Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

by AndyB 16.10.13 7:56

candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
AndyB wrote:
littlepixie wrote:Perverting the course of Justice could surely be tried in the UK. There is maybe a fair few who could face that charge.

It carries a hefty penalty so I believe.
Perverting the course of justice (or at least conspiracy to) is indeed a very serious offence but they haven't perverted GB justice, only Portuguese (assuming they have at all). This is therefore only an offence in Portugal
I think you forgot one thing, SY have now taken over the investigation.......it is no longer just a review but a full blown investigation - hence the CPS in Portugal.
Sorry if this comes across as rude but I'm very tired now (and getting very frustrated). How does the fact that SY have started an investigation alter UK or international law? They haven't taken over Portuguese sovereignty so it might be an idea if people look up "international jurisdiction" before telling me that SY can prosecute anything or anyone for the Madeleine McCann disappearance
Have a sleep on it and then come back and tell my why our Criminal Prosecution Service would get involved if they weren't thinking of prosecuting anyone in the UK.

That's a very good question, the answer to which, I suspect, would also tell us why the establishment have been involved from almost the moment that Madeleine disappeared. It could also be that they were trying to persuade their Portugese counter parts to get involved in framing a patsy (or that, despite the Mets rhetoric, they are investigating Madeleine's murder or manslaughter)

by AndyB 16.10.13 8:14

Prehensile wrote:I may be wrong but wasn't there a law brought in a few years back which allowed the UK to prosecute Joe Bloggs from London if he had committed a crime abroad. (No offence to Mr Bloggs or Londoners).

Only if Joe had been having sex with children, which is now another one of the few offences committed abroad that can be tried in the UK. I think the change in the law that you're referring to was the offences against the person act. There is no blanket law that gives GB jurisdiction everywhere.

by gbwales 16.10.13 8:15

Again...
In both a company limited by shares and one limited by guarantee, the people running the company (the directors) will only incur any personal liability for the company's debts if they have been guilty of some wrongdoing, such as wrongful or fraudulent trading.

by ProfessorPPlum 16.10.13 8:15

I keep thinking that Redwood is creating more confusion than Gerry ever did. It's like a smoke-screen to cover an attack. I try to imagine what the McCanns are thinking after 6 years of effort to set their version of events in stone, after watching these forums like hawks and then Mrs going to the ridiculous length of writing her bewk to try to shut down the gaping holes that we've picked over the years....

The McCanns 'control' of the lie (IMO!) has become so rigid, so set in concrete...that they must have no way at all of dealing with Redwoods 'toss it up in the air' approach. The great thing about the truth is that you don't have to remember all of it, every last little inter-related, inter-connected bit the way you do a big fat lie. The truth just 'is' and you can hold it lightly.

A lie has you rigid with exertion, your muscles locked up from effort. I don't think that the McCanns have the emotional, intellectual or physical resources left to unpick what Andy's can of worms means to their story. If it's the truth then, of course, they don't have to. But if it's a lie, then they will look like very sickly rabbits in very bright headlights.

by AndyB 16.10.13 8:29

gbwales wrote:Again...
In both a company limited by shares and one limited by guarantee, the people running the company (the directors) will only incur any personal liability for the company's debts if they have been guilty of some wrongdoing, such as wrongful or fraudulent trading.

And again fraudulent trading does not mean what you think it means. What fraudulent trading do you believe the fund has done?

Incidentally, the passage you quote refers to financial not criminal liability

by gbwales 16.10.13 8:41

There can be criminal liability where there is "consent" and "connivance". That would clearly be the case here.
If the fund was set up in the knowledge that Maddie was dead then it would be obtaining money through deception.

by AndyB 16.10.13 8:45

The fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the family. It had done both so there is no fraud IMO

by tiny 16.10.13 8:51

AndyB wrote:The fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the family. It had done both so there is no fraud IMO

surely if it is found out that the mccanns are involved then it would be fraud as they are still taking donations

by AndyB 16.10.13 9:17

The company is still taking donations not the McCanns. The company is a legal entity in it's own right and we can't conflate the two. The McCanns are not even the only directors so I don't see how their involvement in anything illegal could possibly affect the company provided that the company was trading lawfully and within it's articles of association, which IMO it is

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 9:18

AndyB wrote:The fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the family. It had done both so there is no fraud IMO

If, as I believe, Madeleine McCann's parents are responsible for her disappearance the 'fund' is fraudulent and has been since the date of its registration.

It follows that any monies received by the 'fund' are the proceeds of crime and setting up a limited company for the purpose of receiving these monies does not give immunity from their recovery by the criminal courts.

Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 applies, as does Section 12 pertaining to the liability of company officers.

I would argue that all company officers past and present should be held liable if there is reason to suppose they have colluded with the McCanns in defrauding the public or that they have failed to make any suspicions they may have entertained known to the proper authorities.

Criminal offences fall within the remit of criminal law and in this case civil law does not apply - nor should it.

[takes off hanging judge cap]

by AndyB 16.10.13 9:33

I agree with the logic in your argument but I'm not convinced it's legally correct. I'm not a lawyer so I could well be wrong and I would like someone to convince me that I am. However, the fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the parents using income from public donations. As it has both searched for Madeleine by paying for PIs (albeit hopeless) and supported the family (by making mortgage payments) it has done exactly what it said it would do and is not therefore fraudulent IMO

It's an interesting point about the proceeds of crime. IF Madeleines disappearance was caused by the parents is the funds income the proceedings of crime? I suspect not because the income came from the operation of a business, which is not illegal

by bodiddly 16.10.13 9:42

Is it not illegal to con someone let alone many?

by AndyB 16.10.13 9:44

What con?

by russiandoll 16.10.13 9:46

Did anyone hear Andy R say " we are fighting for Madeleine" . I think this was in a media interview, not on CW. I found his choice of words striking and am sure I did not imagine it...

by tiny 16.10.13 9:47

AndyB wrote:What con?

If the mccanns are guilty then they have conned a few million of pounds out of people knowing that they are responcible for Madeleines death(I don't think Madeleine is alive)

by russiandoll 16.10.13 9:49

AndyB wrote:I agree with the logic in your argument but I'm not convinced it's legally correct. I'm not a lawyer so I could well be wrong and I would like someone to convince me that I am. However, the fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the parents using income from public donations. As it has both searched for Madeleine by paying for PIs (albeit hopeless) and supported the family (by making mortgage payments) it has done exactly what it said it would do and is not therefore fraudulent IMO

It's an interesting point about the proceeds of crime. IF Madeleines disappearance was caused by the parents is the funds income the proceedings of crime? I suspect not because the income came from the operation of a business, which is not illegal

what about if it's proven that there was no searching? what constitutes a search ?

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 9:58

AndyB wrote:I agree with the logic in your argument but I'm not convinced it's legally correct. I'm not a lawyer so I could well be wrong and I would like someone to convince me that I am. However, the fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the parents using income from public donations. As it has both searched for Madeleine by paying for PIs (albeit hopeless) and supported the family (by making mortgage payments) it has done exactly what it said it would do and is not therefore fraudulent IMO

It's an interesting point about the proceeds of crime. IF Madeleines disappearance was caused by the parents is the funds income the proceedings of crime? I suspect not because the income came from the operation of a business, which is not illegal

If the McCanns are responsible for their eldest daughter's disappearance it follows that they know where she is or where her body is concealed and they can produce her, or her remains - or reveal what happened to her remains if her body is not recoverable - at any time of their choosing.

If this should be the case, the fund is fraudulent as it has been created solely for the purpose of soliciting donations from the public to search for a child who is not missing.

In common parlance the fund is a scam and endeavouring to disguise this fact in a company limited by guarantee does not make it any less so.

by notlongnow 16.10.13 10:00

Anyone know if the T9 are still good friends and do they keep in regular contact?

by AndyB 16.10.13 10:00

tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:What con?
If the mccanns are guilty then they have conned a few million of pounds out of people knowing that they are responcible for Madeleines death(I don't think Madeleine is alive)

You're conflating the McCanns and the Ltd. They are not the same

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 10:01

russiandoll wrote:Did anyone hear Andy R say " we are fighting for Madeleine" . I think this was in a media interview, not on CW. I found his choice of words striking and am sure I did not imagine it...

You didn't imagine it... I heard it too - LOUD and CLEAR and I'm cheering him on every step of the way.

There will be justice for Madeleine, albeit far too late to have saved her from harm.

by tiny 16.10.13 10:02

AndyB wrote:
tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:What con?
If the mccanns are guilty then they have conned a few million of pounds out of people knowing that they are responcible for Madeleines death(I don't think Madeleine is alive)
You're conflating the McCanns and the Ltd. They are not the same

If you say so

by AndyB 16.10.13 10:02

russiandoll wrote:
AndyB wrote:I agree with the logic in your argument but I'm not convinced it's legally correct. I'm not a lawyer so I could well be wrong and I would like someone to convince me that I am. However, the fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the parents using income from public donations. As it has both searched for Madeleine by paying for PIs (albeit hopeless) and supported the family (by making mortgage payments) it has done exactly what it said it would do and is not therefore fraudulent IMO

It's an interesting point about the proceeds of crime. IF Madeleines disappearance was caused by the parents is the funds income the proceedings of crime? I suspect not because the income came from the operation of a business, which is not illegal
what about if it's proven that there was no searching? what constitutes a search ?

I'm assuming that hiring the PIs constitutes searching

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 10:03

notlongnow wrote:Anyone know if the T9 are still good friends and do they keep in regular contact?

I suspect that any contact the T9 have with each other has become less regular of late big grin

by bodiddly 16.10.13 10:03

russiandoll wrote:Did anyone hear Andy R say " we are fighting for Madeleine" . I think this was in a media interview, not on CW. I found his choice of words striking and am sure I did not imagine it...

Yes and agreed.

I am going to keep my faith in AR for the moment. I have faith in GA and I have faith in the Portuguese Police and I have faith in NSY. More importantly I have faith in Joe Public and their increasing demands for a voice.
A whitewash would IMO be impossible now. AR and the media have made sure of that with all this increased publicity. Sites like this have made sure of this from the beginning.
There is an awful lot of people who want answers, truth and justice for Madeleine.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 10:05

tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:
tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:What con?
If the mccanns are guilty then they have conned a few million of pounds out of people knowing that they are responcible for Madeleines death(I don't think Madeleine is alive)
You're conflating the McCanns and the Ltd. They are not the same
If you say so

Conflating the McCanns and the Ltd? Without the McCanns, there would be no Ltd.

Log in for more topics