Hunt for Madeleine McCann could be over THIS WEEK

by **Keitei** 25.09.17 0:48

Hunt for Madeleine McCann could be over THIS WEEK: £12million probe may CLOSE after funding blow.

THE £12million British police probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann could be shelved this week

By Jerry Lawton / Published 25th September 2017

Funding for the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Grange is due to run out on Saturday.

Officers have applied to the Home Office for an extra £90,000 to keep the investigation going for another six months.

Policing minister Nick Hurd was expected to sign it off but Home Secretary Amber Rudd has reportedly got involved and no decision has yet been taken.

If the Met’s bid is rejected it is likely the four-strong team of detectives still working on the case will be wound down.
Scotland Yard could pay the sum from its own budget, but the force has suffered severe cutbacks.

Police union officials have called for the McCann inquiry to be axed and funds redirected to protect London from crime and terrorism.

If the probe is halted it would be a bitter blow to Madeleine’s doctor parents Kate and Gerry, from Rothley, Leics.

Sources say they would dip into a fund set up shortly after their daughter vanished in Portugal in 2007 to pay private detectives to carry on looking for her.
But that cash pot – funded by public donations and the proceeds from Kate’s book about the case – has dwindled.

The couple also still have to pay Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral’s legal costs after their bid to sue him for £1m in libel damages failed.

A source said: “If the Home Office doesn’t come through with the extra funds, it would be a blow.

“The police obviously believe there are still active leads to be followed up and progress to be made.
“It would be extremely frustrating if funding was to dry up without the inquiry being allowed to reach a conclusion.”

A Home Office spokesman said recently: “The Metropolitan Police has made a further application for funding which will be considered.

“They have needed to justify what the money would be spent on.

“The Home Office has provided funding for Operation Grange and the resources required are reviewed regularly with careful consideration given before any new funding is allocated.”
The last cash injection came in April, with £85,000 to keep the current team working until the end of this month.

A Met Police spokesman said: “The inquiry has not reached a conclusion and we’re continuing with focus and determination.”

An announcement from the Home Office is expected this week.

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

by Guest 25.09.17 7:11

I would approve of funding for bog-standard policing.

by plebgate 25.09.17 8:29

If the police are saying that they are having difficulty protecting the public from terrorism and other violent crime then I agree with the polic union. Time to stop wasting any more money.

We did hear that there was a possible suspect/lead in Greece - that was going on a fortnight ago. Err wouldn't the possible suspect have done a runner by now?

Farce.

by **Jill Havern** 25.09.17 9:25

BlueBag wrote:I would approve of funding for bog-standard policing.

Exactly.

With a new remit that allows them to investigate everything.

Or the McCanns could always ask Gonçalo Amaral and PeterMac to be their private detectives, and pay them with the money they 'siphoned' off into that fixed asset fund that they set aside to buy property or building equipment.

What's more important Kate and Gerry: finding Madeleine, or buying some building equipment?

We could set up a new GoFundMe to help GA and Peter tranfer the PJGA into the PJMM.

by Cmaryholmes 25.09.17 9:38

This latest announcement will have all those nice little old ladies who can no more believe that the Mccanns are not completely innocent of any wrongdoing than they can believe that nice old Cliff Richard could ever do anything unChristian, reaching for their handbags to contribute to the Madeleine Fund (Ltd). 'How terrible that no one will be 'sairching' any more! ' they will say as they read the latest instalment of dross from the MSM.

by Guest 25.09.17 12:00

Hunt for Madeleine McCann could be shelved after 10 years as Home Office dithers over £90,000 funding

Hunt for Madeleine McCann could end with funding set to run out this week
Metropolitan Police has spent some £11million during the 10-year long search
Her parents Gerry and Kate have vowed never to stop looking for their daughter

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Published: 09:29, 25 September 2017 | Updated: 11:00, 25 September 2017

The hunt for Madeleine McCann could come to an end this week as funding in the 10-year long investigation runs out.

More than £11 million has been spent on the probe to find Madeleine, who vanished from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007, aged three.

Her parents Gerry and Kate McCann now face an agonising wait to find out if the Metropolitan Police will be granted more funds to continue the search, after the force admitted it was set to run out of money.

With funding for the investigation, known as Operation Grange, in place until the end of this month, the Metropolitan Police have requested more money from the Government.

The Home Office confirmed the application would be considered, and a decision is expected to be made this week.

Kate and Gerry McCann, from Rothley in Leicestershire, have vowed to never give up hope of finding their daughter.
The couple have ploughed £500,000 of their own money into the search fund.

The family spokesman said: 'Naturally, Kate and Gerry hope the Met request is granted.

'They are encouraged that there remains work to be done that requires extra funding and they remain very grateful to all Operation Grange officers who are continuing to look for their daughter.'

It is unclear how much extra cash police chiefs are applying for, although Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley insisted earlier this year that there are still 'critical' leads, which are of 'great interest' to detectives.

Since 2011, the Met Police have been assisting with the search for clues about what happened to Madeleine, with officers visiting the holiday resort in 2014.

In March, the Home Office granted officers £85,000 to cover 'operational costs' to continue with the investigation, between April and September this year.

A freedom of information request showed that, in 2014, Operation Grange officers spent almost £16,000 on 67 return flights to Portugal.

But officers on the operation made just two flights to Portugal last year, prompting claims the investigation was being scaled down.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: 'Funding is in place until the end of September. Any details about future funding will be released when appropriate.'

A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Office has provided funding to the Metropolitan Police for Operation Grange and the resources required are reviewed regularly with careful consideration given before any new funding is allocated.'

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

There you have it folks - another example of shoddy journalism à la Anglais. They can't even be bothered to get their facts right, just make a random selection of passages from past reportage, string it together to present as the latest 'exclusive'. This rubbish is the same rubbish as was churned out earlier this year - is the source close to the Home Secretary or is it sensationalism pure and simple - I'll go with the latter.

The decision will already have been made, all it needs is the rubber stamp of approval juggle

.

by **Jill Havern** 25.09.17 14:35

from twitter . . .
Stop Press!! McCanns move money out of fund, call it their own, then say they're going to use it for a search that doesn't exist!!

Musings from PeterMac:

Suppose -
1. No further Home Office funding is allocated. - then the Met. can
*. Close Grange down completely
*. Shelve it, pending any further information
*. Continue to fund it out of normal resources. In other words pay the four DCs to carry on doing whatvever they are doing

2. further Home Office funding is allocated - then we know that
There exists a report with significant information in it to justify this and that Lady Cressida can hold her own in a discussion with Home Sec. on this point

And as someone brought up the other day, why would the DPP have visited Portugal, a few years ago, if not to talk about possible charges and jurisdiction for specific crimes

* Close Grange down completely - Very unlikely as it opens the floodgates for FOI requests, public comments, and so on
* Shelve it - more likely, as it leaves the case “open” and immune from FOI, and threats of sub-judice and so on for people who make direct accusations
* Fund out of normal resources - even more likely, what are 4 DCs in the scale of the Met ? and it keeps it immune from FOI and all the rest

"report with significant information" - - - Not sure, but someone, somewhere has to put forward a proper strategic plan with aims and objectives and a statement of what has been achieved thus far
before anyone will put their name to it, and send it up the ladder and to the Home Office.

by willowthewisp 25.09.17 15:24

Get'emGonçalo wrote:from twitter . . .
Stop Press!! McCanns move money out of fund, call it their own, then say they're going to use it for a search that doesn't exist!!

Musings from PeterMac:

Suppose -
1. No further Home Office funding is allocated. - then the Met. can
*. Close Grange down completely
*. Shelve it, pending any further information
*. Continue to fund it out of normal resources. In other words pay the four DCs to carry on doing whatvever they are doing

2. further Home Office funding is allocated - then we know that
There exists a report with significant information in it to justify this and that Lady Cressida can hold her own in a discussion with Home Sec. on this point

And as someone brought up the other day, why would the DPP have visited Portugal, a few years ago, if not to talk about possible charges and jurisdiction for specific crimes

* Close Grange down completely - Very unlikely as it opens the floodgates for FOI requests, public comments, and so on
* Shelve it - more likely, as it leaves the case “open” and immune from FOI, and threats of sub-judice and so on for people who make direct accusations
* Fund out of normal resources - even more likely, what are 4 DCs in the scale of the Met ? and it keeps it immune from FOI and all the rest

"report with significant information" - - - Not sure, but someone, somewhere has to put forward a proper strategic plan with aims and objectives and a statement of what has been achieved thus far
before anyone will put their name to it, and send it up the ladder and to the Home Office.

Hi GoGetemGoncalo,speaking in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,reported as missing by her parents to the Portugal PJ 22.00 hr 3 May 2007?
The amount of collusion by the UK Government,MI5,Clarence Mitchell,Justine MacGuiness,etc and the resources taken to try to ascertain the Truth,notably BBC,Crime Watch,Richard Bilton specials,have been used to leave open an"Opportunity" for an Abduction,Remit Operation Grange,which is basically a Farce Investigation?
In the "Cold light of day"listen to how a senior Detective's,supposedly with over Thirty years experience determine such lame thesis,Simon Foy,(Parents were seated at a table with witnesses?Andy Redwood,burglar Paedophiles operating within 30 KM of Madeleine's holiday home?
That the UK public are supposed to believe these Officers,without ever questioning the people who claim to have seen an alive Madeleine at 18.30 -19.30hrs on the above named date,Not even suspects?

It seems as though"Hell will have to freeze" before the Government is prepared to unveil why it is proceeding to hide factual evidence,behind Secrecy Laws to prevent exposure of the Truth of Madeleine McCann's life,shame on the lot of you,that you put Adults welfare above that of little children?
As can be seen by the Laws, the MP's wanted to have in practice in the 1970's PIE,age of consent to Ten to Twelve years of age,is that what is behind the scandals from the 1960's,with well known Gangsters supplying clientele to the"Upper Echelons"in Society,QC's and Barrister friends suing gagging orders to suppress the press,Profumo Affair,2064 papers released to public of Lord Denning's original Inquiry,thanks dodgy Dave?
Perhaps Guy Fawkes was right about the House of Commons,but got it wrong basing it on Religion and to think we say we are Democratic,what Bull Shit World we live in?
As has what has become exposed of the Care Homes scandals,Bryn Alyn,Estyn Kincora Boys Home Ireland,Scotland Orphanages abuses,grooming Gangs, Rochdale,Rotherham, South Yorkshire Police Non Investigations,Lambeth,Islington,Elm Guest House,Dolphin Square,why did you fail all of these young children,because of Politician's influencing Control,Old Boys network?
In 2008 The Metropolitan Police Service concluded there was No Evidence to Support the Theory that a Paedophile gang was operating in Portugal,yet in 2013/14 DCI Andy Redwood came up with a thesis of Burglar Paedophiles?
So,if it ever proven that Paedophile rings were in Operation through Europe in 2007 onward's,where would that leave the UK'S finest Police Force?

by wallad 25.09.17 18:13

It could be closed down this week, but somehow I doubt it. At worse, it will be closed down for a short time, perhaps a matter of weeks, if that. Or am I being too cynical?

by Guest 25.09.17 21:08

wallad wrote:It could be closed down this week, but somehow I doubt it. At worse, it will be closed down for a short time, perhaps a matter of weeks, if that. Or am I being too cynical?

As far as I'm concerned, you can never be too cynical about this case.

I'm sure if there was any intention by the Metropolitan Police to abandon Operation Grange, it would have been announced already. The government, in this instance the Home Office, don't make snap decisions. Besides, realistically, how can a serious criminal investigation ostensibly liaising with the Portuguese police, possibly operate with only four officers - if indeed they are officers and not just duty staff.

It's a cosmetic exercise from beginning to end, whenever that might be.

by **sharonl** 25.09.17 21:28

This farce had to come to an end somehow but how could the Met Police possibly justify spending millions of taxpayer funds and coming up with nothing. The latest terror threats have come just in time to give them the excuse that they needed.

We have good leads but funds are running out and we need our officers elsewhere.

Reading between the lines there is also a begging note in that article, a very manipulative, "we will have to use some of Madeleines' fund to pay Goncalo Amaral"

Well, I am sorry both but you were determined to put that family through 10 years of sheer hell hoping to get something out of it but it backfired. You'll just have to cash in that investment, whatever that is.

by G-Unit 26.09.17 8:55

It seems to be taken for granted that Madeleine's Fund will be used to meet the costs of the Libel trial. Madeleine's Fund was not named in the action however, just five members of the McCann family. In the event of non-payment the family would be pursued for payment, not the Fund, it has no legal liability for the debt.

The directors will have to decide whether paying the debts incurred by two of their number in their own names is a right and proper use of the Fund's cash.

by Doug D 26.09.17 12:39

G-Unit:

‘The directors will have to decide whether paying the debts incurred by two of their number in their own names is a right and proper use of the Fund's cash’.

Only 5 directors now.

A quorum in this case is two, although KM & GM probably couldn’t vote under the ‘conflict of interest’ clause, as they would be agreeing to transfer monies to fund their own liabilities.

Jon Corner

Brian Kennedy (Rothley one)

GM

KM

Edward Smethurst

……………………………………..

From Mem & Arts:

Limitation on private benefits

5.1 The income and property of the Foundation shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects

Never really did understand why they dropped the following from the ‘Objects’ in December 2011, unless they felt it inhibited fundraising:

3 1 3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family;

because if that was still there it probably wouldn’t have been a problem. They could of course put it back, but that would necessitate CM pulling out all the stops to try and put a positive spin on the reasons for it.

From December 2011 the ‘Objects’ have been:

2B        The objects of the Foundation are

            2B 1 1              To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and

            2B 1 2              To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice

            2B 2                 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Under the existing Mem & Arts, payment of the parent’s liabilities for the court costs would almost certainly be ‘ultra-vires’.

I wonder whether this could be the reason ‘haysmacintyre’ resigned as auditors in February 2017, if they knew what was being proposed and realized they would not be able to legitimately sign off the next set of accounts (although it looks likely to be the March 2018 ones now, assuming they still haven’t been paid)?

by **Jill Havern** 26.09.17 13:09

Has this been posted yet?

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

by Doug D 26.09.17 13:19

GeG:

Has this been posted yet?

No, but where is Tracey when you want some informed opinion or comment???!!!!!

by G-Unit 26.09.17 14:19

Doug D wrote:G-Unit:

‘The directors will have to decide whether paying the debts incurred by two of their number in their own names is a right and proper use of the Fund's cash’.

Only 5 directors now.

A quorum in this case is two, although KM & GM probably couldn’t vote under the ‘conflict of interest’ clause, as they would be agreeing to transfer monies to fund their own liabilities.

Jon Corner

Brian Kennedy (Rothley one)

GM

KM

Edward Smethurst

……………………………………..

From Mem & Arts:

Limitation on private benefits

5.1 The income and property of the Foundation shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects

Never really did understand why they dropped the following from the ‘Objects’ in December 2011, unless they felt it inhibited fundraising:

3 1 3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family;

because if that was still there it probably wouldn’t have been a problem. They could of course put it back, but that would necessitate CM pulling out all the stops to try and put a positive spin on the reasons for it.

From December 2011 the ‘Objects’ have been:

2B        The objects of the Foundation are

            2B 1 1              To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and

            2B 1 2              To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice

            2B 2                 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Under the existing Mem & Arts, payment of the parent’s liabilities for the court costs would almost certainly be ‘ultra-vires’.

I wonder whether this could be the reason ‘haysmacintyre’ resigned as auditors in February 2017, if they knew what was being proposed and realized they would not be able to legitimately sign off the next set of accounts (although it looks likely to be the March 2018 ones now, assuming they still haven’t been paid)?

The Fund has previous spent money on the trial, giving the damage done to the search for Madeleine as justification. That was an unproven fact in the first judgement, so anything after that needs a different justification in my opinion.

Clause 5 of the Memorandum of Association says that there are limitations on private benefits. 5.2 says no part of the income and property of the Fund should be used to benefit it's members. As it's only members are it's directors that seems to me to be a stumbling block. I could be wrong, of course, I have no qualifications in Company law.

The details are in the Incorporation document.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 27.09.17 1:19

That's why the 'Leave No Stone Unturned' outfit is a limited company and not a charity. It would have been simple for the initiators to register as a charity if only they expanded the remit - but they chose not to, for obvious reasons I feel.

As a limited company there can be no legal complications as regards administration and management, moral maybe because of the nature of the 'fund' but not legal. As a limited company the 'funds' constitution enables the board to do whatever they like providing it's within the confines of the law - I'm sure they've got that well and truly covered, even if only borderline legal.

Say what you like but the mere notion of the McCanns operating an illegal 'fund' is laughable. They would have it well and truly sown-up to cover all eventualities, I shouldn't wonder by the golden hand of Smethurst, the legal pundit for the McCanns wealthy benefactor - Brian Kennedy. He must be well versed in the world of limited company jigger-pokery.

Frankly, I don't believe the McCanns will ever be facing criminal charges as regards the 'fund'. A carefully worded constitution and the very fact that it's nothing unusual for family members to form the directorship of a limited company will exonerate them from criminal charges - unless fraud can be proven, which I think extremely unlikely. Multi-million pound companies engage the services of professionals in the art money movement - this is no exception. In this case, the auditors have been representing the 'fund' for ten years - I seriously doubt their resignation has any connection with the downfall of the McCanns or their fraudulent 'search for Madeleine fund'.

Realistically, although Operation Grange might continue, the McCanns campaign and fund raising has far exceeded it's limit. That is why the auditors have resigned - they no longer serve a purpose.

The ten year anniversary blitz heralded the end of the McCanns shelf life - it was time for their final encore before the curtains came down.

That's their finale maybe - not so for CMoMM and associates who will continue the fight for justice in the name of Madeleine McCann.

grouphug

by Doug D 27.09.17 8:37

Verdi:

‘That is why the auditors have resigned - they no longer serve a purpose.’

Unfortunately looks like you are right. They are no longer needed as the fund looks to qualify as a ‘small company’, so no audit is required after the 2016 accounts.

Morally disgraceful for an 'open & transparent' (?) publically financed appeal fund, but perfectly legal.

‘On 26 January 2016, the Government rejected the concerns raised by the audit profession, preferring to keep the framework as simple as possible. The Government said that having two levels of regulation (one for audit exemption and one for the definition of a small company) would introduce unnecessary complexity into company law and cause confusion for users.

Increased audit limits

The Government has said that all companies should continue to be able to have an audit (i.e. the audit option will remain open for small companies). Companies will not, however, be required to have an audit for financial years which start on or after 1 January 2016 (essentially 31 December 2016 year-ends) if, at the balance sheet date, two out of the following three criteria can be met for (generally) two consecutive financial years:

Turnover < £10.2 million
Balance sheet total (fixed assets plus current assets) <£5.1 million
Number of employees < 50

To take advantage of the above, the company must also not be excluded from accessing the audit exemption due to the nature of their business.

Raising the audit exemption thresholds to match those of the small company thresholds is estimated to remove 7,400 companies from the mandatory requirement to have an audit. However, the Government have estimated that some 4,400 companies will choose to continue to have an external audit and the remaining 3,000 companies will seek alternative routes to ensure that their company’s internal systems are robust, such as assurance reviews or oversight of accounts preparation.

The ICAEW Chief Executive, Michael Izza, said: ‘We are disappointed government has decided to go down this route. We have consistently said over the last four years that audit promotes sound financial practice and protects against mismanagement, fraud and tax evasion.

‘There are many reasons why companies have an audit – to give shareholders confidence, satisfy tender requirements, and ensure reliable financial reporting. Even though a number of businesses are now potentially exempt we expect many will continue to choose to have an audit.’

BIS acknowledge that the value of audit and auditors still have an important role to play in supporting small businesses and providing assurance to owners and lenders.

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

by Rogue-a-Tory 27.09.17 9:40

The trouble is the vast majority of bad trading, malpractice, mismanagement and corruption happens in these small companies because there is no one there to tackle or instil accountability on the rogues and bullies. This just gives them carte blanch - something that can't have escaped TM

by Guest 27.09.17 21:36

Doug D wrote:Verdi:

‘That is why the auditors have resigned - they no longer serve a purpose.’

Unfortunately looks like you are right. They are no longer needed as the fund looks to qualify as a ‘small company’, so no audit is required after the 2016 accounts.

Morally disgraceful for an 'open & transparent' (?) publically financed appeal fund, but perfectly legal.

I don't doubt that's the reason they allegedly shifted half a million from the fund (the bulk of the fund balance) into an investment plan back in March 2017, the beginning of the current financial year.

Where does legitimate movement of a company's assets end and money laundering begin?

Despite all the promises made when the limited company was established, their commitment to integrity and transparency, at the end of the day it is the McCanns limited company, therefore effectively their money. Totally legal but thoroughly immoral. I wouldn't mind betting they've even got a contingency plan in the event of a public outcry about donations. The unusual method adopted in the early days for the public to donate to the fund was such that I doubt a forensic trail could ever be effectively documented to present before a court of law.

Who's to say who donated what? The bulk of the fund's income could very easily be identified in the fund accounts as donations from wealthy benefactors rather than the truth - the public!

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