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

by **tigger** 06.05.12 7:54

pauline wrote: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?

And here's all I could find about it - your same question from last year! Perhaps Company House can help?

According to the official website home page 'an experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day to day operations of the Fund.'

Now who is the Fund Administrator and how was he/she recruited?

Isn't it odd that the name of this person is not on the website with a phone number and email so he/she can be contacted by anyone interested in the Fund? it is usual for website whether of ordinary businesses or of NGOs and charities to contain the names of key official to facilitate those who might wish the contact the company.

In his blog 3 November 2010 Gerry McCann says that donations to the Fund have enabled (obviously apart from other matters) the appointment of a part-time campaign co-ordinator. Now is that the same as the Fund Administrator? Again this person is not named.

It was widely reported in May 2007 that John McCann gave up his full-time job to work on the Campaign. Could he be the Fund Administrator? But he was one of the first directors so that would not sit with the website claim that the appointment of the Fund Administrator is about proper governance; to keep the directors from the day to day activities.

by **tigger** 06.05.12 10:02

Too late to edit own post re IFLG: further information:

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

by **tigger** 06.05.12 17:12

day 6 9th may 07
1st official website launched as
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

day 13 16th may 07
2nd official website registered as:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] LInked to:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - linked to
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - linked to
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Re cuddlecat: allegedly 40 cuddle cats were presented to Metodo3 by Kate McCann to give to the staff working on the search.
In the villa Cuddlecat was found in the bottom of a cupboard by one of the dogs when the inspection at the beginning of August took place.
Why was this domain name registered three weeks after the disappearance of Maddie? Was it to market the toy for additional income?

by Guest 06.05.12 18:26

I think that the regular charity runs that the McCanns participate in will make people who are unaware of the facts believe that their fund is a charity.

Here's a link to the latest one today.

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

by **tigger** 06.05.12 20:43

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. The same goes for the many people who sent cash to Rothley. As Clarence Mitchell advised people just to send money to: Kate and Gerry in Rothley - it will get there.

by **PeterMac** 06.05.12 22:17

And let us not forget the Fund raising evening, when they announced a figure and thanked everybody, only to have to up the figure considerably the next day, "after they had counted it more carefully" or some such guff.
My own suspicions are that one or a couple of big donors had given more than the amount they announced at first, and they were shamed into going back and upping the original figure.
No evidence of course, but .... !

I don't have the reference to hand, (but I do have a big glass of scotch. Aberlour Millennium, since you ask.)

by **tigger** 07.05.12 7:28

Sunday January 17,2010

By James Murray and Tracey Kandohla
MCCANNS' STAR-FILLED PARTY TO BOOST FUND -EXPRESS

DEFIANT Kate and Gerry McCann will mark the 1,000th day since their daughter disappeared with a celebrity packed £150-a-head fundraising dinner and auction at a top London venue.
Tycoon Sir Richard Branson and their businessman backer Brian Kennedy will join stars at Kensington Roof Gardens in west London on January 27.

Radio Five’s Nicky Campbell and children’s author JK Rowling have also been invited.

The event for 180 supporters comes in the middle of the couple’s tense court battle against their tormentor, former police chief Goncalo Amaral, in Lisbon and gives them a night of light relief after weeks of stress.

Kate, 41, said yesterday: “We will raise money for Madeleine’s Fund and the ongoing search for her.
“If our circumstances remain unchanged, this day will sadly mark 1,000 days since Madeleine was taken from us.”

Money will be raised through ticket sales and a charity auction. Half the profits, expected to exceed £100,000, will go to Madeleine’s Fund, which currently stands at about £400,000, with the other half split between two other charities. The Fund is NOT a charity so therefore the constant use of 'other charities' is misleading the public.

Kate explained: “Madeleine’s Fund is not depleted but we are aware, given the uncertainty of our situation, that we need to plan ahead to continue the search to find her.”

Kate said: “Fifty per cent of the profits from the event will be split between two charities, Missing People and Missing Children Europe.

“These two charities are among many others who work incredibly hard despite limited funding to help missing and exploited children.”

A close friend of the McCanns, who live in Rothley, Leicestershire, said: “Kate and Gerry are hoping to raise as much money as possible to help them and two other charities.
unquote

For further reading on fund expenditure and income: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **tigger** 07.05.12 14:03

34m Joana Morais‏@xklamation

Clarence Mitchell says that "sooner or later there will be a need to ask for more money" for the fund. #mccann in Sol article.

Chutzpah, I believe it's called.
1) There is no need for Mr. Mitchell to be employed or indeed paid out of the coffers of the Fund. WHY is Public Relation staff necessary at all?
2) Scotland Yard has to all intents and purposes taken over the investigation and been so kind as to give us a result of the first year's review.
3) Looking for Maddie costs nothing - the new image can be spread via the internet and existing contact and media. Which is already the case.
The McCanns have always asked that any information is given directly to the local police. So they are not likely to be inundated with calls.
4) Why didn't the parents bother to have a T-shirt printed with the new image for their well publicised run in Liverpool? That might help.
5) The advance for the book has not surfaced in the Fund accounts, if may do so for the next tax year. The advance for the extra chapter in the paperback has not been disclosed. One may assume that these moneys are purely for the Fund, although see Enid O'Dowd's opinion on this (link in post nr. 1).

The Fund should never have been used for anything other than 'looking for Madeleine' .
So why was the mortgage paid out of the Fund for June/July 07?
Some 10.000 pounds was collected in the first few weeks by Glenfield Hospital, where a donation box was set up on the 4th of May.
This was partly in cash.
People from all over the UK and abroad posted cash to Rothley. Schoolchildren gave their pocket money, pensioners from their low income.
The collection boxes in the OC were only for cash.
By the start of July 07 the donations to the Fund stood at nearly a million.
How was this money accounted for? And what was the total amount of cash donations?
The first - slightly more transparent yearly report of the Fund lists an amount of over 7000 pounds for the accountant. Could not a relative or friend do that?
It lists 37.000,- for the website - certainly a very high amount for maintaining a website for a year, even if it includes setting it up.

Getting back to the present day:
Why should the income from a Consultant Cardiologist not be enough to maintain his family (I expect the house may be paid off by now) ?
If this income is augmented by the large advance and other publishing rights paid to his wife, why is that still not enough?

Why does Mr. Mitchell say that sooner or later they are going to have to ask for money?

by **tigger** 10.05.12 8:28

Cuddlecat.co.uk is still registered to the McCanns. After five years not much - then it appeared as a link on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I think it's run by friends of the McCanns.

Cuddlecat was linked to that site last month.

I've just checked the site - they've had a complete make-over in style etc. The cuddlecat has disappeared but under charities is listed: Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)??????

Under the heading: Children's Charities
So far, we have raised money for or donated to...

BBC's Children In Need (Reg. Charity No. 802052)
Circus Star (Reg. Charity No. 501667)
Missing People (Reg. Charity No. 1020419)
Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)
Cancer Research (Reg. Charity No. 1089464)

I've just gone over the Charities Commission Website.

Charities matching your search ...

Your search for '6248215' has produced no results.

I believe it's the registration number of the Company.

by Ribisl 10.05.12 8:55

tigger wrote:

Getting back to the present day:
Why should the income from a Consultant Cardiologist not be enough to maintain his family (I expect the house may be paid off by now) ?
If this income is augmented by the large advance and other publishing rights paid to his wife, why is that still not enough?

Why does Mr. Mitchell say that sooner or later they are going to have to ask for money?

Greed. And they'd better be visiting their priest friend for another confession soon so they may be absolved of this relatively modest sin.

by pauline 10.05.12 9:15

Tigger - you are correct - the number is just the number of the limited company. And the name of the company is not 'Madeleine McCann' as this website says - it is Madeleine's Fund:leaving no Stone Unturned

I suggest that someone complains to the Charity Commission about this, and perhaps also to the Consumers Association as this is misleading to consumers.

if the site owners are friends of the Mccanns as you suspect, they must know the company does not have charitable status.

by uppatoffee 10.05.12 9:31

I am confused as to why Clarence is now saying that the fund needs to be topped up. Why? It's not like they need to pay any private investigators, given that they are not actually employing any at the moment. The "review" is costing us, the taxpayers, lots of money and the McCanns nothing.

So that leaves legal fees, I guess. Despite CR doing lots of work quietly behind the scenes free of charge, they are still managing to rack up high costs as Tony has found out.

I shall email ethical kidz to ask them to correct their obvious oversight. Quite an impressive overhaul their website has had!

by Guest 10.05.12 9:54

The owner of "ethicalkidz" is Tara Gold who, with her doctor husband Stuart, holidayed with the McCanns (and the Gaspars) in September 2005. I am quite sure that this is a deliberate act to maintain the illusion that Madeleine's Fund is a registered charity.

by pauline 10.05.12 10:01

Jean wrote:The owner of "ethicalkidz" is Tara Gold who, with her doctor husband Stuart, holidayed with the McCanns (and the Gaspars) in September 2005. I am quite sure that this is a deliberate act to maintain the illusion that Madeleine's Fund is a registered charity.

yes deliberate without a doubt which is why a complaint should be lodged with the relevant authorities as I posted earlier.

Another doctor involved with all this!

As friends they would have followed the case closely and seen all the stuff about the wicked people at Charity House who would not give the Fund charity status.

team Mccann have the best of both worlds - they do not have the restrictions /disclosure requirements of charity status - but most people think they are a charity!

by **tigger** 10.05.12 11:44

pauline wrote:
Jean wrote:The owner of "ethicalkidz" is Tara Gold who, with her doctor husband Stuart, holidayed with the McCanns (and the Gaspars) in September 2005. I am quite sure that this is a deliberate act to maintain the illusion that Madeleine's Fund is a registered charity.

yes deliberate without a doubt which is why a complaint should be lodged with the relevant authorities as I posted earlier.

Another doctor involved with all this!

As friends they would have followed the case closely and seen all the stuff about the wicked people at Charity House who would not give the Fund charity status.

team Mccann have the best of both worlds - they do not have the restrictions /disclosure requirements of charity status - but most people think they are a charity!

Someone on MM told me that the Charity Commission takes a very dim view of such things. Even going so far as placing a notice in the papers to that effect .

by Ross 10.05.12 12:11

tigger wrote:Under the heading: Children's Charities
So far, we have raised money for or donated to...

BBC's Children In Need (Reg. Charity No. 802052)
Circus Star (Reg. Charity No. 501667)
Missing People (Reg. Charity No. 1020419)
Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)
Cancer Research (Reg. Charity No. 1089464)

I've just gone over the Charities Commission Website.

Charities matching your search ...

Your search for '6248215' has produced no results.

I believe it's the registration number of the Company.

Great stuff Tigger. Calling something a charity when it is not a charity would be an attempt to defraud wouldn't it?

Any journalists under the age of 40 reading this thread, this is an example of something that used to be called 'investigative journalism' (ask one of you older colleagues, they may remember when this used to happen regularly).

by Ribisl 10.05.12 13:06

Tigger

by aiyoyo 10.05.12 13:26

Ross wrote:
tigger wrote:Under the heading: Children's Charities
So far, we have raised money for or donated to...

BBC's Children In Need (Reg. Charity No. 802052)
Circus Star (Reg. Charity No. 501667)
Missing People (Reg. Charity No. 1020419)
Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)
Cancer Research (Reg. Charity No. 1089464)

I've just gone over the Charities Commission Website.

Charities matching your search ...

Your search for '6248215' has produced no results.

I believe it's the registration number of the Company.

Great stuff Tigger. Calling something a charity when it is not a charity would be an attempt to defraud wouldn't it?

Any journalists under the age of 40 reading this thread, this is an example of something that used to be called 'investigative journalism' (ask one of you older colleagues, they may remember when this used to happen regularly).

If the Charities Commission cant take in public complaint over this it may be understandable since it was a journalist who misled the public. In that case there is no reason for the PCC to ignore public complaints if members of the public were to write to the PCC to complain about the journalist's diabolical reporting thereby misleading the public.

However, if the mccanns were to refer to their Fund as Charity, then the Charities Commission cannot ignore public complaints.

In fact the Charities Commission has a duty to put out a public statement to correct the press error. They shouldnt allow the press to mislead the public.

by Gillyspot 10.05.12 13:33

aiyoyo wrote:
Ross wrote:
tigger wrote:Under the heading: Children's Charities
So far, we have raised money for or donated to...

BBC's Children In Need (Reg. Charity No. 802052)
Circus Star (Reg. Charity No. 501667)
Missing People (Reg. Charity No. 1020419)
Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)
Cancer Research (Reg. Charity No. 1089464)

I've just gone over the Charities Commission Website.

Charities matching your search ...

Your search for '6248215' has produced no results.

I believe it's the registration number of the Company.

Great stuff Tigger. Calling something a charity when it is not a charity would be an attempt to defraud wouldn't it?

Any journalists under the age of 40 reading this thread, this is an example of something that used to be called 'investigative journalism' (ask one of you older colleagues, they may remember when this used to happen regularly).

If the Charities Commission cant take in public complaint over this it may be understandable since it was a journalist who misled the public. In that case there is no reason for the PCC to ignore public complaints if members of the public were to write to the PCC to complain about the journalist's diabolical reporting thereby misleading the public.

However, if the mccanns were to refer to their Fund as Charity, then the Charities Commission cannot ignore public complaints.

In fact the Charities Commission has a duty to put out a public statement to correct the press error. They shouldnt allow the press to mislead the public.

I wrote to the Charity Commision last year and they aren't interested. Said it was up to donors to check if it was a charity or not as they mention it lower down the page on their website. They weren't interested in my links to UK media showing that their "fund" is compared with other charities - said that was up to the media to get it right.

by Ribisl 10.05.12 14:30

Madeleine's Fund

About the Fund

Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.

Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:

- To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
- To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
- To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

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

Tigger, yes it's the company reg no. The last one is clearly the one and only activity relevant to this company's existence.

by pauline 10.05.12 14:41

Ribisi, I think the last objective (gimme the money) was removed late last year when they filed revised documents. Think this was mentioned in that forensic analysis of the Fund on the mccannfiles.com

by **tigger** 10.05.12 17:01

Was it replaced by this Pauline?

Limitation on private benefits
2D.1 The income and property of the Foundation shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects
2D.2 Except as provided below no part of the income and property of the Foundation may be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of benefit to the members of the Foundation. This shall not prevent any payment in good faith by the Foundation of:
2D.2.1 any payments made to any member, Director or Connected Person in their capacity as a beneficiary,
2D.2.2 reasonable and proper remuneration to any person for any goods or services supplied to the Foundation (including services performed under a contract of employment with the Foundation),
2D.2.3 interest on money lent by any member, Director or Connected Person at a reasonable and proper rate,
2D.2.4 any reasonable and proper rent for premises let by any member, Director or Connected Person,
2D.2.5 fees, remuneration or other benefits in money or money's worth to a company of which a member, Director or Connected Person holds less than 1% of the capital,
2D.2.6 reasonable and proper out-of-pocket expenses of Directors;
2D.2.7 reasonable and proper premiums in respect of indemnity insurance effected in accordance with Article 2C.29;
2D.3 The restrictions on benefits and remuneration conferred on members of the Foundation and on the Directors by Article 2D.2 and the exceptions to such restrictions in Articles 2D.2.1 to 2D.2.7 inclusive shall apply equally to benefits and remuneration conferred on members of the Foundation and on the Directors by any Subsidiary Company, and for this purpose references to the Foundation in Article 2D.2.2 shall be treated as references to the Subsidiary Company.

Enid O'Dowd is of the opinion that in the last financial year, some 20.000 pounds was for administrative cost, not to a person, but possibly for the use of a room in e.g. the McCann's House in Rothley.
The above articles seem to have replaced the benefits to family, but imo there is plenty of room for manoeuvre.

by uppatoffee 10.05.12 17:33

The ethical kidz website has now been updated to say that it is a registered company number not a registered charity number.

by Ribisl 10.05.12 17:37

Just downloaded the file called STATEMENT OF COMPANY'S OBJECTS dated 21/12/2011 from Companies House. It was obviously for altering company's objects but I couldn't see what changes were actually made. tigger, where was that published?

by **tigger** 10.05.12 17:41

uppatoffee wrote:The ethical kidz website has now been updated to say that it is a registered company number not a registered charity number.

:

Oo arrr! they don't half have a lot of people to monitor us!

by pauline 10.05.12 23:50

Tigger - below what I was referring to -

Quote from Enid O'Dowd's report on the Fund:

'Interestingly a revised Memorandum and Articles of Association was filed in Companies House in December 2011. This deleted the object to provide support including financial assistance to Madeleine’s family. This particular object had attracted unfavourable comment in particular from internet bloggers. The motive for deleting this objective more than four years later is unclear. If the Board felt this minority criticism of the object was adversely affecting fundraising, it would presumably have changed it earlier.

Another mystery - why spend money on lawyers to change this? as the McCann family control the Fund, they can in reality do what they want regardless of what the legal documents say IMHO.

by Guest 11.05.12 11:14

Friday, 11 May 2012

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

In light of a vast £2m being spent (so far) on the Scotland Yard review and goodness knows how much in Portugal, don't you find it absolutely appalling and in very bad taste that the McCanns are once again publicly attempting to boost the balance of the Madeleine Fund?

Now why do they need more money? Gerry McCann still consults both for the NHS and in private healthcare. A hefty sum was apparently made from Kate McCann's book 'Madeleine' which will no doubt be boosted by the recently released paperback version. It has also been reported that Edgar has whoosh clunked and no longer works for the McCanns. With ongoing reviews in both the UK and Portugal, it surely must be a relief for the McCanns to no longer have to claim that 'no law enforcement agency is looking for Madeleine'?

So why do they need more money? It's a smack in the face to every taxpayer and every officer working on the review teams.

In order to make money, companies normally offer a service or sell items to keep that company running. For many it's their liveliehood, they work hard to put food on their tables and a roof over their heads. The McCanns business offers nothing. This pair are content to simply sit on their backsides, and reap in the cash by offering nothing but a Paypal button or bank account number to the unsuspecting public. To run their company, they expect money to simply be given to them as if it's their right.

Now that they intend to slink back into the limelight with the proverbial begging bowl, it really is time for it to be publicly made clear that this 'fund' is not a charity or a search fund for a missing child - it is the McCanns own company, their own business! Like any other business, it needs to make money. However, it is a business that is being used for other means including costs in their many legal battles. Thanks to the McCanns, legal eagles such as Carter Ruck, Isabel Duarte, Rogerio Alves and many more have become a household name. All these lawyers employed in the UK and Portugal, yet the McCanns only employ one private investigator, Dave Edgar.

Their pathetic priorities are very clear, as is the real need to 'fundraise'.

When visiting Praia de Luz, they lurk in the shadows. They don't appeal or speak to the Portuguese public - people who helped them so much in the early days and who lost time and money out of the goodness of their own hearts. In the last five years, I've seen the McCanns show more passion for litigation than appeals to their missing daughter or her so called 'abductor'

It's about time this loathesome charade came to an end. Five years on... how many more?

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

by nomendelta 11.05.12 11:20

It's a very good point. This is not a charity and now that SY have not only spent a year and £1million and have more or less stated they have an unlimited budget to continue reviewing the case what exactly do the McCanns need the fund for?

SY are covering ALL their bases for free! They've paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to private detectives who have produced nothing but spurious sightings and confessions and SY have shown themselves perfectly able to do just that! And what's more they seem fully committed to continuing for years!

By any definition the fund is now superfluous to requirements.

by **tigger** 11.05.12 12:31

from McCannfiles.com

26/1/2008:

McCanns in talks for £1million chat show deal

The parents of Madeleine McCann are in talks to strike a £1million deal with two of America's biggest chat show stars. Kate and Gerry McCann are at the centre of a bidding war between Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters.

Both celebrities are desperate to land an exclusive deal for the couple to talk about their missing daughter. If it goes ahead, it will be the largest publicly-known amount ever paid for a broadcast interview.

The McCanns, both 39, say they have been forced to consider the bids because their £1.2million Find Madeleine appeal fund is expected to run dry by June. But the move, expected to earn them £1million, will horrify those who have already accused them of cashing in since their daughter, then three, vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal last May.
The couple's representatives have already met with producers to discuss turning the eight-month investigation into the disappearance into a film and could earn up to another £1million from selling the film and book rights. Earlier this month, they faced widespread criticism over their decision to give an interview to glossy society magazine Vanity Fair.

unquote

no comment required!