Re: Hobs' theory: What I believe may have happened to Madeleine McCann

by kaz 02.01.16 14:20

Exactly Verdi and don't you think the McCanns have missed an opportunity of more easy money to be made? Surely the OC is open to a lack of care claim here with the shambolic crèche records. If I was one of the other parents who had paid good money expecting decent child care and I'd faithfully entered times of coming/going and duly signed the crèche sheet as I was supposed to , I'd definitely be entertaining the idea of sueing Warners. Why haven't they?

by willowthewisp 02.01.16 14:51

kaz wrote:Exactly Verdi and don't you think the McCanns have missed an opportunity of more easy money to be made? Surely the OC is open to a lack of care claim here with the shambolic crèche records. If I was one of the other parents who had paid good money expecting decent child care and I'd faithfully entered times of coming/going and duly signed the crèche sheet as I was supposed to , I'd definitely be entertaining the idea of sueing Warners. Why haven't they?

Hi Kaz,I take your point on the,"Creche record signings",lack of care claim,but Madeleine was not in the care of any of the child minders from the Mark Warner,Ocean Club apartment complex on the 3 May 2007,was she and the parents have stated where Madeleine was Abducted from?
With regard to the owners of the complex at the time of the disappearance,now that doe's bring in some "Special friends"associated to the Conservative party and a former Arquido suspects relatives?

by kaz 02.01.16 15:18

I was thinking more about the other parents who DID sign their children in and out with authentic signatures and timings. Seems like children were allowed to be taken out of the crèche without being signed out/ in by a responsible parent and the whole scheme seemed pretty shambolic. Just suppose a child HAD wandered off, how would the nanny have known ( even after consulting the crèche sheet) whether that child had actually been collected by a parent OR NOT ? I wonder how it's all done now.

by sammi1967 02.01.16 17:13

I think the first thing that needs to be established is if Madeleine McCann ever existed in the first place!

by kaz 02.01.16 18:30

sammi1967 wrote:I think the first thing that needs to be established is if Madeleine McCann ever existed in the first place!

I'm pretty sure that 'mini me ' DID exist . One look at Kate's face as she has 'an audience ' with the Pope ( or was it the other way round ? ) speaks volumes to me .
I remember reading on here a few years ago the Dr Paul Jerome Weinberger lived ' a few doors down ' from the McCanns at one time . That can't possibly be true can it?

by whodunit 02.01.16 18:45

Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:
Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:@[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Even if there was evidence that Maddie was routinely given certain types of drugs, surely her parents who are doctors could have given the police a plausible-sounding defense even if it was complete poppycock! Surely, coming up with a lie about drugs in their child's system and consequently suffering a few slings and arrows for sounding unconvincing is preferable to hiding her body?!!
I quite agree! IF MBM's fate was an innocent incident so easily could the group have gathered together and come up with a reason but they didn't did they? Instead they create some cock and bull story about abduction, forced entry, unlocked doors blah blah blah blah.

More transparent than any Tapas restaurant awning or fund accountancy

Nope! Any number of scenarios would have been better and less complicated than disposing of the body. [this is of course assuming 1. the child was never abducted and 2. the child is dead, but I think we're beyond debating the obvious]

And on top of that, they or somebody working on their behalf apparently cocked up the creche records for the week! This need to cover tracks so thoroughly is indicative of something truly sinister happening to the child. Yes, they generally did such a poor job of it their cover stories fall apart like tissue paper in rain but who cares! they've got the entire British press knowingly and willfully filling in the gaps for them, which is only further evidence of sinister motives.
One thing that's always been very clear to me - they are so confident that a body will never be found. Two alternatives here I think, either a body has been disposed of in such a way as all trace has been removed or there is not a body to be found - the former I believe most likely.

Many people can't see any particular problem with the shabby crèche records but to me it is a very important part of uncovering the truth. Mark Warners reputation is on the line here, if it's revealed that their holiday camps child care facilities are so sloppy, this would have a very detrimental effect on their holiday bookings - what normal responsible parent/guardian would want to leave their child/ren in a crèche or kiddies club where the carers are so careless as to the attendance register? The record of attendance is there for a very good reason so the least one can expect is for the staff to maintain the register accurately. Just supposing there was a genuine catastrophe !!!

The fabricated creche records prove, to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week and it tweren't no stranger abduction. They point directly to the culpability of her parents in whatever happened.

As for the use of the creche in general what always struck me is how embarrassed these people should be to cling to the ridiculous narrative of having brought their children on holiday only to stick them in daycare all the live long day and then leave them alone and defenseless at night. Why bring them at all if they never wanted to lay eyes on the poor dears!? It's seems that no matter how embarrassing it was to 'admit' such a thing they were determined to fabricate a narrative which physically distanced themselves from the children in the eyes of the police/public.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.01.16 18:58

kaz wrote:
sammi1967 wrote:I think the first thing that needs to be established is if Madeleine McCann ever existed in the first place!
I'm pretty sure that 'mini me ' DID exist . One look at Kate's face as she has 'an audience ' with the Pope ( or was it the other way round ? ) speaks volumes to me.

I remember reading on here a few years ago the Dr Paul Jerome Weinberger lived 'a few doors down' from the McCanns at one time. That can't possibly be true can it?

I have never ever come across that one, may be true though if anyone can provide a link.

What can be said with certainty is that to some extent their research interests coincided.

On Gerry McCann's web page recently it stated this:

QUOTE

Gerry McCann’s Research Interests

“I am particularly interested in LV remodelling and the use of comprehensive cardiac MRI to better manage patients with known or suspected cardiac disease. In addition, I have run a number of trials using cardiac MRI as end point in clinical trials (eg STEMI) and in early phase II studies, assessing the efficacy of novel interventions in cardiovascular disease in partnership with various pharmaceutical companies”.

UNQUOTE

If you look at Paul Weinberger's career, you will soon see that the bit in red above gives him and Gerry coincidental interests.

Of rather more interest is that Weinberger's former company, Enigma, was set up essentially as an 'arm's length', government-backed private company, whose office was eventually located inside the highly secret Ministry of Defence establishment at Porton Down in Wiltshire, not far from Salisbury. It is famous, or perhaps notorious, for conducting research into biological, chemical and nuclear warfare. The murdered Dr David Kelly was associated with it for many years.

Weinberger did live close to another Ocean Club guest, Dr Julian Totman and his wife, both of whom were General Practitioners in Salisbury. But still more relevantly, Dr Totman had a second surgery actually inside Porton Down.

Gerry McCann vehemently denied knowing either of them before May 2007, but an article in the Daily Mail dated 4 March 2010 referring to his wife, art expert Mrs Jeni Weinberger, is of interest - extract below:

“…on returning from Portugal in May 2007, she had informed her local police force - Wiltshire - about a possible ‘sighting’ of an abductor. She went on to claim that Wilshire Police contacted Leicestershire police who failed to follow up her lead. It was only when she received an emotional phone call from Maddie’s mum Kate, nearly two years later that a photofit based on her description was put together”.

Why was Jeni Weinberger so keen to help the McCanns?

Could she really have drawn up a 'photo-fit' two years later of a cleaner she'd seen back in 2007?

Did anyone seriously think that, two years later, a photo-fit of this cleaner could be a possible breakthough in the Madeleine McCann investigation?

Oh, wait a moment...'nearly two years after Madeleine was reported missing'...

...say March or April 2009, then...

...a few weeks before the controversial 'Mockumentary' shown on 7 May 2007...

...maybe they didn't have enough abductor suspects to fill the programme?

by sammi1967 02.01.16 19:06

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I personally wouldn't make a judgement on any photograph that appears in the press concerning this case as they all appear to have been very selectively picked. And I don't see how any photo of Kate could be taken as proof of M's existence.

by Guest 03.01.16 0:15

sammi1967 wrote:I think the first thing that needs to be established is if Madeleine McCann ever existed in the first place!

I don't think there can be any doubt that MBM existed, nor that she was with her parents and siblings on that trip to the Ocean Club PdL.

by Guest 03.01.16 0:30

willowthewisp wrote:
kaz wrote:Exactly Verdi and don't you think the McCanns have missed an opportunity of more easy money to be made? Surely the OC is open to a lack of care claim here with the shambolic crèche records. If I was one of the other parents who had paid good money expecting decent child care and I'd faithfully entered times of coming/going and duly signed the crèche sheet as I was supposed to , I'd definitely be entertaining the idea of sueing Warners. Why haven't they?
Hi Kaz,I take your point on the,"Creche record signings",lack of care claim,but Madeleine was not in the care of any of the child minders from the Mark Warner,Ocean Club apartment complex on the 3 May 2007,was she and the parents have stated where Madeleine was Abducted from?
With regard to the owners of the complex at the time of the disappearance,now that doe's bring in some "Special friends"associated to the Conservative party and a former Arquido suspects relatives?

The childcare staff were interviewed by the PJ, their witness statements form part of the PJ investigation files along with the crèche record of attendance - clearly it was of importance to the investigation. Basic policing to ascertain the movements of the McCann family during the week and that of their group of friends. One particular afternoon Madeleine was signed in for only fifteen minutes - why was that? Was it an erroneous entry or was Madeleine ill or did they take her away for a particular reason - if so, what reason? There any number of reasons why the crèche records are of importance.

Very unprofessional in my opinion.

by Rogue-a-Tory 03.01.16 2:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
kaz wrote:Most likely it all has nothing to do with swinging or paedophilia. Since there were so many doctors involved I have come to believe the ‘holiday’ was a freebie organised by a leading pharmaceutical company. If this became public knowledge it would reveal exactly what these drug companies are willing to do to get their products available on the NHS...all highly illegal of course. We all know what immense financial power these companies exert over the government as well.

The fact that the apartment was cleaned so thoroughly suggests a DNA disclosure problem and I keep coming back to the question, ‘ What was it about Madeleine’s DNA that needed to remain secret?’ Incidentally Leicester University is home to leading genetic research and of course where Alec Jeffreys came up with DNA fingerprinting.

The bottom line for me is an accidental death that could have caused a government downfall if the public had a whiff of just what was and is still being carried out by these huge pharmaceutical conglomerates. We’re talking billions of pounds of potential losses here and we all know how money talks. Just my New Year's Eve musings.
The presence in Praia da Luz of Dr Paul Jerome Weinberger the very same week as the McCanns tends to support your musings.

He was in 2007 a top flyer in Enigma Diagnostics, a Government-sponsored company now based in the top secret Ministry of Defence establishment at Porton Down, Wiltshire, where research into biological and germ warfare, chemical warfare, radiological and nuclear warfare etc. continues. And he dined every night at the Ocean club with his close professional friend Dr Julian Totman, who conveniently lives just down the road from Porton Down in Salisbury, Wiltshire. Weinberger now (a) owns and runs Diasolve, (b) is on the powerful National Institute of Clinical Excellence (N.I.C.E.) which approves, or rejects, which drugs are to be paid for by the N.H.S., and (c) is past Chairman, now Committee member, of BIVDA (British In Vitro Diagnostics Association). In short, he is a very influential and powerful bloke in these circles.

His links to genetic research, and eugenics, cloning and assorted 'bioengineering' techniques are strong - certainly providing a link with the McCanns' IVF treatment.

And yes, the absence of Madeleine's DNA in Praia da Luz remains one of the hugest 'stand-out' mysteries - in this case of mysteries upon mysteries.

Drug company/NHS fraud coverup would explain why there has appeared cross-party support to aid the Mcs. I believe there are all sorts of underhand dealings in this arena. However, I don't believe that the medics in Tapas 9 would be of any great interest to the pharmaceutical giants. In 2007 all of them would be far too junior to have influenced any significant purchasing decisions in the NHS and none would have wielded sufficient budgetary control or responsibility to have interested such companies in the slightest. NICE idea big grin

but a non-starter.

by kaz 03.01.16 14:24

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

In 2007 all of them would be far too junior to have influenced any significant purchasing decisions in the NHS and none would have wielded sufficient budgetary control or responsibility to have interested such companies in the slightest. NICE idea but a non-starter.

JUNIOR DOCTORS ( as in YOUNG, career hungry, vain and financially insecure ) could just be the sort of thing pharmaceutical companies WOULD be interested in. Maybe it was just a general holiday freebie at a dead ordinary holiday complex as a 'thank you' to a group of dead ordinary doctors . Sort of thing frowned upon by the government but not yet illegal. However I do think that there is much more to it than this. I'm being swayed by the medical connection because I don't believe that Gerry McCann would be publicly blaming 'paedophiles' for Madeleine's disappearance if there WAS any connection to child abuse during that ' holiday.' That would be pretty stupid and GMC doesn't strike me as a stupid man. Whatever it was all about it had to be pretty bad if aspersions of paedophilia were preferable to the truth. He must have realised by mentioning the unmentionable unpalatable rumours would abound.
I would be interested in knowing if any of the other doctors present had children by IVF . All tentative opinion of course.

by Sophiebubbles 03.01.16 14:51

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I appreciate that meddling in scientific advancements i.e. cloning or dervatives thereof are pretty harrowing to the conscientious mind. I also accept there are many things going on in this world which would be termed pretty damming, but I struggle to think there is anything more awful or distateful to mankind in general than paedophilia....only in my opinion.

by sammi1967 03.01.16 15:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Without the presence of her DNA at the resort there will always be room for doubt as to whether she was there or not that week.

by Joannep43 03.01.16 16:11

There is plenty of information on the web regarding control of budgets for Doctors. Family doctors have had budget control from around 2010. Control of budgets by hospital Doctors was rolled out by some trusts pre 2009. Not sure what is within the range of the budgets, whether staffing, equipment etc.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.01.16 16:25

sammi1967 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Without the presence of her DNA at the resort there will always be room for doubt as to whether she was there or not that week.

With due respect @ sammi1967, no.

These three photos of Madeleine, taken on Saturday 28 April 2007 at the Ocean Club, are ample proof she was there, and there are other proofs she was there:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not another second should be wasted speculating on whether Madeleine was in Praia da Luz or not that week - she clearly was.

By contrast, no stone should be left unturned to try to establish why:

(A) there was no DNA of her to be found on Thursday 3 May, despite her apparently having slept in her bed for two hours that evening, and

(B) why - apart from the three photos we have above, we only have the highly controversial 'Last Photo' and 'Tennis Balls Photo' for the rest of the week.

by kaz 03.01.16 17:49

Sophiebubbles wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I appreciate that meddling in scientific advancements i.e. cloning or dervatives thereof are pretty harrowing to the conscientious mind. I also accept there are many things going on in this world which would be termed pretty damming, but I struggle to think there is anything more awful or distateful to mankind in general than pedeophillia....... only in my opinion.

Couldn't agree with you more but that was my point: How truly awful must the truth be if the McCanns et al are willing to accept all the aspersions and unspoken thoughts regarding child abuse rather than TELL THE TRUTH AND nothing but the truth?

by **Hobs** 03.01.16 19:22

The big question is:

Why would they make an accidental death (if that is what it was) look like a homicide?

by sammi1967 03.01.16 19:51

@Tony Bennett

Fair comment. If those photos were definately taken on that date then yes you're absolutely right in it being a waste of time speculating on it.

by whodunit 03.01.16 19:54

sammi1967 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Without the presence of her DNA at the resort there will always be room for doubt as to whether she was there or not that week.

The lack of DNA is due to the forensic cleaning that was evident to police [and for which there was simply no time to accomplish on the night of May 3.] a cleaning which is prima facie evidence of guilty knowledge.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] --"Why would they make an accidental death (if that is what it was) look like a homicide?"

The cover-up itself is indicative of a homicide. It could have been an accident but if it was it occurred during the commission of a worse crime for which the McCanns were desperate to avoid exposure.

Just take a look at the wording in count 7 of the once-secret indictment of the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, [another case of clear political assistance in the cover up] whose body showed clear signs of sexual assault:

the Ramsey's "unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

In other words, the grand jurors believed the parents covered up the true circumstances of the death of their child in order to hide a worse crime, one that they knowingly allowed to occur according to count 4:

the Ramseys "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It was worth it to the Ramseys suffer the slings and arrows of suspicion as long as the true nature of their participation in the events surrounding their little girl's death was kept secret.

by kaz 03.01.16 20:08

Hobs wrote:The big question is:

Why would they make an accidental death (if that is what it was) look like a homicide?

An accidental death leaves a body behind as evidence as does an homicide. Not so an abduction. For some reason the poor child's body had to be disposed of . If it was just a case that the body had to disappear because of previous child abuse injury ( as has been suggested by some posters) why then clean away signs of her DNA in the apartment ? Why would that be important? A lack of a body showing evidence would have sufficed surely ?

by worriedmum 03.01.16 20:11

kaz wrote:
Hobs wrote:The big question is:

Why would they make an accidental death (if that is what it was) look like a homicide?
An accidental death leaves a body behind as evidence as does an homicide. Not so an abduction. For some reason the poor child's body had to be disposed of . If it was just a case that the body had to disappear because of child abuse injury ( as has been suggested by some posters) why then clean away signs of her DNA? Why would that be important? A lack of a body showing evidence would have been sufficient surely ?

Those responsible for the cleaning may have not intended to remove DNA, but other substances.

by whodunit 03.01.16 20:16

worriedmum wrote:
kaz wrote:
Hobs wrote:The big question is:

Why would they make an accidental death (if that is what it was) look like a homicide?
An accidental death leaves a body behind as evidence as does an homicide. Not so an abduction. For some reason the poor child's body had to be disposed of . If it was just a case that the body had to disappear because of child abuse injury ( as has been suggested by some posters) why then clean away signs of her DNA? Why would that be important? A lack of a body showing evidence would have been sufficient surely ?
Those responsible for the cleaning may have not intended to remove DNA, but other substances.

Exactly. The thoroughness of the cleaning, even down to washing the child's beloved toy, and the curtains for goodness sake, is indicative of their desperation.

by kaz 03.01.16 20:36

@ whodunit

''....................Exactly. The thoroughness of the cleaning, even down to washing the child's beloved toy, and the curtains for goodness sake, is indicative of their desperation...''

WHY would Kate wash the child's toy ? Exactly what information could be gleaned from it ? There could have been hundreds of bits of forensic information on it but could any of it realistically be linked to the 'abduction'? If there had been the slightest chance of that then why would the supposedly intelligent Kate purposely destroy possible evidence? Isn't it more likely that as Madeleine's supposed favourite toy, Cuddle Cat would have been heaving with her DNA ?

by Sophiebubbles 03.01.16 21:20

kaz wrote:@ whodunit

''....................Exactly. The thoroughness of the cleaning, even down to washing the child's beloved toy, and the curtains for goodness sake, is indicative of their desperation...''

WHY would Kate wash the child's toy ? Exactly what information could be gleaned from it ? There could have been hundreds of bits of forensic information on it but could any of it realistically be linked to the 'abduction'? If there had been the slightest chance of that then why would the supposedly intelligent Kate purposely destroy possible evidence? Isn't it more likely that as Madeleine's supposed favourite toy, Cuddle Cat would have been heaving with her DNA ?

Yes but @ kaz@ whodunit....as @ worriedmum posted ...they may not have realised or thought about DNA whilst washing cuddlecat.....it may have been another substance which they needed to wash away as it could have carried someone elses DNA...perhaps the sustance would have been identifiable...therefore the person/s concerned would have some explaining to do (depending on what substance it could have been) If it had their DNA on it.

by **Hobs** 04.01.16 0:52

Forensic scene of crime people look for what IS there that shouldn't be and,

Just as importantly

What ISN'T there that should be.

Both can tell the story of what happened where and when

by Guest 04.01.16 0:52

kaz wrote:
Hobs wrote:The big question is:

Why would they make an accidental death (if that is what it was) look like a homicide?
An accidental death leaves a body behind as evidence as does an homicide. Not so an abduction. For some reason the poor child's body had to be disposed of . If it was just a case that the body had to disappear because of previous child abuse injury ( as has been suggested by some posters) why then clean away signs of her DNA in the apartment ? Why would that be important? A lack of a body showing evidence would have sufficed surely ?

Doctors - forensic savvy!

by Guest 04.01.16 1:08

Jon Corner talking about Madeleine - Vanity Fair

"So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that."

Jon Corner - Cuddle Cat - Timesonline

'Gerry paused over Madeleine, who – a typical doctor’s observation, this – was lying almost in "the recovery position" with Cuddle Cat, the toy her godfather, John Corner, had bought her, and her comfort blanket up near her head, and Gerry thought how gorgeous, how lovely-looking she was and how lucky he was.'

Jon Corner - Panorama

"Well this is the bizarre thing Richard because the police said to Kate and Gerry: "Yeah, we're going to be coming along, we want to do some forensics." And Kate and Gerry were massively optimistic about this. You've got to remember if your daughter is missing and the police phone you and say: "We want to do some forensics, that's a straw that you hang onto. That's a moment for optimism."

Earlier Corner had said this:

"They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa."

mccannfiles.com

So, the police phoned the McCanns to say they were coming over to do some forensics and the McCanns, it would appear, immediately filled up the washing machine with clothes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Jon Corner - very close friend of the McCanns.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.01.16 1:24

Verdi wrote:
Jon Corner - very close friend of the McCanns.

And doing very nicely now thank you very much to Salford City Council...

===========================

JON CORNER COMPANY RAKES IN ALMOST £173,000 FROM SALFORD COUNCIL

SALFORD COUNCIL PAYS ALMOST £173,000 TO THE LANDING AT MEDIACITYUK CEO COMPANY

Star date: 19th August 2013

A Salford Star Exclusive

JON CORNER COMPANY RAKES IN ALMOST £173,000 FROM SALFORD COUNCIL

Cash strapped Salford City Council paid out £172,900 to a company called Mediastill, controlled by Jon Corner, the Chief Executive Officer of The Landing at MediaCityUK, between March 2012 and April 2013, the Salford Star can reveal.

This `consultant' payment for managing the Council's `high-tech hub' for small and medium digital companies works out at over £12,000 per month, more than any other senior officer at Salford Council, except Chief Exec Barbara Spicer.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

According to Salford Council's official statement of payments over £500, it has paid a company called Mediastill £172,900 between March 2012 and April 2013 (the last date of publicly declared payments) for `consultancy'.

Mediastill Ltd is a Liverpool based company with no phone number or website, only a registered office at an accountants, and is 75% owned by Jon Corner, Chief Executive at The Landing, Salford Council's `high-tech hub' for small and medium digital companies at MediaCityUK.

Jon Corner, the former head of Salford University's Media City operation, took up the post of Chief Executive of The Landing in January 2012, and, since March of that year until April this year, his company has received one payment for £13,300 followed by ten for £15,960, including VAT, over a 14 month period.

This works out at the equivalent of £12,350 per month, or £148,200 a year (inc VAT) - more than any other senior officer at Salford Council, except Chief Exec Barbara Spicer.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] itself is a controversial project, beset by a huge five year £3.8million lease to Peel Holdings which owns the seven floor building.

Originally called the `Media Enterprise Centre', the costs for its creation rose from £8.4million in 2009 to £14.34million in 2012, with Salford Council's contribution towards the publicly funded `hub' more than doubling to £3.66milion over a period when £40million cuts to public spending were being sought. The other costs came from Europe (ERDF) and the now defunct North West Development Agency (NWDA).

Originally, Salford Council announced that there would be a `Make Media' community space in there but when The Landing opened that idea had been `cut' and, instead, there was a £120 a year private members bar called On The 7th (see previous Salford Star article for more details - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])

Despite being created with public money, The Landing at Media City UK Ltd, (the company which runs the `hub') is a private limited company with directors Jon Corner, Salford Council Development Director Karen Hirst, Deputy Mayor David Lancaster and City Mayor Ian Stewart.

In November 2012 the company's Articles of Association were changed so that just one director could make decisions on behalf of the board (`the quorum for the transaction of the business of the directors shall be one'), which offers up all sorts of questions about accountability.

Indeed the whole project, including payments to Jon Corner's company, offers up lots of questions which the Salford Star attempted to put to both Jon Corner and Salford Council...

We asked Salford Council what the payments to Jon Corner's Mediastill company were for, and whether they were wages for Jon Corner.

We asked Salford Council why, if this was the case, the payments were being paid through his company Mediastill, rather than as a full time wage subject to PAYE?

We asked Salford Council whether it thought it right in these cost cutting times to be paying Jon Corner's company huge amounts of `consultancy' money?

We asked Salford Council why The Landing, despite being created with public money and having public sector directors, was a private limited company?

We also asked Jon Corner himself what the payments to Mediastill were for; what Mediastill actually does; whether he works full time for The Landing, and whether the payments were actually his salary.

Jon Corner didn't respond, and the only comment Salford City Council would make was that "The implication in the question below is that Salford City Council and Jon Corner are engaged in tax avoidance in relation to the development of The Landing. This is completely wrong."

No, Salford Council, the implication is that you are paying a massive wad for `consultancy' to a company/person that appears to be working full time, while you are slashing budgets by £100million and cutting services for some of the most vulnerable people in the city.

• The original advert for The Landing's Chief Executive Officer stated that "The Chief Executive is the Landing's senior executive and is responsible for the management of the Landing, including the development and delivery of its business plan, the effective and efficient running of all its services, ensuring that the budget is properly managed and that the Landing's key risks are understood, communicated to relevant parties and managed. In addition to managing the day business, the Chief Executive will shape and direct the future vision of the Landing, working with the Industry and key stakeholders in a collaborative manner to secure the long term future of the business."

That doesn't sound like a part-time job…or a `consultant's' job.

• Companies House lists Mediastill Ltd as having two directors – Jon Corner, who owns 75% of the shares, and Michelle Thompson, a lecturer, who both live at the same address in Liverpool.

• According to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the last set of accounts (July 2012) for Mediastill Ltd show the company having a book value of £4,900, with £14,100 cash in the bank and liabilities of £30,700. Mediastill's latest accounts are `overdue' according to Companies House.

by Guest 04.01.16 17:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Jon Corner - very close friend of the McCanns.
And doing very nicely now thank you very much to Salford City Council...

===========================

JON CORNER COMPANY RAKES IN ALMOST £173,000 FROM SALFORD COUNCIL

SALFORD COUNCIL PAYS ALMOST £173,000 TO THE LANDING AT MEDIACITYUK CEO COMPANY

Star date: 19th August 2013

A Salford Star Exclusive

JON CORNER COMPANY RAKES IN ALMOST £173,000 FROM SALFORD COUNCIL

Cash strapped Salford City Council paid out £172,900 to a company called Mediastill, controlled by Jon Corner, the Chief Executive Officer of The Landing at MediaCityUK, between March 2012 and April 2013, the Salford Star can reveal.

This `consultant' payment for managing the Council's `high-tech hub' for small and medium digital companies works out at over £12,000 per month, more than any other senior officer at Salford Council, except Chief Exec Barbara Spicer.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

According to Salford Council's official statement of payments over £500, it has paid a company called Mediastill £172,900 between March 2012 and April 2013 (the last date of publicly declared payments) for `consultancy'.

Mediastill Ltd is a Liverpool based company with no phone number or website, only a registered office at an accountants, and is 75% owned by Jon Corner, Chief Executive at The Landing, Salford Council's `high-tech hub' for small and medium digital companies at MediaCityUK.

Jon Corner, the former head of Salford University's Media City operation, took up the post of Chief Executive of The Landing in January 2012, and, since March of that year until April this year, his company has received one payment for £13,300 followed by ten for £15,960, including VAT, over a 14 month period.

This works out at the equivalent of £12,350 per month, or £148,200 a year (inc VAT) - more than any other senior officer at Salford Council, except Chief Exec Barbara Spicer.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] itself is a controversial project, beset by a huge five year £3.8million lease to Peel Holdings which owns the seven floor building.

Originally called the `Media Enterprise Centre', the costs for its creation rose from £8.4million in 2009 to £14.34million in 2012, with Salford Council's contribution towards the publicly funded `hub' more than doubling to £3.66milion over a period when £40million cuts to public spending were being sought. The other costs came from Europe (ERDF) and the now defunct North West Development Agency (NWDA).

Originally, Salford Council announced that there would be a `Make Media' community space in there but when The Landing opened that idea had been `cut' and, instead, there was a £120 a year private members bar called On The 7th (see previous Salford Star article for more details - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])

Despite being created with public money, The Landing at Media City UK Ltd, (the company which runs the `hub') is a private limited company with directors Jon Corner, Salford Council Development Director Karen Hirst, Deputy Mayor David Lancaster and City Mayor Ian Stewart.

In November 2012 the company's Articles of Association were changed so that just one director could make decisions on behalf of the board (`the quorum for the transaction of the business of the directors shall be one'), which offers up all sorts of questions about accountability.

Indeed the whole project, including payments to Jon Corner's company, offers up lots of questions which the Salford Star attempted to put to both Jon Corner and Salford Council...

We asked Salford Council what the payments to Jon Corner's Mediastill company were for, and whether they were wages for Jon Corner.

We asked Salford Council why, if this was the case, the payments were being paid through his company Mediastill, rather than as a full time wage subject to PAYE?

We asked Salford Council whether it thought it right in these cost cutting times to be paying Jon Corner's company huge amounts of `consultancy' money?

We asked Salford Council why The Landing, despite being created with public money and having public sector directors, was a private limited company?

We also asked Jon Corner himself what the payments to Mediastill were for; what Mediastill actually does; whether he works full time for The Landing, and whether the payments were actually his salary.

Jon Corner didn't respond, and the only comment Salford City Council would make was that "The implication in the question below is that Salford City Council and Jon Corner are engaged in tax avoidance in relation to the development of The Landing. This is completely wrong."

No, Salford Council, the implication is that you are paying a massive wad for `consultancy' to a company/person that appears to be working full time, while you are slashing budgets by £100million and cutting services for some of the most vulnerable people in the city.

• The original advert for The Landing's Chief Executive Officer stated that "The Chief Executive is the Landing's senior executive and is responsible for the management of the Landing, including the development and delivery of its business plan, the effective and efficient running of all its services, ensuring that the budget is properly managed and that the Landing's key risks are understood, communicated to relevant parties and managed. In addition to managing the day business, the Chief Executive will shape and direct the future vision of the Landing, working with the Industry and key stakeholders in a collaborative manner to secure the long term future of the business."

That doesn't sound like a part-time job…or a `consultant's' job.

• Companies House lists Mediastill Ltd as having two directors – Jon Corner, who owns 75% of the shares, and Michelle Thompson, a lecturer, who both live at the same address in Liverpool.

• According to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the last set of accounts (July 2012) for Mediastill Ltd show the company having a book value of £4,900, with £14,100 cash in the bank and liabilities of £30,700. Mediastill's latest accounts are `overdue' according to Companies House.

Doesn't by any chance commission (apply the word as you feel inclined) low budget documentaries on the QT does he?