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

by T4two 11.01.13 7:23

tigger wrote:
PeterMac wrote:The bit I love is

Activities for generating funds
Charity Shop income £ 23,321

Cost of generating Funds
Charity Shops £ 23,175
So a total profit, before other deductions and costs, of
£ 146

Brilliant management.

And even better
a quarter of a million pounds on
Policy and Research
Nice work if you can get it.

About as transparent as an average brick.

Although the bulk of the income goes on salaries, paid for by the postcode lottery apparently, it seems a lot of work is done by volunteers. No doubt manning the phone lines and running the charity shop. So one wonders what else there is to do apart from running the 'office'.

I would also like to see a breakdown of the number of people permanently returned to their families as it seems a large number of 'missing people' , once found, leave home again at the earliest opportunity.
The statistics I've seen on another occasion - that over a hundred thousand people go missing each year - don't impress me. Over a ten year period that means at least a million people have gone missing. So how exactly does that work?

At that rate the complete population of Great Britain would disappear over a period of around 700 years. This could have serious consequences for the economy - when exactly did this rate of disappearance start?

by **PeterMac** 11.01.13 7:33

T4two wrote:
The statistics I've seen on another occasion - that over a hundred thousand people go missing each year - don't impress me. Over a ten year period that means at least a million people have gone missing. So how exactly does that work?

At that rate the complete population of Great Britain would disappear over a period of around 700 years. This could have serious consequences for the economy - when exactly did this rate of disappearance start?

A long time ago.
That is why there are no Neandertals left. No one reported them missing, you see !

by Guest 11.01.13 9:11

I don't think that Neanderthals have died out, judging by the recent troll invasions we've had here!

by **PeterMac** 11.01.13 9:15

Jean wrote:I don't think that Neanderthals have died out, judging by the recent troll invasions we've had here!

That's no way to speak about C-R !

by Guest 11.01.13 9:22

Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 9 181154

I was thinking more of some people who have actually posted here. One with a name beginning with N is my favourite at the moment, I hope that nobody else gets jealous. Perhaps PeterMac you could post that troll picture again (the one with a big club) so that our visitors can be saved the time of looking in a mirror.

Sorry Admin, I won't go off topic again!

by aiyoyo 11.01.13 9:44

tigger wrote: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?

When ambiguous like that it could be anything really. Professional fees taking away lawyers, accountancy, and auditors, could only mean operational staff meaning directors and/or managers who manage the Fund. So it could mean paid to Kate Mcann (as Manager of the Fund) or any of the active Directors (which Gerry and Kate are anyway). You would expect sleeping directors not to be paid. Therefore the sum of $36+ may be paid to one or at most two persons. That is a lot of money when you consider the money is supposed to be for a CAUSE, and the pte ltd company not a commercial business.

If paid to Managers and/or Directors within legal boundaries of Companies House then it is not going to be an issue with Companies House or Tax Authorities. You would suppose the independent Auditors to only qualify and sign the accounts if the operation of the Fund is deemed within legal limits.
It just means that the abuse of the Fund -- not using all or the bulk of it for the stated purpose of Search, is immoral but not illegal.
At the end of the day, an Audit Firm who is willing to take on the Fund Accounts, isn't going to be too concerned whether the use of the fund fits the publicly stated purpose, the Audit Firm is only concerned about lining its pocket.
The illegality or the immorality is the least concern of the Auditors, unless the Fund is under criminal investigation.

Website £37,071

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

Yes that seems EXCESSIVELY high. Usually set up is expected to cost a bit, but operation cost should be negligible considering it is not heavy duty used and not manned 24/7, and especially considering its purpose is the search for a missing child.

by aiyoyo 11.01.13 9:50

PeterMac wrote:
Jean wrote:I don't think that Neanderthals have died out, judging by the recent troll invasions we've had here!
That's no way to speak about C-R !

Why? Are they supposed to be sub-human creatures not to be mistaken as human beings?
Bullies do not earn respect.
The Truth is our master.

by Guest 11.01.13 9:56

That was of course a joke.

As regards the very expensive website, here's a link to how it was set up.

http://www.north-star-news.co.uk/News/135-million-hit-Ullapool-site-for-Maddy-1901.htm

I'm sure it doesn't need six people to run it now.

by aiyoyo 11.01.13 10:03

Jean wrote:That was of course a joke.

As regards the very expensive website, here's a link to how it was set up.

http://www.north-star-news.co.uk/News/135-million-hit-Ullapool-site-for-Maddy-1901.htm

I'm sure it doesn't need six people to run it now.

And my above post is of course NOT a joke. I stand by my say that bullies do not deserve respect regardless.

If there were six people still running it then they must be derelict of duties since the site was left days on end without anyone manning it.
It's just a website for Mccanns to blog really so to speak, why do they need a paid team to man it anyway?
Couldn't Kate manage it since she is committed full time to the search, so she told the public via the media.

by **PeterMac** 11.01.13 11:05

Jean,
Just for you. Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 9 Troll-2-1

The thing he is holding in his right hand is known as a "claim for expenses so far incurred"
It gets bigger every day.

And just as an aside -
Not for nothing do the tales tell of trolls being afraid of the light !
The light turns them to stone.
It stops them in their tracks, so that they cannot go on.
They will do anything to remain in the dark.

by Inspectorfrost 11.01.13 17:36

aiyoyo wrote:
Jean wrote:That was of course a joke.

As regards the very expensive website, here's a link to how it was set up.

http://www.north-star-news.co.uk/News/135-million-hit-Ullapool-site-for-Maddy-1901.htm

I'm sure it doesn't need six people to run it now.

And my above post is of course NOT a joke. I stand by my say that bullies do not deserve respect regardless.

If there were six people still running it then they must be derelict of duties since the site was left days on end without anyone manning it.
It's just a website for Mccanns to blog really so to speak, why do they need a paid team to man it anyway?
Couldn't Kate manage it since she is committed full time to the search, so she told the public via the media.

She told the PT journo Sandra Felgueiras in a 2010 interview that she runs the website all my herself.

The Madeleine facebook page has a webmaster as they call themselves on there, whether that is her or someone else I dont know.

by Ribisl 12.01.13 19:23

tigger wrote: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?
I don't recall seeing this anywhere. Can you remind me where it says that legal, audit and accountancy fees are not included in 'professional fees'?

aiyoyo wrote
If paid to Managers and/or Directors within legal boundaries of Companies House then it is not going to be an issue with Companies House or Tax Authorities. You would suppose the independent Auditors to only qualify and sign the accounts if the operation of the Fund is deemed within legal limits.

findmadeleine.com clearly states the following:
(7) What is the money being spent on ?

The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider 'Awareness Campaign' – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.

aiyoyo wrote
It just means that the abuse of the Fund -- not using all or the bulk of it for the stated purpose of Search, is immoral but not illegal.
At the end of the day, an Audit Firm who is willing to take on the Fund Accounts, isn't going to be too concerned whether the use of the fund fits the publicly stated purpose, the Audit Firm is only concerned about lining its pocket.
The illegality or the immorality is the least concern of the Auditors, unless the Fund is under criminal investigation.

I am not an accountant but have many friends who are CAs who I think would be rather offended by your sweeping statement.

tigger wrote
Website £37,071

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

aiyoyo wrote
Yes that seems EXCESSIVELY high. Usually set up is expected to cost a bit, but operation cost should be negligible considering it is not heavy duty used and not manned 24/7, and especially considering its purpose is the search for a missing child.

I agree with both of you. Just had a quick look at the website which is pretty basic in its design and can be done for less than GBP1500, with minimum monthly maintenance thereafter. There is even a simple error with the menu links on certain pages so clicking About Us will direct you to About Madeleine.
I understand it was set up and run by some ex-pupils of Philomena McCann from Ullapool. But perhaps they are also responsible for McCanns blogs and facebook, or even other online activities, I have no idea.

[/quote]

I thought this link might be of interest
https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company

by **tigger** 12.01.13 19:32

@ Ribisl
I get all my fascinating knowledge about accounting from Enid O'Dowd (her link in post nr 1 here).

Tried to get my head round bookkeeping several times, love stats no problem, double entry bookkeeping - not really. Not a natural talent I'm afraid. winkwink

by **tigger** 19.03.13 7:54

I overlooked this - for clarity posting it again in this topic.

I call it the McCann's Ltd. Co. I feel using the word Fund gives the wrong impression.

Which indeed is what Company House feels too:

Fund You cannot use this word unless the body shown below confirms (letter or email) that it has no objection.

Sensitive Business Names Team
Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 5HS

Email: sensitivebusinessn@fsa.gov.uk

Interesting - since this was an additional hurdle to overcome in the few days that the Ltd. Co. was set up.

It's not the only Ltd. Co. registered by the McCanns. But the only active one at present.

day 6 9th may 07
1st official website launched as
www.bringmadeleinehome.com

day 13 16th may 07
2nd official website registered as:
www.findmadeleine.com LInked to:
www.bringmadeleinehome. com

day 15 18th may 07
Trade mark filing date for Madeleine’s Fund - leaving no stone unturned
Trademark nr. 2456061

day 23 26th may 07
3rd official website registered as
www.cuddlecat.co.uk - linked to
www.findmadeleine.com - linked to
www.bringmadeleinehome.com

iirc. There was also www.cuddlecat.org.uk.
I understand that one has to be linked to a UK organisation.
From Pamalan:
DAY 26 - 29/05/2007
4th- OFFICIAL WEBSITE REGISTERED AS
www.cuddlecat.org.uk - LINKED TO
www.cuddlecat.co.uk - LINKED TO
www.findmadeleine.com - LINKED TO
www.bringmadeleinehome.com

by Miraflores 19.03.13 9:22

The two cuddlecat ones have now gone.

by **tigger** 19.03.13 9:41

Miraflores wrote:The two cuddlecat ones have now gone.

Thanks, does that mean that the name is now available for others to use? Do you also know till what time they ran?
What I'm interested in is which organisation 'adopted' the cc site? Not quite sure how that works, but I always understood this had to be a UK governmental organisation?

by **tigger** 24.03.13 16:06

Just posting this from another topic.
Jean wrote:

Also for information, an early clip from Michael Wright about the progress of the campaign. It really does sound like the launch of some commercial product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyZMF7RFScs unquote

Tigger wrote: (from the above video on the launch of the 'Fund')
.... our partners include multinationals from the oil, banking, telecom and retail sector. unquote

Partners?

by jd 24.03.13 16:26

tigger wrote:Just posting this from another topic.
Jean wrote:

Also for information, an early clip from Michael Wright about the progress of the campaign. It really does sound like the launch of some commercial product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyZMF7RFScs unquote

Tigger wrote: (from the above video on the launch of the 'Fund')
.... our partners include multinationals from the oil, banking, telecom and retail sector. unquote

Partners?

Common Purpose?

by **tigger** 02.04.13 14:43

I've snipped this bit from the above article which can be found on McCannfiles.com:

Apparently Dr Gerry McCann and his wife Kate have been harassed by newspapers which made "profit from misery." Unlike Kate McCann's novel, Madeleine, which, as much a work of fiction as anything else, largely excludes the subject it purports to discuss and proudly announces via a 'flash' on the book's jacket, 'All royalties donated to Madeleine's fund.' (That's the fund which has been paying for those two 'searchers' long since given their P45s). Strange, but there appears to be no itemisation of 'author's royalties' within the company (i.e., the fund) accounts. As others have pointed out, 'book income' (after publication) doesn't seem quite the appropriate definition. Perhaps someone should break it gently to Transworld publishers that, should any or all of these royalties have actually gone elsewhere, then they could find themselves to have been party to mis-representation, since the inducement to purchase was clearly printed by them and not affixed to the product subsequently.
unquote

by **PeterMac** 20.04.13 14:14

Just spotted this courtesy of another site.
\You now don't even have to buy any of the stuff, you can just send money direct.
But "Donations" towards what, precisely ? There is no search, so it can only be "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.".
Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 9 Donate19413a

Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 9 Donate19413a

Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 9 Donate19413d

by Liz Eagles 20.04.13 14:23

The next step is the 'leave a legacy in your will' and text donation. They are the only things missing. My, my the findmadeleine site has had a little revamp. Is it still run from a humble place in Ullapool?

by **tigger** 20.04.13 15:06

These are extracts and the full article can be found on: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id429.html
Exclusive to mccannfiles.com

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id429.html

Analysis of the accounts of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Analysis of the accounts of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned (Reg.No.6248215) for the year ended 31 March 2012, and of issues arising from that analysis

By Enid O'Dowd FCA

This analysis of the 2012 accounts should be read in conjunction with my report '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' published in February 2012 on www.mccannfiles.com.

It is relevant to state here that Dr Kate McCann, a director of the Fund, made a commitment in her book Madeleine (p.138 Irish paperback edition) that 'from the outset everyone agreed that despite the costs involved, it (the Fund) must be run to the highest standards of transparency whatever it cost'. This was a clear commitment that from May 2007 when the Fund (limited company) was established, that transparency was paramount. My earlier report found a distinct lack of transparency. Were the 2012 accounts more 'transparent' than the earlier ones? Not in my opinion.
[...]

It is not clear whether the £550,000 restricted income is the advance royalty payment received for the book, or if not, why this particular amount has been chosen. Note 5 is open to different interpretations. It refers to the money being donated after the publication of the book Madeleine. It could mean that the publication resulted in a donor or donors being so influenced by the book that they gifted money to the Fund with specific restrictions.

Alternatively, it was reported in the media that around £550,000 was received for the serialisation rights of the book; this figure may of course be media speculation.
unquote

It's a bit like the hunting of the Snark, keeps turning out to be a Boojum. I would have thought of at least one million for the advance on royalties in this case.
Please also note the extract from an article by Dr. Martin Roberts re the promise written on the book cover regarding the use of the proceeds of the book:

Apparently Dr Gerry McCann and his wife Kate have been harassed by newspapers which made "profit from misery." Unlike Kate McCann's novel, Madeleine, which, as much a work of fiction as anything else, largely excludes the subject it purports to discuss and proudly announces via a 'flash' on the book's jacket, 'All royalties donated to Madeleine's fund.' [..]
Strange, but there appears to be no itemisation of 'author's royalties' within the company (i.e., the fund) accounts. As others have pointed out, 'book income' (after publication) doesn't seem quite the appropriate definition. Perhaps someone should break it gently to Transworld publishers that, should any or all of these royalties have actually gone elsewhere, then they could find themselves to have been party to mis-representation, since the inducement to purchase was clearly printed by them and not affixed to the product subsequently.
unquote

by Liz Eagles 20.04.13 15:14

@ Admin

May I make a suggestion that the title of this thread be changed to say 'The Limited Company aka The Fund is not a charity'?

by Guest 20.04.13 18:53

PeterMac wrote:Just spotted this courtesy of another site.
\You now don't even have to buy any of the stuff, you can just send money direct.
But "Donations" towards what, precisely ? There is no search, so it can only be "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.".

How disgusting. And there's indeed NO "search". So why is there a "Search" number? The 845 Investigation Line number. That's NOT Scotland Yard, I presume ...

by Guest 20.04.13 19:43

It's wrong on so many levels. Why should the parents who were educated through great sacrifice by their families live off the generous donations of the world. And why haven't they been called on to reimburse SY?

And why do they need to spend millions on an awareness campaign when the world already knows Madeleine is missing. God knows they get enough airtime. And how have these "campaigns" helped exactly, I've never seen an advert or a poster in the last 6 years. So why do you need a fund when the press is ready to run with anything McCann related at the drop of a hat?