Have you donated to "The Fund"

[brit1981]

The link you provide also goes to an embarressingly bad article, that does not seem to understand the rules of how to get charity status.
Any charity most be for the public good and must not be for the benefit of any one individuel or small group of people. So madeleine's fund never could have been a charity, that is basic charity law. This law is also why some charities tag on the "and education of the public" bit as it makes them eligible to become a charity. So any fund that benefits an individuel or small group of people is a company not a charity. That includes funds set up to help an ill child etc .

The article states that kate Healy never explains why it was set up as a company, when in actual fact in her book she does say exactly why, and it should be obvious to anyone who has ever been involved in setting up a charity.

If the McCanns had wanted the money themselves they were under no obligation to set up a company, they could just have had the money sent to their account.

The article also relies on the word presumably. Instead of actually coming up with facts, it just says "presumably this" and presumably that and it would be reasonable to assume! It also implies that the Mccanns took Amaral to court for libel before 2010, but I do not think they started libel proceedings until much later. I do not think the outcome of the libel trial has been decided yet.

It also complains that the accounts are held at companies house and not on the website, but this is normal practice. I have never seen a charity, NFP company, or normal company that lists its accounts on its websites they are normally held at the relevant bodies, in this case companies house. If the reporter wanted them she could have got them from companies house, so i do not see why she is complaining about lack of transparency. The accounts are just as transparent as any other organisation.

It also states brian kennedy is Kate Healy's uncle.

[saggymoon]

Originally Posted by brit1981

The link you provide also goes to an embarressingly bad article, that does not seem to understand the rules of how to get charity status.
Any charity most be for the public good and must not be for the benefit of any one individuel or small group of people. So madeleine's fund never could have been a charity, that is basic charity law. This law is also why some charities tag on the "and education of the public" bit as it makes them eligible to become a charity. So any fund that benefits an individuel or small group of people is a company not a charity. That includes funds set up to help an ill child etc .

The article states that kate Healy never explains why it was set up as a company, when in actual fact in her book she does say exactly why, and it should be obvious to anyone who has ever been involved in setting up a charity.

If the McCanns had wanted the money themselves they were under no obligation to set up a company, they could just have had the money sent to their account.

The article also relies on the word presumably. Instead of actually coming up with facts, it just says "presumably this" and presumably that and it would be reasonable to assume! It also implies that the Mccanns took Amaral to court for libel before 2010, but I do not think they started libel proceedings until much later. I do not think the outcome of the libel trial has been decided yet.

It also complains that the accounts are held at companies house and not on the website, but this is normal practice. I have never seen a charity, NFP company, or normal company that lists its accounts on its websites they are normally held at the relevant bodies, in this case companies house. If the reporter wanted them she could have got them from companies house, so i do not see why she is complaining about lack of transparency. The accounts are just as transparent as any other organisation.

It also states brian kennedy is Kate Healy's uncle.

Well he is her uncle. Didn't you know?

The rest of your post is just your opinion and not fact.

[Salem]

When the McCanns set up the "charity" fund, they do so in such a way that they could use the money for anything. There were no restrictions placed on the money. They could spend it looking for Maddie or they could send it buying a new car. Whatever. That is the way the fund was set up. And, NO, the fund does not have to be for the PUBLIC good. It is a private fund set up to help the McCanns. Nothing public about it.

There are threads on the subject right here in this forum along with links to the documents, etc.

As a note - if you refute a post with links in it, with your opinion, please state that it is your opinion - do not imply that you are relying on facts unless you link them up.

Please don't tell other posters how to post. If you have a different opinion, that's fine. Express your opinion WITHOUT telling others they are wrong.

Thanks,

Salem

[saggymoon]

Originally Posted by brit1981

And the fund has not been used to sue people,.

It has certainly been. FYI
Read the chairman's statements for accounts ending 2009 and 2010. Their Portuguese lawyer has not been working for free for three years. Apart from Mr Amoral as they call him, they also started proceedings against several others.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id303.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id352.html

[saggymoon]

Originally Posted by brit1981

The article also relies on the word presumably. Instead of actually coming up with facts, it just says "presumably this" and presumably that and it would be reasonable to assume! It also implies that the Mccanns took Amaral to court for libel before 2010, but I do not think they started libel proceedings until much later. I do not think the outcome of the libel trial has been decided yet.

.

It does not imply anything that is incorrect. The Mccans issued a write in April 2009 and not much later than 2010 as you say. Did you not read the papers back in April/May 2009? The NOTW also printed parts of it in July 2009.What about the press conference outside the Lisbon court and all the Sky News reports back in Feb 2010? Here you go.

McCanns outside Lisbon Court, 10th Feb. - YouTube

McCanns outside Lisbon Court, 10th Feb. - YouTube

Eventually they lost that case and their ban of Mr Amaral's book was overturned.

As for their accounts being transparent, their expenditure was not broken down, so though legally correct, not really transparent.

If you read through that very long accounting article you would have come across the fact that the Mccanns could have gotten charity status in the end and this was conveyed to their solicitors but they rushed through the forming of a ltd company in order to make the deadline of the press conference about launching the fund. If they had waited another day or so they could also have benefited from tax breaks which charities enjoy.

[brit1981]

salem,
here are some facts. In the UK a charity must have a public benefit, otherwise it cannot be a charity. Therefore the Mccanns and anyone else trying to raise funds for an individuel cause i.e treatment for a child, or finding a particular missing person cannot set up a charity. They can either have a seperate bank account, or if the funds are considerable they have to set up a company. This also means that all accounts have to by law submitted to companies house so it is just as transparent as any charity or company. This is not an opinion it is the law in England and Wales. The Mccanns could never have got charity status in the UK. Their only option was a not for profit company.
here is a link to the UK charity commission.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...fit_index.aspx

Here are the details of where to contact if you want to see the finances. As a company the fund must be as transparent as any other company or charity, so if this fund is not deemed transparent enough then questions should be asked of all nfp companies and charities instead of just picking on the mccann fund.

Companies House. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ
Registration number CRN 6248215

The mccanns clearly state both on the fund website (http://findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html) and in the boo why it could not be a charity, but anyone who nows the slightest thing about charity law would now that it could never be a charity whilst its intention was to look for madeleine alone.

The mCcanns tried to ban the book, they did not issue a writ for libel. they have only recently taken him to court for libel.

[saggymoon]

Originally Posted by brit1981

salem,
here are some facts. In the UK a charity must have a public benefit, otherwise it cannot be a charity. Therefore the Mccanns and anyone else trying to raise funds for an individuel cause i.e treatment for a child, or finding a particular missing person cannot set up a charity. They can either have a seperate bank account, or if the funds are considerable they have to set up a company. This also means that all accounts have to by law submitted to companies house so it is just as transparent as any charity or company. This is not an opinion it is the law in England and Wales. The Mccanns could never have got charity status in the UK. Their only option was a not for profit company.
here is a link to the UK charity commission.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...fit_index.aspx

Here are the details of where to contact if you want to see the finances. As a company the fund must be as transparent as any other company or charity, so if this fund is not deemed transparent enough then questions should be asked of all nfp companies and charities instead of just picking on the mccann fund.

Companies House. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ
Registration number CRN 6248215

The mccanns clearly state both on the fund website (http://findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html) and in the boo why it could not be a charity, but anyone who nows the slightest thing about charity law would now that it could never be a charity whilst its intention was to look for madeleine alone.

The mCcanns tried to ban the book, they did not issue a writ for libel. they have only recently taken him to court for libel.

<modsnip>. For the record the mccanns accounts are not transparent and certainly not as transparent as any charity, they do not, as charities do, give a breakdown of where their money has gone. And yes they did issue a writ in april 2009 for libel asking for 1.3 million euros in damages, <modsnip>, the only thin you are right about is that the libel trial has not started yet

If you are going to make statements as facts then you need to back them up, ie they have only recently taken him to court for libel, date? place? link?

<modsnip>

[brit1981]

No the McCanns would not set up the fund as a charity, the charity commision has strict rules regarding the public benefit part of a charity, and any fund that is not for the general public benefit must become a company. They runs the company in accordance with strict laws, and like any other charity and company must submit their accounts. in this case the accounts can be viewed by anyone at companies house.
Why would people think it was strange they did not set up the find madeleine fund as a charity was strange or odd when the law does not allow for it to be a charity?
And Oxfam do not list every single itemized expenditure either, neither do most charities.

[SapphireSteel]

Originally Posted by brit1981

No the McCanns would not set up the fund as a charity, the charity commision has strict rules regarding the public benefit part of a charity, and any fund that is not for the general public benefit must become a company. They runs the company in accordance with strict laws, and like any other charity and company must submit their accounts. in this case the accounts can be viewed by anyone at companies house.
Why would people think it was strange they did not set up the find madeleine fund as a charity was strange or odd when the law does not allow for it to be a charity?
And Oxfam do not list every single itemized expenditure either, neither do most charities.

Why set up a private company at all? Private companies are run for profit.

Donations could just as easily be held and administered by a trust, and much more cheaply and transparently.



"Trust" implies exactly that -

[brit1981]

Originally Posted by SapphireSteel

Why set up a private company at all? Private companies are run for profit.

Donations could just as easily be held and administered by a trust, and much more cheaply and transparently.


"Trust" implies exactly that -

In the Uk we have different types of companies, the find madeleine fund is a not for profit company. It is incorrect to say that it is run for profit.

Also trusts are not common in the UK. Even when a fund has the name trust in it, it is normally a charity. A trust in the UK is a special legal way of holding money or property, and would not be applicable in this case and would have made it very difficult to use the money at all as a trust has to keep hold of the value of the trust. As it is a not for profit comapny, and the set up means that once Madeleine is found it becomes a person person chairty, there is no personal profit made.
A trust is also not liable to submit accounts to the public.

[SoSueMe]

Please provide links where applicable and most certainly if you're making accusations of impropriety.

[SapphireSteel]

There is no reason why the Fund was not set up as a Charity.

In fact, a meeting with the Charities Assn was set up to discuss how this could be achieved, and it was cancelled at the last minute as the McCanns decided quite suddenly and inexplicably to go for private company status.

The link has been posted several times, directlly to the Leave No Stone Unturned website, and their company accounts are posted for all to see.

The fact remains that they chose a private company to administer the funds over a more transparent legal entity such as a charity, and have lodged the appropriate profit/loss statements entirely legally which means, unless they are audited, they need only provide a very basic spreadsheet with company expenditure remaining company business...as is the right of every private company.

It is the level of public funds and the level of transparency that are a red flag for me.

Let us not forget the McCanns had a perfectly good (free) Find Madeleine service in the PDJ, who they refused to co-operate with. A reconstruction of that evening has never been done.

[brit1981]

Originally Posted by SapphireSteel

There is no reason why the Fund was not set up as a Charity.

In fact, a meeting with the Charities Assn was set up to discuss how this could be achieved, and it was cancelled at the last minute as the McCanns decided quite suddenly and inexplicably to go for private company status.

The link has been posted several times, directlly to the Leave No Stone Unturned website, and their company accounts are posted for all to see.

The fact remains that they chose a private company to administer the funds over a more transparent legal entity such as a charity, and have lodged the appropriate profit/loss statements entirely legally which means, unless they are audited, they need only provide a very basic spreadsheet with company expenditure remaining company business...as is the right of every private company.

It is the level of public funds and the level of transparency that are a red flag for me.

Let us not forget the McCanns had a perfectly good (free) Find Madeleine service in the PDJ, who they refused to co-operate with. A reconstruction of that evening has never been done.

First of all there is no such thing as the charity association in England and Wales (Engalnd and Wales have seperate laws from Scotland). I think perhaps you are getting confused with the charity commission.

The charity commission is not a law making body, but a regulatory body i.e it registers and regulates charities. It has to follow the law (2006 charities act), it cannot bend the law or make exceptions.

Under the charity act it is illegal for a fund set up to benefit one individuel or a specific group of people to be a charity as it does not demonstrate the public benefit. Therefore it was not legal for the find madeleine fund tobecome a charity. For it to have been made a charity the charity commission woudl had to have broken the law. (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...fit_index.aspx)

The only option was to set up a not for profit company or put it in their own bank account (I am sure that putting 1.5 millon in their own account would have gone down well). A trust would not have been applicable in this situation as the trust need to be in the name of an individuel or organisation anyway, and the money belongs to them.

The company they set up was not for profit, so it is incorrect to say they make a profit. In England charities are just as transparent as not for profit companies. Remember that many charities in the UK are worth hundreds of millons, and employ thousands of people, and give expenses to thousands too and so their accounts do not give explicit breakdowns. It also caused a scandle in the Uk when after the icelandic banking crisis it turned out many UK charities had millons sat in savings and investment accounts.

In short, it was illegal for the fund to become a charity. the charity commission has no legal power to make exceptions, or bend the rules, they just ensure the law is being applied. In England and Wales, NFP companies are just as transparent as charities.

If you do have any actual proof (as in primary sources) that the charity commission was going to break the law and allow the fund to become a charity, could you please post it here, because I will certainly be making a formal complaint about the commission.

lets also remember that the fund was set up because over a millon and a half had been donated within days. What would you have them do, say no thanks they do not want to launch a search?

Also no public money has been given. Public money has been spent on the polic einvestigations, but the fund has been funded by private donations, book royalties, and compensation.

[brit1981]

sapphire,
In the case of charities for people with disabilities that is considered broad enough. But a charity for one individuel or named group of specific individuels is not broad enough to meet the public benefit test.

What you are suggesting i.e that the charity commsission could have broken the law to make the fund for finding madeleine a charity is highly illegal.

The only option for the fund was to make it not for profit company, or put it in their own bank accounts. A trust would not work in this situation as in England a trust is a very specific way of looking after money, and it would not be possible to use it for this end (and it would have meant it was subject to normal tax rules and been used mainly to pay tax).

How do you know not one more thing is know?. Scotland yard are working on it and as far as I know they do not tend to give out details of case to individuels unconnected to the case. It is a huge sense of self entitlement to expect to be kept up to date on a case that has nothing to do with oneself just because you are interested.

Why is it any one else's business how much Mitchell is paid? If you do not want to donate then do not donate.

Who says there are a multitude of lawyers on standby?

There is no evidence that Kate is drawing from the fund, and lets remember most of the fund has come from royalties of a book Kate wrote, and compensation for libel actions (where certain newspaper admitted they had written stories they claimed to be true, but which were in fact fabrications - in the UK libel is normally a civil matter, but it can be a criminal one too so an out of court settlement is incredibly easy going on them, especially since some newspapers have recently been found criminaly guilty via the contempt of court rute for writing fabrications relating to another case). If Kate had wanted that money she was legally entittled to put it in her own account, rather than he fund's accounts.

Again your claims seem to come from a complete misunderstanding of the law in England and Wales. It is highly illegal for an organistaion that only benefits an individuel (or a specific group of individuels i.e you can say this charity benefts people with a specific disability, but not person x, y and z), to become a charity in England and Wales. If anyone has told you otherwise they are lying. It is against the law (see charity act 2006).

You claim to have seen a FOI that exposes the chairty commission of being prepared to break the law and registar the Find madeleine fund as a charity. I do find this suspicious as it would be illegal for a FOI to reveal details about meetings with individuels, or to give out emails that revealed conversations with individuels (they certainly would not contain details like "ms holt had just finished doing such and such at the time she received the email"). But if you have this foi can you please provide the link to it, as I will be using it to make a formal complaint to the charity commission about both about the fact it was going to break the law and register the fund as a charity and the fact it broke the data protection act by revealing the information you claim to have seen in a FOI request. If you did not make the FOI request yourself, can you please provide the link where you found it. Going by what yu quoted above it is highly likely it was no a real FOI reply as that information should not be conatined ina FOI reply so if the charity commsission claim they did not write it then someone has committed fraud and fabricated it to put on the internet and they do need to be reported as this is criminal.

As for your questions abut leaving the children, I do not know why they did. But is is however perfectly legal in Portugal and the UK.

[brit1981]

(http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...fit_index.aspx)


The above links to the cc and gives information about the public benefit test. As you keep insisting that you know that under English law the fund whcih is set up to benefit one specific individuel would be legal this might help confirm to you that in fact it woudl be illegal.

But I really would like the FOI reply details (it should have a number if nothign else) as either the charity commssion broke two laws, or someone has forged it and out it up on the internet, or maybe did not even bother to forge it and just claimed they had seen it. Either way it needs to be investigated so it woudl be really helpful if you can put up the details of the FOI reply, thanks.

[Donjeta]

As for your questions abut leaving the children, I do not know why they did. But is is however perfectly legal in Portugal and the UK.

If the Madeleine Fund wants to do some good other than fatten certain individuals wallets they should start campaigning for making it illegal to abandon small children in Portugal and the UK. I might donate for that cause.

[brit1981]

Originally Posted by Donjeta

If the Madeleine Fund wants to do some good other than fatten certain individuals wallets they should start campaigning for making it illegal to abandon small children in Portugal and the UK. I might donate for that cause.

First of all do you have any evidence that it is being used to fatten people's wallets, and who these individuels are? It is a not for profit company (due to the illeaglity of it becoming a charity in England) with no shareholders, so people are not making money from it? If you have any evidence that it is being used to fatten people's wallets coudl ypu post the link to the primary sources. Remember the millons were initially given to the McCanns, not the fund so they wer eunde rno legal obligation to put it in the fund, nor were they under any obligation to put the newspaper payouts or the book royalties in the fund. So if they wanted to make millons from it then they could just have kept this money, and not set up the fund.

Can I also ask why you do not think find a missing child is good? Why is it a bad thing for a missing child to be found?

[SapphireSteel]

Originally Posted by brit1981

First of all do you have any evidence that it is being used to fatten people's wallets, and who these individuels are? It is a not for profit company (due to the illeaglity of it becoming a charity in England) with no shareholders, so people are not making money from it? If you have any evidence that it is being used to fatten people's wallets coudl ypu post the link to the primary sources. Remember the millons were initially given to the McCanns, not the fund so they wer eunde rno legal obligation to put it in the fund, nor were they under any obligation to put the newspaper payouts or the book royalties in the fund. So if they wanted to make millons from it then they could just have kept this money, and not set up the fund.

Can I also ask why you do not think find a missing child is good? Why is it a bad thing for a missing child to be found?

Can you please advise which missing child has been found?

[brit1981]

lots of missing children have been found, but the fund was set up in order to manage the funds people had donated to find Madeleine. Why is thta a bad thing? Do you think it is a bad thing to try to find madeleine? I cannot see why any grown adult would not want a child to be found.

[brit1981]

Can you please provide primay sources for the claims you have made i.e...

1) that only 13% of the funds expenditure was spent searching for Madeleine

2) that the fund has been spent on the mccanns' legal fees rather than the fund's i.e libel cases rather than the funds administrative fees

3) that all sixteen efits were produced by the mccanns

4)that the amaral case is being funded by the fund

can you also provide primary sources that state that it is the mccanns' fault that halligan was a criminal, and why if this is an issue they are not being held responsible for the fact amaral is a convicted criminal.

why is it suspicious the law was followed and the fund was not made a charity - since when is not breaking the law suspicious?

why is it suspicious that when the fund ran low they tried to get a book deal to boost it?

why is it suspicious that at the same time they tried to get scotland yard to look at the case, they also employed investigators some of whom were former police detectives (noting that no private investigators claim to specialize in stranger abductions)?

can you also provide your sources for claiming that this is a cover-up involving two British governments, the Portuguese government, the US ambassador, the FSS, the police, the Mccanns, the Mccanns friends etc

Can you also please provide your sources for claiming the CC was going to break the law and give the fund charity status

Can you please also provide the FIO number for the quote you have put in above, and provide the source for where you saw this FOI (as it either the CC have broken the data protection act, or someone has falsly claimed that their own writings are a FOI).

Can you please provide you source for claiming the FSS was not in fact a government owned agency charged with examining forensic evidence and maintaining the DNA database, but was in fact a private company with links to the mccanns which had no legal right to look at DNA.

You have also claimed a 2007 cable saying " the british police devloped the current evidence against the mccanns" was proof of this cover up, and proved that the police were involved in more than helping with the dogs and FSS examination. Can you please explain where in this cable that is shown?

[badhorsie]

Originally Posted by brit1981

First of all do you have any evidence that it is being used to fatten people's wallets, and who these individuels are? It is a not for profit company (due to the illeaglity of it becoming a charity in England) with no shareholders, so people are not making money from it? If you have any evidence that it is being used to fatten people's wallets coudl ypu post the link to the primary sources. Remember the millons were initially given to the McCanns, not the fund so they wer eunde rno legal obligation to put it in the fund, nor were they under any obligation to put the newspaper payouts or the book royalties in the fund. So if they wanted to make millons from it then they could just have kept this money, and not set up the fund.

Can I also ask why you do not think find a missing child is good? Why is it a bad thing for a missing child to be found?

Well a lot of lawyers pockets have been lined on the back of a missing child

[badhorsie]

There are 11 efits here, at least four were produced by private detectives paid for from the fund

The Mccanns did use their detectives to produce a lot of the efits

Detectives did allow an image to be shown to residents in the area - but it basically showed a sketch of an oval and was ridiculed as an 'egg with a side parting'.
After immense pressure, they also released a sketch of a man seen hanging around the family's apartment.
But their general inaction forced the McCanns themselves to publicise a series of e-fits and sketches of suspects seen outside their apartment.
But they were unable to act on the early descriptions by the two Britons because they were not even told of their existence by Portuguese police.

[badhorsie]

The Madeleine Fund accounts


March 2011

March 2010

March 2009

2007-2008

[Donjeta]

Originally Posted by brit1981

First of all do you have any evidence that it is being used to fatten people's wallets, and who these individuels are? It is a not for profit company (due to the illeaglity of it becoming a charity in England) with no shareholders, so people are not making money from it? If you have any evidence that it is being used to fatten people's wallets coudl ypu post the link to the primary sources. Remember the millons were initially given to the McCanns, not the fund so they wer eunde rno legal obligation to put it in the fund, nor were they under any obligation to put the newspaper payouts or the book royalties in the fund. So if they wanted to make millons from it then they could just have kept this money, and not set up the fund.

Can I also ask why you do not think find a missing child is good? Why is it a bad thing for a missing child to be found?

I am not going to respond to your questions until you point me to a post where I said any of these things.

However, it does not look like this fund is finding anybody.
They would do far more good for children if they addressed issues that could prevent more children going missing in the first place such as the irresponsibility of leaving small toddlers unsupervised and the sadly defective legislation that according to you makes this perfectly legal.

[badhorsie]

A review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts

by Enid O'Dowd FCA

This is interesting. Enid O'Down used to do the accounts for the Irish Nursing Board. I have no doubt that she has been smeared and that this article will be rubbished by the supporters of child neglect