McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts

Panda wrote:

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?

from Principle 1
ensuring the solvency and financial strength of the organisation


from Principle 4
the organisation understands and complies with all legal and regulatory requirements that apply to it
the organisation continues to have good internal financial and management controls
it regularly identifies and reviews the major risks to which the organisation is exposed and has systems to manage those risks

platinum wrote:

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?

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)?

Lioned wrote: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.

James wrote:I think Platinum is Zavier who i think was banned from the Jill Havern site.

Oldartform wrote:

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.

margaret wrote:

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.

Lioned wrote:So do you not think there is a possibility the mccanns are guilty of a crime ?

The End Is Nigh wrote:@platinum: You seem to be making lots of references, directly or obliquely, to the Forum rules etc.

If you have any concerns, can you refer them to Mods/Admin to assess rather than doing your interpretation of their job for them?

platinum wrote:

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?

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.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

platinum wrote:

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?

Very relevant!!! you were quite happy to go off topic when saying you believe your friends Gerry and Kate are innocent until proven guilty, so come on what do you think of the DOCTORS Gaspers statement?????

Forensices was banned today, doesn't make sense when I found his/her posts far more interesting then this....

So its simple for you really, if you feel so strongly about the McCanns innocence, why dont you stay off the anti sites, and only come back on when your pals have been CLEARED then we can have a fair discussion, so for now.....

Velvet 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.

I couldn't have put it better, well said platinum!

platinum wrote:

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.

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:

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.

Absolute nonsense. I'd check up on your facts RE: Liable if I were you.

You are attempting to use 'liable' to shut down conversation.

Thank goodness for the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 which guarantors peoples rights to Freedom of thought, conscience and Religion as well as one's freedom of expression and freedom of association.

In Steel and Morris VS The United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights the court stated that pressure groups (of which I consider the members of this forum are as lots of people here are active behing the scenes and apply pressure to their MP's and local Councillor about this case. Made easier through www.writetothem.com) should be permitted to report in good faith on matters of public interest, as journalists are and
I believe Gillyspot would say that they were reporting the news RE: Company house which was of public interest to this group at this forum in good faith. In fact to suggest Gillyspot was doing something otherwise is liable as you 'Platinum' would be attempting to taint this person's good character in a public fora.

Oldartform wrote:

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.

Panda wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

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.

Exactly Oldartform.........Madeleines face is known around the World, supposed sightings checked a £2 million reward still unclaimed so
it"s no good Gerry saying "there is no evidence Madeleine is dead" after five years the chances are minimal", Of course, if they dare admit they think Madeleine is no longer alive , then the fund must close down.

platinum wrote:

ps it might help your research if you found out how to spell libel.

platinum wrote:

Not at all. For two distinct reasons.
Firstly though I believe the McCanns do admit there is the possibility that their child is dead, they (like all decent parents would) hope that she is alive and will do what they can to find her.