McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts

platinum wrote:Thank you.
The companies house website has clearly put paid to the claim that the fund accounts have not been submitted.
As for the credit rating till I see some evidence of that I will maintain that I have no idea if the rating has changed or not. Perhaps it never had a good rating as it is a company which does not do much direct trading. I just do not know.

The Companies House website is merely confirming they have now been filed but not when. At least one company check website (companiesintheuk.co.uk) is stating they were filed on 8 Jan 2012 and, if correct, they were filed a week after the deadline.

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.

It has been reduced to 9 months Panda.

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.

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.

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!

That is meaningless garbage.I could equally say the mccanns do know they where involved and the fund is fraudulent,you will have to do better than that.

On what basis would they know for certain Madeleine was abducted - they can produce no evidence! But of course they are Dr's are'nt they and as fine upstanding pillars of our society they should be believed (just remind me again - where were the parents and what were they doing when Madeleine 'disappeared??)

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.

Chris 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.

It has been reduced to 9 months Panda.

I can second that it is definitely 9 months now. Was reduced a couple of years ago. As regards late filing unless the Accounts have gone missing it doesn't take Companies House 9 days to add the files to their system so I am still sure (platinum) that they were filed late.

As regards the credit rating the McCanns fund will expect credit from suppliers as would any company & even if they pay all suppliers at the time of supply (which we know they do not) they would still have a rating. This has gone down on the credit reference agency I use from £32k at 31.12.11 to £0 at 9.1.12.

I am willing to stand by all of the above statements.

Chris 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.

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."

when the March 2011 Fund accs are available to the public, they will have, I suspect a companies office date stamp on them so we will know exactly when they were received. The accounts will also have the date the directors signed off the accounts and the date the auditors signed the accounts.

I suspect the accounts will be as uninformative as usual, giving the bare minimum legal information. But I would love to be wrong and see detailed income and expenditure schedules in the accounts.

NoStone wrote:On what basis would they know for certain Madeleine was abducted - they can produce no evidence! But of course they are Dr's are'nt they and as fine upstanding pillars of our society they should be believed (just remind me again - where were the parents and what were they doing when Madeleine 'disappeared??)

On the very very simple basis that they know what they did and if they KNOW they were not involved in the disappearance then there must have been an abductor (or the less likely scenario of wandering). Very very simple.

It is nothing to do with you believing them. It is simply their own knowledge of their own actions.

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:On what basis would they know for certain Madeleine was abducted - they can produce no evidence! But of course they are Dr's are'nt they and as fine upstanding pillars of our society they should be believed (just remind me again - where were the parents and what were they doing when Madeleine 'disappeared??)

On the very very simple basis that they know what they did and if they KNOW they were not involved in the disappearance then there must have been an abductor (or the less likely scenario of wandering). Very very simple.

It is nothing to do with you believing them. It is simply their own knowledge of their own actions.

Which is simply not good enough as some people can and do lie to save their own skin!

Lioned wrote:

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!

That is meaningless garbage.I could equally say the mccanns do know they where involved and the fund is fraudulent,you will have to do better than that.

Do better than what? You are absolutely right. They may be involved and the fund may be fraudulent. The fact is that as YOU say either possibility is equally possible. So you seem to agree with me that both those who claim it is fraudulent and those who claim it is not with any kind of certainty are going beyond what is actually provable.

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:On what basis would they know for certain Madeleine was abducted - they can produce no evidence! But of course they are Dr's are'nt they and as fine upstanding pillars of our society they should be believed (just remind me again - where were the parents and what were they doing when Madeleine 'disappeared??)

On the very very simple basis that they know what they did and if they KNOW they were not involved in the disappearance then there must have been an abductor (or the less likely scenario of wandering). Very very simple.

It is nothing to do with you believing them. It is simply their own knowledge of their own actions.

Which is simply not good enough as some people can and do lie to save their own skin!

I never said they didn't. The problem is that YOU cannot prove in any way at all that the McCanns did that can you?

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:On what basis would they know for certain Madeleine was abducted - they can produce no evidence! But of course they are Dr's are'nt they and as fine upstanding pillars of our society they should be believed (just remind me again - where were the parents and what were they doing when Madeleine 'disappeared??)

On the very very simple basis that they know what they did and if they KNOW they were not involved in the disappearance then there must have been an abductor (or the less likely scenario of wandering). Very very simple.

It is nothing to do with you believing them. It is simply their own knowledge of their own actions.

Which is simply not good enough as some people can and do lie to save their own skin!

I never said they didn't. The problem is that YOU cannot prove in any way at all that the McCanns did that can you?

The evidence is on the PJ files if you care to read and understand the conclusions!!

Panda wrote:

Chris 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.

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.

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:On what basis would they know for certain Madeleine was abducted - they can produce no evidence! But of course they are Dr's are'nt they and as fine upstanding pillars of our society they should be believed (just remind me again - where were the parents and what were they doing when Madeleine 'disappeared??)

On the very very simple basis that they know what they did and if they KNOW they were not involved in the disappearance then there must have been an abductor (or the less likely scenario of wandering). Very very simple.

It is nothing to do with you believing them. It is simply their own knowledge of their own actions.

Which is simply not good enough as some people can and do lie to save their own skin!

I never said they didn't. The problem is that YOU cannot prove in any way at all that the McCanns did that can you?

The evidence is on the PJ files if you care to read and understand the conclusions!!

The evidence in the PJ files are not in themselves proof though are they? They may be contributors to such proof but only that.

There is the further problem with your viewpoint that the PJ files themselves conclude that there is no indication that the three arguidos are responsible for any crime at all.

When you say "fund" do you mean the McCanns Madeleine Limited Fund?

What changes are there then? Are they going to share money with other missing children?

James wrote:when the March 2011 Fund accs are available to the public, they will have, I suspect a companies office date stamp on them so we will know exactly when they were received. The accounts will also have the date the directors signed off the accounts and the date the auditors signed the accounts.

I suspect the accounts will be as uninformative as usual, giving the bare minimum legal information. But I would love to be wrong and see detailed income and expenditure schedules in the accounts.

The date of filing will be listed on the CH website when the accounts are available for a copy to be obtained.

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

On the very very simple basis that they know what they did and if they KNOW they were not involved in the disappearance then there must have been an abductor (or the less likely scenario of wandering). Very very simple.

It is nothing to do with you believing them. It is simply their own knowledge of their own actions.

Which is simply not good enough as some people can and do lie to save their own skin!

I never said they didn't. The problem is that YOU cannot prove in any way at all that the McCanns did that can you?

The evidence is on the PJ files if you care to read and understand the conclusions!!

The evidence in the PJ files are not in themselves proof though are they? They may be contributors to such proof but only that.

There is the further problem with your viewpoint that the PJ files themselves conclude that there is no indication that the three arguidos are responsible for any crime at all.

- and where exactly in these same files or anywhere else for that matter - are any contributors to prove an abduction???

platinum wrote:

Panda wrote:

Chris 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.

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.

gillyspot wrote:When you say "fund" do you mean the McCanns Madeleine Limited Fund?

What changes are there then? Are they going to share money with other missing children?

I don't know. I have had one conversation with a friend over it and am not going to share that conversation here as I may not have a full grasp of the facts. I will receive a print version of the document in the next few days. Then I will comment.

Chris wrote:

platinum wrote:

Panda wrote:

Chris 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.

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.

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've never heard of these apparent begging bowls, can you show me a link??! Not that I disbelieve you, I just like to read what's always brought up!

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:

platinum wrote:

NoStone wrote:

Which is simply not good enough as some people can and do lie to save their own skin!

I never said they didn't. The problem is that YOU cannot prove in any way at all that the McCanns did that can you?

The evidence is on the PJ files if you care to read and understand the conclusions!!

The evidence in the PJ files are not in themselves proof though are they? They may be contributors to such proof but only that.

There is the further problem with your viewpoint that the PJ files themselves conclude that there is no indication that the three arguidos are responsible for any crime at all.

- and where exactly in these same files or anywhere else for that matter - are any contributors to prove an abduction???

Did I claim there were contributors to that effect?
My claim is simply about the fund not more generally.
IF the McCanns KNOW they are innocent then they know per se there has to have been an abduction and therefore their setting up of the fund is not illegitimate.