Re: 2012 Accounts **OUT NOW** (page 2 of thread)

by Inspectorfrost 18.01.13 22:24

Châtelaine wrote:When their first [and rather detailed] accounts were published years ago, I asked my IT peeps to have a look at their site and give me an estimate as to the cost. They arrived a GBP 3,000 MAX.!

There is no way a simple site that you can set up for free anywhere cost that much, ergo they lied in their accounts just as they lied everywhere else imo

by aiyoyo 19.01.13 5:40

Châtelaine wrote:I tried that phone number some time ago and it wasn't exactly a "hot"-line, but more the classical "canned" lady saying " if you want x" push "1" & 'if you want y" push "2", etc ... I didn't go through the entire procedure, nor did I leave a message ... ;-)

Automated answering system on a missing child hotline on a 0845 number?
Great way to encourage the public to phone in isn't it? yet they complained Amaral and TB's literature hinder the search!

So much money went to administration of the site but all you get is a voice recorder, something is not right.

Maybe the cost is so high because it's paid to Kate, the chief campaigner, working full time in the search, but she isnt doing her job properly.

The accounting is as obscure as brick and no chance anyone is going to be able to tell how the money is spent.

by Smokeandmirrors 19.01.13 7:50

Inspectorfrost wrote: Smokeandmirrors

crap isn't it

There is no way on this planet ever that THAT website cost them 37k. Mind you, some old fogey ignorant accountants and lawyers might believe it.

Im glad to read that you think its noted though.

I think it must have been noted. There are so many sites where you can construct a website, so many people offering this service at increasingly competitive prices etc. When you look at how much interesting content some bloggers upload, with images, mini-shops etc it beggars belief that a website of about 5 pages costs 37k to produce, when GCSE students of IT could knock something like that out in an afternoon.

For that money, they could have an amazing site, I am sure in the early stages when more people were following the story, they would have been able to get it done for free. In any case, wasn't it supposed to have been some teenager or other who ran it?

For the money they have allegedly spent on some naff, barely-there- and-pointless wristbands, basic and unengaging website, luggage tags (WTF?? How closely do you stare at peoples luggage tags?), these are pretty miniature things that 99.9% of the population wouldn't even physically notice!! And what have they spent, allegedly, on these items over the whole period? A million or so? Give me a break!!

There was a time when they had appeals at football matches, celebrity endorsement etc the Daily Mail ran appeals in it's mediterranean edition, it was everywhere.

The money has been totally wasted or "Febreezed"!!

by Liz Eagles 19.01.13 7:58

Professional services for the Fund i.e. legal, banking etc are all London based. Biggest public awareness tool (the website) based....Ullapool (that well known centre for media excellence) in Scotland.

by Guest 19.01.13 9:56

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

For information, a link to an earlier topic about the website.

by Ribisl 30.01.13 18:09

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

by Inspectorfrost 30.01.13 20:15

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

Still flummoxed about the 37k for THAT website and agreeing with latest posts made, just saying thanks for link Ribisi, so a certified accountant has doubts and crticisms about the accounts. The mind boggles.

by Liz Eagles 30.01.13 20:52

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

I urge everyone on this forum to take the time to read through this. Even for a financial dunce such as I am, I can understand there is something not quite right.

Thank you Enid O'Dowd.

by mahlersghost 30.01.13 21:11

Don'tcha just love accountants - especially FCAs who know what they are talking about. Monty Python was wrong about a Chartered Accountant's life as being a boring one - perhaps not as much fun as being a lumberjack though.

So that's the last two years set of accounts taken apart and found to be lacking in several areas - especially transparency. Lord knows what was going on in the days of M3 and dear old Kevin H.

Enid is a very experienced CA - whatever she writes is not from any sense of vindictiveness but from a professional viewpoint.

by Dr What 30.01.13 22:01

It is very clear analysis from Enid.

However, I doubt that the Mcs care about what a limited number of people, who bother to read the analysis, say about the accounts.Whatever promises were made at the outset, regarding transparency or intentions, will matter little now that a gullible public has given money.The objective has been achieved already.And that objective was to get as much of other people's money as possible in order to finance a rock-solid legal defence against what they knew would come their way.And they have been successful.They have been able to launch and fund legal actions against media, individuals and websites in order to prevent any examination of their 'account of the truth'.

by Guest 30.01.13 22:22

Just in case anyone hasn't read Ms O'Dowd's previous report.

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

by Ribisl 30.01.13 22:23

Without detailed accounts being made available, there is never going to be anything to incriminate them. We can analyse what limited information that is available and speculate, but the Mccanns are on a very safe ground for which they must pay a considerable amount of fees to their financial and legal advisers.

One example: the newspapers have published what they each paid out in compensation to the Mccanns, but the publishers Bantam Press and Corgi (for the paperback edition) have not disclosed what Kate has received so far and I imagine they never will. So when Kate says she is donating all of the royalties received, we have no way of validating it.

by Inspectorfrost 30.01.13 22:43

Bantam press and corgi????? Bloody cartoons? LOL

by Inspectorfrost 02.02.13 19:53

I saw this on another board and laughed

I seem to recall they attempted to justify paying for the legal action against Amaral by claiming that his book and claims harmed the search for Madeleine, and by bringing the action partly in her name.

They can't possibly claim anything of the kind in their action against Bennett. The fund can, however, spend it's money in any way the directors agree to and there is not a thing anyone can do about it. They spent the best part of half a million pounds last year on god knows what. Seriously - it's a huge sum, way way more than many charities get to spend on their publicity campaigns, and way more than their laughingly-entitled ''investigation team'' should have cost. It does not cost half a million quid to sit on Facebook all day, deleting any posts which fail to reach an acceptable fawn-index.

by **PeterMac** 02.02.13 20:37

I just wish the judge could see all this sort of evidence. But he won't because he is dealing with a very narrow legal point.
Sad.

by Guest 02.02.13 21:54

PeterMac wrote:I just wish the judge could see all this sort of evidence. But he won't because he is dealing with a very narrow legal point.
Sad.

***
Right. Unfortunately it's just "contempt of court" for "breaching undertakings" and there's not much choice ... The good thing is IMO, that this may inspire THE judge, whoever, to relaunch the "libel" thingie ...