Re: BRICK Reviews

by Liz Eagles 14.09.24 14:36

I owe a sincere apology.

by **Jill Havern** 14.09.24 14:44

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:On the new chapter thread?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17605-latest-from-petermac-s-free-e-book-chapter-63-smith-gerry-man-scrutinised
Smithman as Gerry logically and utterly demolished.

Nice one Peter.

Good innit?

by Cake Lover 14.09.24 15:06

The Shakespeare characters add some class to the whole horrible affair. I'd pay to watch Katerina the shrew and Russelus.

by **Jill Havern** 14.09.24 17:04

Liz Eagles wrote:I owe a sincere apology.

Did you finish reading the book?

by GreenTara 14.09.24 18:14

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Has anyone heard any tiny thing from Team McCann about any of this?

It's been months now. Why isn't Carter Ruck wading?

I don’t see how Team McCann could risk The Sudden Impulse scrutinised in a court setting. It is, among other things, a clear dossier of evidence of one of two possibilities:
1. There was no abduction
2. The McCanns & their Tapas friends have lied…extensively
There is no other option

by Cake Lover 14.09.24 18:28

I really think no legal team in Britain would touch Team McCann now. If any firm in another country is prepared to do so, I doubt the McCann clan could afford to take it on, despite their fraudulently acquired pile of dosh. It would be unwise to deal with a legal representative whose first language isn't English, be be on the safe side.

by Honesty 14.09.24 18:57

Imo they would be able to find a legal firm in the UK to represent them, providing they could supply information about their funds and where these came from. I am sure that to do so they have to pay a significant deposit. But, things have changed in recent years and imo the McCanns approach now is to hunker down, to sit tight and the days of them suing people are well and truly
over.

by Ladyinred 14.09.24 19:07

I think that they have always retained a solicitor/legal people. That is why the media is silent.

by pinkgladioli 14.09.24 19:21

I don’t doubt that they will have retained solicitors I may be wrong I just don’t see them to wield the same power in suing as they once did
If there’s been a super injunction in place it may run out at some point and if it does could they have the funds to renew one

by Ladyinred 14.09.24 19:30

They need to protect themselves and can use the Fund.

by Cake Lover 14.09.24 19:41

If Bernt's investigation has the desired effect, they won't find people so keen to subsidise them this time.

by Silentscope 14.09.24 20:06

It could be that a ‘Standing DA Notice’ Section 5 has been applied to the McCanns and their Entourage. In the interests of National Security.

https://www.dsma.uk/standing-notices/

by Nina 14.09.24 20:20

Jill Havern wrote:Fancy that

Try it now....

by pinkgladioli 14.09.24 20:32

Silentscope wrote:It could be that a ‘Standing DA Notice’ Section 5 has been applied to the McCanns and their Entourage. In the interests of National Security.

https://www.dsma.uk/standing-notices/

When it says Family members could that include Parents and Siblings of K and G?
If it was the likes of K and G or one of them would they not have had a black passport, also wouldn’t go through the same security as what we would

by Silentscope 14.09.24 20:37

All the McCanns passports as pictured in Apartment 5A seem to be Red.
Black Passports were those issued prior to joining the EU.

Gerry was an advisor on COMARE, and recently got a lot of Funding for Research into Post COVID effects in Cardiovascular Diseases.

by pinkgladioli 14.09.24 21:07

Yes I had looked at the passports when I’ve looked before I wondered if the bottom one was darker but couldn’t determine, I googled ages ago that diplomatic or official ones were black it looks like I’ve got it wrong as can’t find it now so apologies

by pinkgladioli 14.09.24 21:12

What I find strange is if Gerry’s work is labelled as being a national security risk surely the whole setting up of the fund etc would have been stopped in its tracks

by Silentscope 14.09.24 21:16

The McCanns were well advised Legally as the setting up of a Charity for the benefit of a single individual would not normally have been allowed.

The Private Company then came into being.

by AnneCGuedes 14.09.24 21:42

Silentscope wrote:The McCanns were well advised Legally as the setting up of a Charity for the benefit of a single individual would not normally have been allowed.

The Private Company then came into being.

But it was about to be allowed when suddenly they opted for a private company.

by Silentscope 14.09.24 22:40

I have no Information as to who or what changed their minds.
Do you have a Link to that Anne?

Other Sites seem to have the opinion that it was not allowed.
https://fundraising.co.uk/2007/05/15/appeal-fund-set-effort-find-missing-madeleine-mccann/

https://www.portugalresident.com/the-madeleine-fund/

by AnneCGuedes 15.09.24 0:45

Silentscope wrote:I have no Information as to who or what changed their minds.
Do you have a Link to that Anne?

Other Sites seem to have the opinion that it was not allowed.
https://fundraising.co.uk/2007/05/15/appeal-fund-set-effort-find-missing-madeleine-mccann/

https://www.portugalresident.com/the-madeleine-fund/

I told the story (on my blog) after reading mainly (I think) documents gathered by Nigel Moore.
When they arrived at PDL on 11 May 2007, the IFLG representative and the barrister Michael Nicholls QC (who for 5 years had headed the Lord Chancellor's abducted children department) proposed to the MCs that they set up a fund, in other words a company, albeit non-commercial but individual in nature. The MCs accepted what would in fact cost them nothing. On 13 May, the IFLG issued a brief statement announcing that Ann Thomas was in charge of contacts. How to contribute financially would be announced shortly.
In record time and probably at record cost too, Madeleine's Fund came into being, not as a charity, nor as a foundation (private money placed at the disposal of a public cause), nor as an endowment fund (capitalisation of assets collected with a view to the realisation of a work or mission of general interest), but as a Limited Company since this company was to work for the sole benefit of Madeleine MC and her family.

The media reported that the project submitted to the regulatory committee had been refused charitable status because the donations were not for the public good but for private interests. In reality, the situation was somewhat different, so the Charity Commission exercised its right of reply. Its spokeswoman said that a proposal for a charity to support the parents' research had been submitted to the head of legal services, Alice Holt, on the morning of 14 May. This was a matter of urgency, because the launch date, 16 May, had been fixed before the contract with Bates Wells Braithwaite and seemed unmovable. There was an intense exchange between the BWB experts and the Commission, which was anxious that the criteria should be respected and that the message sent to the public the next day should be clear about what the fund could and could not support. Just as the process seemed to be well under way, in the early afternoon of 15 May, BWB did an about-face, its clients having finally decided in favour of a limited company. Nevertheless, Alice Holt immediately sent the revised project to BWB. The necessary documents to register Madeleine's Fund - No Stone Unturned Ltd at Companies House on the same day were put together in a matter of hours.

by AnneCGuedes 15.09.24 0:49

What changed their minds ? Perhaps this : charities are required to provide an annual report and detailed accounts, all of which are available to the public on request. In addition, neither the directors nor their relatives may receive a salary, fees or have a contract with the charity.

by Silentscope 15.09.24 7:22

A Charity would not have allowed them to pay 2 Instalments on their Mortgage.

Nor would it have accepted 85,000 pounds made as Profit from the Sale of the Book 'Madeleine'.

But the Directors of a Limited Company can decide freely where the Money can flow to.

The registering of a 'Trademark' indicates that the McCanns should be the only ones allowed to Profit.

Turkish analysis: https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2014/07/02/madeleine-mccann-fund-scam/#gsc.tab=0

by AnneCGuedes 15.09.24 16:59

I'm afraid they paid more that 2 instalments of their mortgage, but there's to my knowledge no evidence of that. The only thing we know is that the whole mortgage was paid within a rather short time. I observed that neither of them was domiciled in Rothley's home. Did the fund pay rent for the use of Rothley house as a M research centre?

by Cake Lover 15.09.24 17:09

The fact that they set up the fund at all shows what type of people they are. Making money out of a dead child is despicable. At that point, only they knew for certain that Madeleine was not coming home.

Latest topics