Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

by **tigger** 04.05.12 9:31

We're getting so much in such a short time that it seems the quickest way of getting this across as a topic header.
I am sure that I read in one of the transcripts that Kate said something about 'other charities' and confusion about this point. Can anyone find it?

I would also like to post this link again:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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
by Enid O'Dowd FCA

---------------------------
A Chronological Record of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited Company
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by monkey mind 04.05.12 13:36

Excellent analysis. I hadn't read that, thanks for putting the link up.

by friedtomatoes 04.05.12 13:53

Look on the Lorraine interview video, she mentioned how they try and help other causes. It is around 8.30 minutes in.

ETA: She did say helping other charities but I don't think she was inferring the fund was.

by **tigger** 04.05.12 14:17

friedtomatoes wrote:Look on the Lorraine interview video, she mentioned how they try and help other causes. It is around 8.30 minutes in.

ETA: She did say helping other charities but I don't think she was inferring the fund was.

That might be it. We've been deluged with guff - but if she said helping other charities it is inferred that the Fund is one too. Imo. I'll try and find the transcript.

by **tigger** 04.05.12 14:24

From the link above:

These are from the Fund accounts up to 31st March 2008:

Fund professional fees £36,070

What exactly does this cover since legal, audit and accountancy fees are separately charged?

Website £37,071

Was a website person employed all through the period? This cost seems very high?

by jd 04.05.12 14:43

Considering all the 'help' they are receiving from the highest order in the country, I think we can safely assume that they can fiddle the books to their hearts content. Nobody is going to challenge

by Guest 04.05.12 14:46

Good link to to put here..................

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

by **tigger** 04.05.12 15:17

From the Lorraine Kelly interview. At about 8 mins. Kate ..'so we have tried to support other charities...'

The Fund is not a charity Kate, really not! It is not transparent either - as was promised at the start. This would be of some comfort to the many pensioners and schoolchildren who sent cash, cheques and postal orders - money they would really miss.
Unlike the millions promised by rich entrepreneurs, a writer, etc. if Madeleine was found.

Now that even SY believes she may be alive why are those millions never mentioned?

by friedtomatoes 04.05.12 16:39

I think far more money has gone into the fund than people think. Someone correct me if this is wrong, but wasn't it in that Irish interview last year with Mark Cagney that they were asked how much money the fund had had, and Gerry said around £2.5 million? I could be wrong and he said there was that amount left, but if not, then it's impossible that three years further on after the first accounts given plus the two libel payments which came to almost £3.5 million, and not counting any monies received since 2008' that the total was around £2.5 million.......unless, he was quoting only public donations!

PS, the videos won't play on my ipad, so I can't check.

by Spaniel 04.05.12 16:42

tigger wrote:From the Lorraine Kelly interview. At about 8 mins. Kate ..'so we have tried to support other charities...'

The Fund is not a charity Kate, really not! It is not transparent either - as was promised at the start. This would be of some comfort to the many pensioners and schoolchildren who sent cash, cheques and postal orders - money they would really miss.
Unlike the millions promised by rich entrepreneurs, a writer, etc. if Madeleine was found.

Now that even SY believes she may be alive why are those millions never mentioned?

Is the reward still available? I searched for T&C to claiming it recently, but all I got was an old news report saying "if returned safe and well." After all these years I still find something new, though of little matter. First the website and the picture of little Madeleleine forth from the left I don't recall seeing before. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Spaniel 04.05.12 17:04

friedtomatoes wrote:I think far more money has gone into the fund than people think. Someone correct me if this is wrong, but wasn't it in that Irish interview last year with Mark Cagney that they were asked how much money the fund had had, and Gerry said around £2.5 million? I could be wrong and he said there was that amount left, but if not, then it's impossible that three years further on after the first accounts given plus the two libel payments which came to almost £3.5 million, and not counting any monies received since 2008' that the total was around £2.5 million.......unless, he was quoting only public donations!

PS, the videos won't play on my ipad, so I can't check.

As with all Ltd companies, it's easy to cover tracks. Pay yourself the tax free allowance as an income and take large dividends on profits. KM will surely be paid for her research.

by friedtomatoes 04.05.12 18:09

True Spaniel, I was trying to say it seems more has gone into it than they are saying.
Gerry also said that the vast majority of the fund money has gone directly on search fees, which I find it hard to believe.

by Spaniel 04.05.12 18:21

friedtomatoes wrote:True Spaniel, I was trying to say it seems more has gone into it than they are saying.
Gerry also said that the vast majority of the fund money has gone directly on search fees, which I find it hard to believe.

13% on searching, I've seen. Not so uncle Brian, he said the "fund" was for legal expenses. He also said the public pressed cash onto him. Mitchell asked the public to put money into envelopes marked to the McCanns. Oooooh! What a field day for a dishonest postperson. Where is the cash marked in accounts?

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

by **tigger** 04.05.12 19:30

The Charity Commission: snipped from the Enid O'Dowd analysis.

....and it is clear from the documentation that the Charity Commission officials were helpful, and that it was likely that charity status could have been obtained with only minor delay with a little compromise by the McCanns.

snipped

Charities must give an annual report and accounts to the Charity Commission and make these documents available to the public on request. There are also rules relating to fundraising. The trustees (directors) cannot normally receive salary, fees or contracts from the charity and nor can their spouses or other close family members. These requirements are not onerous or unreasonable. Having hired charity experts BWB on the advice of the paralegal, it is surprising that Kate did not let them have a day or two more to explore charity status. And it is surprising that the McCanns have not apparently revisited this issue.

In Chapter 9 in which Kate describes her activities of May 14 she does not mention any dealings with BWB who must have worked very hard that day. Nor does she mention dealing with the paralegal or anyone else at IFLG. There must have been urgent emails and phone calls that day from her advisors. She just states that charity status would not be forthcoming as it was deemed that the 'public benefit' test would not be met, and adds that it (the Fund) 'was set up with great care and due diligence by experts in their field.'

It would be more accurate to state it was set up with great haste and with no apparent reason for that haste.

Rather than going into detail about the busy day she must have had dealing with her lawyers, and why she made the decision to proceed with incorporation and abandon the negotiations for charity status, she talks of going for a run, her first since Madeleine went missing!

by friedtomatoes 04.05.12 19:34

Spaniel, I have yet to see in their fund accounts where it says they paid Kevin Halligen .5 million pounds.
Tigger, if I were cynical I would say they didn't make the fund a charity because they knew they would have to be 100% transparent.

by **tigger** 04.05.12 19:38

friedtomatoes wrote:Spaniel, I have yet to see in their fund accounts where it says they paid Kevin Halligen .5 million pounds.
Tigger, if I were cynical I would say they didn't make the fund a charity because they knew they would have to be 100% transparent.

Mme O'Dowd has also been unable to find the advance for the book in the accounts.

Are you telling me you're not cynical? But sweet and gullible?
Making it a charity would actually have made more money - tax wise and so on. But paying the mortgage and supporting the family wouldn't come under the remit.

by friedtomatoes 04.05.12 19:49

tigger wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:Spaniel, I have yet to see in their fund accounts where it says they paid Kevin Halligen .5 million pounds.
Tigger, if I were cynical I would say they didn't make the fund a charity because they knew they would have to be 100% transparent.

Mme O'Dowd has also been unable to find the advance for the book in the accounts.

Are you telling me you're not cynical? But sweet and gullible?
Making it a charity would actually have made more money - tax wise and so on. But paying the mortgage and supporting the family wouldn't come under the remit.

I can be both
big grin

Depends on what the subject is. Well, were told in Panorama last week or so that NI had given a million pound to the fund for serialisation of Kate's book in the Sun, when all along I was under the impression it was around £200,000. Perhaps it will turn up in the next lot! Someone should post that analysis on the Mets facebook page.

by Liz Eagles 04.05.12 19:54

friedtomatoes wrote:
tigger wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:Spaniel, I have yet to see in their fund accounts where it says they paid Kevin Halligen .5 million pounds.
Tigger, if I were cynical I would say they didn't make the fund a charity because they knew they would have to be 100% transparent.

Mme O'Dowd has also been unable to find the advance for the book in the accounts.

Are you telling me you're not cynical? But sweet and gullible?
Making it a charity would actually have made more money - tax wise and so on. But paying the mortgage and supporting the family wouldn't come under the remit.

I can be both
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Depends on what the subject is. Well, were told in Panorama last week or so that NI had given a million pound to the fund for serialisation of Kate's book in the Sun, when all along I was under the impression it was around £200,000. Perhaps it will turn up in the next lot! Someone should post that analysis on the Mets facebook page.

Go on then I dare you.

by monkey mind 04.05.12 20:01

Gerry's brother gave up his job almost immediately to take over the running of the 'find Maddie no stone unturned' fund.

For 3 years he was on the board of the fund.

How did he live? How did he feed his family? How did he pay his mortgage or rent? How did he afford to run his car?

There's no mention of him being paid a penny in the accounts, there are administrative expenditures in the accounts but it is impossible to work out what they are for. In fact, the accounts submitted are so broad and unspecific that to try to apply the notion of "highest standards of transparency" to them would be beyond the capacity of not just a mere earthling, but any earthling.

I

by Gillyspot 04.05.12 20:12

I can't find a direct quote where the McCann's refer their limited company as a charity but a while ago I did find these.

"Money raised from the event through tickets sales and an auction of items donated by the fund's backers will be split between the Find Madeleine fund and two other charities."

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

"Kate McCann tonight said she was "trying to move forward" as a charity event was held to mark the 1,000th day since her daughter Madeleine went missing."

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

by friedtomatoes 04.05.12 21:19

aquila wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:
tigger wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote:Spaniel, I have yet to see in their fund accounts where it says they paid Kevin Halligen .5 million pounds.
Tigger, if I were cynical I would say they didn't make the fund a charity because they knew they would have to be 100% transparent.

Mme O'Dowd has also been unable to find the advance for the book in the accounts.

Are you telling me you're not cynical? But sweet and gullible?
Making it a charity would actually have made more money - tax wise and so on. But paying the mortgage and supporting the family wouldn't come under the remit.

I can be both
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Depends on what the subject is. Well, were told in Panorama last week or so that NI had given a million pound to the fund for serialisation of Kate's book in the Sun, when all along I was under the impression it was around £200,000. Perhaps it will turn up in the next lot! Someone should post that analysis on the Mets facebook page.

Go on then I dare you.

I dont have a facebook account. I might get one though.

by aiyoyo 05.05.12 10:05

tigger wrote:From the Lorraine Kelly interview. At about 8 mins. Kate ..'so we have tried to support other charities...'

The Fund is not a charity Kate, really not! It is not transparent either - as was promised at the start. This would be of some comfort to the many pensioners and schoolchildren who sent cash, cheques and postal orders - money they would really miss.
Unlike the millions promised by rich entrepreneurs, a writer, etc. if Madeleine was found.

Now that even SY believes she may be alive why are those millions never mentioned?

Far as I know the Fund is not a charity, neither has it been used to support other charities, so what is Kate going on about?

I doubt she can list one charity that the Fund contributed to. Not talking about joint social events where the fund raised are spilt between mccanns and other charities.

by Ribisl 05.05.12 10:26

aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:From the Lorraine Kelly interview. At about 8 mins. Kate ..'so we have tried to support other charities...'

The Fund is not a charity Kate, really not! It is not transparent either - as was promised at the start. This would be of some comfort to the many pensioners and schoolchildren who sent cash, cheques and postal orders - money they would really miss.
Unlike the millions promised by rich entrepreneurs, a writer, etc. if Madeleine was found.

Now that even SY believes she may be alive why are those millions never mentioned?

Far as I know the Fund is not a charity, neither has it been used to support other charities, so what is Kate going on about?

I doubt she can list one charity that the Fund contributed to. Not talking about joint social events where the fund raised are spilt between mccanns and other charities.

Time and time again, I have been surprised by the inarticulacy of the McCanns and their friends, who are all professionals if I am not mistaken. In television interviews, they appear better briefed which allows them to be more fluent but less spontaneous. Kate's mind however seems to wander and she is therefore more prone to make this kind of slip. She certainly keeps our Forensic Linguistics section buzzing. laughat

by jd 05.05.12 11:28

Yes their inarticulacy is a sight to behold. For example, david payne with 1,700 'you knows' in just one statement alone...jane tanner "yeah I left the Tap, saw gerry and jez having a cha cha cha"!! In English this means she left the Tapas bar and saw gerry and jez chatting to each other (even though she is lying)

by Ribisl 05.05.12 11:54

jd, it's staggering and would be highly amusing if this weren't all about a missing girl.

by **tigger** 05.05.12 21:26

The IFLG
The book informs us that the limited company arose out of an offer to help 'from a paralegal based in Leicester

The paralegal accompanied by an unnamed barrister flew to Portugal on the afternoon of Friday May 11. They met that day and had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of the weekend.

We are told that the barrister, having inspected the proximity of the Tapas bar to their holiday apartment, assured them that their behaviour (in making periodic checks on their children) could not be deemed negligent and was 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.'
(this has no value in law as only social services of either the UK or Portugal can give such an absolution)

In the context of the financial help that was then being offered, Kate says the IFLG paralegal advised them to set up a 'fighting fund'. The IFLG would devise the objectives of the fund and instruct a leading charity law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite (BWB) to draw up Articles of Association. The use of the term 'fighting' is odd. Who were the McCanns fighting? Whether 'fighting' is the paralegal's word or Kate's paraphrase is unclear.

The IFLG launched 31 March 2007... so 6 weeks or so old by the time of the events...
From the website:
The International Family Law Group (iFLG) launches at its premises in Covent Garden, London. We are a new specialist law firm providing services to the international community as well as for purely national clients. We have a special contract with the Legal Services Commission for child abduction work and are regularly instructed by the UK Government. We act for international families, ex pats and others in respect of financial implications of relationship breakdown including forum shopping and international enforcement of orders. We receive instructions from foreign lawyers and, as accredited specialists, act for clients of other law firms seeking their specialist experience.
Posted on 31 March, 2007 by David Hodson

It seems the McCanns were outstandingly lucky to find a paralegal and the brand-new IFLG. Just six weeks old. So one would expect it not to be very well known, even in legal circles.

The above description of their work is a trifle curious. At only six weeks old, this firm is 'regularly instructed by the UK Government'.
Their child abduction work is not related to abduction by criminals but abduction by a family member of the child concerned.

by jd 05.05.12 21:41

I read somewhere that their term 'fighting' was a reference in fighting the PJ for all those who felt they were not doing enough

by Gillyspot 05.05.12 21:42

This is all bearing in mind that the McCanns & their "fund" adminstrator (who is a friend of Kate) were aware of this.

"After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional
assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could
barely afford it, have given generously to that fund."

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

by pauline 06.05.12 0:01

Who is/was the Fund administrator. A friend of Kate's maybe but what is his/her name; what are his/her qualifications and what was the salary paid (out of the donations)? Was the job advertised?

by **tigger** 06.05.12 7:50

Contradictions - public statements vs actions:

And, most significantly, Kate says on p.296 of Chapter 19 entitled 'Action on three fronts' writing about the time period autumn 2007, 'gradually my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered.'

If Kate believed that her daughter had been murdered at the time of meeting the legal pair, why would she agree to setting up a Fund to find Madeleine?

Further, in Chapter 19 she tells us, 'by October...we were able to concentrate on our top priority: finding Madeleine...so far beyond following up the odd piece of information outside Portugal, we had not gone down this road...we had been reassured that after a shaky start, the police were doing everything that could be done.'

So if the Fund, set up in record time and presumably at considerable expense, was to find Madeleine, why did it, as Kate herself tells us, do very little for the first four months of its existence other than to collect money and follow up the odd piece of information outside Portugal?