Evolution, preconception, and the McCanns

aquila wrote:Has the cat got Kepharel's tongue? will we have another topic opened on how to debate on a forum? will the poor uneducated amongst us be enlightened? will we learn how to never answer a straight question with a straight answer? Is Kepharel preparing another long winded, ambiguous post? Will there be another exciting and stimulating thread tomorrow?

Tune in folks, same time, same channel. It's the Kepharel show.

God bless Madeleine McCann. God bless this forum and hopefully soon the forum will get back down to the business of finding some justice for Madeleine.

 He/She has never been   rude   !

Woofer wrote:

aquila wrote:

Woofer wrote:

aquila wrote:

Woofer wrote:Perhaps some people missed it but Kepharel did write in capital letters :-

I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEWS I AM PRESENTING.  IT`S JUST AN EXERCISE FOLKS.

Its good for the forum to consider all perspectives or else we`ll get a reputation of being a lynch mob.

 Why does your response not surprise Woofer?

 Ah well at least I`m becoming known for it (with pride I might add)

Pride comes before a fall so I'm told.

 Well I don`t mind falling.

One of the things I`m pleased Kepharel brought up is that of putting oneself in the position of having killed one`s child, perhaps in a fit of temper or through neglect.  What would you do?  I have tried to do this at times but the scenario is so awful I don`t get very far.

Why would you even mention this, are you trying to tell us something, or are you trying to draw posters into defaming the McCanns?

You and Kepheral seem to be a double act or are you the same person?

I see another "double act" here!

listener wrote:

aquila wrote:Has the cat got Kepharel's tongue? will we have another topic opened on how to debate on a forum? will the poor uneducated amongst us be enlightened? will we learn how to never answer a straight question with a straight answer? Is Kepharel preparing another long winded, ambiguous post? Will there be another exciting and stimulating thread tomorrow?

Tune in folks, same time, same channel. It's the Kepharel show.

God bless Madeleine McCann. God bless this forum and hopefully soon the forum will get back down to the business of finding some justice for Madeleine.

 He/She has never been   rude   !

I don't mind being rude if that's what it takes to draw attention to slippery creatures who invade this forum with their own agenda. Slap my wrist, disrespect me, tell me off, ban me. I know what Kepharel is doing to this forum. I'm not alone in my opinion.

I don't think you're being rude, Aquila.

I have to admit that I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who has played the "delete my account, you've upset me" routine.

However, I'm always ready to give them another chance. Goodness knows how many I gave the McCanns before the penny dropped, but that's another story!

If Kepharel is or was an accountant, I hope that he will comment on whether he thinks - like Ms O'Dowd - that the fund's accounts do not show that it is being run with the transparency that Kate promised.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think you're being rude, Aquila.

I have to admit that I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who has played the "delete my account, you've upset me" routine.

However, I'm always ready to give them another chance. Goodness knows how many I gave the McCanns before the penny dropped, but that's another story!

If Kepharel is or was an accountant, I hope that he will comment on whether he thinks - like Ms O'Dowd - that the fund's accounts do not show that it is being run with the transparency that Kate promised.

I'd wait a couple of days for a more considered get-out-of-it response to that request NFWTD.

I doubt anything of substance will manifest. It's pretty amazing that an accountant who likes analysis hasn't analysed the Fund but is willing to take questions on Enid O'Dowd's findings and try to explain things. Just amazing.

"I know what Kepharel is doing to this forum"

Please enlighten me - I think most of the members/readers here are a bit more long in the tooth than you suggest!

listener wrote:"I know what Kepharel is doing to this forum"

Please enlighten me - I think most of the members/readers here are a bit more long in the tooth than you suggest!

You have been on this forum for a long time. I'm sure you are well aware of disruptive tactics.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think you're being rude, Aquila.

I have to admit that I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who has played the "delete my account, you've upset me" routine.

However, I'm always ready to give them another chance. Goodness knows how many I gave the McCanns before the penny dropped, but that's another story!

If Kepharel is or was an accountant, I hope that he will comment on whether he thinks - like Ms O'Dowd - that the fund's accounts do not show that it is being run with the transparency that Kate promised.

I think you might be a bit of a soft touch, NFWTDA, which is quite endearing but when you have posters trying to disrupt the forum it is taking away the respect for Madeleine and what we're here for.   They have no respect whatsoever for poor little Madeleine or what happened to her, they have another agenda.

I don't think we will be hearing from Kepharel/Woofer with an analysis of the McCanns' accounts, it wasn't part of his/her job description.

Kepharel wrote: [...]
Chatelaine, grief and how you cope in the immediate aftermath is a very personal thing.  For my part, on the death of both my grandmother and mother I felt the need to speak to family for support straight away.  There is no right and wrong to it.  I guess my own personal experience and my nature lead me to sympathise somewhat with the way the McCanns were apparently dealing with the situation, up to a point.  Like I said ‘put yourself in their shoes’, and that is what I did for myself when trying to emphasise their humanity. [...]
I knew this was gonna be a toughie  but I do like a challenge

***
I'm sorry, but you missed a very important FACT. My husband was dead. He hadn't gone missing and could still be found ...
Over and out.

I'm no accountant but I can do very basic accounts and IMO the subanalysis shown is designed to hide where the money is going

Châtelaine wrote:

Kepharel wrote: [...]
Chatelaine, grief and how you cope in the immediate aftermath is a very personal thing.  For my part, on the death of both my grandmother and mother I felt the need to speak to family for support straight away.  There is no right and wrong to it.  I guess my own personal experience and my nature lead me to sympathise somewhat with the way the McCanns were apparently dealing with the situation, up to a point.  Like I said ‘put yourself in their shoes’, and that is what I did for myself when trying to emphasise their humanity. [...]
I knew this was gonna be a toughie :winkwink:but I do like a challenge

***
I'm sorry, but you missed a very important FACT. My husband was dead. He hadn't gone missing and could still be found ...
Over and out.

My God, I nearly threw up reading that load of garbage, how much are these people being paid to post this stuff on forums??

ETA: Kepharel/Woofer are you being paid the minimum wage or are your paymasters more generous than that?

OK, that's enough abuse thank you.  I don't know anything about you people so I try to be polite.  You don't know the first thing about me. What gives you all the right to post this abuse.  What have I ever said or done that deserves the kind of comments I am getting? Why are some on here suggesting I have an agenda of self-glorification and an indifference to the tragedy of Madeleine McCann? That is a disgusting thing to say. Perhaps admin can address the concerns of those of you who think such things because I'm not going anywhere; I've done nothing wrong.

Here are my comments on the accounts:  There is no holy grail that proves in the Profit and Loss or Balance Sheet, or Notes to the Accounts, or Directors Report, or Auditors Report that even remotely suggests fraud if that's what some on here expect.  It's precisely the reason we have Companies Acts and Auditors.

NFWTD.  No fraud, but due to the privileges that Small Companies enjoy in the UK there can be no transparency either.

I can add no additional insight into the analysis done by Enid O’Dowd. It is expansive and detailed so quite what members here expect me to do over and above that I don’t know.  I have, however highlighted items that caught my eye, and explained briefly the effect The Companies Acts have on a Company’s duties and obligations are when filing accounts in an effort to show that without the info to analyse, even the best accountant in the world will have little to say.
 
Background
 
Here is a synopsis of the background to the incorporation of Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned as presented in some detail by Enid O’Dowd.
 
The company was formed just 11 days after the disappearance of Madeleine through a personal contact of Gerry McCann who flew to Portugal with a Barrister on May 11^th for discussions that took place over that week-end.  The fact that it was a company governed by Articles of Association and not a charity is explained by the fact that charities can only be accepted by the Charities Commission if their purposes are of benefit to the general public, which this fund clearly was not. It was intended solely to search for Madeleine McCann so would not have qualified; even so an initial approach was made to the Commission but later withdrawn.
 
O’Dowd makes mention of the subsumation of the Milly Dowler Fund into the Suzy Lamplugh Trust whose charitable purpose was recognised by the Commission, something the McCann’s to their eternal shame have never considered.  Within the Articles of Association drawn up (the rules which govern the activities of the Company) it was always envisaged the family of Madeleine could receive financial support from the fund, something not included in the Charity application because the promoters new the application would fail if it were included.
 
From my own perspective, it is not the fact that a Limited Company limited by guarantee (no share capital) was set up. The term ‘Guarantee’ denotes the maximum liability the Members undertake to pay in a winding up, usually £1. For this Company, Articles of Association have been specifically drafted by paralegals to include such items as financial assistance for the family and the provision that Directors can also be beneficiaries of the fund.  Such terms within the Company’s rules can only ever be described as contentious and possibly disingenuous to the donating public. Employing lawyers is always an expensive thing to do.  The fund was only ever going to be released from its ‘find Madeleine’ objectives within the Articles once she had been found.  Of course, if she never was going to be found, the fund would be a continuing source of financial assistance to the family for the foreseeable future.
 
The Accounts.
 
I have been retired from commercial practice for many years now, and latterly anyway, my career was in the public sector, but I have done a little research to provide some background on how the Companies Act works and why it does what it does.  There is no single Companies Act.  In my time we studied the 1985 Act, which is still relevant today.  You can find provisions in Companies Acts up to 2011 as far as I can see.
 
Also Companies, for the 2006 Act are defined as being Large, Medium and Small and these are dealt differently within the Acts. 
 

	Turnover (not more than)	Balance sheet total (not more than)	Number of employees (not more than)
Small company	£5.6 million	£2.8 million	50
Medium-sized company	£22.8 million	£11.4 million	250

 
Depending where the Company is in the above table will affect how much financial information needs to be disclosed in the financial accounts to Companies House.  It is surprising how little financial information needs to be disclosed in the Accounts of Small Companies.  A Small Company need not disclose its turnover or profit, merely an abbreviated balance sheet.  This makes investigative work into Companies financial affairs nearly impossible.  But what about the McCann Company?  Well they were a little more forthcoming in their 2008 submission to Companies house than they had a statutory requirement to be, A Schedule which breaks down the Income and expenditure raises more questions than answers, even for the redoubtable O’Dowd. What are the legal fees of £112k associated with Merchandising and Campaign costs, and £124K of Campaign Management Costs etc etc.  If she doesn’t know then neither would I.
 
I then offer this from O’Dowd:
 

Extract from audited Fund Accounts	Mar-11	Mar-10	Mar-09
Income	177,534	233,099	629,181
Interest receivable	101	373	21,585
	177,635	233,472	650,766
Expenditure
Merchandising and campaign costs	487,193	421,236	974,786
Administration expenses	26,930	29,868	30,865
	514,123	451,104	1,005,651
(Deficit)/Surplus for the year	(336,488)	(217,632)	(354,885)
Audit*	6,300	6,169	5,750

 
This is the only available breakdown of costs from 2009 onwards.  Quite what you want me to 'analyse' in these figures that would illuminate nefarious goings on I don’t know.
  
The following table applies to the 2012 Accounts where income and expenditure has been analysed into Restricted and Unrestricted Funds, something more commonly seen in Charities.
 

	Unrestricted Funds £	Restricted Funds £	2012 Total Funds £	2011 Total Funds £
Income	306,393	550,000	856,393	177,534
Merchandise and Campaign Costs	(242,727)	(234,086)	(476,813)	(487,193)
Gross Surplus/(Deficit)	63,366	315,914	379,580	(309,659)
Administration Expenses	(24,909)	-	(24,909)	(26,930)
Operating Surplus/(Deficit)	38,757	315,914	354,671	(336,589)

 
 
Unrestricted funds and restricted funds are pretty much what they say.  An unrestricted fund may be used at the discretion of the Trustees (Charity) / Directors,
whereas restricted funds have a limits as to how the money may be spent.  One of the more bizarre aspects of these accounts is an interest figure of a mere £149 when income was £857K and the year end bank balance was £528K.
 

Other than the small amount of supplementary information I have provided what else can I say.  No-one, given the data available can make any determination of wrong doing, and I refer you once again to Enid O’Dowd who also has no idea whether anything untoward has gone on, and she is almost certainly a better accountant than I.

Newintown wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

Kepharel wrote: [...]
Chatelaine, grief and how you cope in the immediate aftermath is a very personal thing.  For my part, on the death of both my grandmother and mother I felt the need to speak to family for support straight away.  There is no right and wrong to it.  I guess my own personal experience and my nature lead me to sympathise somewhat with the way the McCanns were apparently dealing with the situation, up to a point.  Like I said ‘put yourself in their shoes’, and that is what I did for myself when trying to emphasise their humanity. [...]
I knew this was gonna be a toughie :winkwink:but I do like a challenge

***
I'm sorry, but you missed a very important FACT. My husband was dead. He hadn't gone missing and could still be found ...
Over and out.

My God, I nearly threw up reading that load of garbage, how much are these people being paid to post this stuff on forums??

ETA: Kepharel/Woofer are you being paid the minimum wage or are your paymasters more generous than that?

Hi Newintown,

Describing my discussing my feelings in the aftermath of my grandmother and mother's death as 'garbage' says a lot more about you than me thank goodness.

I'm not a professional accountant, just an amateur, but the figures that caught my eye's , from Kepharel, were the deficit figures over a three year period.

Would that explain their lack of success in financial bullying, in recent times.




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

Snipped from Keph's post
"
Background

Here is a synopsis of the background to the incorporation of Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned as presented in some detail by Enid O’Dowd.

The company was formed just 11 days after the disappearance of Madeleine through a personal contact of Gerry McCann who flew to Portugal with a Barrister on May 11th for discussions that took place over that week-end.  The fact that it was a company governed by Articles of Association and not a charity is explained by the fact that charities can only be accepted by the Charities Commission if their purposes are of benefit to the general public, which this fund clearly was not. It was intended solely to search for Madeleine McCann so would not have qualified; even so an initial approach was made to the Commission but later withdrawn."


If it had gained charitable status then they would not have been able to make repayments on their mortgage from the Fund.

Here is one of the questions the Port. Police asked Mrs.

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

Any thoughts on why the police asked that question Keph?

But why are they always laughing and acting like she's not dead?

Even if they accidentally killed her they'd still feel guilty, they wouldn't react this way. Besides, if one parent took the blame the other could keep the twins.

 Come on do they look like they've lost a lovely little girl?
And what about all the cover up?

They're behaviour shows they're not grieving parents, not one or the other. It's like she either died long time before they announced it (because they've gotten over it) or she's still alive. 

So where is she!!!

Interesting about the accounts - why was the income 4 times greater in 2012 than 2011 - a staggering 800k+ - would have thought by then donations would be falling, surely the bewk didn't generate all that?
However, does beg the question - instead of running triathlons/marathons, they could easily, quietly, donate to the Missing Persons charity from the money down the back of the sofa, and use their time instead actively looking for Madeleine since they claim she is still out there... But narcissists like to be seen, I guess, and daytime TV sofas provide a bit of glamour not present in a less slebby job analysing scan pics.

Shame to see quite unecessary accusations being made on this forum. Most people on here must know the stance I take after the length of time I`ve been here. I like to hear all perspectives.  Kepharel has obviously done a lot of work analysing statements, of which I`m grateful.  And at least he/she has highlighted the fact that Maddie was most likely was dead before she left the apartment.  And people on here also know that its my belief that if you give people enough rope they will eventually hang themselves.  In the meantime I admire him/her for carrying on in the face of nastiness.  Lets wait and see.

Newintown wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think you're being rude, Aquila.

I have to admit that I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who has played the "delete my account, you've upset me" routine.

However, I'm always ready to give them another chance. Goodness knows how many I gave the McCanns before the penny dropped, but that's another story!

If Kepharel is or was an accountant, I hope that he will comment on whether he thinks - like Ms O'Dowd - that the fund's accounts do not show that it is being run with the transparency that Kate promised.

I think you might be a bit of a soft touch, NFWTDA, which is quite endearing but when you have posters trying to disrupt the forum it is taking away the respect for Madeleine and what we're here for.   They have no respect whatsoever for poor little Madeleine or what happened to her, they have another agenda.

I don't think we will be hearing from Kepharel/Woofer with an analysis of the McCanns' accounts, it wasn't part of his/her job description.

I`m not an accountant so, no, you won`t be getting an analysis of the accounts from me.

Seek truth wrote:But why are they always laughing and acting like she's not dead?

Even if they accidentally killed her they'd still feel guilty, they wouldn't react this way. Besides, if one parent took the blame the other could keep the twins.

 Come on do they look like they've lost a lovely little girl?
And what about all the cover up?

They're behaviour shows they're not grieving parents, not one or the other. It's like she either died long time before they announced it (because they've gotten over it) or she's still alive. 

So where is she!!!

 Hi seektruth,

I'm afraid that anything I say in answer to this question may get misinterpreted and torn to shreds by some on here, if you have read previous posts on this thread you will understand.  Here are some resources on the web which deal with grief and how it manifests itself.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] item 'instrumental mourners' on this site.
You might want to look up Kubler Ross and see her 5 stages of grief, particularly the 'denial' one.
I also found the 'traditional' stages of grief explained on the TC hospice website of help, particularly under the headings of Shock and Numbness and Difficulty concentrating.
There are also articles out there dealing with other 'inappropriate manifestations' such as laughing during grief, at funerals etc.

Remember to read these articles look at grief in a context of how it would manifest itself under normal circumstances, while keeping in mind the totally abnormal circumstances and the furore during 3rd/4th May and later.

Kepharel wrote: Snipped 

But to get back to my PR job, something happened that transformed a happy normal family and the personalities of the parents; something very, very bad and what it was is the conjecture, debate, and argument that drives this forum. They were good people before they went on holiday, and good people don’t turn bad overnight. My argument for this thread is, therefore, they were victims of their own making who staggered from one disaster to another as they tried to cope with the self inflicted horror and the rapidly ever changing circumstances that resulted.  Who you see before you today after years of lies and litigation is a travesty of who they once were.

---

I knew this was gonna be a toughie  but I do like a challenge

So how is this argument PR pro the Mccanns? Most of the people posting or reading here are not saying they are evil people. I have even said in the beginning they have likable qualities. BUT facts remain: we need a good hard look at the parents who are statistically speaking the most likely to be involved, And who by their actions and deeds have not taken away suspicion. On the contrary...
If you want to do a good PR job for them, you have to convince me they are the needle in the haystack who got their child abducted, and who can prove they did everything to cooperate fully to be cleared so the investigation and the general public could focus on solving the case.

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Keph's post
"
Background

Here is a synopsis of the background to the incorporation of Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned as presented in some detail by Enid O’Dowd.

The company was formed just 11 days after the disappearance of Madeleine through a personal contact of Gerry McCann who flew to Portugal with a Barrister on May 11th for discussions that took place over that week-end.  The fact that it was a company governed by Articles of Association and not a charity is explained by the fact that charities can only be accepted by the Charities Commission if their purposes are of benefit to the general public, which this fund clearly was not. It was intended solely to search for Madeleine McCann so would not have qualified; even so an initial approach was made to the Commission but later withdrawn."


If it had gained charitable status then they would not have been able to make repayments on their mortgage from the Fund.

Here is one of the questions the Port. Police asked Mrs.

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

Any thoughts on why the police asked that question Keph?

 Hya Plebgate,

The unanswered question put to Kate while she was an arguido might seem a bit of a show-stopper for someone attempting to put a case for this thread.  It certainly wasn't a question dreamt up by the PJ before they came into work that morning, and because she was an arguido the whole tenor of the questions got tougher.  I'm in the dark as to why they asked this loaded question; at one extreme it may have been  because they had knowledge that Kate was unable to cope emotionally and physically, and the matter had maybe come before Social Services, or it may be a confrontational ploy to get her to admit she did once ask members of the family if they could take her on for a short while, say a couple of months, while she tried to stabilise her mental and physical exhaustion.

I would really like to know as well.

The video of GM on the balconey joking about is very weird to most of us and is quite shocking to see in a supposed time of frantic worry about one`s missing daughter or even grief. 

But the laughing seen as they were coming out of the church was explained by a red balloon that was out of control and is the sort of incident that can momentarily break through grief.

Juulcy wrote:

Kepharel wrote: Snipped 

But to get back to my PR job, something happened that transformed a happy normal family and the personalities of the parents; something very, very bad and what it was is the conjecture, debate, and argument that drives this forum. They were good people before they went on holiday, and good people don’t turn bad overnight. My argument for this thread is, therefore, they were victims of their own making who staggered from one disaster to another as they tried to cope with the self inflicted horror and the rapidly ever changing circumstances that resulted.  Who you see before you today after years of lies and litigation is a travesty of who they once were.

---

I knew this was gonna be a toughie  but I do like a challenge

So how is this argument PR pro the Mccanns? Most of the people posting or reading here are not saying they are evil people. I have even said in the beginning they have likable qualities. BUT facts remain: we need a good hard look at the parents who are statistically speaking the most likely to be involved, And who by their actions and deeds have not taken away suspicion. On the contrary...
If you want to do a good PR job for them, you have to convince me they are the needle in the haystack who got their child abducted, and who can prove they did everything to cooperate fully to be cleared so the investigation and the general public could focus on solving the case.

 Sorry Juulcy, but I can only go so far with my defence.  I don't think she was abducted, I think she died in the apartment, either way their actions around the 'loss' are always going to be open to question, particularly the way they 'coped' during the first few days, something Seektruth has highlighted in a post close to this one.  On the other hand I'm as equally as skeptical as you and believe the truth to be lying elsewhere.  The subtext of this thread is my own, personal, struggle to try to be free of my preconceptions as to who these people are. By making this post I am merely inviting others to do the same. REMEMBER, I am speaking FOR MYSELF ONLY (CAPS for the benefit of others   ) and not trying to speak for or assume I know how others feel and somehow speaking in some kind of collective way for the forum.

This thread is identical in its objectives as my 'obnoxious' thread some time ago.  Difference is this time I painted them as innocents, last time as devils incarnate. Who they really are is a complete mystery.  I'm afraid I have failed with you, but hey, that's ok.  If I were that persuasive I would be working as Clarence Mitchell's post selection apprentice.