Re: Former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar says the motive for taking Madeleine was sexual and insists her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance

by Rogue-a-Tory 03.04.17 23:59

sallypelt wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
aquila wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
aquila wrote:Why would a UK national newspaper be still promoting Dave Edgar as running a private investigation company and be willing to step into the breech to help the McCanns when Scotland Yard abandon them and leave them alone to do their own investigation?
The man is an absolute nobody. The only company he's been a director of, is Emerald Investigations Limited, and again, this so-called company was set up in 2009, and has now been dissolved. Both this company, and Alphaig Limited were non starter businesses, but 2009 appears to be a significant year for opening these businesses. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say they were set up to receive payments from the investigation, and for no other purpose, whatsoever.
He's not a nobody in the case of Madeleine McCann. He's described as a crack detective, has described himself as the only professional private investigator and has sat alongside Clarence Mitchell in a press conference to promote Victoria Beckham lookalike.
Agreed, plus the companies weren't created just to facilitate payment but to add authenticity and gravitas to the Edgar appointment.
Without them setting up a company, it would mean payments would have to have gone into their PERSONAL bank accounts, and that wouldn't look very professional, would it? Who is going to take "an investigator" seriously, if they haven't got a legitimate business? As I've said............he's a nobody.

Almost as professional as sending cheques addressed to Gerry & Kate McCann, Rothley - they'll get there?

Businesses don't need to be incorporated to accept a payment. There are other models and bank accounts will be set up to reflect whichever is chosen. But the public view companies as having credibility and are easily taken in by them.

by plebgate 04.04.17 9:16

Mirage wrote:
Hobs wrote:I wonder if he realizes how much he has contradicted himself and how dumb and inept he looks?
Edgar is right up there with Donal MacIntyre who disproved the abduction scenario while trying to show how it all happened. The video is somewhere on Youtube and is undiluted lunacy.

Then there's comedy gold from Summers and Swann with the man who entered apartments with yards of unravelling bandages on his feet.

And how could we forget DCI Redwood's profound observation "she may be alive or sadly she may be dead"?

ha ha good post. Yes the man with the unravelling bandages - that just has to be one of the most foolish things uttered about this case.

Someone posted at the time - the unravelling bandages - must have wiped away all the DNA evidence from the floors. ha ha ha.

The sad thing is that none of these so-called professionals seem to be able to see what they are saying comes across as utter tripe - that is until they read the post on CMOMM. ha ha.

by sallypelt 04.04.17 10:10

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
aquila wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
The man is an absolute nobody. The only company he's been a director of, is Emerald Investigations Limited, and again, this so-called company was set up in 2009, and has now been dissolved. Both this company, and Alphaig Limited were non starter businesses, but 2009 appears to be a significant year for opening these businesses. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say they were set up to receive payments from the investigation, and for no other purpose, whatsoever.
He's not a nobody in the case of Madeleine McCann. He's described as a crack detective, has described himself as the only professional private investigator and has sat alongside Clarence Mitchell in a press conference to promote Victoria Beckham lookalike.
Agreed, plus the companies weren't created just to facilitate payment but to add authenticity and gravitas to the Edgar appointment.
Without them setting up a company, it would mean payments would have to have gone into their PERSONAL bank accounts, and that wouldn't look very professional, would it? Who is going to take "an investigator" seriously, if they haven't got a legitimate business? As I've said............he's a nobody.
Almost as professional as sending cheques addressed to Gerry & Kate McCann, Rothley - they'll get there?

Businesses don't need to be incorporated to accept a payment. There are other models and bank accounts will be set up to reflect whichever is chosen. But the public view companies as having credibility and are easily taken in by them.

I agree that companies do not need to be incorporated to trade or receive payment, but if one is not a registered LTD then the individual is liable for anything that can go wrong, and they can have all their personal assets seized, including their home. But as a limited company, it's the company that is liable, not the individual. However, if a company is declared bankrupt, then any director/s of that company will be barred from being a director of ANY company, until they are released from that restriction, and that can be anything from one year to 15 years?

So, in the case of Crowley, for example, should he have been found to have acted fraudulently, it was his company, not him personally, who would be liable for any assets sieze to get the money back. So, Crowley could sleep soundly in his bed at night, knowing that his "£175,000" home (and according to claims, it was worth double that, in 2009) couldn't be touched.

by Liz Eagles 04.04.17 11:00

I've never seen on the forum to date any mention of the requirement for a limited company surpassing an income threshold to become legally obliged to register for VAT.

by whatsupdoc 04.04.17 11:21

aquila wrote:I've never seen on the forum to date any mention of the requirement for a limited company surpassing an income threshold to become legally obliged to register for VAT.

Is this the info you require?

https://www.gov.uk/vat-registration-thresholds

by sallypelt 04.04.17 11:29

whatsupdoc wrote:
aquila wrote:I've never seen on the forum to date any mention of the requirement for a limited company surpassing an income threshold to become legally obliged to register for VAT.

Is this the info you require?

https://www.gov.uk/vat-registration-thresholds

Thank you, whatsupdoc. I was just about to give a long-winded account of exeptions, thresholds etc, but the link will explain it all.However, it is worth mentioning VAT exemption on "investments". Didn't the McCanns "invest £500,000" a few months ago? The question is, under what conditions is THIS investment VAT exempt, that's if it is?

by Liz Eagles 04.04.17 11:49

I was speaking of the Dave Edgar/Arthur Cowley company who provided services to the McCanns.

by sallypelt 04.04.17 12:05

aquila wrote:I was speaking of the Dave Edgar/Arthur Cowley company who provided services to the McCanns.

Dave Edgar was never mentioned on Arthur Cowley's company. However, the company that WAS set up, was only in existence for just over 2 years, so regardless of this company's annual turnover, in all probability, it would have been exempt from VAT for the time it was active. Annual turnover for VAT during 2009-2011 would probably have been around the £8,000 a year turnover. However, a company can apply to be exempt the following year, if it is thought that they won't exceed the VAT limit. So, as you can see, there is plenty of food for thought for this so-called company.

As for David Edgar's company, Emerald Investigations Ltd, (2009-20014) if my memory serves me correctly, I can recall that this company's turn over was no more than £20,000 per annum. But whether these annual payments were made by the Madeleine Fund is anyone's guess. However, it does seem a bit of a coincidence that this company was incorporated in 2009, the same year as Crowley's company. Were the yearly payments to Emerald Investigations from the Madeleine Fund? If so, one has to ask the question, why didn't the Fund make payments into the ONE company?

by sallypelt 04.04.17 12:14

I just looked up the VAT threshold for 2010. Here is a copy and paste for the year 2010:

VAT Registration limits – updated for 2010
[th]Period covered[/th][th]Registration limit[/th][th]Deregistration limit[/th]

1 May 2009 – 31 March 2010	£68,000	£66,000
1 April 2008 – 30 April 2008	£67,000	£65,000
1 April 2007 – 31 March 2008	£64,000	£62,000
1 April 2006 – 31 March 2007	£61,000	£59,000

So, if £68,000 is the threshold in 2010, maybe this is the reason why TWO companies were set up. Maybe Edgar and Crowley thought that they would be searching for Madeleine for many years to come. Wasn't it D Edgar who said "I could be still here in ten years time" or words to that effect?

Edited to add, OG would have thrown a spanner in the works of Crowley's company. OG began in May 2011, and Crowley's company had a voluntary strike-off later in the year. Voluntary strike-offs take a few months before they are finally announced in the London Gazzette. As for Edgar's company, his company was dissolved later, but he hadn't put in any returns since either 2012 or 2013.

by Liz Eagles 04.04.17 12:17

I think in simple terms. Setting up a genuine company and complying with VAT registration is the norm.

by sallypelt 04.04.17 12:25

aquila wrote:I think in simple terms. Setting up a genuine company and complying with VAT registration is the norm.

Any company with an annual turnover of less than £85,000 annual turn over does not have to become VAT registered, and there are many thousand such companies. Doing VAT returns is unnecessary work for small companies. Some with turnovers less than the VAT threshold can register if they so wish, and then they can claim back VAT on their purchases, where THEY have paid VAT. But as soon as a company's annual turnover reaches the VAT threshold, Companies House will inform that company that VAT has to be paid, but as I have previously stated, a company can have an exemption the £85,000 turnover was a one off, and the company doesn't expect to reach that target again, in the near future.

Edited to add: If an VAT unregistered company CHARGES VAT to its customers, it is committing a crime, and will be liable for punishment

by Phoebe 04.04.17 12:42

Not sure if this fits in this thread. If not feel free to move. The McCs in an interview disparaged the nonsense that they'd hidden her body "so well" that nobody found it, yet they are suspected of "moving her in the car weeks later, and it's all nonsense". I get the message Kate is pushing - why bother when she was already so well hidden she hadn't been found during those first weeks? I believe greed is the answer. As long as she wasn't found the money could continue to roll in. It was risky but boy, has it been worth it. Ten years on they are still milking the "abduction" and have evaded justice. The dogs prove they were involved Dave.

by Liz Eagles 04.04.17 12:43

Looking up details of VAT registration isn't what I was touching upon.

A true and genuine limited company with an income above a certain threshold has a legal requirement to register for VAT. It's the norm.

There seems to be a lack of detail in the income/accounts of whatever Edgar and Cowley have received on behalf of searching for Madeleine McCann.

by sallypelt 04.04.17 12:46

aquila wrote:Looking up details of VAT registration isn't what I was touching upon.

A true and genuine limited company with an income above a certain threshold has a legal requirement to register for VAT. It's the norm.

There seems to be a lack of detail in the income/accounts of whatever Edgar and Cowley have received on behalf of searching for Madeleine McCann.

I am not looking up details. I am talking from experience

by Liz Eagles 04.04.17 12:48

sallypelt wrote:
aquila wrote:Looking up details of VAT registration isn't what I was touching upon.

A true and genuine limited company with an income above a certain threshold has a legal requirement to register for VAT. It's the norm.

There seems to be a lack of detail in the income/accounts of whatever Edgar and Cowley have received on behalf of searching for Madeleine McCann.
I am not looking up details. I am talking from experience

I believe you are.

by sallypelt 04.04.17 12:57

aquila wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
aquila wrote:Looking up details of VAT registration isn't what I was touching upon.

A true and genuine limited company with an income above a certain threshold has a legal requirement to register for VAT. It's the norm.

There seems to be a lack of detail in the income/accounts of whatever Edgar and Cowley have received on behalf of searching for Madeleine McCann.
I am not looking up details. I am talking from experience
I believe you are.

Registering for VAT, when there isn't the need, is a creating a lot of unnecessary paper work, and more often than not, the unnecessary work outweighs the benefits. But you ask a valid question in regards to Crowley or Edgar. For example, what did Crowley's invoice to the McCanns look like. Did it have a VAT number on it? It should make for interesting reading, no doubt about it.

by Liz Eagles 04.04.17 13:10

When a company is formed there is headed notepaper, compliment slips and various other things.

Has anyone ever seen headed notepaper from this company?

by sallypelt 04.04.17 13:16

It's like everything, and everyone else, connected to this case, and that is, it raises more questions than answers, and after nearly a decade, it's obvious to any decent, thinking person who is seeking the truth, that the whole thing is a sham

by Rogue-a-Tory 04.04.17 14:35

sallypelt wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
aquila wrote:
He's not a nobody in the case of Madeleine McCann. He's described as a crack detective, has described himself as the only professional private investigator and has sat alongside Clarence Mitchell in a press conference to promote Victoria Beckham lookalike.
Agreed, plus the companies weren't created just to facilitate payment but to add authenticity and gravitas to the Edgar appointment.
Without them setting up a company, it would mean payments would have to have gone into their PERSONAL bank accounts, and that wouldn't look very professional, would it? Who is going to take "an investigator" seriously, if they haven't got a legitimate business? As I've said............he's a nobody.
Almost as professional as sending cheques addressed to Gerry & Kate McCann, Rothley - they'll get there?

Businesses don't need to be incorporated to accept a payment. There are other models and bank accounts will be set up to reflect whichever is chosen. But the public view companies as having credibility and are easily taken in by them.
I agree that companies do not need to be incorporated to trade or receive payment, but if one is not a registered LTD then the individual is liable for anything that can go wrong, and they can have all their personal assets seized, including their home. But as a limited company, it's the company that is liable, not the individual. However, if a company is declared bankrupt, then any director/s of that company will be barred from being a director of ANY company, until they are released from that restriction, and that can be anything from one year to 15 years?

So, in the case of Crowley, for example, should he have been found to have acted fraudulently, it was his company, not him personally, who would be liable for any assets sieze to get the money back. So, Crowley could sleep soundly in his bed at night, knowing that his "£175,000" home (and according to claims, it was worth double that, in 2009) couldn't be touched.

This is getting ridiculously off topic but I'll reply to just two things. Apologies Jill.

Firstly LLP is the modus operandi for those offering professional services wishing to limit liability. Secondly, companies don't become bankrupt, individuals do. Company bankruptcy is a figment of lazy tabloid journalism.

by suzyjohnson 04.04.17 20:16

Phoebe wrote:Not sure if this fits in this thread. If not feel free to move. The McCs in an interview disparaged the nonsense that they'd hidden her body "so well" that nobody found it, yet they are suspected of "moving her in the car weeks later, and it's all nonsense". I get the message Kate is pushing - why bother when she was already so well hidden she hadn't been found during those first weeks? I believe greed is the answer. As long as she wasn't found the money could continue to roll in. It was risky but boy, has it been worth it. Ten years on they are still milking the "abduction" and have evaded justice. The dogs prove they were involved Dave.

I don't think the McCanns would do anything like this for the money. If they have hidden and then re-moved their child's body it will be because of the need to give her a decent burial.

If, by chance, they had found a good enough hiding place that she wasn't found initially (and it looks as though that did happen) I don't think they would have wanted to just leave her there and it would have been impossible to have moved her and left her somewhere else to be found (which would have meant that the body would be returned to the family for burial) but would have looked very suspicious to police, and would have given up too many clues.

So, I think they may have decided on a burial site somewhere in the vicinity of PdL and moved her for that reason.

Latest topics