Accounts to 31.03.10

by rammy 17.12.10 23:00

I don't know if this will work; apologies if not. Thanks to Nigel at McCannfiles.
I'm thinking it needs more work; sorry - will try again but if anyone else can do it......

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

Perhaps this will work; [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 17.12.10 23:15

Thanks rammy, yes that works ok now. thumbsup

I hadn't realised 3 directors had resigned. wow

Can anyone make sense of all those figures?

by Cheshire Cat 18.12.10 0:03

candyfloss wrote:Thanks rammy, yes that works ok now. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I hadn't realised 3 directors had resigned. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Can anyone make sense of all those figures?

Not really much information in those figures.

I always wonder if the Brian Kennedy who actually attends the board meeting is Mr Double Glazing not Kates Uncle Brian Kennedy?

What use would the retired teacher BK be on the board?

by Cheshire Cat 18.12.10 0:50

Who is really picking up the tab for Carter Ruck, Isobelle Duarte, Clarence Mitchell, PR Companies?

by **PeterMac** 18.12.10 2:22

Page 2
we have...
• continued to pay for legal representation for Madeleine and her family in Portugal, enabling them to obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction."
My God ! Where do we start with that one ?
1 It has been specifically denied by Mitchell that the fund was to be used for legal expenses. He either knew, in which case he was and is a liar, or did not know, in which case he is a fool. (Or in his case, possibly both)
2 Kennedy originally said that the fund WOULD be used mainly for legal expenses. He is on record and I believe on video saying it.
3 What representation does a dead child need, when in any event she is Ward of an English Court, and her guardian is a High Court Judge.
4 By what right do the Trustees of a fund form, or state publicly, an opinion on the claims made by Mr Amaral. What is their joint and several legal position when it is shown that he was either right, or at least that the claims were shared by the Portuguese Police, the Portuguese Authorities, and now as we know, by the British Police.
5 What is the Trustees' position now that the injunction has been overturned ? Legally. (Morally obviously it is totally untenable, and one is not suprised to see the resignations) Can TB advise - if that is within your sphere, Sir ?
6 "Madeleine's abduction". I suppose we have to allow them to say this, otherwise the fund would collapse into itself.

I still 'love' the objective "to provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family" closely followed by "If the above objectives are fulfilled then blah, blah"
Since the McCanns are on the board they can presumably decide that the support will never be fulfilled, until the fund is empty, (or everyone is in prison)

by rammy 18.12.10 3:09

I feel there should be some other pages attached; surely, 'We've had this, and spent that' isn't really proper accounting is it?
If it is, I might start my own business up...... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Judge Mental 18.12.10 3:24

Petermac wrote:

4 By what right do the Trustees of a fund form, or state publicly, an opinion on the claims made by Mr Amaral. What is their joint and several legal position when it is shown that he was either right, or at least that the claims were shared by the Portuguese Police, the Portuguese Authorities, and now as we know, by the British Police.

This is an intriguing area which they never anticipated having to deal with, on account of being so firm in their belief they would be able to prevent Amaral from publishing. However, their luck has eventually run out.

by **PeterMac** 18.12.10 3:56

And now, since we assume that costs follow the result, the Fund will be saddled with quite a large debt. I hope the people who donated so generously over the years are made aware of where their donations are going.

by Guest 18.12.10 4:19

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

Interesting to see that a third director resigned in September. All very intruiging. That was kept rather quiet, or did I miss it.

by Avery 18.12.10 17:55

They never give us pages 9 and 10 where they break down the expenses and revenue into meaningful numbers. So much for transparency which they assured us they would provide. They are not required by law to tell us how they spend the money so I guess it is none of the donors business.

by Judge Mental 18.12.10 18:26

Avery wrote:They never give us pages 9 and 10 where they break down the expenses and revenue into meaningful numbers. So much for transparency which they assured us they would provide. They are not required by law to tell us how they spend the money so I guess it is none of the donors business.

The public were asked to make donations to help to find Madeleine, not to pay for legal fees or a leisurely five months long continental holiday for all the McCanns and their relatives and friends. It is a sad fact that few people in the UK are able to take more than a month or two off work, when facing a similar loss.

Had they taken out advertisments in newspapers, and placed a note in a prominent place on their website to advise the public of where their donations were being spent, it would have given people far greater clarity as to what the Fund was designed to do. One suspects that had they been open and honest with regard to this, there would have been very few donations after September 2007 when they were made arguidos.

by Guest 29.08.11 4:06

I am sure this has been discussed before, does anyone know why the Fund year end is 31/03/10? One would imagine that the first transaction was in May 2007 and therefore the accounts would run from May to April. Why the need to change I wonder.

by Miraflores 29.08.11 5:20

Molly wrote:I am sure this has been discussed before, does anyone know why the Fund year end is 31/03/10? One would imagine that the first transaction was in May 2007 and therefore the accounts would run from May to April. Why the need to change I wonder.

This is done for tax reasons - although the tax year ends on 5th April and the next starts on 6th, for tax purposes a year running for calendar months April to March is treated as coinciding with the tax year. It makes things simpler all round.

by Gillyspot 30.08.11 15:38

Avery wrote:They never give us pages 9 and 10 where they break down the expenses and revenue into meaningful numbers. So much for transparency which they assured us they would provide. They are not required by law to tell us how they spend the money so I guess it is none of the donors business.

"So much for transparency which they assured us they would provide" - and continue to do on the findmadeleine.com website.

"They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability."

What they are giving is "tax transparency" which is the minimum required by law for a limited company (so Shell, BP, M & S etc need only offer the same). I.e. just showing what tax liabilies are due & paid.

Yet they continue to ask for:

"We thank you for your interest in fund raising to support Madeleine's fund. Many donations have resulted from a variety of fund raising events. These have included Car Boot sales, jumble sales, school cake sales, race nights, sponsored runs & cycle events, ‘dress down' days, auctions & ‘cheese & wine' nights.

And point to the website below (link is broken), regarding codes of fundraising practice. IOF actually has what transparent accounts should be like on their website.

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

All in all NOT TRANSPARENT!

by pauline 30.08.11 18:26

Gillyspot wrote:
Avery wrote:They never give us pages 9 and 10 where they break down the expenses and revenue into meaningful numbers. So much for transparency which they assured us they would provide. They are not required by law to tell us how they spend the money so I guess it is none of the donors business.

"So much for transparency which they assured us they would provide" - and continue to do on the findmadeleine.com website.

"They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability."

What they are giving is "tax transparency" which is the minimum required by law for a limited company (so Shell, BP, M & S etc need only offer the same). I.e. just showing what tax liabilies are due & paid.

Yet they continue to ask for:

"We thank you for your interest in fund raising to support Madeleine's fund. Many donations have resulted from a variety of fund raising events. These have included Car Boot sales, jumble sales, school cake sales, race nights, sponsored runs & cycle events, ‘dress down' days, auctions & ‘cheese & wine' nights.

And point to the website below (link is broken), regarding codes of fundraising practice. IOF actually has what transparent accounts should be like on their website.

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

All in all NOT TRANSPARENT!

Absolutely agree Gillyspot.

Does anyone know who is the experienced Fund Administrator? You would expect the name on the website and a number and email. Businesses and NGOs want to be contacted so they give details of their staff on their websites. The Fund never did.

by steevo1962 17.10.11 20:42

rammy wrote:I feel there should be some other pages attached; surely, 'We've had this, and spent that' isn't really proper accounting is it?
If it is, I might start my own business up...... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have sent a 2nd email to the campaign people as they have predictably failed to answer the 1st.

This my 2nd email regarding this request for information or advice.

Could you be so kind as to acknowledge my email and consider my request?

Hi there.

My full support in finding Madeleine, but can you answer a question for me?

I have downloaded copies of annual accounts from Companies House ref: 06248215 and have full disclosure for 2008 (12 Pages).
It seems that 2009 and 2010 are missing these pages for both years and I wondered

1: Why is this?
2: Where would I be able to obtain copies of Acrobat page numbers 11+12 (Actual Company Account page numbers 9+10) of these 2009 AND 2010 accounts

as it may appear to some that the non disclosure of these very important and financially detailed pages are hiding something being that they are freely available with Companies House co.number "06248215" within the 2007-2008 initial 1st year accounts?

Please advise thankyou?

Steve

I wonder that if they continually refuse to answer my simple request, if I then would be entitled to report a suspected fraud with regards the management of the monies?

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

by happychick 17.10.11 21:09

Who could you report this government-sponsored suspected fraud to Steevo?

by steevo1962 17.10.11 21:12

happychick wrote:Who could you report this government-sponsored suspected fraud to Steevo?

I really don't know personally?

I initially thought that it would be the Police Authorities, but maybe some-one with the expertise and knowledge can advise?

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

by pauline 17.10.11 21:30

why not contact the auditors and ask did they make a mistake and omit to file the two pages with the expenditure detail?

by happychick 17.10.11 21:30

steevo1962 wrote:
happychick wrote:Who could you report this government-sponsored suspected fraud to Steevo?

I really don't know personally?

I initially thought that it would be the Police Authorities, but maybe some-one with the expertise and knowledge can advise?

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

Don't try leicester police though because the government-sponsored fraud is also sponsored by Leicester police as the police website links directly to the mcCanns fraudulent fund wtf

by steevo1962 17.10.11 21:45

pauline wrote:why not contact the auditors and ask did they make a mistake and omit to file the two pages with the expenditure detail?

Thanks friends, I think I'll try the auditor route firstly.

I'm like a dog with a bone with some things and i wont let go so this one is a 'Big Bone' and I am going to vehemently pursue this clear attempt to hide the finer details of their accounts.

Although I have been told earlier by a member that the accounts do not legally have to show these 2 pages, I and many others feel that they are morally obliged to let their doners know where their money is being spent!

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

by Gillyspot 18.10.11 6:40

I wrote to the Charity Commission and all I got back was it is up to the "donors" to find out about the fund and then decide if they want to give or not and nothing to do with them. They were not remotely interested that the McCanns fund is regularly confused with a charity in the media and that you can "donate" using the paypal button on their website without ever reading that it is a Limited Company. I am still working on them though but now have lost all respect for them in the process.

What about Trading Standards as the "fund" does not have the "transparency" & "accountability" promised so therefore is not as described.

Also Companies House (the Charity Commission recommended I go there).

by pauline 18.10.11 6:53

steevo1962 wrote:
pauline wrote:why not contact the auditors and ask did they make a mistake and omit to file the two pages with the expenditure detail?

Thanks friends, I think I'll try the auditor route firstly.

I'm like a dog with a bone with some things and i wont let go so this one is a 'Big Bone' and I am going to vehemently pursue this clear attempt to hide the finer details of their accounts.

Although I have been told earlier by a member that the accounts do not legally have to show these 2 pages, I and many others feel that they are morally obliged to let their doners know where their money is being spent!

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

Stevo - great you are taking up my suggestion about the auditor.

Some more suggestions - write to kate quoting her book about the Fund being transparent whatever it cost. tell her the expenditure details were left out for 2009 and 2010 and how unlucky she is to have picked incompetent auditors just as she chose useless private detectives. And ask her to get the auditors to file the pages. Tell her you are looking fwd to the 2011 accounts and trust they will be very informative!

there is a retired accountant michael Linnett on the Board of the Fund - why not write to him about the useless accounts.

And try the institute of Chartered Accountants - the auditors will be members. Send the Institute the accounts and ask if such accs are appropriate in the circumstances, and ask is it usual to leave out info in 2009 and 2010 that they filed before..

While I dont think you will get a lot of correspondence out of all this, you will have made a point to the relevant people, and the next accounts (2011) just might give a little more info.

Also write to David Cameron who has committed so much tax payers money to this (and copy to teresa May).

by steevo1962 18.10.11 7:27

2008-09 accounts are supposed to have the compensation awards included.

These figures amounted to a known figure of £350,000 for Tanner & Co, then we should have an undisclosed amount for the McCanns.

Murat got about £500,000 so I would assume that the McCanns were awarded similiar or much more?

If both awards are included in 2008-09 accounts there seems to be a discrepancy of around £230,000?

Also, the fund managers are allowing the expenditure to outstrip the income after losing £360,000 in 2008-09. Then allowing a deficit of £220.000 to arise in 2009-10 which in my opinion leads to the thinking that the McCanns are banking on new wealthy donors and book sales etc, maybe even a couple more lawsuits to prop up their presently ailing fund?

Thinning down the board may be the 1st step in their cleaning up operation in order to comply with good business codes?

If what I've been told is 100% law re the company not being obliged to publish the full accounts, there seems very little apart from obtaining copies from an auditors insider or by more devious means??!!?? (But that would be illegal?)

It looks like unless there is a major public outcry via the media over these non-disclosure's......then we're fecked?

Mibbees? Mibeees Naw? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** 18.10.11 8:32

1. AUDITING CONCERNS

If anyone has any concerns about the accounts, especially in relation to the auditors, they should contact Haysmcintyre, who, most unusually, were appointed auditors within a day or two of the Fund being created just 10 days after Madeleine was reported missing. Haysmcintyre also audits for the shadowy 'Common Purpose' organisation.

Failing that, concerns could be addressed to the auditors' professional body, ICAEW, contact details as follows:

Head of the Assessment Section
Professional Conduct Department
ICAEW
321 Avebury Boulevard,
MILTON KEYNES
Buckinghamshire
MK9 2FZ

2. BRIAN KENNEDY QUOTE

Further up the thread, PeterMac referred to Brian Kennedy saying that Madeleine's Fund was going to be used 'mainly for legal expenses'. I should say that this Brian Kennedy is the McCanns' uncle who lives in Rothley, NOT the 'Mr Double Glazing' Kennedy.

He was asked on camera by a BBC interviewer what the Fund was going to be spent on. Part of his intriguing answer was, and I quote from the film clip: ‘...for all sorts of reasons, but probably mainly for legal expenditure’.

I believe he has been a Director from the outset and still is.

A clip of Uncle Brian saying just that can be seen at:

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

by pauline 18.10.11 9:33

steevo1962 wrote:2008-09
It looks like unless there is a major public outcry via the media over these non-disclosure's......then we're fecked?

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

if enough people write to the ICEAW and the auditors it will make it harder for the 2011 accs to be as uninformative as 2009 and 2010. I would be great to get some letters in the letters columns of the papers but as we know the media is reluctant to print anything. When the 2011 accounts are filed which they will have to be by the end of the year, we can comment on them to the letters pages. These accounts should show much more income - since all the royalties from the book are going to the Fund apparently. But doubtless there have been a lot more expenses to use up this income - like paying the costs of the defeats in the Portuguese courts last october and this March.

by steevo1962 18.10.11 10:40

It's really frustrating, it's like handing your kid £100 for a day out with their promise that they wont squander it.

They return with a Happy meal and no change!

You ask them what they spent it on and they just say "On a day out"....fine but what did you SPECIFICALLY spend it on......"On a day out" is the reply again!

Ok, well you cant argue because you did after all give them the money for a day out, but you'll never know what they spent the money on that day out and your kid isn't exactly lying or obliged to tell you when he/she answers your question?

Anyway, less of the gibberish...I noticed on the 2008-09 accounts that they have put Madeleines disappearance down as 3rd May 2008, obviously a 'typo'?

Here are a couple of links to the Good Governance Codes which the McCanns pledge their Board's allegience to. The codes are not mandatory, but if a small company claims to use them, then they are obliged to follow them.

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

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

by russiandoll 18.10.11 21:28

what was the anticipated legal expenditure only 2 weeks after Maddies " abduction" ?

by steevo1962 18.10.11 22:04

A huge amount more than they anticipated I would assume?

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

by pauline 18.10.11 22:20

russiandoll wrote:what was the anticipated legal expenditure only 2 weeks after Maddies " abduction" ?

Perhaps the fees for setting up the limited company, getting a copyright for madeleine, applying for her to be a ward of court. They made the decisions to incur these costs VERY soon after she disappeared, which is of course odd as she could have been found at that early stage..

but they could not have anticipated surely all the costs involved in suing the media/individuals? How did they know that things would be said and printed that they would not like?