to find even one iddy biddy little clue as to the whereabouts of your missing child
If you're not guilty you would MAKE your friends do the reconstruction and anyone who refused would certainly not be classed as a friend and in my mind would immediately be on my list of suspects

I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea!!

Hummingbird

Posts : 248
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by Hummingbird on 31.05.12 9:21

Here's another quote I found on the McCann Files site. Very interesting interview given on 14th May 2007, not even a fortnight after Madeleine went missing and the basis of the conversation was all about Lawyers, the fund and themsleves.

quote (GM speaking)

We have received multiple offers of different forms of help including many of financial help to help find Madeleine....

We have brought in our lawyers to help us to decide how best to use these offers of support to help us find Madeleine

Since the lawyers have come here we have visibly felt a burden being lifted from our shoulders because there's one less thing that we do not have to immediately think about and how we can co-ordinate them.

This has allowed us to concentrate more on our own physical and mental well being. We do need to spend more time at this point concentrating on ourselves, our family - who's Sean & Amalie - and contemplating about the situation we are in

unquote

Surely at this early stage all offers of support would be put towards a reward to encourage someone who knows the truth to tell it. You do not need lawyers to help you to do this, the police, the social services, the family support group could all be used for this, lawyers are for legal matters!

Since the lawyers have come we have felt a burden being lifted??????? Now what burden is that exactly?

Madeleine was mentioned only twice and that was in connection with the financial support being offered, in the last paragraph it's all about them, how they need to feel and their family who is Sean and Amalie sorry what was Madeleine then?

And what exactly does 'contemplating the situation we are in' mean!



Hummingbird

Posts : 248
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by jd on 31.05.12 11:54

Maybe this might help answer some of the questions Hummingbird. Please note this is snippets of gerry mccann words from the IBA Madrid conference (in 2008 I think).... and not what I am saying!

"I can’t say for certain what factors were influencing this intense media interest within 24 hours of her abduction. I think the fact that it was a foreign child abducted on holiday certainly played a key part. The only other case we can think of in the United Kingdom was of Ben Needham, who was abducted in 1991 on a Greek island. And we don’t know of any other cases involving British children taken whilst on holiday, so that certainly played a part. The fact that we were doctors seemed to influence things and that this had happened to professional couple and I think Madeleine’s picture herself that she was such a beautiful innocent young girl who was taken and clearly many of the journalists involved felt a great deal of empathy with us as well.

Clearly the holiday company saw this media needed to be managed and engaged Bell Pottinger straight away and they sent out their head of crisis management, Alex Woolfall, to deal with the media. They also provided to us trauma counselling, which was very, very important in how we dealt with the situation. And we had counselling sessions within 36 hours of this happening and I have to say it played a tremendous part in helping me cope with the situation and try to do things to influence the outcome. I’d like to play a video, if we can get this.

That video’s from about 9.30 pm on the 4th of May and I wanted to show it because I think even at that stage when I saw the media it filled me with dread about the potential intrusion of privacy, but I also saw it as an opportunity of helping the search, and the salient point, I haven’t seen that video for at least 18 months, and it brought back to me, the salient points of which we were trying to achieve; to get information into the investigation, which we still strive to do, as Madeleine is still missing, secondly, to let as many people as possible, know that Madeleine is missing, and thirdly, even though in that first night we were already concerned about intrusion of privacy, and I think I’ll show you in the following slides that we had very good reasons to be concerned.

So the primary objectives were to get the best possible investigation so when I put the slide up showing that we were talking about the campaign strategy, much of it was not media related, and so we had very early contact with the UK foreign office and other government officials striving to get the best possible investigation. We had to look at getting information into the enquiry and after the first few days when Madeleine was not discovered in the vicinity of the Algarve, then we had to think okay, where could she have been taken, and that influenced the decisions in which countries to visit and try and target so Spain’s a neighbouring country to Portugal, so one of the first things that we did was we got a message to David Beckham, asking him to do an appeal. He was playing for Real Madrid in this very city at the time and he agreed to that and did a very emotional appeal. And that had an amazing effect on the overall campaign because he was such a worldwide superstar and it seemed to have a snowball effect.

We took advice from the crisis management team and Alex Woolfall was absolutely brilliant. What he said to us was that for any media that you do, you must clearly define what your objective is from doing the media and secondly, ask yourself the question, how is it going to help, and that helped us tremendously with our future press conferences, statements and photo calls. We also did a number of TV and magazine interviews, I have to say, mainly at the request of the media, and that is one of the times where Alex would say you’re just feeding the beast. We subsequently had a public audience with the Pope and we had visits to Spain appealing for information and help and also we went to Germany and the Netherlands who make up the largest group of tourists to the Algarve, after the British and Irish, and we also visited Morocco which is obviously not far across the Mediterranean.

..........Within weeks we already saw that there was a focus in the media coverage. There was a switching of attention away from Madeleine and it started to become the Kate and Gerry show. There was intense pressure to do media, which I have to say would have been for media sake, which we tried to resist. And it also became clear to us that Madeleine stories were selling newspapers and that there had to be a Madeleine story and she was becoming a commodity and people were starting to forget that she was a real child.

In June 2007, after we completed our visit, we tried to signal a change in our strategy. We appointed a campaign manager and her role was not directly a spokesperson. We anticipated that the media interest would naturally dwindle and the role was really about ensuring that we could maintain a search in the long term. We also signalled that Kate and I would not be making regular press statements or conferences and we asked the media to no longer photograph our two-year-old twins. We hadn’t asked for that immediately, primarily because I just didn’t think it was enforceable, given the huge amount of media attention and particularly in another country. We might have managed it in the UK but even I doubt it there.


http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=329261a6-5bf6-448a-9476-5b34ff80d6a2

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by aquila on 31.05.12 13:11

@jd wrote:Maybe this might help answer some of the questions Hummingbird. Please note this is snippets of gerry mccann words from the IBA Madrid conference (in 2008 I think).... and not what I am saying!

"I can’t say for certain what factors were influencing this intense media interest within 24 hours of her abduction. I think the fact that it was a foreign child abducted on holiday certainly played a key part. The only other case we can think of in the United Kingdom was of Ben Needham, who was abducted in 1991 on a Greek island. And we don’t know of any other cases involving British children taken whilst on holiday, so that certainly played a part. The fact that we were doctors seemed to influence things and that this had happened to professional couple and I think Madeleine’s picture herself that she was such a beautiful innocent young girl who was taken and clearly many of the journalists involved felt a great deal of empathy with us as well.

Clearly the holiday company saw this media needed to be managed and engaged Bell Pottinger straight away and they sent out their head of crisis management, Alex Woolfall, to deal with the media. They also provided to us trauma counselling, which was very, very important in how we dealt with the situation. And we had counselling sessions within 36 hours of this happening and I have to say it played a tremendous part in helping me cope with the situation and try to do things to influence the outcome. I’d like to play a video, if we can get this.

That video’s from about 9.30 pm on the 4th of May and I wanted to show it because I think even at that stage when I saw the media it filled me with dread about the potential intrusion of privacy, but I also saw it as an opportunity of helping the search, and the salient point, I haven’t seen that video for at least 18 months, and it brought back to me, the salient points of which we were trying to achieve; to get information into the investigation, which we still strive to do, as Madeleine is still missing, secondly, to let as many people as possible, know that Madeleine is missing, and thirdly, even though in that first night we were already concerned about intrusion of privacy, and I think I’ll show you in the following slides that we had very good reasons to be concerned.

So the primary objectives were to get the best possible investigation so when I put the slide up showing that we were talking about the campaign strategy, much of it was not media related, and so we had very early contact with the UK foreign office and other government officials striving to get the best possible investigation. We had to look at getting information into the enquiry and after the first few days when Madeleine was not discovered in the vicinity of the Algarve, then we had to think okay, where could she have been taken, and that influenced the decisions in which countries to visit and try and target so Spain’s a neighbouring country to Portugal, so one of the first things that we did was we got a message to David Beckham, asking him to do an appeal. He was playing for Real Madrid in this very city at the time and he agreed to that and did a very emotional appeal. And that had an amazing effect on the overall campaign because he was such a worldwide superstar and it seemed to have a snowball effect.

We took advice from the crisis management team and Alex Woolfall was absolutely brilliant. What he said to us was that for any media that you do, you must clearly define what your objective is from doing the media and secondly, ask yourself the question, how is it going to help, and that helped us tremendously with our future press conferences, statements and photo calls. We also did a number of TV and magazine interviews, I have to say, mainly at the request of the media, and that is one of the times where Alex would say you’re just feeding the beast. We subsequently had a public audience with the Pope and we had visits to Spain appealing for information and help and also we went to Germany and the Netherlands who make up the largest group of tourists to the Algarve, after the British and Irish, and we also visited Morocco which is obviously not far across the Mediterranean.

..........Within weeks we already saw that there was a focus in the media coverage. There was a switching of attention away from Madeleine and it started to become the Kate and Gerry show. There was intense pressure to do media, which I have to say would have been for media sake, which we tried to resist. And it also became clear to us that Madeleine stories were selling newspapers and that there had to be a Madeleine story and she was becoming a commodity and people were starting to forget that she was a real child.

In June 2007, after we completed our visit, we tried to signal a change in our strategy. We appointed a campaign manager and her role was not directly a spokesperson. We anticipated that the media interest would naturally dwindle and the role was really about ensuring that we could maintain a search in the long term. We also signalled that Kate and I would not be making regular press statements or conferences and we asked the media to no longer photograph our two-year-old twins. We hadn’t asked for that immediately, primarily because I just didn’t think it was enforceable, given the huge amount of media attention and particularly in another country. We might have managed it in the UK but even I doubt it there.


http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=329261a6-5bf6-448a-9476-5b34ff80d6a2

JD. That is without doubt the best post I've seen. It just about sums things up.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by tigger on 01.06.12 9:46

Aquila posted this on the topic 'Innocence' but I thought I would copy it here too:

One innocent little girl called Madeleine disappeared through the neglectful actions of her parents by leaving her and her siblings alone in an apartment. It would not have happened if they had been present. Nevertheless it strikes the hearts of good people who chip in to help with immediate financial support for the family. These donations could have been simply sent to a high street bank but instead a fund was established within a very short space of time and a very expensive website established.
That same fund hasn't afforded a postage stamp to re-open the case. The fund has been injected with hundreds of thousands of pounds and in the five years Madeleine has been missing hasn't managed to achieve much other than to financially improve the lives of a lot of people and destroy the lives of others imo. Madeleine is still missing. The Mc's aren't happy with the Portuguese investigation and the taxpayers of UK bear the cost of an SY review. It's time to close the fund imo. If only 13% of it is actively being spent on the search for Madeleine (so it has been posted re analysis of the accounts) the other 87% is a complete waste imo.

unquote


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

esther mcvey

Post by russiandoll on 30.06.12 20:12


surprised when looking at a twitter page [ the realhumptybumpty [exposing the mccanns, uncovering the shocking truth about MM disappearance] to see a post from Ms McVey, not posting re Maddie, an innocuous post re cooking... clicked on her id and it took me to her twitter page...credible tweets considering who she is. not a fake id imo.
She is posting to this person even if not re McCanns...on a feed that is as skeptical as any I have read about the case.

Interesting...

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by tigger on 01.07.12 5:48

@Hummingbird wrote:Here's another quote I found on the McCann Files site. Very interesting interview given on 14th May 2007, not even a fortnight after Madeleine went missing and the basis of the conversation was all about Lawyers, the fund and themsleves.

quote (GM speaking)

We have received multiple offers of different forms of help including many of financial help to help find Madeleine....

We have brought in our lawyers to help us to decide how best to use these offers of support to help us find Madeleine
That is an outright lie - they brought in lawyers to set up the fund in the first place - no doubt these would be the same lawyers to advise on the above
Since the lawyers have come here we have visibly felt a burden being lifted from our shoulders because there's one less thing that we do not have to immediately think about and how we can co-ordinate them. With their very own top level PR person, several people from MW to help, several sets of lawyers and apparently the whole of the FO on board - the only burden they should have noticed was the loss of their child and the urgent need to find her .

This has allowed us to concentrate more on our own physical and mental well being. We do need to spend more time at this point concentrating on ourselves, our family - who's Sean & Amalie - and contemplating about the situation we are in
not 'the situation Madeleine finds herself in' but their own situation which after all, is of their own making.
unquote

Surely at this early stage all offers of support would be put towards a reward to encourage someone who knows the truth to tell it. Quite so, it was a simple matter, a lost child needed to be found.
You do not need lawyers to help you to do this, the police, the social services, the family support group could all be used for this, lawyers are for legal matters!

Since the lawyers have come we have felt a burden being lifted??????? Now what burden is that exactly?

Madeleine was mentioned only twice and that was in connection with the financial support being offered, in the last paragraph it's all about them, how they need to feel and their family who is Sean and Amalie sorry what was Madeleine then? Madeleine seems to have always been an 'extra' - Dr. Roberts point out in his early analyses of the interviews it is 2 + 1.

And what exactly does 'contemplating the situation we are in' mean!



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by aquila on 01.07.12 10:23

In all of this tragic saga it will always appear that the McCanns act on the advice of others. It's an amazing cop-out when things go wrong (it wasn't us, we were acting under professional advice). That professional advice is being paid for from the fund? yes/no?. If the McCanns are paying for professional advice say from the proceeds of the bewk then there will be a tax trail on that income surely. It's not clear if it only the royalties are contributed to the fund.

There was no need for a fund whatsoever or for aggressive libel suits either imo. Amending the terms of the fund has been played down with mastery as have the published 'transparent' accounts. Why not publish these transparent accounts on the website the contributors to the fund are paying for? The findmadeliene website is tired, shabby and does not much more than to blatantly ask people for money - and even then some items are out of stock. The updates are infrequent and their content innocuous at best. The site is careful to support missing people charities and ooze a bit of enthusiasm there.

We've gone in five years from Gerry's blogs which were bizarre to say the least, to Kate's bewk(s) and subsequently to their inclusion as important people in the Leveson Inquiry.

At the bottom of all of this is Madeleine, a three year old girl who was badly let down by her parents who now seem to have celebrity status and bask in the protection of hard-nosed, top notch professionals paid for by a fund (in whole or in part) that was meant to find Madeleine.

Just my very humble opinion.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A conflict of interests?

Post by tigger on 10.07.12 8:30

From the Sun: Article by A.Lazzeri 10/7/12:

If you recognise a missing person from one of the ads, make sure you call 116 000.
If you spot a missingperson ring 116 000
YOU can also help Kate McCann’s campaign by donating to the charity Missing People.


A donation of £3 pays for a poster appeal for a missing child. And a gift of £10 pays for a volunteer to follow up a sighting.

Give £3 by texting SEARCH to 70990. Or give £10 by calling freephone 0800 MISSING (647 7464).


If you have information about Madeleine McCann ring the Find Madeleine team on 0845 838 4699, or contact the Met’s Operation Grange on 0207 321 9251. Unquote

Imo this will muddy the waters considerably to the extend that people will not be clear which cause they are donating their money to.
If people choose to donate money for a poster and a volunteer to follow up a sighting - which child do they choose? Or who does choose which child will be featured?
It is very likely that - thanks to advertising Madeleine separately here with a telephone number - most people will think they are donating to find Maddie.

Why should a volunteer need to be paid? Ten pounds isn't going to cover any worthwhile effort, it's a tip and an amount that most kind people will donate, thinking they are doing a good deed.

Madeleine McCann should not be separately mentioned in any publicity this REAL charity organisation undertakes.

I will be interested to see how the accounts of this charity compare with the Company of the McCanns. If for instance posters of Maddie will be provided by the Company and paid for by the Charity for Missing Children?

Is Mrs. McCann going to be charging for her services in the same way that Cherie Booth and Lady Meyer did with the PACT charity - to such an extend that their 'expenses' were nearly equal to the incoming funds?


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by Angelique on 10.07.12 12:24

I am absolutely appalled, dumbfounded, whatever.

Well, we knew they were aiming high - in a way, it's insurance that they will never be held responsible for leaving their children alone whilst socialising.

As regards whether Kate will be salaried - I expect so!

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by tigger on 10.07.12 13:25

@Angelique wrote:I am absolutely appalled, dumbfounded, whatever.

Well, we knew they were aiming high - in a way, it's insurance that they will never be held responsible for leaving their children alone whilst socialising.

As regards whether Kate will be salaried - I expect so!

Their ONLY safe place is in the limelight. That's why the Pope visit was arranged in such a hurry - it gives them credibility. Once you've read the files, also the ONLY credibility.

Detailed Fund accounts please - Team McCann - as promised.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by pauline on 10.07.12 13:40

@tigger wrote:
Detailed Fund accounts please - Team McCann - as promised.



Tigger - you are JOKING.

Team McCann does not do openness, transparency and accountability - despite what kate said in the 'truthful' book.

pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by pauline on 10.07.12 13:40

@tigger wrote:
@Angelique wrote:I am absolutely appalled, dumbfounded, whatever.

Well, we knew they were aiming high - in a way, it's insurance that they will never be held responsible for leaving their children alone whilst socialising.

As regards whether Kate will be salaried - I expect so!

Their ONLY safe place is in the limelight. That's why the Pope visit was arranged in such a hurry - it gives them credibility. Once you've read the files, also the ONLY credibility.

Detailed Fund accounts please - Team McCann - as promised.


pauline

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

First resignation from Fund after 8 months.

Post by tigger on 10.07.12 19:30

@russiandoll wrote:
surprised when looking at a twitter page [ the realhumptybumpty [exposing the mccanns, uncovering the shocking truth about MM disappearance] to see a post from Ms McVey, not posting re Maddie, an innocuous post re cooking... clicked on her id and it took me to her twitter page...credible tweets considering who she is. not a fake id imo.
She is posting to this person even if not re McCanns...on a feed that is as skeptical as any I have read about the case.

Interesting...

From McCannfiles: I 'm posting this here today as I have already mentioned the film deal in another post today - the timing and manner of Ms. McVey's resignation are of interest. The different versions are also interesting as is the coincidence of the film deal being discussed.
Quote:
Esther McVey resigns - announced 08 January 2008

Kate and Gerry 'plan £2m film deal' as Madeleine Fund dwindles Daily Mail

By VANESSA ALLEN
Last updated at 09:06 09 January 2008

Extract (Third re-write of this article and the current online version):

Mr Mitchell said a book deal was also being considered "at some point down the line". He confirmed reports that one of the directors of the fund, former GMTV presenter Esther McVey, had resigned from the board, but denied it was because of any rift with the McCanns.

He said she wanted to concentrate on her role as a Conservative parliamentary candidate and was also about to start studying for a demanding MBA qualification.

The first version of this article, which appeared on 08 January 2008, was very brief and simply said:

(The film project will be discussed at a meeting of the fund's directors, including Gerry, tomorrow night at the McCanns' home in Rothley, Leicestershire...)

The meeting tomorrow follows the resignation of key board members, including the fund's spokeswoman Esther McVey.

The second version, later that day of 08 January 2008, contained more information and a quote from Clarence Mitchell. This was later removed and rewritten into the article that now appears online, as above. But why were this section and Mr Mitchell's quote removed?:

Clarence Mitchell later confirmed the reports that Esther McVey had resigned from the board but denied it was because of any rift with the McCanns. He said she wanted to concentrate on her role as a Conservative parliamentary candidate and was also about to start studying for a demanding MBA qualification.

"She has a lot of commitments and realised she could not devote the time she wanted to the fund," he said. "She felt the New Year would be a good time for the change, and spoke to Kate about her decision. Kate and Gerry were disappointed but they both understood her reasons. She is an old friend of Kate's and continues to support the fund."

Mr Mitchell said other directors might also want to "rotate" their position on the board, as it had created a lot more work than was originally anticipated in May.
unquote

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

PACT accounts

Post by tigger on 11.07.12 6:42

This is copied from: http://hurryupharry.org/2011/05/31/a-charity-a-lady-a-scandal/

McCanns Friend Lady Catherine Meyer [....]
As the accounts of the charity show, in 2010 income was £97,805 and expenditure, £80,491.
In 2009, the income was £28,445 and expenses £87,640 leading to a loss, even after taking into account unrealised investment gains, of over £50,000.
When we look at expenses we can see that over £49,586 of expenses in 2010 related to the salaries of Catherine Meyer (Lady Meyer) and her administrative assistant.
The Daily Telegraph understands that nearly 70 percent of that money was related to the salary of Lady Meyer.
In 2009, expenses directly related to the salaries of Lady Meyer and her assistant was £63,877.
It is quite easy to see why the charity lost over £50,000 that year.
Donations to the charity seem to have done more to pay the Chanel-clad Lady Meyer her salary and expenses than they have done to assist abducted children...
unquote

It's a very good example showing how many charities function. Seeing the website of Missingpeople, I'm struck by the very large number of employees - 43.
That's not counting volunteers I take it, because an employee is not - by definition - a volunteer. That's 43 salaries paid out.
Therefore the above breakdown of the PACT 'charity' expenses is a useful example of how these charities tend to work.

We have two charities and a Fund, all connected with children and missing people who seem to have the same modus operandi.

The IFLG of lawyers was set up 5 weeks before 3/5/07.
PACT was set up when?
Missingpeople was set up when?





____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Imagine

Post by aquila on 11.07.12 7:09

Imagine a fund where there can be no salary drawn. Imagine a fund which alters its mission to include the possibility of helping other charities. Imagine a fund that allies itself with another charity. Imagine a fund which generously donates to that other charity. Imagine that charity paying a salary. It's just imagination and a fictitious scenario.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by uppatoffee on 11.07.12 10:47

Look at the staff cost for Missing People in 2011. (p18)

£1.3 million. Really? Their income only appears to be £1.4million. Sounds a bit like another "charitable organisation" run by Lady Mayer. How many staff are they employing for that???

https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/component/option,com_docman/Itemid,131/gid,65/task,doc_download/

uppatoffee

Posts : 626
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by tigger on 11.07.12 12:41

@uppatoffee wrote:Look at the staff cost for Missing People in 2011. (p18)

£1.3 million. Really? Their income only appears to be £1.4million. Sounds a bit like another "charitable organisation" run by Lady Mayer. How many staff are they employing for that???

https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/component/option,com_docman/Itemid,131/gid,65/task,doc_download/

Wow! I'm impressed by my wild guesswork when I posted on the ambassador topic that I estimated the wages at that amount!
Thank you - I will copy this perhaps to another topic where only the financial affairs of Missingpeople, Pact and associated 'charities' will be discussed?

The link is a brilliant example of what the accounts of the FindMadeleineFund should look like if there was the transparency so faithfully promised.

re Ms. E.McVey
The departure of Ester McVey on the 8th of January, soon after the first accounts were published and in the middle of the film deal, not to mention the Oprah Winfrey offers and documentary fees which were being discussed at that very early stage was significant imo. Apart from dredging the Arade Dam nothing much seemed to be happening to look for Madeleine at that time - McVey isn't going to give her reasons publicly but I think they're fairly clear.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by PeterMac on 11.07.12 13:06

And one was paid between 60,000, and 70,000 POUNDS Sterling
76,138 Euros
93,385 US Dollars
765,067 SA Rand

Nice wage for overseeing a help line.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by uppatoffee on 11.07.12 13:19

It does seem a lot, PM! However I found this useful page from the guardian which indicates it is actually well below the going rate for chief execs. I guess this is a sign of the times.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html


uppatoffee

Posts : 626
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

Post by tigger on 11.07.12 13:21

@uppatoffee wrote:It does seem a lot, PM! However I found this useful page from the guardian which indicates it is actually well below the going rate for chief execs. I guess this is a sign of the times.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html


You're all so brilliant at finding these numbers. It looks as if the new Ambassador for MP might take care of the money they had left over from last year then.
She can't be doing it for pin money, she's bought a new frock and everything...

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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