Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

by **tigger** 27.10.12 7:12

[...] that every penny of the fund can be accounted for." [......] (from the above article)
I love the semantics (can isn't will)

Can be - but isn't as far as we an see from previously entered accounts and we're in year five now.

We could also worry about the very expensive detectives who to date haven't come up with anything other than a wide variety of possible suspects.
Millions have been spent, one is in jail now for fraud - and absolutely nothing has been done.
None of these detectives or detective agencies had any track record of finding lost children.

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 7:27

tigger wrote:McCanns' fury at TV freeze Sunday Mirror (No direct online link - FindArticles.com)

By STEPHEN MAGUIRE
Dec 2, 2007

MADELEINE McCann's family are furious with TV3 bosses who froze a bank account which was meant to be used to help find the missing girl.

Almost EUR25,000 was raised by viewers of the TV station, based in Dublin, when it launched the Missing Maddie Fund in June. But station bosses decided not to hand over the cash because the main Maddie Fund was not a registered charity.

Last night Kate and Gerry McCann's family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said he was very disappointed at the station's move.

He said: "We would appeal to them to think again and forward the cash on so it can be used for the purpose it was intended".

"In relation to the charitable status of the fund we took legal advice on this issue and were advised not to do this".

"But we want to assure people, including TV3, that every penny of the fund can be accounted for." The TV3 Maddie appeal was launched in a blaze of publicity on June 1 after huge viewer interest in the plight of the missing four-year-old.

Donations of EUR24,345 soon flooded in, and the cash remains in an account at the Allied Irish Bank headquarters in Ballsbridge, Co Dublin, gathering interest.

A spokesman for the station said earlier that if a registered charity is not set up for Maddie the money will be donated to a registered child protection cause.
unquote

I'd like to know what happened to that money - in view of the lack of detail in the accounts of the Fund so far. Perhaps someone could contact TV3. Particularly in view of the marvellous work of Ms. O'Dowd on the analysis of the accounts.
We're waiting with bated breath to find the advance on royalties, said to be a six figure sum, in the next published accounts. Not long now. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes it would interesting to know whether the tv station stuck to its gun or was persuaded/pressured (whichever) into handing the money over to the mccanns. I don't suppose the TV would divulge that info now.

However, Mccanns reported anger at the thought that the money would not be handed to them speaks volume. They take a lot for granted.
Very unbecoming behavior for a pair of doctors.

by **tigger** 27.10.12 7:56

Mmm, yes. 'McCanns' fury' - a favourite word of Ms Healy in her book, someone should count the number of times it is used in connection with herself or in connection with circumstances they didn't like.

'Sad - because the money given by the good people of Ireland couldn't be used to search for Maddie - would be more appropriate.

Fury - verbal stamping of feet - doesn't do it for me. Besides, Mitchell said every penny can(note: not will ) be accounted for. To the best of my knowledge, the accounts to date don't show that. Quite the opposite.

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 8:05

Promising the Fund can be (or will be) made transparency is good marketing and PR.
The right thing to say to ensure incoming donation.
It's a mind game, people will give on promising words like that.

What happens after does not really matter because what are the chances donors will ask for accounts.
Who is going to hold CM to account because his clients did not deliver on their promise?

by Guest 27.10.12 10:54

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

by **tigger** 27.10.12 11:30

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

Absolutely wonderful, especially the comment on the list of donations that shows there should be a lot more in the Fund.

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

by ShuBob 27.10.12 11:36

What I don't get is why the fund has been allowed to continue when there is no evidence whatsoever that Maddie was abducted and that's the whole premise of the fund? Is it legal to start such a fund where money is trousered from members of the public based merely on a hypothesis/an assumption?

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 11:53

Because they are doctors with influence and connection they had good advice from lawyers and do gooders who helped them launch the Fund and it took off big time. No questions asked about their coupability or the mystery surrounding Maddie's disappearance.

That's how the world works..........influence and connection plus money = power.

by Liz Eagles 27.10.12 12:14

ShuBob wrote:What I don't get is why the fund has been allowed to continue when there is no evidence whatsoever that Maddie was abducted and that's the whole premise of the fund? Is it legal to start such a fund where money is trousered from members of the public based merely on a hypothesis/an assumption?

Hi Shubob,

The Fund performs under legally required conditions - even to the point the Fund has changed its remit. It's all legal. It's all allowed. The Fund is a limited company and my understanding is that much like a shop it's up to the patron. If there are any legal/accountancy/business bods on here I'd be interested to see if the fund is actually required to sell a product in order to maintain its legal status.

If you ask me whether I think it's moral then I have to say an emphatic NO for the very reason that the accounts are not transparent and there is no requirement or effort imo to report exactly how the money is/was used and what benefit it has/had in the search for Madeleine. The latest update on the FindMadeleine site thanks people for the summer campaign. Exactly what was the summer campaign apart from an updated photograph and holiday packs? Then there is the 'constantly thinking up new ways' (something along those lines). NSY are on the case.

IMO most people who contribute to the Fund, although it is made clear on the website that it's not a charity, can't be bothered to read about the difference between a fund and a charity/don't understand the statement/think their money is going to a specific cause/dash off a payment because they are good people etc. They have no reason to think anything more than they are helping - but helping to do what exactly?

So although it's legal (I'd bet my shirt and yours on that), in my very honest opinion it is not moral (I assume of course that I'm still entitled to an opinion).

by **Nina** 27.10.12 12:27

They promised transparency so they should show every penny spent and what it was for and how that assists the search for Madeleine. So for instance if they bought a car from the fund I as a contributor in the early days would want to know how the new car would assist in the search for Madeleine and why the old car being replaced didn't winkwink

by ShuBob 27.10.12 12:31

Aquila, thanks for your reply. So what you're saying is that it is legal to start such a fund based merely on an assumption and collect money from unsuspecting members of the public?

Now, I understand that in the last few years, if people still choose to donate that's their problem. But what about those who donated in the first few weeks/months after the fund was set up when the McCanns and close family and friends were actively telling members of the public that Maddie was snatched from her bed by a raptor via the window when they had no information whatsoever to back up that claim? People believed what they were being told without reason to question at the time and parted with their cash based on what they were being told. I believe public donations dropped post-arguido-isation. Wasn't that collecting money using deception?

by Liz Eagles 27.10.12 12:55

ShuBob wrote:Aquila, thanks for your reply. So what you're saying is that it is legal to start such a fund based merely on an assumption and collect money from unsuspecting members of the public?

Now, I understand that in the last few years, if people still choose to donate that's their problem. But what about those who donated in the first few weeks/months after the fund was set up when the McCanns and close family and friends were actively telling members of the public that Maddie was snatched from her bed by a raptor via the window when they had no information whatsoever to back up that claim? People believed what they were being told without reason to question at the time and parted with their cash based on what they were being told. I believe public donations dropped post-arguido-isation. Wasn't that collecting money using deception?

As I understand it (I am not a qualified person) there is no deception in the set up or running of the Fund. In the immediate/early days people just gave money to the poor parents abroad to help them in their hour of need and despair. The Fund was set up within days - see other topics about the Fund. There were 'reasons' we were told afterwards it could not be/wasn't a charity. Frankly that didn't matter to the general public who were sending and encouraged to send money in envelopes to Rothley. There was a crisis and the great folk of UK and other countries just sent money to help a 'stranded' family in a foreign country in their worst nightmare. I actually don't believe the people who donated would have had a problem with a few mortgage payments taken from it as the McCanns couldn't go home and work whilst their daughter was missing in Portugal. That's what nice and good people gave their money towards.

Since then the Fund (my opinion) has reaped millions with no meaningful accounting. It doesn't legally have any requirement to give a breakdown of its accounts or to explain transparently to its donors where the money is going/what it has been spent on. We have updates on the FM website from 2010 saying the funds would run out in 2011. GM actually posts individual costs on items a donor gets for their money. Please go to the update section and read it.

Since then? NOTHING about the money.

by ShuBob 27.10.12 13:10

You're probably right, Aquila.

I just find it odd that there appears to be no legal requirement to provide proof of what you're claiming to be fact when running a company asking members of the public for money. It's any wonder many more such companies don't exist or, at least, advertise publicly like the McCanns actively do for funds with zero evidence to back up the premise for the company's very existence.

by Liz Eagles 27.10.12 13:16

ShuBob wrote:You're probably right, Aquila.

I just find it odd that there appears to be no legal requirement to provide proof of what you're claiming to be fact when running a company asking members of the public for money. It's any wonder many more such companies don't exist or, at least, advertise publicly like the McCanns actively do for funds with zero evidence to back up the premise for the company's very existence.

I think ShuBob it probably boils down to the fact they didn't ask for money. Money was donated in the first place. That's what people do...chip in to help. April Jones has a 'fund' now. The word 'fund' is still not clear to the general public.

by ShuBob 27.10.12 13:29

Oh they have asked for money, Aquila. Let's not deny that fact. Whether the fund was started because donations came in without prompt is not the point. It has continued regardless and they have actively canvassed for donations.

by Guest 27.10.12 13:37

ShuBob wrote:Oh they have asked for money, Aquila. Let's not deny that fact. Whether the fund was started because donations came in without prompt is not the point. It has continued regardless and they have actively canvassed for donations.

McCanns' Appeal For Donations & Case Review (Media Reports)

See first two pieces on link below......

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

by Liz Eagles 27.10.12 13:53

Well that's the reason I find the Fund immoral. Thanks Shubob and candyfloss.

My earlier post was meaning the Mc's didn't initially ask for money. I don't see a need for the Fund. There is enough money in the pot by now to plan poster campaigns, run a spartan website (a woefully spartan website imo) and give the 'products' away to anyone who is interested. KM is an ambassador for Missing People so that's a good way of keeping Madeleine in the media. Gerry's almost non-existent in the awareness campaign. SY are funded by the UK taxpayers. What is the money being spent on? Why do they need it?

I would still like someone professional to look at the Fund (limited company) to see if they have to sell a product to be ligitimate.

by **tigger** 27.10.12 14:47

They were very keen to get money from wherever they could though - the following shows a lack of class (they were already getting free accommodation from MW - two apartments. But it seems they didn't like to lose a single opportunity... so I'm reposting this from page 4.

From the newspaper 'Sol'
The McCanns public collection

By Margarida Davim
07 July 2007

At the entrance of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, the journalists who participated in the press conference, that was held by Madeleine's parents for the Portuguese media, encountered a plastic box to collect donations. A small text, signed by Kate and Gerry McCann, invited everyone who entered the resort to contribute. This gesture was not appreciated by the members of staff, who claimed that the resort "is full of collection boxes".

A fund for Maddie

This box is just one of many ways that Maddie's parents found to collect money for the 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' fund – which counts with almost 900 thousand pounds already (one million three hundred thousand euros).
unquote

I wonder how such cash donations were entered in the accounts.

Besides, they may not have asked for money outright, but it's easy enough to get that particular ball rolling. Since they controlled the media right from the start, it would have been a doddle to mention that people everywhere wanted to give money even if not a penny had come in.
The mcCann template is the only one I can think of where the marketing started from day one, including the myth that they were helpless babes in the woods surrounded by incompetent police. Nobody wanted to send Kerry Needham money, of Sarah Payne's mother.
Nothing gets people going like being given an example. In the eighties the Ethiopian famine is a good example. People were outdoing each other as how much they could do. I remember a couple who sold their house and furniture to donate.
I don't think it was innocent, I think it was orchestrated like the cuddlecat website and the good quality armbands. Left to themselves, the good people of Britain would have left soft toys and flowers in Rothley, nothing else.

Of course the 'idea' to send money any old how would have to come before setting up the Fund. Priming the pump so to speak.

by pauline 27.10.12 14:59

Aquila - they do sell products.

they sell good quality wristbands, T-shirts etc. Check out their website - you might be able to sort out your Xmas presents early!!!. I can;'t understand why they have never done a special Maddy Xmas T-Shirt - would be a good 'marketing ploy.'

My simple understanding of companies is that in the company documents filed when the company is incorporated it says what the company is permitted to do/set up to do. Usually companies make these documents very wide so that if they want to change what they do later on, they don't have to go to the trouble and expense of revising these documents. The Fund is supposed to search for madeleine and to bring to justice those who were responsible for her disappearance. Now it has done some searching but has not done it in a competent way - eg hiring detectives with no track record in missing children is not logical. But incompetence is not illegal. Many companies are not well run; usually they close down. The website appeals for money or for you to buy their goods. Its your choice. I don't even consider donating to any charity/'good' cause but not having charity status unless they have their accounts on their website AND those accounts give me details of expenditure and an indication of what the head person/management are paid in salaries. This seem to me basic common sense.

by Liz Eagles 27.10.12 15:41

pauline wrote:Aquila - they do sell products.

they sell good quality wristbands, T-shirts etc. Check out their website - you might be able to sort out your Xmas presents early!!!. I can;'t understand why they have never done a special Maddy Xmas T-Shirt - would be a good 'marketing ploy.'

My simple understanding of companies is that in the company documents filed when the company is incorporated it says what the company is permitted to do/set up to do. Usually companies make these documents very wide so that if they want to change what they do later on, they don't have to go to the trouble and expense of revising these documents. The Fund is supposed to search for madeleine and to bring to justice those who were responsible for her disappearance. Now it has done some searching but has not done it in a competent way - eg hiring detectives with no track record in missing children is not logical. But incompetence is not illegal. Many companies are not well run; usually they close down. The website appeals for money or for you to buy their goods. Its your choice. I don't even consider donating to any charity/'good' cause but not having charity status unless they have their accounts on their website AND those accounts give me details of expenditure and an indication of what the head person/management are paid in salaries. This seem to me basic common sense.

I am asking as to whether the Fund is legitimate because it sells products. I have no business/legal acumen in this area. I am asking if anyone professional knows if that is why the Fund HAS to offer products in order to be legitimately within business law. It is something that occurred to me. The set of accounts I saw for the Fund showed really dreadful returns on the sale of goods - so why bother selling them?

I'm asking if there is a legal reason to sell goods. Perhaps there is not but the Mc's haven't updated their goods have they? I think with all things Mc there is usually a reason for every little thing they do.

by Liz Eagles 27.10.12 15:49

tigger wrote:They were very keen to get money from wherever they could though - the following shows a lack of class (they were already getting free accommodation from MW - two apartments. But it seems they didn't like to lose a single opportunity... so I'm reposting this from page 4.

From the newspaper 'Sol'
The McCanns public collection

By Margarida Davim
07 July 2007

At the entrance of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, the journalists who participated in the press conference, that was held by Madeleine's parents for the Portuguese media, encountered a plastic box to collect donations. A small text, signed by Kate and Gerry McCann, invited everyone who entered the resort to contribute. This gesture was not appreciated by the members of staff, who claimed that the resort "is full of collection boxes".

A fund for Maddie

This box is just one of many ways that Maddie's parents found to collect money for the 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' fund – which counts with almost 900 thousand pounds already (one million three hundred thousand euros).
unquote

I wonder how such cash donations were entered in the accounts.

Besides, they may not have asked for money outright, but it's easy enough to get that particular ball rolling. Since they controlled the media right from the start, it would have been a doddle to mention that people everywhere wanted to give money even if not a penny had come in.
The mcCann template is the only one I can think of where the marketing started from day one, including the myth that they were helpless babes in the woods surrounded by incompetent police. Nobody wanted to send Kerry Needham money, of Sarah Payne's mother.
Nothing gets people going like being given an example. In the eighties the Ethiopian famine is a good example. People were outdoing each other as how much they could do. I remember a couple who sold their house and furniture to donate.
I don't think it was innocent, I think it was orchestrated like the cuddlecat website and the good quality armbands. Left to themselves, the good people of Britain would have left soft toys and flowers in Rothley, nothing else.

Of course the 'idea' to send money any old how would have to come before setting up the Fund. Priming the pump so to speak.

Tigger, we always have to follow the money.

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 16:20

The fact that Fund set up for a missing child is not registered as Charity but as Pte Ltd Company is in itself questionable.
The principle behind it is wrong, and the registry of companies should not have approved it, or there should be a law against the setting up of a Fund as pte ltd company.
Capital for pte ltd should come from people operating the business and not from public donations.
So maybe Registry of Companies have questions to answer as to why it approved 'Fund for missing child' as pte ltd; when the whole purpose of a pte ltd company is for trading and commercial purposes where business transactions are carried out. Since when a missing child can become a commodity to be transacted as a commercial business?

Public donated monies for a cause should remain for a cause, and a missing child should not be marketing to earn money for the pte ltd co., hence, ultimately for her parents.
The mccanns have created history as the first to have ever used public money not for purpose intended.
From a legal viewpoint the mccanns marketing of products ( albeit riding on the name of a missing child) does not fall outside the remit of pte ltd company. In other words it is within pte ltd company legal boundaries when they sell products but to do that by marketing a missing child's name is ethically wrong. Thus, the question i:s shouldn't ROC be concerned about unethical trading?

Where Fund is concerned, there are two questionable legitimacy issues here 1) being: did ROC breach any rules when it allowed 'Fund for Missing Child' to be registered and operated as Pte Ltd company; and 2) Is there a fraudulent reason for the Fund?

by Guest 27.10.12 16:50

aiyoyo wrote:The fact that Fund set up for a missing child is not registered as Charity but as Pte Ltd Company is in itself questionable.
The principle behind it is wrong, and the registry of companies should not have approved it, or there should be a law against the setting up of a Fund as pte ltd company.
Capital for pte ltd should come from people operating the business and not from public donations.
So maybe Registry of Companies have questions to answer as to why it approved 'Fund for missing child' as pte ltd; when the whole purpose of a pte ltd company is for trading and commercial purposes where business transactions are carried out. Since when a missing child can become a commodity to be transacted as a commercial business?

Public donated monies for a cause should remain for a cause, and a missing child should not be marketing to earn money for the pte ltd co., hence, ultimately for her parents.
The mccanns have created history as the first to have ever used public money not for purpose intended.
From a legal viewpoint the mccanns marketing of products ( albeit riding on the name of a missing child) does not fall outside the remit of pte ltd company. In other words it is within pte ltd company legal boundaries when they sell products but to do that by marketing a missing child's name is ethically wrong. Thus, the question i:s shouldn't ROC be concerned about unethical trading?

Where Fund is concerned, there are two questionable legitimacy issues here 1) being: did ROC breach any rules when it allowed 'Fund for Missing Child' to be registered and operated as Pte Ltd company; and 2) Is there a fraudulent reason for the Fund?

I concur. Good analysis!

by Liz Eagles 27.10.12 16:55

Now little old me understands that a limited company business is for either goods or services. What is the Fund's definition?

by Guest 27.10.12 17:02

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

Information about the fund from the official website.

Aquila: I understand where you're coming from but, with all the lawyers used by the McCanns, the paperwork for the company must be in order.

I don't think that the word "fund" has any legal significance. If I wanted to set up a company called "Jean's Fund: gimme all your money Ltd", there would be no problem as long as the name wasn't the same or very similar to an existing company, Company House did not feel the name was unacceptable and I filed the correct paperwork and paid the fee.

The use of the word "fund" may give people the wrong idea about the aims of the company but this is outside the control of the people who register companies.

by Liz Eagles 27.10.12 17:11

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

Information about the fund from the official website.

Thanks Jean,

Isn't it a 95 shades of any colour you choose should you need it for the following quote from the website

To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

by Woofer 27.10.12 17:33

ShuBob wrote:What I don't get is why the fund has been allowed to continue when there is no evidence whatsoever that Maddie was abducted and that's the whole premise of the fund? Is it legal to start such a fund where money is trousered from members of the public based merely on a hypothesis/an assumption?

ShuBob - I think it comes down to whether the people or their company are setting out to de-fraud. We`ve seen recently how Marcos Corriera got away with libelling Goncalo because he genuinely believed his client was telling the truth. Also there must be hundreds of companies selling both tangible and intangible things and ideas that they really believe to be worthy and its really up to the buyer or giver of money to beware. It might be difficult, at the present time, to prove that TM were deliberately setting out to deceive and de-fraud people, but hopefully there will soon come a time when its proved they were.

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 17:41

aquila wrote:Now little old me understands that a limited company business is for either goods or services. What is the Fund's
definition?

That is correct.
As for services, none was rendered by the Fund, so it is not a service for income type of ltd co.
As for goods, Maddie is the product.

Therefore irrespective of the definition of the Fund, it cannot be right that the Fund is a ltd company.
The term 'fund' by itself denotes a cause, not commercial be it goods or services based.
It is mandatory for all limited companies to trade under a corporate name.
In their case, the corporate (Fund) name is called 'FindMadeleineFund'. So, if it is 'find someone' how can that constitute a corporation and more importantly how can it constitute pte ltd company which purpose is goods or services in return for money.

The question of whether the fund is fraudulent is one thing, the trading of a missing child's name under a pte ltd company is quite another thing altogether, and under the Good and Service fair trading act, it surely must be illegal to trade a missing child name to sell products for ltd company. Maybe if the public were to raise this with the ROC they are obliged to clarify whether that infringes on their rules.

by Guest 27.10.12 19:18

Leveson Inquiry.........Third witness statement of Colin Myler

We were very happy to undertake a number of things unconditionally on behalf of Kate

and Gerry. One example of this was the appeal we mounted to raise donations to the

Madeleine campaign fund. This was very successful and raised £1.5 million in 48 hours.

Additionally, we initiated discussions with Vodafone to endeavour to set up a Europe wide

Amber Alert system by which Vodafone would send without charge a message to all of its

MOD100051874

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

by Guest 27.10.12 19:28

Just putting this here as it has a chronological timeline of the fund with old pics of the website with running total of monies collected and also companies check figures for 2008,09 and10

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

Latest topics