Madeleine McCann’s parents have £750k in the Find Maddie campaign coffers – as hunt faces being shelved

New financial records show Kate and Gerry have almost three-quarters of a million from public donations and book royalties

THE parents of Madeleine McCann have nearly £750k saved in a fund to help find their daughter - giving them a lifeline if the official police hunt is axed next month.

Kate and Gerry face an agonising wait over the future of the investigation into Maddie’s disappearance nearly 11 years ago.

But it can be revealed there is a healthy balance of £728,508 sitting in an account which they will dip into if needed.

The stash of cash in the Find Maddie Fund - made up mainly of public donations and profits from Kate’s bestseller book - has grown over the past financial year, according to the latest accounts released a week ago.

But from this total a huge chunk - £51,718 - has been set aside to be paid to the McCann’s Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte over a failed libel battle against an ex top cop who accused them of accidentally killing their daughter and hiding her body.

The couple from Rothley, Leicestershire, have appointed new accountants after the surprise resignation of their long serving financial advisers.

Maddie’s parents, both 49, have just seven weeks left of guaranteed funding for Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange inquiry.

Detectives have not yet requested further funds from the Home Office to continue their work in April.

They have been struggling to unearth any new clues despite saying last summer they had “a final line of inquiry” to pursue.

A Home Office spokesperson said today: “At this stage we have not received any request for extra funding. But as funding is in place until the end of March we wouldn’t expect an application to be submitted for consideration yet."

If Op Grange, launched in May 2011, is shelved the McCanns have vowed to continue the search themselves.

Family spokesperson Clarence Mitchell said: “The Met Police will put in a further request for funds if they feel work still needs to be done.

Money in the Madeleine Fund gives Kate and Gerry the option to pick up their own inquiries again, if they choose, with private investigators.”

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman declined to discuss the future of Op Grange.

Three-year-old Maddie vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal’s Praia da Luz in May 2007 while her parents were dining with pals in a nearby tapas restaurant.

Kate and Gerry have never given up hope that their daughter could still be found alive. She would now be aged 14, nearly 15.
Her twin siblings Sean and Amelie have just turned 13.

Renowned heart doctor Gerry and former GP Kate, now a medical worker, were given fresh hope in the search for Maddie last autumn with an extra cash boost of £154,000 to detectives.

The inquiry has cost taxpayers £11.2 million so far.

Madeleine’s Fund “Leaving No Stone Unturned”, which is not a charity, was set up shortly after the youngster vanished with the sole purpose of “securing her safe return to her family” and bringing her abductors to justice.

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

Wot no ‘disgraced’, ‘bungled’ or ‘murdered’!
 
‘over a failed libel battle against an ex top cop who accused them of accidentally killing their daughter and hiding her body’.
 
‘which is not a charity,’
 
Watch out Tracey, she might even get round to reading the files and start reporting a few more actual facts if she is not careful!

A failed libel case against an EX TOP COP.

Nothing ever came from the money provided to hunt for the lady in purple.   How on earth can any future monies be justified when every other avenue investigated hasn't turned any CLUE whatsoever.

The article says this huge amount in the fund could be used for a private search should they choose.   Surely it goes without saying that they would use ALL the funds in the account looking for their daughter and look until every last cent was used up.    I KNOW THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD DO.

I like the "if needed" and "if they chose" bits. £51,718 seems a bit on the paltry side for work spread over 8 years, don't you think?

 Why "set aside"? I thought they lost their final battle 12 months ago or thereabouts. So why have they not yet paid? Will the bailiffs be calling on them  soon, or will the debt be sold on to some shady debt-collection company who will "send the boys round"?  I sincerely hope so.

I take it they no longer employ Edgar and his friend, and probably haven't for some time.

And don't forget there must be legal rules about accruing interest as there are in England (10% p.a!)

This story has been churned out annually for about five years. I't getting a bit stale..

Doug D wrote:Wot no ‘disgraced’, ‘bungled’ or ‘murdered’!
 
‘over a failed libel battle against an ex top cop who accused them of accidentally killing their daughter and hiding her body’.
 
‘which is not a charity,’
 
Watch out Tracey, she might even get round to reading the files and start reporting a few more actual facts if she is not careful!

‘over a failed libel battle against an ex top cop who accused them of accidentally killing their daughter and hiding her body’.

Very telling, it doesn't even say "wrongly" accused.

This is not a news report, its a begging letter.  And why is the fund paying Isabel Duarte? Shouldn't that be the McCanns' private expense?

and what about the court costs?  They haven't even been mentioned.  That will knock a huge great hole in that 750k.  Court costs are seperate to lawyer costs.

inspirespirit wrote:and what about the court costs?  They haven't even been mentioned.  That will knock a huge great hole in that 750k.  Court costs are seperate to lawyer costs.

Aren't the twins liable for a percentage of the court costs as mommy and daddy dearest saw fit to include them in the proceedings? Maybe they'll get them to do some more fundraising.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

inspirespirit wrote:and what about the court costs?  They haven't even been mentioned.  That will knock a huge great hole in that 750k.  Court costs are seperate to lawyer costs.

Aren't the twins liable for a percentage of the court costs as mommy and daddy dearest saw fit to include them in the proceedings? Maybe they'll get them to do some more fundraising.

Why not, they're already being exploited.  Considering the McCanns wanted to keep them out of the limelight they have used them at every opportunity to get a story in the press.

Only a few more years and they could start an investigation into their sisters disappearance.     I wonder why they were included in the proceedings with an equal share of the pay out.  You would think that the money would go to the search fund, not the remaining family.

Madeline McCann's parents are launching a new £750,000 search for their daughter using money raised through her appeal fund

Scotland Yard operation is drawing to a close
Kate and Jerry McCann will use £750,000 to fund a private investigation
Met says Operation Grange has mostly been completed, but lines of inquiry still remain

20th December 2015

The parents of Madeleine McCann will launch a new privately funded search for their daughter who went missing from a Portuguese holiday resort in 2007.

Kate and Gerry McCann have been raising funds privately as the £12 million Scotland Yard investigation will come to a close in the New Year.

Scotland Yard announced in October that they would be dramatically cutting the number of officers on the case, code named Operation Grange.

An unnamed source told The Sunday People: 'There is £750,000 in the account. That money has been ­preserved because Kate and Gerry knew they may want to reopen an ­investigation at some point.

'They have always said they'll do ­anything they can to keep going. That ­commitment remains.'

It is not known exactly when Operation Grange will officially end, but a spokesman for the Met recently said: 'While there remain lines of inquiry, the vast majority of work by Operation Grange has been completed.'

The Met, which has spent more than £10million on trying to find the missing British child, yesterday said it is cutting the number of officers working on it from 29 to four.

Detectives said they have investigated 60 suspects and looked at 650 paedophiles as well as almost 9,000 sightings of the girl since she was abducted but have not solved the case.

A total of 60 people were considered as more serious suspects but her kidnapper has not been found.

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

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Aren't the twins liable for a percentage of the court costs as mommy and daddy dearest saw fit to include them in the proceedings? Maybe they'll get them to do some more fundraising.

By Supreme Court of Justice rule : 31st January 2017

Note 11
These proven facts were established in the first instance lawsuit where the five members of the McCann family were claimants. In this instance's sentence the requests of the three McCann children were dismissed. Their parents could have lodged an appeal on their behalf, but they chose not to. Hence in the judgement by the Appeal Court Kate and Gerald McCann were the only respondents.

Reply to Doug D from ' McCann appeal to European court of Human rights - THE SUN' thread.

Enid O'Dowd FCA produced a review of the fund and it's limited company v. charity status for the mccannfiles back in 2102. I can't find it at the moment, no doubt it's floating about somewhere in cyberspace. I'll have another look later when I've got more time

Meanwhile, this might throw some light on the subject..

Analysis of the accounts of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned (Reg.No.6248215) for the year ended 31 March 2012, and of issues arising from that analysis

By Enid O'Dowd FCA

This analysis of the 2012 accounts should be read in conjunction with my report 'A review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts' published in February 2012 on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is relevant to state here that Dr Kate McCann, a director of the Fund, made a commitment in her book Madeleine (p.138 Irish paperback edition) that 'from the outset everyone agreed that despite the costs involved, it (the Fund) must be run to the highest standards of transparency whatever it cost'. This was a clear commitment that from May 2007 when the Fund (limited company) was established, that transparency was paramount. My earlier report found a distinct lack of transparency. Were the 2012 accounts more 'transparent' than the earlier ones? Not in my opinion.

The 2012 accounts were received in Companies House on 9th January 2013 after the latest filing date (31st December 2012); a fine of £150 applies. I commented in my earlier report on the consistent pattern of filing close to the legal deadline and how this did not tally with Dr Kate McCann's public commitment to transparency, especially when the audited accounts and other financial information are not on the official website [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The accounts for the year ended 31st March 2012 were signed off by directors Edward Smethurst and Brian Kennedy on 21st December 2012, and by the auditors hays Macintyre on the same day. There is therefore no logical reason why they were not filed on time. The optics of late filing for such a company which seeks donations from the public is surely something the board would consider. I can only say the reason for the late filing is a mystery to me.

Incidentally, the March 2011 accounts were signed off on 22nd December 2011 and they were filed on time.

Earlier accounts had always listed two firms of solicitors acting for the company. Bates Wells and Braithwaite, the firm that set up the company in May 2007 are no longer listed though their company secretarial arm BWB Secretarial Ltd is still listed as the company secretary, as it has been since commencement. Only one firm of solicitors Stephenson Harwood is listed in 2012. This firm had been listed on the company information page with Bates Wells and Braithwaite since March 2009.

The Directors' Report states that due to the Metropolitan Police Review (MPS) approved in May 2011, the Fund 'has scaled back independent investigative efforts during this period to avoid duplication and to curb unnecessary expenditure.' Later in the Directors' Report it states that 'from March 2012 private investigation lines of inquiry have been suspended while the MPS review progresses. The private investigation team employed by the Fund continue to co-operate and work with the Metropolitan police force as and when necessary.'

A Sunday Express article on 28th October 2012 said that the McCanns stopped using their investigation team, which was composed of former police detectives Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley, 'some months ago' when their contract ran out. Yet the Directors' Report signed on 21st December 2012 referred to the private investigation team as being 'employed' by the Fund which I take to mean they were still employed at the date of the Report, rather than at 31st March 2012, albeit in a very restricted role.

The Report states that all material relating to Madeleine's abduction held by the Fund has been handed over to the Metropolitan Police which would surely limit the Fund team's role, unless the presumably vast amount of documentation had been photocopied before handover.

If activities were scaled down, you would expect expenditure in 2012 to be significantly down on the 2011 figure, but it is only 2.41% down. Total expenditure for 2012 was £501,722 (2011 - £514,123). This figure included administration costs of £24,909.

We are told in Note 5 – Restricted Funds that following the publication of the book Madeleine, £550,000 was donated for 'the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.' Interestingly the auditors' note uses the word 'disappearance' rather than 'abduction' which is the word used by the directors in their report.

In earlier accounts there was no allocation of funds (ie income received) into restricted and unrestricted funds. While it is common for charities and 'not for profit' organisations to have the item restricted funds in their accounts, this is because they have a range of projects ongoing at any time which are relevant to their organisation but some of which are specifically grant aided or raised from the public for a particular purpose and therefore require separate accounting.

For example the charity Missing People, for whom Dr Kate McCann was appointed an Ambassador in 2012, include the heading, restricted funds, in their published accounts for the year ended 31st March 2012. Over 70% of their income is designated as 'restricted.' These accounts give much more information than the Fund accounts do. While accepting that as a registered charity, Missing People has to give more information in its accounts than a private limited company like the Fund does, I would have expected the Fund's directors to have utilised the Missing People accounts as a best practice benchmark to improve the information provided in the Fund accounts.

In the case of the Fund, essentially it has one purpose; to find Madeleine and/or to discover what happened to her. Surely all expenditure incurred is for that purpose and the need to 'restrict' some funds for the 'direct search' is debatable.

It is not clear whether the £550,000 restricted income is the advance royalty payment received for the book, or if not, why this particular amount has been chosen. Note 5 is open to different interpretations. It refers to the money being donated after the publication of the book Madeleine. It could mean that the publication resulted in a donor or donors being so influenced by the book that they gifted money to the Fund with specific restrictions.

Alternatively, it was reported in the media that around £550,000 was received for the serialisation rights of the book; this figure may of course be media speculation. Note 5 may relate to some or all of this income.

The costs under the Restricted Funds heading in the Fund accounts were £234,086 but the accounts' narrative describes them as Merchandise and Campaign costs, rather unhelpful terminology when presumably these costs were for investigators' fees, travel and other expenses.

This is a lot of money for an investigation that had been scaled down.

The £242,717 costs for Merchandise and Campaign costs under Unrestricted Funds are also hard to understand. While this would have included the hotline telephone service, fees to a Portuguese communications agency and the ongoing awareness campaign mentioned in the Directors' Report, it's hard to accept that these items would have cost so much.

The hotline service is an 0845 number which can be expensive for those calling on a mobile. Such numbers are popular with commercial organisations; they generate profits for the organisation as they get a percentage of the charge made to the caller. They are also inexpensive to run for the organisation. An 0800 number would be more logical for an organisation searching for a missing child as such lines are generally free or cheaper for the caller than other numbers. Last year the charity Missing People launched a free phone number 116 000. Given the money available to the Fund in the accounting year under review, I would have expected the Board to consider this option so that there would be no financial deterrent to the public phoning in leads to the Fund hotline.

Director Brian Kennedy (Kate McCann's uncle) said in a BBC TV interview on 17th May 2007 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jsLkwa7cc) that the Fund's money can be used on 'all sorts of reasons but probably mainly for legal expenditure.' Could legal fees therefore explain the high costs under the Unrestricted Funds heading?

It would be much more informative to split the items Merchandise and Campaign costs and provide the costs of each; they are quite unrelated cost items.

In the 2011 accounts in Note 2 it states that no director received any emoluments. It does not state this in the 2012 accounts or in those prior to 2011. Does this mean that the directors received emoluments in the years where it is not specifically stated they did not, and if so, where in these accounts are the emoluments charged?

In the 2009 and 2010 accounts, the Directors' Report referred to the ongoing libel case against Dr Amaral, the former lead co-ordinator on the team investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance. The McCanns obtained an injunction against Dr Amaral in September 2009 which prevented any further distribution of his best selling book 'The Truth about a Lie' published in July 2008. They claimed the book libelled them.

However Dr Amaral appealed the injunction and was successful in the Portuguese High Court in October 2010, and again in March 2011 when the McCanns appealed to the Portuguese Supreme Court. The McCanns' libel case was finally due to start on 24th January 2013 but earlier in the month it was officially 'suspended' so that the parties could negotiate. If there is no agreement after six months of negotiations, the case will continue.

It is hard to understand why there is no reference in the Directors' Report to the libel case against Dr Amaral. If it had never been mentioned, on the basis that the case was taken by the McCanns personally and the Fund had no role in it, that would be understandable, but reporting on it in two sets of audited accounts and then dropping it when the libel hearing is imminent, is strange. It is unclear, whether the Fund ever contributed towards the legal costs of this case, as the published accounts since the McCanns took the action, give no expenditure breakdown.

The Directors' Report also states that the Fund 'provided part-time administrative support to aid the investigation and campaign to find Madeleine (campaign co-ordinator and media liaison)'. However Note 2 to the accounts on page 8 states that there were no employees in the year (and none in 2011). While the media liaison support probably refers to Mr Clarence Mitchell who has acted as the McCanns' spokesman for some time and his services would be paid for on an invoice basis, the administrative worker would be an employee. I commented in my earlier report about the mystery of the Fund Administrator appointed from the start according to the official website. After my report was published on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] several people contacted the website suggesting that the Fund Administrator might be Ms Karen McCalman. Her LinkedIn profile which I printed out on 11th December 2012 states she has worked as Campaign Manager for the Fund 'from March 2009 to date (3 years 10 months)' and details the range of work she undertakes for the Fund:

Liaising with and organising various groups of volunteers to ensure projects are completed in a timely manner
Managing the Find Madeleine website and implementing new ideas
Providing clerical and administrative support to the McCanns
Organising meetings, and follow up with reports, minutes
Storing and maintaining information and compiling databases
Sort, prioritise and respond to incoming correspondence
Stock control & fulfilment of internet orders
Maintain financial records and bank all donations received
Letter writing and mail merge
Providing copy for press and internet releases
Conducting basic research
Fundraising

Why therefore do the audited accounts say there are no employees? The duties detailed above are clearly those of an employee and not those of an external professional working for a range of clients. Why is Ms McCalman's name, email and other contact details not given on the website which she manages, according to the duties listed above? Why did the Directors' Report in the 2009 accounts signed off on 6th January 2010 not mention her appointment when she commenced in March 2009 and thank the outgoing person, whoever that was? Ms McCalman would surely be reporting to Director Kate McCann on a regular basis as she is the director who has a hands on role in the Fund? The other directors would presumably see Ms McCalman at meetings and be receiving minutes from her.

Contrast this silence with Missing People's website; it contains photographs and a short biography of each member of their management team.

Could Ms McCalman have been doing the work on a voluntary basis? No, because the official website [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] states that the Fund 'has paid for' administrative support and the Directors' Reports in the accounts for the years 2009 – 2012 inclusive state that the Fund 'provided' administrative support.

Her 11th December 2012 LinkedIn printout recorded that from July 2012 as well as working for the Fund, she worked for another company as Project Manager, presumably meaning that her role with the Fund had been scaled down.

However, when I checked her LinkedIn page on 24th January 2013 when preparing this report I discovered that her CV now records that she left the Fund in August 2012 and that her starting date with the new organisation had been changed from July 2012 to August 2012. Now it's understandable if a mature worker puts together a CV covering many years that an inadvertent error in dates could arise for an old position long vacated. It's surely very strange that someone updating a LinkedIn page in December 2012 could make an error about their current work status. While people may be creative with their CVs to hide a gap in employment for example, it's hard to explain these date discrepancies. And since the Directors' Report was signed off on 21st December 2012 why did it not mention the Fund's Campaign Manager had left in August 2012 and thank her for her work?

Incidentally, Ms McCalman describes herself as the Fund's Campaign Manager while the official website always described the position as the Fund Administrator. The Directors' Report calls it the Campaign Co-ordinator. Clearly the three titles refer to the same role, but it is a little confusing.

Turning to Income, out of a total of £856,393 (2011 - £177,534) we are told in Note 7 – Related Party Transactions that £738,487 has been donated by Kate McCann from post tax royalties and other income from sales of the book. Given that these donations were after tax had been paid, the gross amount received from the book was clearly over £1 million.

Deducting the book donations from the total income gives other income of £117,906 but there is no information in the accounts to tell us how this is made up. In 2008 when the accounts did give some detail, the sales of T-shirts and other merchandise totalled £64,078. The actual profit would have been much less after deducting the cost to the Fund of the goods. It is unlikely that current sales were anything like that. A corporation tax charge of £5,128 suggests that there was taxable income of £20,000 or so. Possibly that taxable income solely related to merchandising profits. Donations are not liable for corporation tax.

The official website does not mention any fundraising activities in 2012; there were three mentioned in 2011. The Directors' Report states 'the amount of time given up, the numerous messages of support sent to Madeleine's family and donations to the Fund, have been overwhelming.' The equivalent sentence in the 2011 report did not mention donations and it is hard to see why donations would have been overwhelming in 2012 particularly when the Metropolitan Police Review started in May 2011. Thus the source of the majority of the £117,906 other income received is unclear.

The accounts record interest receivable of £149. Given the income of £856,393 for the year, the surplus for the year of £349,692 after taxation and the fact that there was £528,267 in the bank at the end of the accounting year 31st March 2012, surely basic money management would have resulted in significantly more interest? Another possible explanation is that the substantial book donations were not made until near the end of the accounting year, which begs the question where the money was before it was lodged.

In my last report I commented that the book contract was signed in 2010 and at least part of the substantial (but not specified) advance royalty payment would have been paid in 2010 yet it did not appear from my analysis of the accounts for the year ended 31st March 2011 that it had been lodged to the Fund. The book cover stated 'all royalties donated to Madeleine's Fund.' And, the Directors' Report for the year ended 31st March 2011 stated that in view of declining income Dr Kate McCann decided to write a book about Madeleine's disappearance and that 'all royalties from the book will be paid into Madeleine's Fund to ensure that the Fund is able to continue the search for Madeleine.'

The balance sheet records that £528,267 was in the bank at 31 March 2012 but unfortunately we are not told by way of a note whether the majority of the money was in an interest bearing account. Given the admitted winding down of the Fund's investigation, there would be no large bills to be paid out, so cash reserves could be tied up short term to maximise interest.

These accounts and the earlier ones all contain the sentence 'in as far as it is relevant the Fund follows best practice governance procedures as set out in the publication "Good Governance A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector".'

This code was established in 2005 and updated in 2010 and is available at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] It has six basic principles and the last one, principle six, is relevant here. It states that 'an effective board will provide good governance and leadership by being open and accountable.' The home page of the official Madeleine McCann website requests donations and has a Paypal button. To comply with principle six, the website should surely provide current financial information, and the filed accounts should provide sufficient detail to reassure donors that their money is being properly spent on the search for Madeleine McCann.

The 2012 Audit Report does not include two sentences which were contained under Scope of the audit of the financial statements in the 2011 Auditors Report:

'In addition we read all the financial and non financial information in the Directors' report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements. If we become aware of any material misstatements or inconsistencies we consider the implications for our report.'

This is interesting because these sentences were new in the 2011 Audit Report. It is appropriate that auditors review the Directors' Report for inconsistency with the audited financial statements. In my opinion in 2011 there were inconsistencies between the Report and the audited financial statements; namely the issue of (not) following the Governance Code where relevant, and the apparent inconsistency between the reference to providing administrative support and the accounts note in 2012 saying there are no employees in 2012 (2011 none). Clearly the auditors did not consider these inconsistencies to be 'material' or they would have reported on them. In my opinion these inconsistencies also apply in 2012, but the Auditors' Report no longer stated that they read the Directors' Report to identify material inconsistencies.

Finally I have to point out that in Note 2 on page 8 the accounts incorrectly state that the operating deficit is stated after charging £6,300 for the auditors' remuneration. The problem is that it wasn't a deficit; there was an operating surplus of £354,761! A similar error was made in the equivalent note in the 2009 accounts: a deficit was described as a surplus! A pity that none of the directors or the auditors spotted this!

As in my report on the earlier accounts, review of these long awaited 2012 accounts raises many questions to which the answers, to say the least, are not obvious. Transparent is not a word I would use to describe the 2012 accounts.

[Acknowledgement Nigel Moore of mccannfiles.com and pamalam]

Hi Verdi,thank you Mrs Enid O'Dowd for your extensive coveridge of the"Find Madeleine fund.
But,alas as far as the Crow flies,Operation Grange,there has been no malpractice or mis-information with regard to the probity of the"Find Madeleine fund," since its inception May 2007,eleven days after the child,Madeleine Mccann was reported as missing,Justice Hogg,High Court in London!  
"Nothing to see here people",now move along please!

So to conclude after at least Eleven years of Investigation/assistance by Leicestershire,Metropolitan Police Service and the Gold Group,CEOP, connection,Operation Grange,they have been un-able to Trace or convict any person's of Criminalty in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,reported as missing by her parents as 3 May 2007?

In fact,the bogus "Private Investigators" who were hired by the Parents/Board of Directors,never sought legal Redress from these"Professional people",the ones who fleeced the"Find Madeleine fund"?
Metodo 3 hired people to discredit Mr Goncalo Amaral,Cipriano case,yet the Evidence they had collected has been used to"Confir To"by Operation Grange,as Valid?  
Which then begs the question,imagine if it was Operation Grange Detectives having their credibility challenged by a"Private Investigator" you would look at their evidence with a clear independence,even though they are attacking you!
The Parents chose to seek civil Redress from the Detective Mr Goncalo Amaral  for over £500,000 on a Book/video"The Truth Of the Lie".
Speaks Volumes of True independence,that with all of the UK Government assistance during that same period,they still have Nothing to Prosecute any Individual with anything,costing Millions of pounds for what,nothing!?

willlowthewisp wrote:But,alas as far as the Crow flies,Operation Grange,there has been no malpractice or mis-information with regard to the probity of the"Find Madeleine fund," since its inception May 2007,eleven days after the child,Madeleine Mccann was reported as missing,Justice Hogg,High Court in London!  
"Nothing to see here people",now move along please!

Couldn't agree more.  I've said many times in the past, this bogus fund wasn't created by the McCanns - they haven't got the skills nor intelligence, it was created by a financial institution who would know precisely how close they can go before breaking the law.  The limited company's articles of association allows for all eventualities without laying itself open to a fraud investigation with a little help from their friends.  With the right backing they can't lose - since when has anything relating to money been kosha?

It's more dodgy than Del boy's camel hair coat.

wallad wrote:I like the "if needed" and "if they chose" bits. £51,718 seems a bit on the paltry side for work spread over 8 years, don't you think?

 Why "set aside"? I thought they lost their final battle 12 months ago or thereabouts. So why have they not yet paid? Will the bailiffs be calling on them  soon, or will the debt be sold on to some shady debt-collection company who will "send the boys round"?  I sincerely hope so.

I take it they no longer employ Edgar and his friend, and probably haven't for some time.

Look forward to watching that episode of 'Can't pay we'll take it away'

£728,508 that's the equivalent of a Halligen & an annual Pinky. Should be enough to generate plenty of TM bluster for the foreseeable