McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts

The McCanns limited company MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED was due to file its latest accounts for the year ended 31st March 2010 by the 31st December 2011. As of today they still haven't filed them so have incurred a late filing penalty charge of at least £150. In addition to this the credit provider I use has now reduced their credit rating from £32,000 to £0 Not Rated - Financial Statements too old

So much for an experienced fund manager!

Now WHO will pay the late filing charges for the fund. I could bet money that it wont be a certain couple from Rothley.

Why do they not get the accounts for the Madeleine fund in on time fgs, why are the McCanns happy to always bring attention to themselves, they just will not tow the line will they..... obviously they are a law unto themselves, as we have found out the last 4+years

By the way imo it will be business as usual, the fund paying the £150 fine.

gillyspot wrote:The McCanns limited company MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED was due to file its latest accounts for the year ended 31st March 2010 by the 31st December 2011. As of today they still haven't filed them so have incurred a late filing penalty charge of at least £150. In addition to this the credit provider I use has now reduced their credit rating from £32,000 to £0 Not Rated - Financial Statements too old

So much for an experienced fund manager!

Now WHO will pay the late filing charges for the fund. I could bet money that it wont be a certain couple from Rothley.

Hmmm... I'm surprised it had a credit rating in the first place never mind having it reduced to zero. Looking at the potential for litigations against the McCanns - only a fool would give the fund credit. Starting to smell a rat.

It's not hard to get your accounts to Companies House in time you have 9 months to do it in.

Usually only companies with something to hide are late (usually hiding a massive loss but this wont' be the case in the "Fund" so it will be something else.

They are also changing other parts of the fund.

23/12/2011 RES01 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT/ALTER MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES (usually carried out when restructuring a company)

23/12/2011 CC04 Statement of Company's Objects (the current ones being "searching" for Madeleine, bringing "abductor" to justice & financially supporting the
McCann family (with the proviso of sharing money with other missing persons when Madeleine is found).
What's changing here then?

T4Two "Hmmm... I'm surprised it had a credit rating in the first place never mind having it reduced to zero. Looking at the potential for litigations against the McCanns - only a fool would give the fund credit. Starting to smell a rat. " -

Credit rating is normal in business and credit agencies wouldn't look at whether the McCanns were going to be sued or not. To be honest it won't be the "fund" that pays out anyway it will be Kate & Gerry direct that would have to foot the bill (unless Richard Branson is once again agreeable!).

gillyspot wrote:The McCanns limited company MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED was due to file its latest accounts for the year ended 31st March 2010 by the 31st December 2011. As of today they still haven't filed them so have incurred a late filing penalty charge of at least £150. In addition to this the credit provider I use has now reduced their credit rating from £32,000 to £0 Not Rated - Financial Statements too old

So much for an experienced fund manager!

Now WHO will pay the late filing charges for the fund. I could bet money that it wont be a certain couple from Rothley.

Is there a chance the Companies House website hasn't been updated yet?

No there isn't it Companies House. They are late filing their accounts. They have to be filed by the end of last month by law.

gillyspot wrote:No there isn't it Companies House. They are late filing their accounts. They have to be filed by the end of last month by law.

Very sorry but yes there is. If you look at the Companies House website carefully, you will see the situation is plainly and clearly indicated.

gillyspot wrote:The McCanns limited company MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED was due to file its latest accounts for the year ended 31st March 2010 by the 31st December 2011. As of today they still haven't filed them so have incurred a late filing penalty charge of at least £150. In addition to this the credit provider I use has now reduced their credit rating from £32,000 to £0 Not Rated - Financial Statements too old

So much for an experienced fund manager!

Now WHO will pay the late filing charges for the fund. I could bet money that it wont be a certain couple from Rothley.

There will be no late filing charges and there is no incompetence on the part of the Madeleine Fund manager, accountants or lawyers.

Not sure which Companies House site you are reading. But their Webcheck is very clear that the accounts have been submitted in FULL for the period not as you claim up to 31st March 2010 but up to 31st March 2011 in fact.

I think your problem may be that they are not yet available for public inspection but that is not the fault of any fund manager, it is just the typical timescale by which those familiar with Companies House know they work.

A clip from the Webcheck page today.

gillyspot wrote:The McCanns limited company MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED was due to file its latest accounts for the year ended 31st March 2010 by the 31st December 2011. As of today they still haven't filed them so have incurred a late filing penalty charge of at least £150. In addition to this the credit provider I use has now reduced their credit rating from £32,000 to £0 Not Rated - Financial Statements too old

I have just been reading round and I see the two mods here have been very clear that libel is not a sensible policy as I presume it could be very damaging to the forum itself.

I accept that the funds accounts have been filed as of today. Do you have evidence they were filed in time?

By the way nothing I said was libellous. I may have been mistaken (or not as we shall see in the fullness of time) but I wasn't libellous.

"23/12/2011 CC04 Statement of Company's Objects (the current ones being "searching" for Madeleine, bringing "abductor" to justice & financially supporting the
McCann family (with the proviso of sharing money with other missing persons when Madeleine is found)."


I don't understand how it is possible to set up a fund with stated objects that are based on supposition - Is it not the case that there is no evidence whatsoever of an Abduction having taken place?

gillyspot wrote:I accept that the funds accounts have been filed as of today. Do you have evidence they were filed in time?

I have no evidence of anything other than what Companies house says. But I am not making any claims with or without evidence, just posting facts. Do you actually have any evidence they were filed late as you stated? Companies House has never been particularly fast at updating their pages. Did you just jump the gun with your claim?

The End Is Nigh wrote:"23/12/2011 CC04 Statement of Company's Objects (the current ones being "searching" for Madeleine, bringing "abductor" to justice & financially supporting the
McCann family (with the proviso of sharing money with other missing persons when Madeleine is found)."


I don't understand how it is possible to set up a fund with stated objects that are based on supposition - Is it not the case that there is no evidence whatsoever of an Abduction having taken place?

You forget the McCanns are actually in the best position to know if their child was abducted or not. They may actually know for certain that they were not involved and therefore an abductor was. If they know this then there is no supposition at all. They will have set up the fund based on their own firm knowledge.

platinum wrote:

gillyspot wrote:The McCanns limited company MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED was due to file its latest accounts for the year ended 31st March 2010 by the 31st December 2011. As of today they still haven't filed them so have incurred a late filing penalty charge of at least £150. In addition to this the credit provider I use has now reduced their credit rating from £32,000 to £0 Not Rated - Financial Statements too old

I have just been reading round and I see the two mods here have been very clear that libel is not a sensible policy as I presume it could be very damaging to the forum itself.

What part of that comment is libelous?

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:"23/12/2011 CC04 Statement of Company's Objects (the current ones being "searching" for Madeleine, bringing "abductor" to justice & financially supporting the
McCann family (with the proviso of sharing money with other missing persons when Madeleine is found)."


I don't understand how it is possible to set up a fund with stated objects that are based on supposition - Is it not the case that there is no evidence whatsoever of an Abduction having taken place?

You forget the McCanns are actually in the best position to know if their child was abducted or not. They may actually know for certain that they were not involved and therefore an abductor was. If they know this then there is no supposition at all. They will have set up the fund based on their own firm knowledge.

No, I don't forget at all.

The Police discovered no evidence of abduction.

A lot of time has passed.

The Fund still operates on the premise that an Abduction occurred.

Facts.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

gillyspot wrote:The McCanns limited company MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED was due to file its latest accounts for the year ended 31st March 2010 by the 31st December 2011. As of today they still haven't filed them so have incurred a late filing penalty charge of at least £150. In addition to this the credit provider I use has now reduced their credit rating from £32,000 to £0 Not Rated - Financial Statements too old

I have just been reading round and I see the two mods here have been very clear that libel is not a sensible policy as I presume it could be very damaging to the forum itself.

What part of that comment is libelous?

OK potentially libellous. If the poster cannot prove that the accounts were filed late and that the fund has had its credit rating reduced then of course only then would it be clear libel. If the poster can prove it then it would not be libel.

platinum wrote:

gillyspot wrote:I accept that the funds accounts have been filed as of today. Do you have evidence they were filed in time?

I have no evidence of anything other than what Companies house says. But I am not making any claims with or without evidence, just posting facts. Do you actually have any evidence they were filed late as you stated? Companies House has never been particularly fast at updating their pages. Did you just jump the gun with your claim?

Though you have previously stated that the mccanns are not guilty of any crime ?

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:"23/12/2011 CC04 Statement of Company's Objects (the current ones being "searching" for Madeleine, bringing "abductor" to justice & financially supporting the
McCann family (with the proviso of sharing money with other missing persons when Madeleine is found)."


I don't understand how it is possible to set up a fund with stated objects that are based on supposition - Is it not the case that there is no evidence whatsoever of an Abduction having taken place?

You forget the McCanns are actually in the best position to know if their child was abducted or not. They may actually know for certain that they were not involved and therefore an abductor was. If they know this then there is no supposition at all. They will have set up the fund based on their own firm knowledge.

No, I don't forget at all.

The Police discovered no evidence of abduction.

A lot of time has passed.

The Fund still operates on the premise that an Abduction occurred.

Facts.

But it is not the police setting up or operating the fund.

If the McCanns know with absolute certainty that they were not involved in the disappearance of their child it is clearly true that an abduction occurred.

Therefore it is perfectly possible that the premise is entirely justified.

Till someone can prove that they were involved (and nobody has so far) then there is no way of you or me or anyone else knowing if it is a false premise. Only the McCanns actually know and as I say if they know for sure they were not involved then clearly its an abduction and the fund is entirely legitimate.

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

gillyspot wrote:I accept that the funds accounts have been filed as of today. Do you have evidence they were filed in time?

I have no evidence of anything other than what Companies house says. But I am not making any claims with or without evidence, just posting facts. Do you actually have any evidence they were filed late as you stated? Companies House has never been particularly fast at updating their pages. Did you just jump the gun with your claim?

Though you have previously stated that the mccanns are not guilty of any crime ?

Two points here. First this thread and that comment were not related to the McCanns but to the content of the first post. I was simply stating that the information I have about this is entirely from the Companies House website.

Secondly they are not guilty of any crime. Are they? Which court has convicted them?

The companies House website says the accounts (year to March 2011) are not yet available for public inspection but have been received. This means they have been very recently received (probably today) and will be available later in the week.

Kate said in her 'truthful' book that the Fund had to be open, transparent and accountable, whatever the cost - this is a strange way of being transparent etc - filing accounts late. If you look at the companies office website the accounts for earlier years were always filed close to the deadline. There is no reason why accounts can't be filed a couple of months after the year end if the will to do it is there.

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

gillyspot wrote:I accept that the funds accounts have been filed as of today. Do you have evidence they were filed in time?

I have no evidence of anything other than what Companies house says. But I am not making any claims with or without evidence, just posting facts. Do you actually have any evidence they were filed late as you stated? Companies House has never been particularly fast at updating their pages. Did you just jump the gun with your claim?

Though you have previously stated that the mccanns are not guilty of any crime ?

Two points here. First this thread and that comment were not related to the McCanns but to the content of the first post. I was simply stating that the information I have about this is entirely from the Companies House website.

Secondly they are not guilty of any crime. Are they? Which court has convicted them?

They may not been found "guilty" in a court but that doesn't mean they are not guilty of one as you well know.

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

gillyspot wrote:I accept that the funds accounts have been filed as of today. Do you have evidence they were filed in time?

I have no evidence of anything other than what Companies house says. But I am not making any claims with or without evidence, just posting facts. Do you actually have any evidence they were filed late as you stated? Companies House has never been particularly fast at updating their pages. Did you just jump the gun with your claim?

Though you have previously stated that the mccanns are not guilty of any crime ?

Two points here. First this thread and that comment were not related to the McCanns but to the content of the first post. I was simply stating that the information I have about this is entirely from the Companies House website.

Secondly they are not guilty of any crime. Are they? Which court has convicted them?

It is possible to be guilty of a crime though remain uncharged and at liberty.As was the case with the killers of Stephen Lawrence (for 18 years),would you not agree.If you want some more there are plenty of examples of criminals who have never been charged but nevertheless are still guilty.Jill Dando would be another good example as her murderer is still at large and clearly gulty,so too is the killer of Suzy Lamplaugh.
You cannot come on here and say the mccanns are not guilty if you dont know that for a fact can you ?

platinum wrote:

But it is not the police setting up or operating the fund.

If the McCanns know with absolute certainty that they were not involved in the disappearance of their child it is clearly true that an abduction occurred.

Therefore it is perfectly possible that the premise is entirely justified.

Till someone can prove that they were involved (and nobody has so far) then there is no way of you or me or anyone else knowing if it is a false premise. Only the McCanns actually know and as I say if they know for sure they were not involved then clearly its an abduction and the fund is entirely legitimate.

I like your logic .................

gillyspot wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

gillyspot wrote:I accept that the funds accounts have been filed as of today. Do you have evidence they were filed in time?

I have no evidence of anything other than what Companies house says. But I am not making any claims with or without evidence, just posting facts. Do you actually have any evidence they were filed late as you stated? Companies House has never been particularly fast at updating their pages. Did you just jump the gun with your claim?

Though you have previously stated that the mccanns are not guilty of any crime ?

Two points here. First this thread and that comment were not related to the McCanns but to the content of the first post. I was simply stating that the information I have about this is entirely from the Companies House website.

Secondly they are not guilty of any crime. Are they? Which court has convicted them?

They may not been found "guilty" in a court but that doesn't mean they are not guilty of one as you well know.

In British law and I presume Portuguese there is a concept of "presumption of innocence". I abide by law and presume them innocent till there is any proof at all of their guilt. I don't post things which I don't know are true like people or groups having their credit rating lowered. I look for proof or wait for the police and courts to do their jobs.

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

gillyspot wrote:I accept that the funds accounts have been filed as of today. Do you have evidence they were filed in time?

I have no evidence of anything other than what Companies house says. But I am not making any claims with or without evidence, just posting facts. Do you actually have any evidence they were filed late as you stated? Companies House has never been particularly fast at updating their pages. Did you just jump the gun with your claim?

Though you have previously stated that the mccanns are not guilty of any crime ?

Two points here. First this thread and that comment were not related to the McCanns but to the content of the first post. I was simply stating that the information I have about this is entirely from the Companies House website.

Secondly they are not guilty of any crime. Are they? Which court has convicted them?

It is possible to be guilty of a crime though remain uncharged and at liberty.As was the case with the killers of Stephen Lawrence (for 18 years),would you not agree.If you want some more there are plenty of examples of criminals who have never been charged but nevertheless are still guilty.Jill Dando would be another good example as her murderer is still at large and clearly gulty,so too is the killer of Suzy Lamplaugh.
You cannot come on here and say the mccanns are not guilty if you dont know that for a fact can you ?

But the fact is that till they were charged and recently found guilty of that crime they were "presumed" innocent and anyone who had posted (as some papers did) that they were guilty was treading on very dangerous ground of potential libel.

It was the same with Jefferies. People jumped the gun and were proved completely wrong. I just stay within the law and don't post things I can't prove. Others have a different idea and openly post things that they can't prove. Each to his own.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

But it is not the police setting up or operating the fund.

If the McCanns know with absolute certainty that they were not involved in the disappearance of their child it is clearly true that an abduction occurred.

Therefore it is perfectly possible that the premise is entirely justified.

Till someone can prove that they were involved (and nobody has so far) then there is no way of you or me or anyone else knowing if it is a false premise. Only the McCanns actually know and as I say if they know for sure they were not involved then clearly its an abduction and the fund is entirely legitimate.

I like your logic .................

Good because I think is in this case right.