McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

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.

I presume you cannot prove the mccanns innocent ?

............. clearly.


A great many people believe (or think they do)n what Healy & McCann say.


A great many people do not.

platinum wrote:

Good because I think is in this case right.

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

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.

There is a massive difference between the McCanns case and any other as the official police files are available to read therefore we can see the inconsistencies and obstruction of them and T7.

As regards the "Fund" being 0 credit rated - that is what is stated on the credit check website I used (I can't share as it is under contract but I can guarantee you it is true).

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

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.

I presume you cannot prove the mccanns innocent ?

Of course I can't but I have never claimed them innocent. Just not guilty of any crime because that demands a court to declare them so in my opinion. As I said. My position is that they are "presumed" innocent till then and I abide by that legal view.

The End Is Nigh wrote:............. clearly.


A great many people believe (or think they do)n what Healy & McCann say.


A great many people do not.

platinum wrote:

Good because I think is in this case right.

Whether they do or don't is irrelevant. Till they show some flaw in the logic I will continue to believe it is correct.

Can you suggest any flaw in the logical position that if the McCanns know they are innocent then the fund is legitimately worded?

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?

If I wanted, could I create a company to search for something or someone? Is it illegal to receive donations from a gullible public? Is it illegal to state what my objects are even if there is no proof my objectives are true?
Could I say I am setting up a company to search for the end of the rainbow, really believing this is possible?

Is Platinum is playing Devil`s Advocate (which can be a good thing to keep a forum`s integrity)?

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

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.

I presume you cannot prove the mccanns innocent ?

Of course I can't but I have never claimed them innocent. Just not guilty of any crime because that demands a court to declare them so in my opinion. As I said. My position is that they are "presumed" innocent till then and I abide by that legal view.

In the meantime perhaps you would let us know what your previous user name was ?

gillyspot wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

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.

There is a massive difference between the McCanns case and any other as the official police files are available to read therefore we can see the inconsistencies and obstruction of them and T7.

As regards the "Fund" being 0 credit rated - that is what is stated on the credit check website I used (I can't share as it is under contract but I can guarantee you it is true).

And your claim that the accounts were submitted late? Proof of that?

I believe not all the files are available and many are only available to us in partial translations. Not exactly the best way to conduct an online trial is it? Nor can we probe the witnesses as would be necessary to find out how accurate all the statements are. Not exactly conducive to a fair trial is it? Would you like to be taken to court and no witnesses could be questioned? That would be a mockery. But it is effectively what happens in this case as the McCanns are tried online. Personally I can well understand now why our legal system prevents this kind of farrago of internet justice by not providing the documents to the public. I think this aspect of Portuguese justice is an abomination.

platinum wrote:
Whether they do or don't is irrelevant. Till they show some flaw in the logic I will continue to believe it is correct.

Can you suggest any flaw in the logical position that if the McCanns know they are innocent then the fund is legitimately worded?

I recall stating not so long ago that I liked your logic. It's most interesting.

Oldartform 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?

If I wanted, could I create a company to search for something or someone? Is it illegal to receive donations from a gullible public? Is it illegal to state what my objects are even if there is no proof my objectives are true?
Could I say I am setting up a company to search for the end of the rainbow, really believing this is possible?

Is Platinum is playing Devil`s Advocate (which can be a good thing to keep a forum`s integrity)?

Thank God someone has some inkling of sense.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:
Whether they do or don't is irrelevant. Till they show some flaw in the logic I will continue to believe it is correct.

Can you suggest any flaw in the logical position that if the McCanns know they are innocent then the fund is legitimately worded?

I recall stating not so long ago that I liked your logic. It's most interesting.

And as I say till it is discredited by further logical proof I shall maintain it is correct.

platinum wrote:
And your claim that the accounts were submitted late? Proof of that?

I believe not all the files are available and many are only available to us in partial translations. Not exactly the best way to conduct an online trial is it? Nor can we probe the witnesses as would be necessary to find out how accurate all the statements are. Not exactly conducive to a fair trial is it? Would you like to be taken to court and no witnesses could be questioned? That would be a mockery. But it is effectively what happens in this case as the McCanns are tried online. Personally I can well understand now why our legal system prevents this kind of farrago of internet justice by not providing the documents to the public. I think this aspect of Portuguese justice is an abomination.

You keep on mentioning the McCanns (I assume you mean Healy and McCann) as if they are the only people involved in the Fund and the wider issues. Is this significant?

A Company has 10 months from due date to present Accounts so January would be the last Month to send the Accounts to Companies House.

At 31st March 2010 the Company had a balance of £470,000 and there would be no need for a Credit Rating.

The Directors paid £1 on appointment so that in the event of the Company being liquidated with Creditors, the Directors only pay £1.

No one can say what happened on 3rd May but despite £2 million reward being offered by the NOTW not one single snitch has come forward with evidence.

Despite the Fund accumulating over £1 million within a few months and the aim of the Fund was supposed to be to search for Madeleine,
why has there never been any attempt to employ Agencies with experience of searching for missing children. Who in their right mind would pay £300,000 to Halligen without checking references.????

It took 12 days to set up the Fund, engage Directors, Sectretaries organise a web site, order merchandise , open a paypal account,

HOW COULD THE MCCANNS KNOW MADELEIENE WOULD NOT BE FOUND IN THE INTERIM OR A RANSOM DEMAND BE MADE.???????

platinum wrote:

Thank God someone has some inkling of sense.

For those of us unfamiliar with your God, how is this relevant?

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:


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.

I presume you cannot prove the mccanns innocent ?

Of course I can't but I have never claimed them innocent. Just not guilty of any crime because that demands a court to declare them so in my opinion. As I said. My position is that they are "presumed" innocent till then and I abide by that legal view.

In the meantime perhaps you would let us know what your previous user name was ?

Oh my. You are simply guessing now that I have been here before.
If I were to say that I have not then you probably would not believe me.
If I were to post a name you would have no way of knowing if I had pulled that name out of a hat or if I was telling the truth.

Your problem is that only I know whether I have or not been here before or whether I am inclined (if I have been here before) to tell you the truth about my name then. Only I could possibly know whether my answer was actually true or not.

For that reason I think I will decline your best-intentioned invititation with the following.

No.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

Thank God someone has some inkling of sense.

For those of us unfamiliar with your God, how is this relevant?

Its relevance lies in the fact that it was a perfectly legitimate response to the comment by the previous poster.

Panda wrote:A Company has 10 months from due date to present Accounts so January would be the last Month to send the Accounts to Companies House.

At 31st March 2010 the Company had a balance of £470,000 and there would be no need for a Credit Rating.

The Directors paid £1 on appointment so that in the event of the Company being liquidated with Creditors, the Directors only pay £1.

No one can say what happened on 3rd May but despite £2 million reward being offered by the NOTW not one single snitch has come forward with evidence.

Despite the Fund accumulating over £1 million within a few months and the aim of the Fund was supposed to be to search for Madeleine,
why has there never been any attempt to employ Agencies with experience of searching for missing children. Who in their right mind would pay £300,000 to Halligen without checking references.????

It took 12 days to set up the Fund, engage Directors, Sectretaries organise a web site, order merchandise , open a paypal account,

HOW COULD THE MCCANNS KNOW MADELEIENE WOULD NOT BE FOUND IN THE INTERIM OR A RANSOM DEMAND BE MADE.???????

As you are probably very aware, they could not know this with certainty. But when could they? Are you inferring that they should never have done anything or planned anything? Should they never have made arrangements a few days ahead to go on television and appeal? Should they never have made arrangements days in advance for the screening of the appeal at football matches? What is your real point?

Are you suggesting the parents of a missing child can never ever be proactive and set up something for twelve days in the future to assist in the search for their missing child?

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

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.

I presume you cannot prove the mccanns innocent ?

Of course I can't but I have never claimed them innocent. Just not guilty of any crime because that demands a court to declare them so in my opinion. As I said. My position is that they are "presumed" innocent till then and I abide by that legal view.

In the meantime perhaps you would let us know what your previous user name was ?

Oh my. You are simply guessing now that I have been here before.
If I were to say that I have not then you probably would not believe me.
If I were to post a name you would have no way of knowing if I had pulled that name out of a hat or if I was telling the truth.

Your problem is that only I know whether I have or not been here before or whether I am inclined (if I have been here before) to tell you the truth about my name then. Only I could possibly know whether my answer was actually true or not.

For that reason I think I will decline your best-intentioned invititation with the following.

No.

Well i would say you've clearly come back to this bile pit of human excrement to nurse along your ego having got a little bored with your life elsewhere,is that not correct ?
After all you have now had nearly five years to come to terms with the fact that the mccanns went on Holiday with Three little children and due to being pretty awful parents only brought home two,though for some reason some people remain of the opinion that is acceptable.

platinum wrote:
Oh my. You are simply guessing now that I have been here before.
If I were to say that I have not then you probably would not believe me.
If I were to post a name you would have no way of knowing if I had pulled that name out of a hat or if I was telling the truth.

Your problem is that only I know whether I have or not been here before or whether I am inclined (if I have been here before) to tell you the truth about my name then. Only I could possibly know whether my answer was actually true or not.

For that reason I think I will decline your best-intentioned invititation with the following.

No.

Well as soon as you started screaming 'libel!' it was all too obvious - as if it wasn't before....

Tell us, what do you think of the Gaspars statements?

I expect you'll be gone before too soon so

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

platinum wrote:

Lioned wrote:

I presume you cannot prove the mccanns innocent ?

Of course I can't but I have never claimed them innocent. Just not guilty of any crime because that demands a court to declare them so in my opinion. As I said. My position is that they are "presumed" innocent till then and I abide by that legal view.

In the meantime perhaps you would let us know what your previous user name was ?

Oh my. You are simply guessing now that I have been here before.
If I were to say that I have not then you probably would not believe me.
If I were to post a name you would have no way of knowing if I had pulled that name out of a hat or if I was telling the truth.

Your problem is that only I know whether I have or not been here before or whether I am inclined (if I have been here before) to tell you the truth about my name then. Only I could possibly know whether my answer was actually true or not.

For that reason I think I will decline your best-intentioned invititation with the following.

No.

Well i would say you've clearly come back to this bile pit of human excrement to nurse along your ego having got a little bored with your life elsewhere,is that not correct ?
After all you have now had nearly five years to come to terms with the fact that the mccanns went on Holiday with Three little children and due to being pretty awful parents only brought home two,though for some reason some people remain of the opinion that is acceptable.

What makes you think I find that acceptable. I most certainly do not.

As for your comments about this forum then I have to disagree with you again. I think you are well out of order as they say with that kind of nastiness about this forum.

As for your comments about my life. I don't think that is relevant to the thread and will decline to comment other than to say I thought that people were not supposed to direct abuse at people but to stick to the topic.

margaret wrote:

platinum wrote:
Oh my. You are simply guessing now that I have been here before.
If I were to say that I have not then you probably would not believe me.
If I were to post a name you would have no way of knowing if I had pulled that name out of a hat or if I was telling the truth.

Your problem is that only I know whether I have or not been here before or whether I am inclined (if I have been here before) to tell you the truth about my name then. Only I could possibly know whether my answer was actually true or not.

For that reason I think I will decline your best-intentioned invititation with the following.

No.

Well as soon as you started screaming 'libel!' it was all too obvious - as if it wasn't before....

Tell us, what do you think of the Gaspars statements?

I expect you'll be gone before too soon so

Not sure what you think is obvious. Not obvious to me I am afraid. As for the Gaspar statements how is that relevant to this thread? Are you trying to disrupt this thread? Is there something about the accounts having been submitted which you are trying to cover up?

So you will not mind telling us if you've previously been banned from this forum before then ?

Have you been here before ?

Offcourse one shouldn't be suprised that those 'pro' mccanns who have previously been banned should try to sneak back here for some intelligent debate,a short respite i suspect from the constant cussing over on 'Child Neglectors Are Us' site where the only debate usually revolves around whats going on here !

I am only prone to being nasty and abusive to those parents who fail to look after their babies with proper care and attention (and those who think such action acceptable) and those who come on here 'dishonestly' under a different user name having been previously banned.

platinum wrote:

Panda wrote:A Company has 10 months from due date to present Accounts so January would be the last Month to send the Accounts to Companies House.

At 31st March 2010 the Company had a balance of £470,000 and there would be no need for a Credit Rating.

The Directors paid £1 on appointment so that in the event of the Company being liquidated with Creditors, the Directors only pay £1.

No one can say what happened on 3rd May but despite £2 million reward being offered by the NOTW not one single snitch has come forward with evidence.

Despite the Fund accumulating over £1 million within a few months and the aim of the Fund was supposed to be to search for Madeleine,
why has there never been any attempt to employ Agencies with experience of searching for missing children. Who in their right mind would pay £300,000 to Halligen without checking references.????

It took 12 days to set up the Fund, engage Directors, Sectretaries organise a web site, order merchandise , open a paypal account,

HOW COULD THE MCCANNS KNOW MADELEIENE WOULD NOT BE FOUND IN THE INTERIM OR A RANSOM DEMAND BE MADE.???????

As you are probably very aware, they could not know this with certainty. But when could they? Are you inferring that they should never have done anything or planned anything? Should they never have made arrangements a few days ahead to go on television and appeal? Should they never have made arrangements days in advance for the screening of the appeal at football matches? What is your real point?

Are you suggesting the parents of a missing child can never ever be proactive and set up something for twelve days in the future to assist in the search for their missing child?

I have no complaint about proactive parents and you will agree they had extraordinary help from people in high places. What I object to
is the use of Donations from ordinary people , children making cakes to sell , race nights organised, etc. All the McCanns have used that money for is Legal Fees to sue anyone who dares to criticise them. All they have done is criticise the Portugese Police and refuse to attend a recon .

When the fund was set up John McCann was appointed chairman (he resigned hast year) and promised the Fund would be run on the
Good Governance for Charities guideline and be transparent. The only Accounts available are the minimum for Companies house. Why couldn"t they publish Full Accounts on their website?

platinum wrote:
Not sure what you think is obvious. Not obvious to me I am afraid. As for the Gaspar statements how is that relevant to this thread? Are you trying to disrupt this thread? Is there something about the accounts having been submitted which you are trying to cover up?

Erm no, because l'm not a McCann.

When l go on holiday l enjoy having my kids with me and they've always returned home with me because l know what being a responsible parent is.

Panda wrote:It took 12 days to set up the Fund, engage Directors, Sectretaries organise a web site, order merchandise , open a paypal account,

HOW COULD THE MCCANNS KNOW MADELEIENE WOULD NOT BE FOUND IN THE INTERIM OR A RANSOM DEMAND BE MADE.???????

IMO this is the MAJOR weird action the McCanns took. It is what initially aroused my suspicions. In doing this they must have known she was not going to materialise.