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

by **tigger** 05.05.12 21:26

The IFLG
The book informs us that the limited company arose out of an offer to help 'from a paralegal based in Leicester

The paralegal accompanied by an unnamed barrister flew to Portugal on the afternoon of Friday May 11. They met that day and had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of the weekend.

We are told that the barrister, having inspected the proximity of the Tapas bar to their holiday apartment, assured them that their behaviour (in making periodic checks on their children) could not be deemed negligent and was 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.'
(this has no value in law as only social services of either the UK or Portugal can give such an absolution)

In the context of the financial help that was then being offered, Kate says the IFLG paralegal advised them to set up a 'fighting fund'. The IFLG would devise the objectives of the fund and instruct a leading charity law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite (BWB) to draw up Articles of Association. The use of the term 'fighting' is odd. Who were the McCanns fighting? Whether 'fighting' is the paralegal's word or Kate's paraphrase is unclear.

The IFLG launched 31 March 2007... so 6 weeks or so old by the time of the events...
From the website:
The International Family Law Group (iFLG) launches at its premises in Covent Garden, London. We are a new specialist law firm providing services to the international community as well as for purely national clients. We have a special contract with the Legal Services Commission for child abduction work and are regularly instructed by the UK Government. We act for international families, ex pats and others in respect of financial implications of relationship breakdown including forum shopping and international enforcement of orders. We receive instructions from foreign lawyers and, as accredited specialists, act for clients of other law firms seeking their specialist experience.
Posted on 31 March, 2007 by David Hodson

It seems the McCanns were outstandingly lucky to find a paralegal and the brand-new IFLG. Just six weeks old. So one would expect it not to be very well known, even in legal circles.

The above description of their work is a trifle curious. At only six weeks old, this firm is 'regularly instructed by the UK Government'.
Their child abduction work is not related to abduction by criminals but abduction by a family member of the child concerned.

by jd 05.05.12 21:41

I read somewhere that their term 'fighting' was a reference in fighting the PJ for all those who felt they were not doing enough

by Gillyspot 05.05.12 21:42

This is all bearing in mind that the McCanns & their "fund" adminstrator (who is a friend of Kate) were aware of this.

"After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional
assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could
barely afford it, have given generously to that fund."

http://www.iflg.uk.com/documents/7_july_08_address.pdf

by pauline 06.05.12 0:01

Who is/was the Fund administrator. A friend of Kate's maybe but what is his/her name; what are his/her qualifications and what was the salary paid (out of the donations)? Was the job advertised?

by **tigger** 06.05.12 7:50

Contradictions - public statements vs actions:

And, most significantly, Kate says on p.296 of Chapter 19 entitled 'Action on three fronts' writing about the time period autumn 2007, 'gradually my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered.'

If Kate believed that her daughter had been murdered at the time of meeting the legal pair, why would she agree to setting up a Fund to find Madeleine?

Further, in Chapter 19 she tells us, 'by October...we were able to concentrate on our top priority: finding Madeleine...so far beyond following up the odd piece of information outside Portugal, we had not gone down this road...we had been reassured that after a shaky start, the police were doing everything that could be done.'

So if the Fund, set up in record time and presumably at considerable expense, was to find Madeleine, why did it, as Kate herself tells us, do very little for the first four months of its existence other than to collect money and follow up the odd piece of information outside Portugal?

by **tigger** 06.05.12 7:54

pauline wrote:Who is/was the Fund administrator. A friend of Kate's maybe but what is his/her name; what are his/her qualifications and what was the salary paid (out of the donations)? Was the job advertised?

And here's all I could find about it - your same question from last year! Perhaps Company House can help?

According to the official website home page 'an experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day to day operations of the Fund.'

Now who is the Fund Administrator and how was he/she recruited?

Isn't it odd that the name of this person is not on the website with a phone number and email so he/she can be contacted by anyone interested in the Fund? it is usual for website whether of ordinary businesses or of NGOs and charities to contain the names of key official to facilitate those who might wish the contact the company.

In his blog 3 November 2010 Gerry McCann says that donations to the Fund have enabled (obviously apart from other matters) the appointment of a part-time campaign co-ordinator. Now is that the same as the Fund Administrator? Again this person is not named.

It was widely reported in May 2007 that John McCann gave up his full-time job to work on the Campaign. Could he be the Fund Administrator? But he was one of the first directors so that would not sit with the website claim that the appointment of the Fund Administrator is about proper governance; to keep the directors from the day to day activities.

by **tigger** 06.05.12 10:02

Too late to edit own post re IFLG: further information:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2969p20-iflg-and-pact?highlight=IFLG+++%2Bpact

by **tigger** 06.05.12 17:12

day 6 9th may 07
1st official website launched as
www.bringmadeleinehome.com

day 13 16th may 07
2nd official website registered as:
www.findmadeleine.com LInked to:
www.bringmadeleinehome. com

day 15 18th may 07
Trade mark filing date for Madeleine’s Fund - leaving no stone unturned
Trademark nr. 2456061

day 23 26th may 07
3rd official website registered as
www.cuddlecat.co.uk - linked to
www.findmadeleine.com - linked to
www.bringmadeleinehome.com

Re cuddlecat: allegedly 40 cuddle cats were presented to Metodo3 by Kate McCann to give to the staff working on the search.
In the villa Cuddlecat was found in the bottom of a cupboard by one of the dogs when the inspection at the beginning of August took place.
Why was this domain name registered three weeks after the disappearance of Maddie? Was it to market the toy for additional income?

by Guest 06.05.12 18:26

I think that the regular charity runs that the McCanns participate in will make people who are unaware of the facts believe that their fund is a charity.

Here's a link to the latest one today.

http://www.clickliverpool.com/news/

by **tigger** 06.05.12 20:43

From the newspaper 'Sol'
The McCanns public collection

By Margarida Davim
07 July 2007

At the entrance of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, the journalists who participated in the press conference, that was held by Madeleine's parents for the Portuguese media, encountered a plastic box to collect donations. A small text, signed by Kate and Gerry McCann, invited everyone who entered the resort to contribute. This gesture was not appreciated by the members of staff, who claimed that the resort "is full of collection boxes".

A fund for Maddie

This box is just one of many ways that Maddie's parents found to collect money for the 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' fund – which counts with almost 900 thousand pounds already (one million three hundred thousand euros).
unquote

I wonder how such cash donations were entered in the accounts. The same goes for the many people who sent cash to Rothley. As Clarence Mitchell advised people just to send money to: Kate and Gerry in Rothley - it will get there.

by **PeterMac** 06.05.12 22:17

And let us not forget the Fund raising evening, when they announced a figure and thanked everybody, only to have to up the figure considerably the next day, "after they had counted it more carefully" or some such guff.
My own suspicions are that one or a couple of big donors had given more than the amount they announced at first, and they were shamed into going back and upping the original figure.
No evidence of course, but .... !

I don't have the reference to hand, (but I do have a big glass of scotch. Aberlour Millennium, since you ask.)

by **tigger** 07.05.12 7:28

Sunday January 17,2010

By James Murray and Tracey Kandohla
MCCANNS' STAR-FILLED PARTY TO BOOST FUND -EXPRESS

DEFIANT Kate and Gerry McCann will mark the 1,000th day since their daughter disappeared with a celebrity packed £150-a-head fundraising dinner and auction at a top London venue.
Tycoon Sir Richard Branson and their businessman backer Brian Kennedy will join stars at Kensington Roof Gardens in west London on January 27.

Radio Five’s Nicky Campbell and children’s author JK Rowling have also been invited.

The event for 180 supporters comes in the middle of the couple’s tense court battle against their tormentor, former police chief Goncalo Amaral, in Lisbon and gives them a night of light relief after weeks of stress.

Kate, 41, said yesterday: “We will raise money for Madeleine’s Fund and the ongoing search for her.
“If our circumstances remain unchanged, this day will sadly mark 1,000 days since Madeleine was taken from us.”

Money will be raised through ticket sales and a charity auction. Half the profits, expected to exceed £100,000, will go to Madeleine’s Fund, which currently stands at about £400,000, with the other half split between two other charities. The Fund is NOT a charity so therefore the constant use of 'other charities' is misleading the public.

Kate explained: “Madeleine’s Fund is not depleted but we are aware, given the uncertainty of our situation, that we need to plan ahead to continue the search to find her.”

Kate said: “Fifty per cent of the profits from the event will be split between two charities, Missing People and Missing Children Europe.

“These two charities are among many others who work incredibly hard despite limited funding to help missing and exploited children.”

A close friend of the McCanns, who live in Rothley, Leicestershire, said: “Kate and Gerry are hoping to raise as much money as possible to help them and two other charities.
unquote

For further reading on fund expenditure and income: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1616-find-madeleine-fund-no-stone-unturned-all-reports-here

by **tigger** 07.05.12 14:03

34m Joana Morais‏@xklamation

Clarence Mitchell says that "sooner or later there will be a need to ask for more money" for the fund. #mccann in Sol article.

Chutzpah, I believe it's called.
1) There is no need for Mr. Mitchell to be employed or indeed paid out of the coffers of the Fund. WHY is Public Relation staff necessary at all?
2) Scotland Yard has to all intents and purposes taken over the investigation and been so kind as to give us a result of the first year's review.
3) Looking for Maddie costs nothing - the new image can be spread via the internet and existing contact and media. Which is already the case.
The McCanns have always asked that any information is given directly to the local police. So they are not likely to be inundated with calls.
4) Why didn't the parents bother to have a T-shirt printed with the new image for their well publicised run in Liverpool? That might help.
5) The advance for the book has not surfaced in the Fund accounts, if may do so for the next tax year. The advance for the extra chapter in the paperback has not been disclosed. One may assume that these moneys are purely for the Fund, although see Enid O'Dowd's opinion on this (link in post nr. 1).

The Fund should never have been used for anything other than 'looking for Madeleine' .
So why was the mortgage paid out of the Fund for June/July 07?
Some 10.000 pounds was collected in the first few weeks by Glenfield Hospital, where a donation box was set up on the 4th of May.
This was partly in cash.
People from all over the UK and abroad posted cash to Rothley. Schoolchildren gave their pocket money, pensioners from their low income.
The collection boxes in the OC were only for cash.
By the start of July 07 the donations to the Fund stood at nearly a million.
How was this money accounted for? And what was the total amount of cash donations?
The first - slightly more transparent yearly report of the Fund lists an amount of over 7000 pounds for the accountant. Could not a relative or friend do that?
It lists 37.000,- for the website - certainly a very high amount for maintaining a website for a year, even if it includes setting it up.

Getting back to the present day:
Why should the income from a Consultant Cardiologist not be enough to maintain his family (I expect the house may be paid off by now) ?
If this income is augmented by the large advance and other publishing rights paid to his wife, why is that still not enough?

Why does Mr. Mitchell say that sooner or later they are going to have to ask for money?

by **tigger** 10.05.12 8:28

Cuddlecat.co.uk is still registered to the McCanns. After five years not much - then it appeared as a link on http://www.ethicalkidz.co.uk/.
I think it's run by friends of the McCanns.

Cuddlecat was linked to that site last month.

I've just checked the site - they've had a complete make-over in style etc. The cuddlecat has disappeared but under charities is listed: Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)??????

Under the heading: Children's Charities
So far, we have raised money for or donated to...

BBC's Children In Need (Reg. Charity No. 802052)
Circus Star (Reg. Charity No. 501667)
Missing People (Reg. Charity No. 1020419)
Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)
Cancer Research (Reg. Charity No. 1089464)

I've just gone over the Charities Commission Website.

Charities matching your search ...

Your search for '6248215' has produced no results.

I believe it's the registration number of the Company.

by Ribisl 10.05.12 8:55

tigger wrote:

Getting back to the present day:
Why should the income from a Consultant Cardiologist not be enough to maintain his family (I expect the house may be paid off by now) ?
If this income is augmented by the large advance and other publishing rights paid to his wife, why is that still not enough?

Why does Mr. Mitchell say that sooner or later they are going to have to ask for money?

Greed. And they'd better be visiting their priest friend for another confession soon so they may be absolved of this relatively modest sin.

by pauline 10.05.12 9:15

Tigger - you are correct - the number is just the number of the limited company. And the name of the company is not 'Madeleine McCann' as this website says - it is Madeleine's Fund:leaving no Stone Unturned

I suggest that someone complains to the Charity Commission about this, and perhaps also to the Consumers Association as this is misleading to consumers.

if the site owners are friends of the Mccanns as you suspect, they must know the company does not have charitable status.

by uppatoffee 10.05.12 9:31

I am confused as to why Clarence is now saying that the fund needs to be topped up. Why? It's not like they need to pay any private investigators, given that they are not actually employing any at the moment. The "review" is costing us, the taxpayers, lots of money and the McCanns nothing.

So that leaves legal fees, I guess. Despite CR doing lots of work quietly behind the scenes free of charge, they are still managing to rack up high costs as Tony has found out.

I shall email ethical kidz to ask them to correct their obvious oversight. Quite an impressive overhaul their website has had!

by Guest 10.05.12 9:54

The owner of "ethicalkidz" is Tara Gold who, with her doctor husband Stuart, holidayed with the McCanns (and the Gaspars) in September 2005. I am quite sure that this is a deliberate act to maintain the illusion that Madeleine's Fund is a registered charity.

by pauline 10.05.12 10:01

Jean wrote:The owner of "ethicalkidz" is Tara Gold who, with her doctor husband Stuart, holidayed with the McCanns (and the Gaspars) in September 2005. I am quite sure that this is a deliberate act to maintain the illusion that Madeleine's Fund is a registered charity.

yes deliberate without a doubt which is why a complaint should be lodged with the relevant authorities as I posted earlier.

Another doctor involved with all this!

As friends they would have followed the case closely and seen all the stuff about the wicked people at Charity House who would not give the Fund charity status.

team Mccann have the best of both worlds - they do not have the restrictions /disclosure requirements of charity status - but most people think they are a charity!

by **tigger** 10.05.12 11:44

pauline wrote:
Jean wrote:The owner of "ethicalkidz" is Tara Gold who, with her doctor husband Stuart, holidayed with the McCanns (and the Gaspars) in September 2005. I am quite sure that this is a deliberate act to maintain the illusion that Madeleine's Fund is a registered charity.

yes deliberate without a doubt which is why a complaint should be lodged with the relevant authorities as I posted earlier.

Another doctor involved with all this!

As friends they would have followed the case closely and seen all the stuff about the wicked people at Charity House who would not give the Fund charity status.

team Mccann have the best of both worlds - they do not have the restrictions /disclosure requirements of charity status - but most people think they are a charity!

Someone on MM told me that the Charity Commission takes a very dim view of such things. Even going so far as placing a notice in the papers to that effect .

by Ross 10.05.12 12:11

tigger wrote:Under the heading: Children's Charities
So far, we have raised money for or donated to...

BBC's Children In Need (Reg. Charity No. 802052)
Circus Star (Reg. Charity No. 501667)
Missing People (Reg. Charity No. 1020419)
Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)
Cancer Research (Reg. Charity No. 1089464)

I've just gone over the Charities Commission Website.

Charities matching your search ...

Your search for '6248215' has produced no results.

I believe it's the registration number of the Company.

Great stuff Tigger. Calling something a charity when it is not a charity would be an attempt to defraud wouldn't it?

Any journalists under the age of 40 reading this thread, this is an example of something that used to be called 'investigative journalism' (ask one of you older colleagues, they may remember when this used to happen regularly).

by Ribisl 10.05.12 13:06

Tigger

by aiyoyo 10.05.12 13:26

Ross wrote:
tigger wrote:Under the heading: Children's Charities
So far, we have raised money for or donated to...

BBC's Children In Need (Reg. Charity No. 802052)
Circus Star (Reg. Charity No. 501667)
Missing People (Reg. Charity No. 1020419)
Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)
Cancer Research (Reg. Charity No. 1089464)

I've just gone over the Charities Commission Website.

Charities matching your search ...

Your search for '6248215' has produced no results.

I believe it's the registration number of the Company.

Great stuff Tigger. Calling something a charity when it is not a charity would be an attempt to defraud wouldn't it?

Any journalists under the age of 40 reading this thread, this is an example of something that used to be called 'investigative journalism' (ask one of you older colleagues, they may remember when this used to happen regularly).

If the Charities Commission cant take in public complaint over this it may be understandable since it was a journalist who misled the public. In that case there is no reason for the PCC to ignore public complaints if members of the public were to write to the PCC to complain about the journalist's diabolical reporting thereby misleading the public.

However, if the mccanns were to refer to their Fund as Charity, then the Charities Commission cannot ignore public complaints.

In fact the Charities Commission has a duty to put out a public statement to correct the press error. They shouldnt allow the press to mislead the public.

by Gillyspot 10.05.12 13:33

aiyoyo wrote:
Ross wrote:
tigger wrote:Under the heading: Children's Charities
So far, we have raised money for or donated to...

BBC's Children In Need (Reg. Charity No. 802052)
Circus Star (Reg. Charity No. 501667)
Missing People (Reg. Charity No. 1020419)
Madeleine Mccann (Reg. Charity No. 6248215)
Cancer Research (Reg. Charity No. 1089464)

I've just gone over the Charities Commission Website.

Charities matching your search ...

Your search for '6248215' has produced no results.

I believe it's the registration number of the Company.

Great stuff Tigger. Calling something a charity when it is not a charity would be an attempt to defraud wouldn't it?

Any journalists under the age of 40 reading this thread, this is an example of something that used to be called 'investigative journalism' (ask one of you older colleagues, they may remember when this used to happen regularly).

If the Charities Commission cant take in public complaint over this it may be understandable since it was a journalist who misled the public. In that case there is no reason for the PCC to ignore public complaints if members of the public were to write to the PCC to complain about the journalist's diabolical reporting thereby misleading the public.

However, if the mccanns were to refer to their Fund as Charity, then the Charities Commission cannot ignore public complaints.

In fact the Charities Commission has a duty to put out a public statement to correct the press error. They shouldnt allow the press to mislead the public.

I wrote to the Charity Commision last year and they aren't interested. Said it was up to donors to check if it was a charity or not as they mention it lower down the page on their website. They weren't interested in my links to UK media showing that their "fund" is compared with other charities - said that was up to the media to get it right.

by Ribisl 10.05.12 14:30

Madeleine's Fund

About the Fund

Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.

Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:

- To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
- To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
- To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html

Tigger, yes it's the company reg no. The last one is clearly the one and only activity relevant to this company's existence.