Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

ultimaThule 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

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.

ultimaThule wrote:

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.

AndyB wrote:I'm assuming that hiring the PIs constitutes searching

ultimaThule wrote:

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.

bodiddly wrote:

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...

AndyB wrote:

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

I agree but they are distinct and separate legal entities

Cristobell wrote:

notlongnow wrote:I'm wondering if SY have played a great game.

By throwing in other efits of charity workers/burglers,people lurking etc.. i think the guilty would be happy that the scent was going elsewhere.

But the smith sighting and the JT wipeout would have some very concerned people who may start making phone calls that will flush them out.

I don't believe anyone has been found in connection with the JT sighting,and it was just a clever ploy to get things moving.

Welcome Notlongnow, and please accept this as a 'like' for a great first post! 

ultimaThule wrote:

AndyB wrote:

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

I agree but they are distinct and separate legal entities

There's no polite way of saying this - you are wrong. 

russiandoll wrote:AndyB    "  I'm assuming that hiring the PIs constitutes searching "

 sure of that? the simple act of hiring and paying, even if an audit trial shows they did naff all to find the child? not arguing, asking.

AndyB wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

AndyB wrote:

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

I agree but they are distinct and separate legal entities

There's no polite way of saying this - you are wrong. 

I'm sorry but I'm not wrong. The McCanns and the Ltd really are distinct and separate legal entities but don't take my word for it; ask your accountant or solicitor

Lance De Boils wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:

Woburn_exile wrote:As posted in another thread:

As a quick sideshow, I remember seeing a headline over the weekend along the lines of "First arrest in Madeleine case". I was travelling over the period so didn't pick up on it but this seems to have been totally evaded in the crimewatch programme.
Could this possibly be that SY know fine well what happened, have accepted that unless someone in the know comes forward and grasses them to save their own skin, then they will have no chance of a prosecution, so then SY are using this funding to witch hunt every single suspected paedo on the continent so that when they turn up the square root of fcku all that is new they can at least say "All efforts were made, we did not as yet find out definativly what happened to Madeleine McCann but at least our lines of enquiry have smashed Paedophile rings and terrorist groupings in Europe so from that perspective this operation has been as success". Our European colleagues should take a page from our book in the future bla bla BLAH VOMIT. The McCanns will be able to bask in their glory and write more drivelous books in the name of child protection and how they were instigators of it.

offtopic shit happens

ultimaThule wrote:

Woburn_exile wrote:As posted in another thread:

As a quick sideshow, I remember seeing a headline over the weekend along the lines of "First arrest in Madeleine case". I was travelling over the period so didn't pick up on it but this seems to have been totally evaded in the crimewatch programme.
Could this possibly be that SY know fine well what happened, have accepted that unless someone in the know comes forward and grasses them to save their own skin, then they will have no chance of a prosecution, so then SY are using this funding to witch hunt every single suspected paedo on the continent so that when they turn up the square root of fcku all that is new they can at least say "All efforts were made, we did not as yet find out definativly what happened to Madeleine McCann but at least our lines of enquiry have smashed Paedophile rings and terrorist groupings in Europe so from that perspective this operation has been as success". Our European colleagues should take a page from our book in the future bla bla BLAH VOMIT. The McCanns will be able to bask in their glory and write more drivelous books in the name of child protection and how they were instigators of it.

offtopic shit happens

The so-called 'first arrest' was the blagger who told the barrister he'd seen Madeleine and this had no bearing whatsoever on Crimewatch and what's going down now.

I had Friday pencilled in my diary but it seems we may get news of the arrest of the 'prime suspect' considerably earlier.

bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:     

candyfloss wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:The so-called 'first arrest' was the blagger who told the barrister he'd seen Madeleine and this had no bearing whatsoever on Crimewatch and what's going down now.

I had Friday pencilled in my diary but it seems we may get news of the arrest of the 'prime suspect' considerably earlier.

Mr Amaral has said the same thing in his interview posted on Goncalo Amaral on ITV thread

ultimaThule wrote:

bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:     

Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin  

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child.  I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible.  I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution

ultimaThule wrote:

bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:     

Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin  

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child.  I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible.  I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution

ultimaThule wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:The so-called 'first arrest' was the blagger who told the barrister he'd seen Madeleine and this had no bearing whatsoever on Crimewatch and what's going down now.

I had Friday pencilled in my diary but it seems we may get news of the arrest of the 'prime suspect' considerably earlier.

Mr Amaral has said the same thing in his interview posted on Goncalo Amaral on ITV thread

Really?  Wasn't 'first arrest' a headline in the Mirror and it then transpired the blagger had been arrested on a drugs or indecent image charge?  I'm sure I read that on here somewhere.