Re: McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts

**fuzeta** Mon 9 Jan - 21:24

Carolina wrote:
Velvet wrote:
Carolina wrote:One thing that I could never understand is why would any member of the public donate money spontaneously to the parents of a missing child, especially parents who neglected their children and who as doctors would not seem to the public to be lacking in funds. I don't believe that this has ever happened before in a missing child case and I don't believe that this is what happened here.

You cannot understand why members of the public gave donations to a child THEY BELIEVED to be abducted? Compassion? Sympathy? The fact that its every parents biggest fear and they felt deeply for them? What do you mean with you don't believe this is what happened here? It did happen, like you say people did give money to them. No it hasn't happened to others but it did to them.

What I am saying is that most people started to give money only after the fund was set up and which was pushed by the media. I'm sure most people felt compassion and sympathy, I did in the beginning, when most people believed in an abduction, but I surely don't think that people put their hands in their pockets just a couple of days after Maddie's disappearance, when she could have been found at any moment. People were ready to give their time and search for her around Praia da Luz but why give money when the police were already investigating. I'm sure you will conclude that I am not a nice person but it never ever crossed my mind to donate money for the search when the police both Portuguese and British were on the case. And I doubt very much that the average person would all of sudden think "I must give these poor parents money" to search for their daughter. I would like to remind you that the McCanns went around the Algarve putting begging bowls in the receptions of various hotels and tourist resorts which the employees resented and found them to be nervy.

I must say Carolina In the first days of the so called abduction it never occurred to me for one minute to give money to the McCanns. I cannot think why it would occur to anybody as you say. If the police are investigating and searching and the local people are searching, what good would sending money do at that time, for what purpose? So I see what you mean.
How soon was it that that the McCanns put begging bowls inside the hotels and if it was soon after Madeleine disappeared what were they saying it was for? All of it very strange to me anyway

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 21:26

Carolina wrote:One thing that I could never understand is why would any member of the public donate money spontaneously to the parents of a missing child, especially parents who neglected their children and who as doctors would not seem to the public to be lacking in funds. I don't believe that this has ever happened before in a missing child case and I don't believe that this is what happened here.

As for presumption of innocence this means that in the courtroom the defendent is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But the average John Doe is not obliged by law to believe that the person is innocent and he can come to his own conclusions based on the facts available. There is also freedom of opinion, otherwise there wouldn't be books written by investigators with very diverse opinions about many criminal cases.

Whether you understand it or not there was most certainly a significant number of the public who did contribute. Before the fund was set up too. There is for example a film of John McCann explaining this very fact. Sorry I don't have the link.

I believe you are half right about the average John Doe. He may not be obliged by law to believe the presumed innocence but he is obliged by law to respect that presumed innocence. If people go round shouting that people who have never even been charged for a crime are guilty then they leave themselves open to harassment criminal charges and various potenital civil actions.

**Chris** Mon 9 Jan - 21:28

platinum wrote:
Chris wrote:
platinum wrote:
Panda wrote:
Chris wrote:

It has been reduced to 9 months Panda.

Thanks Chris, so if the Accounts have now been sent they are only a few days late.

When John McCann resigned as Chairman, no Chairman has been elected and Smethurst writes the Directors Report.

I don"t understand what Platinum means by this.....do you?

Secondly, I have it on good authority that there is scope to extend the
remit of the fund and to develop the search in other directions. I don't
have the document yet but am told the new code for governance of the
fund will be somewhat different to the old."

Not "if the accounts have now been sent". They clearly from Companies House site have been sent.

I have spoken to someone who has read the latest version of the fund code of governance. It would appear to show some significant differences to the previous one and suggest possible other directions in which the search/use of fund my be focused.

If there has been a fundamental change in the objectives it is a shame their website hasn't been updated for changes made at least two or three weeks ago considering it is still requesting funds.

Three points. I may be mistaken, though I don't believe I am. Secondly Christmas and New Year has intervened. Thirdly few small websites such as that one are updated as frequently as we would wish.

Their webmaster found the time to post their Christmas message at about the same time as the revised objectives (presumably agreed by the directors earlier) were filed at Company House.

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 21:29

Carolina wrote:
Velvet wrote:
Carolina wrote:One thing that I could never understand is why would any member of the public donate money spontaneously to the parents of a missing child, especially parents who neglected their children and who as doctors would not seem to the public to be lacking in funds. I don't believe that this has ever happened before in a missing child case and I don't believe that this is what happened here.

You cannot understand why members of the public gave donations to a child THEY BELIEVED to be abducted? Compassion? Sympathy? The fact that its every parents biggest fear and they felt deeply for them? What do you mean with you don't believe this is what happened here? It did happen, like you say people did give money to them. No it hasn't happened to others but it did to them.

What I am saying is that most people started to give money only after the fund was set up and which was pushed by the media. I'm sure most people felt compassion and sympathy, I did in the beginning, when most people believed in an abduction, but I surely don't think that people put their hands in their pockets just a couple of days after Maddie's disappearance, when she could have been found at any moment. People were ready to give their time and search for her around Praia da Luz but why give money when the police were already investigating. I'm sure you will conclude that I am not a nice person but it never ever crossed my mind to donate money for the search when the police both Portuguese and British were on the case. And I doubt very much that the average person would all of sudden think "I must give these poor parents money" to search for their daughter. I would like to remind you that the McCanns went around the Algarve putting begging bowls in the receptions of various hotels and tourist resorts which the employees resented and found them to be nervy.

You are of course absolutely right that most people have donated since the fund has been operating. This is largely I would suggest due to the fact that the time periods are 12 days and four years+. Not surprising really. I believe that the video of John McCann shows clearly that they did in fact put money into people's hands.

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 21:30

Chris wrote:
platinum wrote:
Chris wrote:
platinum wrote:
Panda wrote:

Thanks Chris, so if the Accounts have now been sent they are only a few days late.

When John McCann resigned as Chairman, no Chairman has been elected and Smethurst writes the Directors Report.

I don"t understand what Platinum means by this.....do you?

Secondly, I have it on good authority that there is scope to extend the
remit of the fund and to develop the search in other directions. I don't
have the document yet but am told the new code for governance of the
fund will be somewhat different to the old."

Not "if the accounts have now been sent". They clearly from Companies House site have been sent.

I have spoken to someone who has read the latest version of the fund code of governance. It would appear to show some significant differences to the previous one and suggest possible other directions in which the search/use of fund my be focused.

If there has been a fundamental change in the objectives it is a shame their website hasn't been updated for changes made at least two or three weeks ago considering it is still requesting funds.

Three points. I may be mistaken, though I don't believe I am. Secondly Christmas and New Year has intervened. Thirdly few small websites such as that one are updated as frequently as we would wish.

Their webmaster found the time to post their Christmas message at about the same time as the revised objectives (presumably agreed by the directors earlier) were filed at Company House.

Their webmaster may have had a pre-prepared Christmas message. Very likely in fact. That does not compare to revising pages on the site which is somewhat more time-consuming I would suspect.

gillyspot Mon 9 Jan - 21:34

It won't be a big job to remove text and replace it and remember the meeting the directors held would have been at least a month ago. Don't YOU think donors to their "fund" deserve to have up to date information on it? I do.

**Chris** Mon 9 Jan - 21:38

platinum wrote:
Chris wrote:
platinum wrote:
Chris wrote:
platinum wrote:

Not "if the accounts have now been sent". They clearly from Companies House site have been sent.

I have spoken to someone who has read the latest version of the fund code of governance. It would appear to show some significant differences to the previous one and suggest possible other directions in which the search/use of fund my be focused.

If there has been a fundamental change in the objectives it is a shame their website hasn't been updated for changes made at least two or three weeks ago considering it is still requesting funds.

Three points. I may be mistaken, though I don't believe I am. Secondly Christmas and New Year has intervened. Thirdly few small websites such as that one are updated as frequently as we would wish.

Their webmaster found the time to post their Christmas message at about the same time as the revised objectives (presumably agreed by the directors earlier) were filed at Company House.

Their webmaster may have had a pre-prepared Christmas message. Very likely in fact. That does not compare to revising pages on the site which is somewhat more time-consuming I would suspect.

The objectives were pre-prepared also - the CH website proves that. It takes no significant time at all to revise words on an existing page.

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 21:41

gillyspot wrote:It won't be a big job to remove text and replace it and remember the meeting the directors held would have been at least a month ago. Don't YOU think donors to their "fund" deserve to have up to date information on it? I do.

I think all websites should be kept up to date. I am sure you are as aware as me that even on some large sites that is not unfortunately what the public (donors or otherwise) can expect. I don't see this as being any more mysterious or appalling for its tardiness than any other.

gillyspot Mon 9 Jan - 21:44

But if it is a fundamental change to where the donations are spent then the donors deserve to know. Remember they are being asked to donate using the paypal button on there. Perhaps you could ask your pal why the fund doesn't deliver what it promises when it says "An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability"

I accept it is "tax transparent" but that isn't what is implied in this statement is it?

Loopdaloop Mon 9 Jan - 21:55

The fact that the 'fund' was set up so quickly after the 'disappearance' is strange as one would assume, logically that if it happened you would be able to entrust the 'search' to the Police, moreover the fact that they had the embassy on board early as well as having advisers so close to the government such as Alex Woolfall that the political will as well as the public will and the support of the media for them to find Madeline would be so great that a 'fund' would be unnecessary! To spend money on mickey mouse detective agencies when you have the worlds finest on board is just bizarre. Unless you're expecting other troubles later on!

Guest Mon 9 Jan - 22:02

It would also have helped if the parents themselves had contributed more than lip service to a physical search,

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 22:11

Loopdaloop wrote:
The fact that the 'fund' was set up so quickly after the 'disappearance' is strange as one would assume, logically that if it happened you would be able to entrust the 'search' to the Police, moreover the fact that they had the embassy on board early as well as having advisers so close to the government such as Alex Woolfall that the political will as well as the public will and the support of the media for them to find Madeline would be so great that a 'fund' would be unnecessary! To spend money on mickey mouse detective agencies when you have the worlds finest on board is just bizarre. Unless you're expecting other troubles later on!

The fund was set up as John McCann explains to deal with the unprecedented inpouring of money. Do you think they should just have put the money in a cardboard box?

Apologies not John McCann but Brian Kennedy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-gTcKDKrM

**Lioned** Mon 9 Jan - 22:38

Course your attempts at being an honestbroker here are rather lost in your contradictions,as was suspected during your last excursion your desire for intelligent discussion could not be found elsewhere.I wonder what they will think of you ?

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 22:43

Lioned wrote:Course your attempts at being an honestbroker here are rather lost in your contradictions,as was suspected during your last excursion your desire for intelligent discussion could not be found elsewhere.I wonder what they will think of you ?

If you are implying I am the poster honestbroker. Once again you show how wrong you are. Keep guessing but as I have already said I have never been here before you might be onto a loser.

As for contradictions from me? Could you elaborate. I am not aware of any.

Guest Mon 9 Jan - 22:46

Lioned wrote:Course your attempts at being an honestbroker here are rather lost in your contradictions,as was suspected during your last excursion your desire for intelligent discussion could not be found elsewhere.I wonder what they will think of you ?

honestbroker?

Frisky Python?

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 22:48

Why are so many posters here on MM so determined to disrupt threads with off-topic posts?

Could we get back to the topic?

Lioned suggests that I have been contradictory. Could someone point out what contradictions these are as I am not aware of any in my on topic posting?

I have made it very clear that the accounts have been posted and provided a screenshot to demonstrate that. I have made it clear that there is no evidence for any claim that the accounts were submitted late or any such late submission has incurred charges or caused credit ratings to drop. Further I have indicated that there is no illegitmacy of the fund if the McCanns know (as is perfectly possible) that they are not involved in the disappearance. Now what is contradictory?

**tanszi** Mon 9 Jan - 22:57

whats the difference between a fund and a limited company, anyone know.

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 23:02

tanszi wrote:whats the difference between a fund and a limited company, anyone know.

I am not aware that there is any legal definition of a "fund". Its just a general term for a sum of money that can be drawn upon for whatever purpose. But a limited company is subject to strict legal conditions.

**Panda** Mon 9 Jan - 23:41

I think what set alarm bells ringing for many was that the M & A allowed for Family Support. This was hardly a family living on the breadline
and within 3 months the Fund had paid £4,000 to the McCanns for their Mortgage. Paid for their trip to Rome , later on Gerry McCann and
Smethurst"s trip to Portugal staying in a 5 star Hotel. Who forced them to stay in Portugal for almost 5 months? It was their choice .
Did Ben Needham"s Mum have a choice when her Son disappeared, did she have the help of Family Lawyers , a PR spokesperson? NO,
she was told that because the incident happened in a Foreign Country U.K Police could not get involved.

platinum Mon 9 Jan - 23:45

Panda wrote:I think what set alarm bells ringing for many was that the M & A allowed for Family Support. This was hardly a family living on the breadline
and within 3 months the Fund had paid £4,000 to the McCanns for their Mortgage. Paid for their trip to Rome , later on Gerry McCann and
Smethurst"s trip to Portugal staying in a 5 star Hotel. Who forced them to stay in Portugal for almost 5 months? It was their choice .
Did Ben Needham"s Mum have a choice when her Son disappeared, did she have the help of Family Lawyers , a PR spokesperson? NO,
she was told that because the incident happened in a Foreign Country U.K Police could not get involved.

Ah, so now we get to the nitty gritty of the disquiet over the fund.

**AnnaEsse** Mon 9 Jan - 23:48

platinum wrote:
Panda wrote:I think what set alarm bells ringing for many was that the M & A allowed for Family Support. This was hardly a family living on the breadline
and within 3 months the Fund had paid £4,000 to the McCanns for their Mortgage. Paid for their trip to Rome , later on Gerry McCann and
Smethurst"s trip to Portugal staying in a 5 star Hotel. Who forced them to stay in Portugal for almost 5 months? It was their choice .
Did Ben Needham"s Mum have a choice when her Son disappeared, did she have the help of Family Lawyers , a PR spokesperson? NO,
she was told that because the incident happened in a Foreign Country U.K Police could not get involved.

Ah, so now we get to the nitty gritty of the disquiet over the fund.

What on earth are you talking about? Panda has just made a comment about what rang alarm bells for her about the fund.

**Panda** Mon 9 Jan - 23:59

AnnaEsse wrote:
platinum wrote:
Panda wrote:I think what set alarm bells ringing for many was that the M & A allowed for Family Support. This was hardly a family living on the breadline
and within 3 months the Fund had paid £4,000 to the McCanns for their Mortgage. Paid for their trip to Rome , later on Gerry McCann and
Smethurst"s trip to Portugal staying in a 5 star Hotel. Who forced them to stay in Portugal for almost 5 months? It was their choice .
Did Ben Needham"s Mum have a choice when her Son disappeared, did she have the help of Family Lawyers , a PR spokesperson? NO,
she was told that because the incident happened in a Foreign Country U.K Police could not get involved.

Ah, so now we get to the nitty gritty of the disquiet over the fund.

What on earth are you talking about? Panda has just made a comment about what rang alarm bells for her about the fund.

Hi AnnaEsse, I think Platinum is suggesting that I and others resented the McCanns being able to use the Fund for their own personal
expenditure. McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts - Page 5 25346

McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts - Page 5 25346

**AnnaEsse** Tue 10 Jan - 0:09

Panda wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
platinum wrote:
Panda wrote:I think what set alarm bells ringing for many was that the M & A allowed for Family Support. This was hardly a family living on the breadline
and within 3 months the Fund had paid £4,000 to the McCanns for their Mortgage. Paid for their trip to Rome , later on Gerry McCann and
Smethurst"s trip to Portugal staying in a 5 star Hotel. Who forced them to stay in Portugal for almost 5 months? It was their choice .
Did Ben Needham"s Mum have a choice when her Son disappeared, did she have the help of Family Lawyers , a PR spokesperson? NO,
she was told that because the incident happened in a Foreign Country U.K Police could not get involved.

Ah, so now we get to the nitty gritty of the disquiet over the fund.

What on earth are you talking about? Panda has just made a comment about what rang alarm bells for her about the fund.

Hi AnnaEsse, I think Platinum is suggesting that I and others resented the McCanns being able to use the Fund for their own personal
expenditure.

I know! And she thinks that this thread is really all about that and not about the late filing of reports. It's the nitty gritty! You're all just obsessed with the McCanns and their money! Give me strength!

**Claudia79** Tue 10 Jan - 0:10

AnnaEsse wrote:
Panda wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
platinum wrote:
Panda wrote:I think what set alarm bells ringing for many was that the M & A allowed for Family Support. This was hardly a family living on the breadline
and within 3 months the Fund had paid £4,000 to the McCanns for their Mortgage. Paid for their trip to Rome , later on Gerry McCann and
Smethurst"s trip to Portugal staying in a 5 star Hotel. Who forced them to stay in Portugal for almost 5 months? It was their choice .
Did Ben Needham"s Mum have a choice when her Son disappeared, did she have the help of Family Lawyers , a PR spokesperson? NO,
she was told that because the incident happened in a Foreign Country U.K Police could not get involved.

Ah, so now we get to the nitty gritty of the disquiet over the fund.

What on earth are you talking about? Panda has just made a comment about what rang alarm bells for her about the fund.

Hi AnnaEsse, I think Platinum is suggesting that I and others resented the McCanns being able to use the Fund for their own personal
expenditure.

I know! And she thinks that this thread is really all about that and not about the late filing of reports. It's the nitty gritty! You're all just obsessed with the McCanns and their money! Give me strength!

You forgetting our jealousy because they are both so attractive. McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts - Page 5 Icon_flower

**AnnaEsse** Tue 10 Jan - 0:13

Claudia79 wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Panda wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
platinum wrote:

Ah, so now we get to the nitty gritty of the disquiet over the fund.

What on earth are you talking about? Panda has just made a comment about what rang alarm bells for her about the fund.

Hi AnnaEsse, I think Platinum is suggesting that I and others resented the McCanns being able to use the Fund for their own personal
expenditure.

I know! And she thinks that this thread is really all about that and not about the late filing of reports. It's the nitty gritty! You're all just obsessed with the McCanns and their money! Give me strength!

You forgetting our jealousy because they are both so attractive.

Oh yes! I am so jealous of that stick woman and her ability to pull those amazing faces. And it must be wonderful being married to a man with a face like a slapped erse! I am so jealous! McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts - Page 5 294124

McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts - Page 5 294124

Sponsored content