Re: Please note: the Fund is not a Charity.

by Smokeandmirrors 20.04.13 19:57

Finn wrote:It's wrong on so many levels. Why should the parents who were educated through great sacrifice by their families live off the generous donations of the world. And why haven't they been called on to reimburse SY?

And why do they need to spend millions on an awareness campaign when the world already knows Madeleine is missing. God knows they get enough airtime. And how have these "campaigns" helped exactly, I've never seen an advert or a poster in the last 6 years. So why do you need a fund when the press is ready to run with anything McCann related at the drop of a hat?

Excellent points, agree with you 100%.

by Philthecynic 09.05.13 17:09

Finn wrote:It's wrong on so many levels. Why should the parents who were educated through great sacrifice by their families live off the generous donations of the world. And why haven't they been called on to reimburse SY?

And why do they need to spend millions on an awareness campaign when the world already knows Madeleine is missing. God knows they get enough airtime. And how have these "campaigns" helped exactly, I've never seen an advert or a poster in the last 6 years. So why do you need a fund when the press is ready to run with anything McCann related at the drop of a hat?

I wish I could say much on this subject. It makes me SICK. There should be at least some attempt to explain how this fund makes finding madeleine more likely.

by **tigger** 10.05.13 7:34

The Madeleine Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' Appeal

Wednesday, 16 May 2007

Funds will be used to help find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. Any surplus funds will be used to help families and missing children in United Kingdom, Portugal and elsewhere in similar circumstances.

By phone:
Text "MADDIE" to 60999 and £1 will be taken from your phone for the Madeleine Fund. (Standard network charges apply)

So - where exactly are we now? Perhaps we should be celebrating 6 years of the Ltd. Co. next week?
On the screenshot below, there is a not so subtle message: Click here to send support to the family.

Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 10 Screen11

Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 10 Screen11

by aiyoyo 10.05.13 7:50

aquila wrote:@ Admin

May I make a suggestion that the title of this thread be changed to say 'The Limited Company aka The Fund is not a charity'?

.........." the Ltd Co. aka the FindMadeleine fund is not a charity"

Hello Kevin, are you aware of this? How much of that had been used to pay your forum espionage fees?

by Guest 10.05.13 9:06

Could we plebs also know why, at such an early stage, Uncle Brian Kennedy knew that most of the money would probably be for legal expenditure.

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

by **tigger** 09.06.13 10:23

jd wrote:
tigger wrote:Just posting this from another topic.
Jean wrote:

Also for information, an early clip from Michael Wright about the progress of the campaign. It really does sound like the launch of some commercial product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyZMF7RFScs unquote

Tigger wrote: (from the above video on the launch of the 'Fund')
.... our partners include multinationals from the oil, banking, telecom and retail sector. unquote

Partners?

Common Purpose?

Part of the transcript of the above video:
- the situation we have found ourselves in [..] made us think creatively.
[..] We are leaving no stone unturned and we have a huge number of campaign partners who are helping us to do that. From sporting celebrities to big business. top of the list are the UK and Portugal media in particular who have played a huge part in maintaining the profile of this case [..]

Our campaign has started with an expansive poster distribution across Europe and our partners include multi-nationals from the oil, banking, telecoms and retail sectors. Other multinational companies have already started to include Madeleine's image on every outgoing email...unquote.

Speaks for itself doesn't it?

On the 16th we find exhortations to Donate and made very easy to do this by mobile phone! This is clearly for the little people, school children and pensioners.
On the 17th we hear that they are aligned with multi-national companies as 'partners'.

by Angelique 10.06.13 7:51

tigger

You wrote

"On the 16th we find exhortations to Donate and made very easy to do this by mobile phone! This is clearly for the little people, school children and pensioners.
On the 17th we hear that they are aligned with multi-national companies as 'partners'. "

Call me naive but it may be that "multi-national companies" could have been thinking "good publicity" or alternatively could mean contact as in the Masons connection.

It's one of those either way we win situations - impresses the plebs and shows well connected and power.

by **tigger** 10.06.13 8:08

Angelique wrote:tigger

You wrote

"On the 16th we find exhortations to Donate and made very easy to do this by mobile phone! This is clearly for the little people, school children and pensioners.
On the 17th we hear that they are aligned with multi-national companies as 'partners'. "

Call me naive but it may be that "multi-national companies" could have been thinking "good publicity" or alternatively could mean contact as in the Masons connection.

It's one of those either way we win situations - impresses the plebs and shows well connected and power.

Of course companies who helped the McCanns did it for their own publicity. The point I was making is that the Ltd.Co. (Fund) presented itself right from the start as a business, not a charity despite the misleading name (Fund).

The wording of this prepared statement lets the public know that the Fund has the approval of the big boys and more credibility in this way.
The statement imo is also somewhat misleading as it gives the impression the Fund is in partnership with these anonymous (these wonderful big boys aren't named) industries. Partnership implies equality.
Perhaps this statement was designed to get a large amount of money/connections going in a short time.

Neither of which they needed to look for Maddie I may add. Gerry himself stated that they wouldn't use the money to search until the police would cease to do so.

So now it follows that if they didn't need that money or those connections to search - was this a concerted effort to set up an independent company that would enable them to be independent Ambassadors for lost children? Just in case a job as European Amber Alert Ambassador wasn't on offer?

Very good use was made of public and corporate fund raising in the early wave of sympathy and publicity.

by Angelique 10.06.13 8:40

tigger

Sorry - I thought that was what I was confirming.

If you look back you can see the way they were operating quite clearly. It wasn't Gerry's Agenda it was the UK Government. Difficult to say but IMO it was used to show innocence, allow Funds for their own use, and kept people involved in a personal way. It covered all angles. Remember when Gerry said something like "We hope to be able to maintain publicity in the long term" - business speak. I have only just read the thread on the British Foreign Office - Timeline interference which explains it all really.

The UK Government/Crown think/know the majority of citizens are plebs, brainwashed and will accept what ever comes out of their mouths - anyone in authority really. If they called it a Fund it is immediately accepted and no one questions or investigates and those that do are frowned upon as "this is about an abducted child for heavens sake"! The Government covered every angle.

by **tigger** 10.06.13 9:53

Now I'm sorry, we've got the same song sheet after all! Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 10 636506

by Angelique 10.06.13 10:17

by sheila.edwards 10.06.13 16:09

could then : the partners tell the fund to spend less time and money on suing people and more time and money actually looking for madeline or finding out what happened to her with some help from the fund before they got sy taking over ! Are the Public partners to ?

by jd 10.06.13 18:38

Angelique wrote:
tigger

Sorry - I thought that was what I was confirming.

If you look back you can see the way they were operating quite clearly. It wasn't Gerry's Agenda it was the UK Government. Difficult to say but IMO it was used to show innocence, allow Funds for their own use, and kept people involved in a personal way. It covered all angles. Remember when Gerry said something like "We hope to be able to maintain publicity in the long term" - business speak. I have only just read the thread on the British Foreign Office - Timeline interference which explains it all really.

The UK Government/Crown think/know the majority of citizens are plebs, brainwashed and will accept what ever comes out of their mouths - anyone in authority really. If they called it a Fund it is immediately accepted and no one questions or investigates and those that do are frowned upon as "this is about an abducted child for heavens sake"! The Government covered every angle.

I also think it is also being used as way of tax avoidance or saving paying taxes. The rich like Green, Branson etc seem drawn to the mccanns like bees to honey. david cameron said his government would be transparent, it isn't. kate mccann said the fund would be transparent, it isn't....I doubt a truthful investigation would ever happen to the fund unless there was absolute pressure from the public to

by **tigger** 10.06.13 20:39

jd wrote:
Angelique wrote:
tigger

Sorry - I thought that was what I was confirming.

If you look back you can see the way they were operating quite clearly. It wasn't Gerry's Agenda it was the UK Government. Difficult to say but IMO it was used to show innocence, allow Funds for their own use, and kept people involved in a personal way. It covered all angles. Remember when Gerry said something like "We hope to be able to maintain publicity in the long term" - business speak. I have only just read the thread on the British Foreign Office - Timeline interference which explains it all really.

The UK Government/Crown think/know the majority of citizens are plebs, brainwashed and will accept what ever comes out of their mouths - anyone in authority really. If they called it a Fund it is immediately accepted and no one questions or investigates and those that do are frowned upon as "this is about an abducted child for heavens sake"! The Government covered every angle.

I also think it is also being used as way of tax avoidance or saving paying taxes. The rich like Green, Branson etc seem drawn to the mccanns like bees to honey. david cameron said his government would be transparent, it isn't. kate mccann said the fund would be transparent, it isn't....I doubt a truthful investigation would ever happen to the fund unless there was absolute pressure from the public to

It's more the fact that on the 17th May 2007 we are informed that the Fund has partners which include 'multi-nationals from the oil, banking, telecoms and retail sectors. Other multinational companies etc. unquote

It's not likely to be true at all imo, most of those promised money if it were demanded by kidnappers, a lot of those promises were withdrawn in September 07.
Big organisations like to be seen to be giving money and in this case they mainly promised it which gave them good publicity but in no way did they become partners of the McCanns or the Ltd. Co. by doing so.

Making it a Ltd. Co. actually had no tax advantage for the donors I believe. That only applies to charities. So these partnerships (this is beginning to remind me of the Admiral's song in HMS Pinafore) never existed in the first place imo. Just beefing it up for the public and so showing their true colours.

by plebgate 10.06.13 21:42

The fund is not a charity because if it was they wouldn't have been able to make any mortgage repayments with the money. Still can't believe that this detail is never discussed when sitting on the many tv sofas they have been invited on to.

It still annoys me intensely that they would use money donated to find Maddie for that purpose.

by plebgate 11.06.13 7:58

Imagine if a couple from a council estate had started a Fund and dipped into it to pay for things other than the search for their missing child. There would have been uproar.

Wee Kelly, next time you have Mrs. sitting very comfortably with you on the sofa, perhaps you would ask her why they did dip into the fund to make mortgage repayments.

by Guest 11.06.13 9:22

A reminder of how Gerry reacted (at about 0.50) when asked to comment on the mortgage being paid from the Fund.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRJxOzdvp2k

As ever, the link isn't working. The clip is called "Gerry McCann returns to work - Answering questions" and was posted on 19/1/2010.

It was a female reporter who dared to ask the question - we can safely say that it wasn't Lorraine though!

P.S. Link corrected; thank you Chatelaine.

by Liz Eagles 11.06.13 9:29

When the Mc's and Murat were made arguido would that give the police the right to inspect all their personal financial records?

by Guest 11.06.13 9:32

If you suppress the http:// it will work.

by sheila.edwards 11.06.13 22:39

bet he wished for only -Lorraine Kelly type questions. Please note: the Fund is not a Charity. - Page 10 302873

thats all they seem to answer since but wanted to stay in media !

by Liz Eagles 04.07.13 11:11

Just want to bump this video re the Fund's purpose according to Gerry's family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4jsLkwa7cc

by **tigger** 21.04.14 17:54

Regarding the Ward of Court status:

Collecting money for the 'search' would be not exactly legal?

As the only legally interested party is the Court and steps taken to find her would fall to the relevant authorities such as the police of the UK in close association with international forces.
As all these measures are in place and operative, why keep on collecting money for a search that's already been financed by the tax payers of several countries?

At present to the tune of 7 million euros or 6 million pounds?

I stand to be corrected on this post.

by Guest 21.04.14 19:12

The "fund" has always been a strange thing under the circumstances. Look at the multifold of explanations for its existence and use. It's was mainly for legal costs [Kate's uncle Brian]. Which legal costs? It was "uplifting" Gerry's spirits [his mother]. Uplifting? Getting money, when you daughter's missing? It was for searching after the police would have stopped searching [Gerry himself]. How come so early on, he could think of needing money to continue in future a shelved investigation? And then use it for paying his mortgage ... [I promised myself I would never mention this again, but today it got the better of me]. So, has anybody ever been able to verify, if Gerry was on "compensatory" leave in PdL? I mean, they got everything for free from OC. It was only when they were softly [softly?] pushed out, that they had to pay for their lodging and food.

ETA and WHY the heck are they still asking for information on their own site and telephone number?
And why do they still figure a range of "suspects", including Tannerman and VB-look-alike?

by worriedmum 21.04.14 19:37

Another example of the McCanns' reaction when asked about the fund,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PsDZb5Ztv8I

by Liz Eagles 21.04.14 20:08

Châtelaine wrote:The "fund" has always been a strange thing under the circumstances. Look at the multifold of explanations for its existence and use. It's was mainly for legal costs [Kate's uncle Brian]. Which legal costs? It was "uplifting" Gerry's spirits [his mother]. Uplifting? Getting money, when you daughter's missing? It was for searching after the police would have stopped searching [Gerry himself]. How come so early on, he could think of needing money to continue in future a shelved investigation? And then use it for paying his mortgage ... [I promised myself I would never mention this again, but today it got the better of me]. So, has anybody ever been able to verify, if Gerry was on "compensatory" leave in PdL? I mean, they got everything for free from OC. It was only when they were softly [softly?] pushed out, that they had to pay for their lodging and food.

ETA and WHY the heck are they still asking for information on their own site and telephone number?
And why do they still figure a range of "suspects", including Tannerman and VB-look-alike?

According to McCannfiles - an article re Times online, GM was on compassionate leave until end of June 2007.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id178.html

There is also an article in DM regarding GM's return to work in November 2007 initially on 3.5 days per week but would be paid his full salary.

snip
Mr McCann will be paid his full salary. His wife, also a 39-year-old doctor, has no plans to return to work.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491011/Gerry-McCann-returns-work-saying-expecting-significant-developments-hunt-Madeleine.html#ixzz2zY2jQdw1

Doug Skehan, a clinical director at Glenfield Hospital (Gerry's boss) mentioned in the DM article was also a director of the Fund until September 2010. There is a thread on the forum.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1358p10-doug-skehan-gerry-mccann-s-boss-resigns-from-madeleine-s-fund-director-s-board