30 January 2010

Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited Accounts March 2009

Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited accounts, Company No. 06248215 - 2009.31.03, 10 pages

MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED
(Limited by guarantee)
REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2009
Registered Number: 6248215

CONTENTS
Pages
Legal and administrative information
Chairman's statement 2
Directors' report 3-4
Independent auditors' report 5
Income and expenditure account 6
Balance sheet 7
Notes to the financial statements 8
The following pages do not form part of the statutory accounts:
Detailed income and expenditure account and summaries 9-10
-----------
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2009

DIRECTORS:
JA Corner
M J Linnett
E G Smethhurst
D Skehan
J McCann
P J B Hubner
B Kennedy
KM McCann     (appointed 12 November 2008)
GP McCann      (appointed 12 November 2008)

COMPANY SECRETARY
BWB Secretarial Limited

COMPANY NUMBER
6248215

REGISTERED OFFICE
2-6 Cannon Street
London
EC4M 6YH

AUDITORS
haysmacintyre
Chartered Accountants & Registered Auditors
Fairfax House
15 Fulwood Place
London
WCIV 6AY

BANKERS
National Westminster Bank plc
3rd Floor, Cavell House
2a Charing Cross Road
London
WC2HONN

SOLICITORS
Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
2-6 Cannon Street
London
EC4M 6YH

Stephenson Harwood
One St Paul's Churchyard
London
EC4M 8SH
--------------------------
CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT
The Chairman presents his statement for the year.

On 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal. The events of that day touched the heart of many, in countries around the world. Donations started to flood in. In response to this, Madeleine's Fund was established.

The aims of the Fund are to help find Madeleine, to support her family and to bring her abductors to justice. Any surplus funds will be used to help families and missing children in similar circumstances in the United Kingdom, Portugal and elsewhere. The Fund has 7 directors.

We have continued to concentrate on ensuring that Madeleine is not forgotten and that the search for her continues. We have:

• provided finance for a team of investigators to lead a private search for Madeleine

• financed the translation of the full set of files released by the Portuguese police, enabling our team of investigators to follow up all potential leads

• paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry, Sean and Amelie in Portugal, enabling them obtain an injunction banning Mr Amoral [sic] from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction

• funded an awareness-raising campaign to ensure that Madeleine is not forgotten, the key part of which is our website

• provided some administrative support to Madeleine's family in maintaining the impetus of the investigation

Last year I referred to the public apology made to Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry, by the Express Group following months of inaccurate speculation and accusations in the media. Other newspapers followed suit with accompanying donations to Madeleine's Fund. In addition, an apology was made to the friends of Gerry and Kate who were in Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine's abduction.

Rather than accepting libel damages, the friends requested that a donation was made to the fund. This has enabled us to continue our search for Madeleine. On behalf of the directors of Madeleine's Fund, I thank Kate, Gerry and their friends for continuing to forego any personal financial recompense to ensure that the search for Madeleine continues.

Following the end of the financial year we were delighted to hear that Madeleine's parents, brother and sister had been successful in obtaining an injunction banning sales of Mr Amoral's [sic] book and banning him from repeating his claims.

These fabrications had hindered the search for Madeleine and were a barrier to potentially valuable information being passed on to the police. Our team of investigators continue to diligently review police files, witness statements and follow up every potential lead in the search for Madeleine.

Although the majority of donation income for the year arose from family and friends donating libel damages, we have a number of loyal donors continuing their support.

For this we are grateful. As expected, income in the new financial year is lower than last year and we continue to review all our expenses to ensure value for money.

The directors regularly discuss the strategy for the Fund to ensure that finances are available to achieve our main objective, finding Madeleine.

The Board of Directors would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has supported the search for Madeleine. The level of financial support, the amount of time given up and the numerous messages of support sent to Madeleine's family have been overwhelming. All messages of support sent to the Fund are passed to Gerry and Kate, and appreciated by them. We will continue to ensure that Madeleine is not forgotten and will leave no stone unturned in our search for her.

J McCann
Chairman
--------------
DIRECTORS' REPORT

The directors present their report and the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2009.

PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES

Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned is a non-charitable not-for-profit company. 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 2008;

• 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.

• If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Madeleine's Fund is governed by a Board of Directors who meet on a regular basis, approximately every month. During the year, there Were 11 meetings.

In so far as it is relevant the Fund follows best practice governance procedures as set out in the publication "Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector." The directors have reviewed the Fund's operations against these best practice recommendations and have developed:

• a Financial Procedures Manual
• job descriptions for directors. Chair and Treasurer
• clearly laid out policies and processes for:
• payments
• expense claims
• risk management
• whistleblowing
• registering conflicts of interest

Risk
The directors have agreed a risk strategy for Madeleine's Fund, namely:

"The risks that Madeleine's Fund faces are assessed for both the likelihood of occurrence and the impact on the organisation should they occur.

In order to achieve its objectives Madeleine's Fund must accept a certain amount of risk taking. An important part of the risk management strategy must be to be clear at an organisational level about the types and levels of risk the organisation is prepared to take. Therefore, the identified risks are also assessed for the organisation's attitude."

The risks facing the Fund were assessed in four categories:
• reputational
• financial
• information and communications technology
• human resources

Current controls in place to mitigate each risk were identified, together with additional controls required. The resulting risk register will be reviewed annually.
---------------------------
DIRECTORS' REPORT (continued)

DIRECTORS
The directors who served during the year were:
J A Corner
M J Linnelt
E G Smethhurst
D Skehan
J McCann
P J B Hubner
B Kennedy
KM McCann (appointed 12 November 2008)
GP McCann (appointed 12 November 2008)

STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS' RESPONSIBILITIES

The directors are responsible for preparing the annual report and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and regulations.

Company law requires the directors to prepare financial statements for each financial year. Under that law the directors have elected to prepare the financial statements in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (United Kingdom Accounting Standards and applicable law). The financial statements are required by law to give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company and of the surplus or deficit of the company for that period. In preparing those financial statements, the directors are required to;

• select suitable accounting policies and then apply them consistently;
• make judgements and estimates that are reasonable and prudent;
• prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the company will continue in business.

The directors are responsible for keeping proper accounting records which disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the company and to enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Companies Act 1985. They are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the company and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO AUDITORS

So far as each of the directors is aware at the time the report is approved:

• there is no relevant audit information of which the company's auditors are unaware; and

• the directors have taken all steps that they ought to have taken to make themselves aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that the auditors are aware of that information.

AUDITORS

The auditors, haysmacintyre will be proposed for re-appointment in accordance with section 485 of the Companies Act 2006.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the special provisions of Part VII of the Companies Act 1985 relating to small companies.

This report was approved by the board on 6.1.10 and signed on its behalf, by: [hand written signature] Brian Kennedy Director
----------------------------
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT TO THE MEMBERS OF MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED (Limited by Guarantee)

We have audited the financial statements of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited for the year ended 31 March 2009, set out on pages 6 to 8. These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the accounting policies set out therein and the requirements of the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (effective January 2008).

RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTORS AND AUDITORS

The directors' responsibilities for preparing the annual report and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) are set out in the statement of directors' responsibilities.

Our responsibility is to audit the financial statements in accordance with relevant legal and regulatory requirements and International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland).

We report to you our opinion as to whether the financial statements give a true and fair view and are properly prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985. We also report to you if, in our opinion the information given in the directors' report is consistent with the financial statements.

In addition we report to you if, in our opinion, the company has not kept proper accounting records, if we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit, or if information specified by law regarding directors' remuneration and other transactions is not disclosed.

We read other information contained in the annual report and consider whether it is consistent with the audited financial statements. This other information comprises only the directors' report, the chairman's statement and the operating and financial review. We consider the implications for our report if we become aware of any apparent misstatements or material inconsistencies with the financial statements. Our responsibilities do not extend to any other information.

Basis of audit opinion

We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) issued by the Auditing Practices Board. An audit includes examination, on a test basis, of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. It also includes an assessment of the significant estimates and judgements made by the directors in the preparation of the financial statements, and of whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the company's circumstances, consistently applied and adequately disclosed.

We planned and performed our audit so as to obtain all the information and explanations which we considered necessary in order to provide us with sufficient evidence to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or other irregularity or error. In forming our opinion we also evaluated the overall adequacy of the presentation of information in the financial statements.

Opinion
In our opinion:
• the financial statements give a true and fair view, in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice applicable to Smaller Entities, of the state of the company's affairs as at 31 March 2009 and of its surplus for the year then ended;
• the financial statements have been properly prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985; and
• the information given in the directors' report is consistent with the financial statements

date & signature: [hand written] haysmacintyre, 6 January 2010
Fairfax House
15 Fulwood Place
London
WCIV6AY
-------------------------------------------
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2009 

                                                                       2009              2008   

                    Note                                             £                   £   

INCOME                                                             629,18\      1,846,178
Merchandise and Campaign Costs                     (974,786)       (673,366)
GROSS SURPLUS                                              (345,605)      1,172,812
Administration expenses                                (30,865)        (141,747)
OPERATING SURPLUS     2                              (376,470)       1,031,065
Interest receivable                                         21,585             33,424
SURPLUS ON ORDINARY ACTIVITIES BEFORE      (354,885)    1,064,489
TAXATION
Tax on surpluson ordinary activities                        (6,878)       (12,462)   
SURPLUS CARRIED FORWARD                             (361,763)     1,052,027    

The notes on page 8 form part of these financial statements.
-----------------------------
BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31 MARCH 2009

                                                                      2009                     2008
                                                         Notes    £                           £
CURRENT ASSETS
Debtors                                               3           19,795                585,369
Cash at bank                                                  719,723                572,344
                                                                      739,518              1,157,713
CREDITORS: amounts falling due within one year
                                                          4          (49,254)            (105,686)
NET CURRENT ASSETS                             690,264            1,052,027
TOTAL ASSETS LESS CURRENT LIABILITIES
                                                                        690,264            1,052,027
CAPITAL AND RESERVES
Accumulated Reserves                                   1,052,027
Income and expenditure account                     (361,763)            1,052,027
                                                                       690,264             1,052,027

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the special provisions of Part VII of the Companies Act 1985 relating to small companies and in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (effective January 2008).

The financial statements were approved and authorised for issue by the board on 6/01/2010 and signed on its behalf, by: Brian Kennedy [hand written signature] Director

The notes on page 8 form part of these financial statements.
-------------------
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2009

I. ACCOUNTING POLICIES

1.1 Basis of preparation of financial statements
The financial statements have been prepared under the historical cost convention and in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (effective January 2008).

1.2 Income
Income comprises donations received by the company along with revenue recognised in respect of merchandise supplied, exclusive of VAT.

1.3 Taxation
The company remains accountable for taxation liabilities ansrng from capital gains, interest, trading activities and any other surplus arising other than from donations received.

2. OPERATING SURPLUS                                        2009       2008
                                                                                    £             £
The operating surplus is stated after charging:
Auditors' remuneration                                                 5,750        13,366

3. DEBTORS                                                            2009        2009 [sic]
                                                                                    £              £
Donations                                                                     -              563,152
Accrued income                                                            -              2,422
Prepayments                                                                19,795      19,795
                                                                                   19,795      585,369
4. CREDITORS: amounts falling due within one year
                                                                                   £               £
Trade creditors                                                           11,938      28,329
Corporation tax                                                            6,878       12,462
Other creditors                                                           30,438       64,895
                                                                                  49,254     105,686

5. COMPANY STATUS
The company is a private company limited by guarantee and consequently does not have share capital. Each of the members is liable to contribute an amount not exceeding £] towards the assets of the company in the event of liquidation. The company was formed on the 15th May 2007.

6. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
There were no related party transactions recorded in the year.



Madeleine's Fund Accounts March 2009

More: Accounts Report: Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited 2008
Beginning of the fund created on 12th May 2007 here and more info here





139 comments:

  1. isn't nice & clear where your money's being spent - mssrs Hunniford, Steele, Loache, Dee, Phillips etc.

    awareness? hardly...obsfucation and sleight of hand

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr "Amoral", and not just a typo, no, it's spelled that way EVERY time.
    One is tempted to trace a connection to a well known 'pro' site where this is also the way that they spell Mr Amaral's name.
    But I suppose it's merely a coincidence.
    This is case is so filled with coincidences...

    ReplyDelete
  3. can someone calculate financially what they were supposed to have in the fund with what was said on the media [libel winnings, previous accounts 2008], with the costs of carter ruck hired, rogerio alves, isabel duarte, lift consulting, the two pt marketing companies, less halligen con, etc...?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joana - Thanks for letting us see last year's Reports and Financial Statements - well at least the Reports!

    How many more times must we hear that same hackneyed phrase "Leaving no stone unturned"! There are still thousands of stones in Praia de Luz that could to with turning over according to their (latest of a long line) private detective!

    Their Fund Solicitors -

    Bates, Wells and Braithwaite

    Stephenson Harwood

    Both Solicitors who I know charge the earth for their services having worked for them both in my time.

    What was wrong with having the Registered Office and local Solicitors from Rothley? Not up market enough for the McCanns?

    ReplyDelete
  5. How dare this discusting family call Dr Amaral Mr Amoral.
    I despice them more than I can say..
    And how they have spend the donated money....makes me puke..

    w_nicht

    ReplyDelete
  6. Amoral - interesting, so John McCann is posting on a web site as a supporter - they cant even get real supporters!

    I cant believe the unprofessional way the chairmans statement is written - so pathetic!

    Note that 'support for the family' is part of their 'raison detre' (or however its spelt!). So thats for the mortgage! Someone out there knows if thye still have a mortgage, I bet they dont - imagine living of the death of your child!

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5 w_nicht, they are obviously doing this on purpose - its an abuse, I wonder if it in any way invalidates the accounts?

    However, this may be advantageous as it helps identify John McCann as being responsible for posts on pro-McCann web sites (or posts from pro-McCanners).

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Support for the family"?! I thought the money was to find Madeleine! What does "support for the family" mean? Mortgage payments? And what is "the family"? Uncle John, aunt Phil, etc etc etc?!
    I can't bloody believe this!!!
    And they call Mr Amaral "AMORAL"?
    They are not even worth of writing his name!!!
    I am gobsmacked! Gobsmacked! Uncle John is Rosiepops!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I seem to remember they claimed their website had cost them £37,000!!
    Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Macs get a poet to compose a rhyme
    Is it to compete against whats online?
    Strange thing is, he shows no respect
    By pointing out Maddies eye defect

    Why point out such an obvious eye?
    This could ensure she would die
    Or does it matter for Gerry and Kate
    Is it possible they know her fate?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, John is without a doubt the sad individual Rosiepops.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Off topic but I read a post on Martin Brunt's blog:

    "It's amazing that this is the one and only missing child case in Portugal which has been shelved and to make it worse, only 18 months after Madeleine's disappearance".

    If this is true, then there is definitely something very 'fishy' going on!

    ReplyDelete
  13. well all you mccann supporters are you glad this is how YOUR MONEY is spent,i bet you all thought this money was to help find madeleine,
    well the mccanns have sure made a monkey out you lot havent they,and WE who know that there was no abduction of madeleine are having the last laugh on you.have you asked yourselves WHY have they got a fund at all when they have wealthy backer who is going to give them all the money they need untill madeleine is found,oh yes they have certainly made a monkey out you lot

    ReplyDelete
  14. John McCann = Rosiepops!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Well what about that?!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bit i love best, majority of donations now come from family, friends and libel compensation payments, says it all, nobody taken in by their lies anymore or simply sick to death of the lying whining McTw*ts. As for the spelling of Sr Amarals name that just shows you can take the boy out of Glasgow, but you can't take Glasgow out of the boy.
    Also like the bit where they follow good practise where it suits them. We should feel sorry for them really if thats the standard of an official report. Lets all remember NONE OF THE FUND MONEY WILL BE USED FOR CATE AND JERRY McGANNS LEGAL EXPENSES lol
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  16. @14 and why not he is as ignorant as she is ,so it wouldnt supprise me

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2807324/Madeleine-McCann-probe-cop-in-new-attack-on-parents.html

    Still available on line - this is libel and a lie. Come on Sr Amaral, sue the bastards!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah love that the fund paid for Sean and Amelie to go to Portugal to sue Sr Amaral, i must have blinked and missed them. Anyway just proves one of two things, either the vitriolic pros dont contribute to their Gods or they are all family members, can't be both.
    RIPM
    Brill keep them coming!
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  19. I note the fund has a policy for dealing with whistleblowers - hope it's not along David Kelly lines.

    Fraud is not listed in the risk assessments - bad omission that, under the cisrcumstances. Come to think of it, why hasn't the Halligen case been in the news again, wasn't he due back in court?

    ReplyDelete
  20. whatever happened to the blogger that Amaral was going to out??

    it wasn't John McCann was it?

    ReplyDelete
  21. why they should even still have a fund is beyond me...

    most bereaved/parents of missing children might get a goodwill donation from the public at the time of the incident - but they certainly don't try & keep the funds rolling in year after year

    ReplyDelete
  22. To John McCann, Goncalo Amaral never did claim abduction so your statement "repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction"...is incorrect. There are however on group of people making fabricated claims of Madeleine's abduction and I believe you, your brother and sister-in-law are amongst that group. Please explain why you immediately gave up your job to become director of the fund?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mr. Chairman,
    thank you for your information.

    On 3rd may 2007 Madeleine Mccann was abducted in Praia Da Luz Portugal

    If your fund is based on an unproven fact (from the imaginay)than there is no reason for the fund to exist.
    So this leaves you 3 opportunities.

    1. Show the official (police)documents that an abduction took place
    2. If you have more information that an abduction realy did take place, I advice you to inform the police about these facts, so that the case can be reopened. Withholding crusial information is not only criminal but also damaged the search for Madeleine.
    3.If you can not prove your statement you must close down the fund.
    There is still an difference between "legal" and "fraude"

    greatings

    ReplyDelete
  24. John Mcscam made a simple spelling mistake
    Lets not make him the subject of our debate

    Just remember how soon he joined the gang
    To feed off the name of Madeleine McCann

    Don't worry, there will be a moral to this tale
    When the whole bloody lot of them go to jail

    ReplyDelete
  25. To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2008

    They don't even get the right year.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The 2008 accounts had considerably more detail but the press had a field day picking holes in their expenditure. The 2009 accounts here are "abbreviated" accounts - the legal minimum of information is shown.

    This is more McCann bullshit.

    The fund is fraudulent. They never respond to questions. It is a black hole of money with no accountability, no customer service, no nothing.

    Scheisters the lot of them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/2007/06/625054-and-90-pence-in-mccanns-find.html

    interesting find whilst googling

    ReplyDelete
  28. http://retiredrambler.typepad.com/tonys_ramblings/2009/08/the-madeleine-fund-an-update.html

    another interesting read

    ReplyDelete
  29. What still confuses me is Pinky saying even if the fund dries up the search will not stop, so why do they need a fund then.
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  30. '27 yes buy that proves there are things that they dont want us to see,so to my mind it is not above board and the fund is a scam

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anon 27, very good point, twice i emailed them first to tell them i had come into a significant amount of money and wanted to talk about making a very large donation to such a worthy cause (load of bollocks), no reply,really thought i would get one for that, later to ask why they didnt ask for the British police to carry on the case if they felt they couldnt trust the PJ no reply, so that all told me the website is just a front, they dont even check it, all they will check is the paypal account.
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  32. to any Portuguese posters that may not have a good grasp of English - the reason the spelling mistake of Dr. Amaral's name is so rude is that in English, "Amoral" means "lacking in morals"

    we don't have to search too far into Gerry & Kate's quotes to realise who are lacking morals...

    "a good marketing ploy"
    "the best possible outcome for us... & Madeleine"
    "a one year event...."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, 'stone' me! Very enlightening - even more evasive than their version of events that took place on 3.5.2007 and subsequently - or is that possible!

    Take a look at Fiona Phillips 'Daily Mirror' diatribe! Her version of the celebrity bash seems about as far fetched as this fabricated audit of the slush fund. She clearly implies that the event was oozing with the high profile rich and famous but I have seen no evidence to substantiate this - just a handfull of non-entities! Nor have I seen any evidence of G. Mccanns attendance at the CEOP conference, if anyone can provide a link it would be appreciated!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry Guys,

    We've got the details wrong in our crooked accounts. Where we say about Mr Amoral[sic]:

    "Repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleines abduction"

    We really meant to say:

    "Repeating his claims about Madeleines fabricated abduction"

    Just move one word and it's true!

    All the best,

    [NOT}John McCann

    ReplyDelete
  35. #14
    Can we call John Mccann from now on the : Rosie John ??

    w_nicht

    ReplyDelete
  36. We are missing pages 9 and 10 which tell us all we want to know. So much for being open, they have decided to make public only that which they are required to by statute. Just a reminder that this is a private company so it is none of our business how they operate.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ Claire
    Very right !
    I note also that they paid for ID who presented herself as representing five and not four members of the family, ie Madeleine too!
    How would they react being called Macbann ?

    ReplyDelete
  38. @37 yes it might be a private company,but do you not think that people who gave to the fund are entitled to know where THIER MONEY has been spent.this fund is a fraud fund and i wish someone would take a good look at it and expose it for what it is

    ReplyDelete
  39. Does anyone know who actually showed up at the Mccann celebrity party? Where are the pictures in the press of Harry Potter's mum and Daddy Warbucks Branson. Did the Beckhams show up or are they still annoyed about the comparison to Victoria in the "sighting" last year, the one that gave the private dicks a free trip to OZ.

    Did anyone show up except that guy who stood beside the Mccanns and called Madeleine Maddie without correction?

    Tha poor little girl never stood a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  40. i bet you the mccanns and that includes john and anyone else who are in on this charade are having a good laugh at everyones expense
    because they THINK they have got away with it all.have they all got a shock coming to them oh yes surieee

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ Anonymous 33
    Thank you, but "a" is privative in Portuguese too.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @ RIPM
    I suggest we follow your way
    And in verses from now say
    what all we think and know to-day
    So that Amaral feels okay

    ReplyDelete
  43. "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."

    Whatever happened to GET A JOB???

    ReplyDelete
  44. The Madeleine Fund..... Leaving no stomach unchurned, has a more beleivable ring to it don't you think.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Come on Gerry. We know it´s been a busy week for you: conferences, parties, chinese lanterns etc. on top of your normal workload, but couldn´t you find time to give us just a little update about all the exciting happenings on your website?

    ReplyDelete
  46. @44,they would rather make money of the back of madeleine

    ReplyDelete
  47. What we need to see is the Metodo3 and Oakley international financial statements to compare them with the McCann's business financial statements; I'm certain there are many discrepancies.

    The deliberate misspelling of Mr. Amaral's name shows such a lack of professionalism. The person who drafted this financial statement probably also met with the English editors to shape the stories.

    The strict definition of "Amoral" is not caring about or being able to distinguish between what is right or wrong, i.e. neither moral or immoral. This word is a good description of malignant narcissists and the McCanns fit this psychological profile. Malignant narcissists will attribute their own character flaws to the object of their venom.

    guerra

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Aministration expenses" covers a multitude of sins.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @44 The Mccanns' full-time job, unturning stones all over the world,
    working like a dog (with a little help from their friends).
    Dutchman

    ReplyDelete
  50. "• To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2008;"

    WOW !!!!
    They dont even know when Madeleine was "abducted".
    2007.....2008.....

    Well, never mind, lets have a party next year again, shall we mccanns?? With "stars" like you had this year, they wouldn notice any difference if the "abduction" was last year or next year or when ever.

    w_nicht

    ReplyDelete
  51. aacg said:

    "I suggest we follow your way
    And in verses from now say
    what all we think and know to-day
    So that Amaral feels okay"

    D'accord, mais en français.


    Le Fonds McCann:

    Cette Charité-là,
    Ayant petite porte et fond bien évasé,
    Paradis des vautours des taupes et des rats,
    Fait bien mauvais usage du blé qu'elle a fauché.
    Cette Charité-là,
    Veut mettre sur la paille ceux qui contesteraient,
    Qu'à PDL,un jour, kidnappeur exista.
    Ceux qui comptent les sacs nuitamment engrangés,

    Bref tous ceux qui ont du nez.

    Voltaire

    ReplyDelete
  52. Are these people insane, they don't even know when Madeleine was abducted! What's another year?

    ReplyDelete
  53. The intentional bad spelling of Mr Amaral's name on what is supposed to be an official and "serious" document certainly demonstrates the low level at which these people function! unbelievable!

    Poor little Madeleine, it's all come down to this, some dodgy accounting and business plan, that's very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Maybe it's a spoof?

    'Amoral' and 'abducted in 2008'. It's too bad to be true so I reckon it's a spoof.

    ReplyDelete
  55. #53
    -They don't know when Madeleine was "abducted"
    -They forgot that she is also in the writ suing Amaral(like Sean and Amelie) They forgot to add her

    They FORGOT when is was "abducted they FORGOT she is part the the "family" they FORGOT....
    Gerry had problems to remember her name, it's not Margaret!

    Looks like they dont remember her at all..

    w_nicht

    ReplyDelete
  56. gerry mccann: (roaring like a bull)

    Margaret was abducted 2008 and there is absolutely no evidnce that we are involved, Amoral has got it all wrong !!

    w_nicht

    ReplyDelete
  57. I can't believe John McCann stooped so low as to take a snidey pop at Amaral on what is supposed to be an objective professional document. Oh wait a minute, I can. AstraZeneca must have been glad to see the back of him, if that is his idea of professionalism.

    A wee Glesga ned, just like his brother. By their deeds shall ye know them.


    Angela

    ReplyDelete
  58. "On 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal. The events of that day touched the heart of many, in countries around the world. Donations started to flood in. In response to this, Madeleine's Fund was established."

    WHERE IS THE PROOF OF MADELEINE BEEN ABDUCTED, MR. GERRY MCCANN?
    You based your Fund not in a fact, but in a supposition, a theory which valium is nothing. A FUND BASED ON A SUPOSITION IS A FRAUD.


    THE ALL FUND MUST BE SHUT DOWN AND FULL INVESTIGATE TO KNOW WHERE WENT THE MONEY GAVE BY HONEST PEOPLE.
    DID THE FUND PAY TAXES ABOUT ALL THE INCOMES AND THE OUTCOMES? CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN US WHAT HAPPEN?

    ReplyDelete
  59. 'The Fund' is a way to dissipate monies - to 'launder' income so they can spend it on what they like - mortgage is (I expect) as vanished as Madeleine!

    The UK authorities are not performing their duty in investigating and closing down this fraudulent fund. The McCann's are claiming that they are collecting monies to 'search for Madeleine'...this requires and abduction, yet no abduction is proven. Their only concern is to maintain the Fund, to do so they must maintain the fantasy of abduction, abduction by stranger and abduction from their apartment to avoid the charge of neglect. Of course there needs to be someone with standing or the CPS (or equivalent in Portugal) to raise such a charge. Tony Bennett attempted to do so in the uK, but was informed that the Magistrates COurt had no jurisdiction.

    Someone needs to make the claim against them on behalf of Madeleine - the Portuguese must re-open the case and build their case against the McCann's - ignore Fiona Phillips and other abusers and destroyers of our right to free expression - and ensure that this terrible injustice and fraud is ended!

    ReplyDelete
  60. The last time I posted anywhere regarding Madeleine was about two years ago, but I have kept up-to-date, if you can call it that.

    You know, it doesn’t matter how much has been spent.

    It doesn’t matter what has been said over the past three years.

    What matters is…

    HOW your mummy and daddy reacted IMMEDIATELY after it was alleged you were missing.

    It matters…

    WHAT your mummy and daddy did.

    It matters…

    HOW your mummy and daddy searched for you.

    It matters...

    WHEN your mummy and daddy searched for you.

    It matters...

    THAT your mummy and daddy, allegedly, WENT FOR LUNCH the afternoon AFTER you were missing at the SAME TAPAS RESTAURANT where they were drinking and eating the night before when you went missing.

    It matters...

    THAT, LESS THAN 24 HOURS AFTER YOU WERE ALLEGEDLY MISSING your mummy and daddy, ALLEGEDLY, sat down and –
    - looked at a menu
    - sat your brother and sister down to prepare for lunch
    - chose a meal
    - ate a meal

    WHILE

    You were missing...

    Regardless of what has been written the past three years, I know that if any of my precious children went missing, regardless of the circumstances, the following day I would be

    LYING IN A POOL OF MY OWN VOMIT.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'm getting pretty sick of this now.
    How much longer can this charade continue?
    The fund is a joke - a complete fraud.
    The McCann's appear to be 'untouchable' - and it's making me queasy.
    What is it going to take to get justice for this poor child?
    Mr.Amaral seems to be our only hope at the moment.
    Roll on February and the continuation of the court case.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "• paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry, Sean and Amelie in Portugal, enabling them obtain an injunction banning Mr Amoral [sic] from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction"

    ANNOTHER FRAUD MR. GERRY.
    WHEN THE FUND WAS SET THEY DID NOT INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT THE DONATIONS WERE TO BE USED ON SUCH PROPOSE. THEY FOOLISH PEOPLE FROM ACROSS THE WORLD, which probably did not give a single centime if they know in advance that the money will be used to pay lawyers in charged of framing and persecuting the police without a single evidence to blame him.

    I remember, when they arrive at UK, running away from Portugal, Mitchell came to the TVs to say that the Fund will be not used for legal issues. THEN..... WHAT IS THIS NOW? THIS TEAM IS A COLECTION OF LIARS, and Mr. Brown, who invited the people to take care about the economic crisis, who appeared as an apostle to save banks, etc, etc, HOW CAN HE BE BLIND IN FRONT OF SUCH FRAUD? A SHAME FOR ALL UK CITIZEN'S. HE DID NOT DESERVE A SINGLE VOTE ON THE NEXT ELECTIONS!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Are they telling us that while she went missing in 2007, she was "abducted" from wherever she was in 2008?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dear Dear wonder what the accounts will look like for 2010
    they look grim for 2009 "No Donations"

    3. DEBTORS 2009 2009 [sic]
    £ £
    Donations - 563,152
    Accrued income - 2,422
    Prepayments 19,795 19,795
    19,795 585,369

    IMO Brian Kennedy is nolonger supporting the Mccanns thats why we have them in court with Amaral......desperation is driving them on, they need some money putting in the kitty, asap.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @52 bravo
    Il y a moult blaireaux également...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Wonder to see if Bill Gates, McDonald, Coca-Cola and many others have a team like that working for them.... AND WONDER TO SEE IF THEY NEED IT.

    What a collection of opportunists which discover the MANA of having a easy job with a good salary. Some leave their previous job to work full time in the FUND. HOW THEY KNOW HOW LONG THE JOB CAN LAST TO LEAVE THE PREVIOUS ONE SO EASILY? SOMETHING IS VERY ODD BEHIND THE ALL STORIES SURROUNDING THAT CASE.

    PLEASE, PLEASE, JUDGE GABRIELA, SURF ON THE NET, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.... DON'T LEAVE THE NAME OF PORTUGAL IN MORE SHAME. LOT OF PEOPLE WAS INVESTIGATED AND PUNNISHED FOR LESS, MUCH LESS THEN WHAT WE CAN SEE ON THE MCCANN'S TEAM.... AND WE DID NOT DO A DEEP INVESTIGATION.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Joana, one of the good things in UK, is accounts will be published year after year. So my guess what Kate meant abouting "moving forward" is to set up A NEW company with a different name, but keep all the donations coming it with their campaigns. With their Lawyers, accountants expertise, this would be so easily done.
    Keep up the pressure on these evil team McCann, Joana.

    Ray

    ReplyDelete
  68. Why did Madeleine spend xmas with Grandma Mc cann up in Glasgow the first year the twins were born wouldnt you think mum and dad would want all there children together for that special occation
    So this is not the first time there has been an empty place at the table at xmas


    Who joined Grandma Mccann for that particular xmas day
    Was uncle John there having fun and games with his neice

    ReplyDelete
  69. This is a public filing, generally expected to be very very dry and very very uninformative. It is a box-ticking exercise, for a privately held company the information that must be filed is minimal.

    The consistent use of the mispelling of Sr Amaral's name in the company reports is childish and unprofessional.

    By doing this they have completely lost the moral high ground.

    -- Trismegistus

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'm impressed with posters attention to detail. I missed the misspelling of Dr Amaral's name and also the date of the supposed abduction when I read this report. I went back and reread it. Did they mean to let us in on their inside joke. Did Team M check it before it went out and have a good yuk yuk or do they not pay attention to detail.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I wonder if the British newspapers will publish this report and if they will comment on the spelling and date.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Doesn't John have a very ugly mug like a sort of squashed pixie to go with the Rosiepops persona, ha ha.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Malignant narcissists will attribute their own character flaws to the object of their venom." You're exactly right there guerra 48, and that's the Achilles heel that will destroy this vile pair.

    Brod

    ReplyDelete
  74. Joana Post 3. Some costs you itemise may not be accounted for here if they fall outside the accounting period, or are paid from somewhere else. Perhaps PR costs are in with 'campaign costs' but more detail is needed to be sure. The account appears to say that there has been no capital increase in 2009, over 2008, and costs have been 50% higher than income. It's not clear here what those costs include. Donations appear to be negligible compared with 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I am not an auditor, but can someone explaine how you can get a positieve interest receivable of +21,585
    on a negative surplus of -376,470 ?????

    thank you

    ReplyDelete
  76. 35, these people are half-analphabet
    During months and months Gerry was writing "Madeline".
    I don't know how it is going now.

    ReplyDelete
  77. They are pathological liers.
    Who said they have that amount of money on the Bank?

    They don't see the difference between reality and fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Does this fund pay taxes?

    Somewhere I had readen, long ago, that taxes would be 48%.

    Somebody in Brittain must know it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I hope the Conservative party will use the Madeleine case, Brown's support (Labour), Clarence Mitchel, in order to win votes to themselves.

    The conservatives can show how corrupt people of the Labour are.

    Will somenone in in the UK, who takes part in this blog, write the Conservative party, telling them that they can get wonderful results by using this filthy story?

    ReplyDelete
  80. So where's the £3k Halligen made off with?
    Funny how that's so unimportant it never got any mention after the news broke. Why no news report about Halligen or the CEOP conference, for that matter?
    They're a despised bunch of crooks who, every time they venture out, will never know who does or doesn't believe their lies.
    What an unbearably horrid life they have created for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  81. What?

    Tapas 7 received a terrible amount of libel money and gave it to the fund?

    What do the McCanns know about them, how many photos and videos have they gotten of these people?

    And do these 7 people expect the PJ to know what happened, to solve the crime, and the UK would know they had become rich through fraude and lies?


    If this crime against Madeleine would have been perfect, Tapas 7 would have kept the money for themselves.They have a bad character anyway.

    Giving the money to the fund gives me the idea Tapas 5 are not saints either.
    What a filthy, dirty people.

    I hope Mrs. Martin knows a lot about them.

    And that this story wil be of great support to the Conservative party.

    ReplyDelete
  82. 57, nicht,

    where did you see that Margaret?

    ReplyDelete
  83. There are times I really do have to just shake my head. Leaving aside their inability to remember what year the child disappeared, their spitefully, juvenile mis-spelling of Goncarlo's name, and what appears to be a grossly libellous accusation against him, lets just pick out two things in particular.

    Firstly, who the hell do you people think you are, that you take and solicit money for one purpose, then use it for another ?
    Tell me how financing a lot of people sitting on their arses in a courtroom finds the whereabouts of your child?
    Secondly - where the hell is all the money ???

    You spent over a million pounds last year - on what ? !!!

    How are you spending the money you grubbed out of people - because I see no evidence of you putting it to good use.

    I so hope we get to the truth of this case one day.

    ReplyDelete
  84. The risks facing the Fund were assessed in four categories:
    • reputational (Amaral and the internet have proved trickier than anticipated, and our team of lawyers are depriving Kate of a decent outfit, Gerry is in arrears with the mortgage again)
    • financial (the thing is people just insist we dun it and are keeping their pensions and income support all to themselves, Gerry wants his arrears on Rothley Manor paid off because he will be very aggressive if the Bailiffs come to evict him, this could have risks in relation to our campaign in itself, he may go further than become merely aggressive)
    • information and communications technology (the buggers have read the PJ file, what good is Rosiepops and her undoubted talent for abuse against that?)
    • human resources (Halligen the prat got himself arrested and that has proved deeply embarassing and has had a knock on effect on risk 2 noted above)

    Overall we see no way to negate these risks any further, God knows, we tried

    Current controls in place to mitigate each risk were identified, together with additional controls required. The resulting risk register will be reviewed annually.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Slightly off topic but I noticed this article in today's DailyMail online highlighting the use of so-called 'super injunctions'. I spy a mention for a certain law firm...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1247370/A-significant-victory-super-injunction-fight-free-speech-goes-on.html

    A significant victory against the super-injunction but the fight for free speech goes on
    By John Kampfner
    Last updated at 11:52 PM on 30th January 2010

    John Terry may earn himself a place in history as the man who brought to an end one of the most sinister tactics used to stifle free speech in this country.

    He didn’t, of course, mean to do it. He employed the showbusiness law firm Schillings, which specialises in ensuring that individuals and media are discouraged from publishing information that might inconvenience its clients.

    His lawyers obtained a super-injunction ensuring that nothing, repeat nothing, could be mentioned about his affair – even the existence of the injunction itself.

    The super-injunction is a mighty tool that would do many a dictatorship proud. It has become a catch-all device simply to stop the media reporting facts that might embarrass companies or individuals.

    The most outrageous example came last October when Carter Ruck*, another law firm that feeds off curtailing free expression, sought to prevent a newspaper from reporting a question in Parliament about a super-injunction granted to the oil trading firm Trafigura, which was alleged to have dumped toxic waste in the Ivory Coast.

    The Trafigura case amounted to a direct attack on centuries of constitutional history and the supremacy of Parliament. Such was the popular outcry from ordinary people outraged at the censorship that Carter-Ruck* was forced to drop the injunction.

    In the Terry case, common sense has also, belatedly, prevailed. Mr Justice Tugendhat’s decision may presage a change of direction by judges who in recent years have bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of those seeking to gag the media.

    More...England captain made team-mate's girlfriend pregnant - and then arranged for abortion

    Tugendhat seems to be beginning to understand the extent of public misgiving about the state of affairs.

    The balance between the right to know and the right to privacy – both enshrined in the Human Rights Act – had previously shifted hugely to the rich and powerful.

    The seemingly inexorable march towards greater censorship in the UK reached its peak in 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  86. cont. from above

    ...A combination of zealous law firms, sometimes cash-strapped news organisations and a public that is encouraged to think the worst of the media has created a situation where the right to know seems optional – unlike in America, where the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech as an inalienable right.

    The emerging privacy laws and the super-injunction were two of the more modern weapons of choice. The other one is more traditional – the law of libel.
    My organisation, Index on Censorship, has been at the forefront of a campaign to change the laws of defamation.

    British law (or rather English, as the Scottish system is a little better) has given us a pariah status. The US Congress is pushing through legislation protecting Americans from our courts, which have been allowing oligarchs, sheiks and others to sue people, often other foreigners, using England’s indulgent legal system.

    This is known as ‘libel tourism’. For the lawyers it has been highly lucrative. The idea that our greatest ally needs to insulate itself from British judges and lawyers is excruciatingly embarrassing.

    Politicians have finally begun to notice. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, has assured us that he intends to make significant changes even before the General Election.

    This is not about the rights of journalists: We have countless examples of scientists, charities and individuals being sued, or threatened with being sued, for stating opinions or for bringing serious cases of abuse to light.

    Invariably ordinary people have neither the stomach nor the cash to defend themselves against the predatory legal firm. Instead they choose to settle.

    At least when people are sued, the public knows. The real outrage of super-injunctions is that nobody knows about them. Neither Government nor the courts apparently keep records and editors are not allowed to talk about them.

    Estimates put the number currently in existence somewhere between 200 and 300.

    It is a measure of the impact of the Trafigura fiasco on the public that much of the internet comment on John Terry revolves not around his peccadilloes but more about the misuse of the law.

    This new ruling may suggest that courts may be more reluctant to issue such injunctions in future. But the broader assault on free speech is by no means over.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    'Carter Ruck*, another law firm that feeds off curtailing free expression'

    and

    'At least when people are sued, the public knows. The real outrage of super-injunctions is that nobody knows about them. Neither Government nor the courts apparently keep records and editors are not allowed to talk about them.'

    Mmmm? I wonder if the McCanns have obtained a super injunction and this is the main reason why they have remained completely untouchable with relation to the UK media?

    Worth thinking about...maybe even making it a stand-alone topic for further discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  87. The McCanns do not want Halligans story any where near them. Funny how the sightings and tip offs were coming in on the hotline in their thousands but then we find out the hotline was not even manned. So all the sightings and other information must have been made up. The McCanns must have known any information that was given on the hotline was useless as Madeleine was already dead.
    That's why they don't want to get involved with suing Halligan, they probably gave him the cash to buy sightings, eg Metado3 style. It shows once again how cold hearted these people are and what lengths they will go to.
    Willo

    ReplyDelete
  88. There is an article in the Sunday Daily Star which states Danie Krugel has identified the area where Madeleine McCann is BURIED.

    Krugel is another "former cop" who was called in by the McCanns two months after Madeleine vanished.

    Buried, also vanished - from the Star - not an abducted in sight.

    ReplyDelete
  89. What I have posted on my blog, which may help people understand the accounts a little better. Of note also when John says the fund was set up in response to the flood of donations coming in from the public,

    "On 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal. The events of that day touched the heart of many, in countries around the world. Donations started to flood in. In response to this, Madeleine's Fund was established."


    Erm, but, John, the Fund was set up in FORTY EIGHT HOURS. Do you wish, with the benefit of hindsight, you and your wee brother had been just a bit slower off the mark? Do you think this is what caused British Police to go teaming over to PDL, even the Acting Chief Constable? Do you think SOCA who investigate serious fraud, refused to let Kate and Gerry know the contents of their file for that very reason, because, as Dr Goncalo Amaral says, your family were suspects within the first hour. Did you really think you could pull off such a terrible scam? WHERE IS MADDIE?? If that little girl is not in fact being treated like a princess I hope you rot in jail along with your wee brother.




    Setting up Madeleine’s Fund
    Rosamund McCarthy and Philip Kirkpatrick were involved with setting up Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned within 48 hours and helping to present its launch live on BBC and Sky TV.
    --------


    sep post

    ReplyDelete
  90. The accounts are set out showing income and operating surplus for the year 2007-2008 alongside the current accounting year, 2008-2009 (headed up 2008, 2009) This shows that at the beginning of the financial year, April 2008 they had an operating surplus of just over one million pounds. During the year these accounts cover (period April 2008 to April 2009) they had an income of just £629,000 as opposed to £1.8M the previous year but spent during this year quite massively, a whopping £975,000 on "merchandising and campaign costs" and £31,000 on "administrative expenses" which were far higher the previous year at £141,000. But the previous year those merchandising and campaign costs were much lower at £673,000. I am no accountant but you can see that there was an increase on those costs of some £300,000 this year which seems to rougly equate with what got "Halligened". Certainly during that year, I would like to know how the McCanns can justify spending over one million pounds, particularly when income to the fund had dropped to only £673,000 which therefore leave them in the situation of having blown the operating surplus they had and they finish up with £690,000 left in the Fund as at the end of this accounting period which would have been April 2009. Clarence seems to be telling us it is now lower than that. One is inexorably drawn to the conclusion that not only did £300,000 get "Halligened" about £600,000 has gone into some black hole. The legal action against Goncalo Amaral was apparently started in May 2009 which is just after the end of this accounting period but it says in the accounts that action was funded from this. It therefore seems to me there has been the most collosal expense to the Fund of defending Kate and Gerry McCann with lawyers and I do not think it is legitimate to describe this as "campaign and merchandising costs". Of course another way of looking at this is one has to speculate to accumulate. The Fund has now lost its ONE MILLION POUND operating surplus and it seems like one heck of a coincidence that is what they want from Goncalo, but, it seems to have cost about half a million to try and get there. Thus the dichotomy, two purposes for the Fund, one defend Kate and Gerry, two, make money for Kate and Gerry. There is a further cost noted on the accounts of some £19K odd which is said to be valuing the asset at the time of its purchase rather than what it is worth now. That sounds to me like a nice shiny new car some time back. The price is right, Gerry !
    It would seem Kate only got just £30K in admin costs to "help" her this year, whether that was for a secretary for Kate or for Kate personally I am not sure, but sure she could have had a little out that black hole of the most profligate spending spree one could imagine.
    Thanks, as ever, to Joana Morais for producing these on her blog.

    ReplyDelete
  91. someone has to pay for the errors in this document.
    who will be sacked ???

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anyone else think money from the fund is being salted away somewhere to start what will look like a legitimate charity after Kates little muttering at the bash about helping madeleine and other children? At the very beginning she stated she wanted to work for 'missing children'
    One of the aims of the fund says
    f the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere."
    Sounds to me like theyre planning a missing persons business under the guise of a charity, they can then obviously get more money in to line their pockets.

    Also

    Why does it state in the accounts that the fund paid their legal bill against Amaral when we were told the fund would never pay any legal bills? I hope all those children and pensioners are happy to know this is where their money went, not forgetting the PR consultants. How is that looking for Madeleine?



    More and more lies.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anon 80

    Before hanging on to the hopes of a change of government helping to expose this case to more scrutiny, it's worth remembering that both Clarence Mitchell and Eshter McVey have been rumoured to be interested as standing as consevative candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Imagine the sob story - also known as The Blame Game - they will give when the Fund runs dry. For that it will. When there is No More Money In The Kitty to hire the crane that will turn the stone, MADELEINE will still be out there waiting to be found. They still have to come up with a plan on how to weasel their way out of continuing the search for her when that Fund runs dry. Because weasel their way they can't. Blame the world, its wife and its dog they can't. They will finally understand the expression "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". Keyword here: Damned.

    Good luck, McCanns, with your cup will that will continue to runneth over. There's still no escaping that only The Truth will set you free. :D

    ReplyDelete
  95. I'm no lawyer, but why is it not alright or potentially libelous for Snr Amaral to make claims about the alleged abduction backed with 'indicators' and evidence from the police investigation thats been published in the Police files and supported by testimony in a court of law.
    While it is alright to label Amarals claims as 'fabricated' without a shred evidence ( other than a discredited witness statement and another witness statement that claims the witness saw Gerald McCann with a high degree of probability) to support the claim?

    ReplyDelete
  96. 61 Totally agree. This disgusting behaviour has made sure that even I am going on the Internet posts.
    Hope I have correctly expressed, English is not my native language.

    Maria, Netherlands

    ReplyDelete
  97. Oh, Bridget, #84! You too have misspelt his name, lol, lol!
    It's Gonçalo, not Goncarlo!
    Don't take my reply wrongly, I know it was not intentional, it was an innocent and understandable mistake from you, most portuguese names are not easy, are they? That damned « Ç »!

    ReplyDelete
  98. John McCann Chairman of the Board
    Is he running a big time fraud?
    OK, he's not that bright
    Didn't get the date of the "abduction" right

    But Maddie was only 12 days gone
    And already instigating a long term con
    Good job she didn't come back
    He would have needed to give himself the sack

    Now he has published the accounts
    Are we surprised by dodgy amounts?
    John McCann, do you have no shame?
    You are a parasite feeding on Madeleine's name

    ReplyDelete
  99. 80

    There are good people in all political parties but sadly in the UK, the treacherous leadership of the main three groups are known collectively as the Lib/Lab/Con. If any of these are returned to lead our Parliament in 2010 when we have our General Election it will be bad for Britain.

    Explanation of con for our Portuguese friends, who like us in the UK and the free world. Are following one of the biggest encouraged cons the world has ever seen.

    (1) If someone cons you, they trick you into doing or believing something.

    (2) A con is a trick in which someone deceives you into doing or believing. something

    CON is short for 'CONFIDENCE TRICK'

    The Lisbon treaty is another confidence trick, as it is a self amending treaty, and the citizens of the United Kingdom have been denied a vote on it by the Lib/Lab/Con leadership.

    This Treaty is unlawful under our constitution, and supreme over European Union member states 'Constitutions'

    Snr Goncalo Amaral should get his book back under his rights as a Portuguese citizen enshrined in Article 37 the Portuguese Republics constitution.

    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  100. Well John may have been a bit furious here, thinking of the inevitable cut in pay but at least he called it by its proper name, Fighting Fund, not that we were ever in any doubt about that. I know what i would like to send to you John, but it would not be my money, you gonna hae to trust me on that one !

    If I was in a more analytic mood, I am just sure that what John and Clarence were telling us in the papers about how erm low the fund apparently was, was just a lie. For example, we can see that in 2007-2008 they grabbed £1.8M and at the end of the financial year had a ONE MILLION SURPLUS but look what the grasping git has to say here: Around £10,000 a month?? £1.8 million? I am rubbish at maths but I think £10,000 x 12 = £120,000, try and I do I cannot get it to £1.8M - was he trying to erm hide a wee bit from us for the real fighting fund?

    Maddie's Uncle In Fund Fury

    Dec 2 2007 Sunday Mail

    THE uncle of missing Madeleine McCann has blamed negative stories about the family for the drop in donations to their fighting fund.

    Around £700,000 of the £1.1million raised has been spent in the hunt for Maddie, who disappeared in Portugal on May 3.

    Donations to the Find Madeleine Fund dropped following lurid stories after her parents Kate and Gerry were named as official suspects.

    The fund brings in around £10,000 a month but the family are paying out £50,000 a month to private detectives.

    Gerry's brother, John, of Glasgow, said: "The funds aren't anywhere near the level they were a few months ago thanks to a lot of the crap that's been written over here."

    Meanwhile, Portuguese police are set to reinter view the McCanns and their friends, the so-called Tapas Seven.

    ReplyDelete
  101. If the McCanns want to do something positive to help other children at risk of abduction or abuse, then they should put a stop to all the rampantly dishonest publicity and the begging bowl. They they have done vulnerable children no favours with their self serving actions. Already we had one copycat case where a child(Sharon Matthews) was hidden away for weeks and the mother imprisoned through attempting to gain fame and the resultant money that goes with it, from the media and the child caring public.

    Put up and shut up McCanns and stop encouraging greedy uncaring parents to try and cash in on their children.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Post 76. That's just operating surplus. The interest is on total capital and reserves which is a lot of monry £690,264.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I have been thinking about these published accounts overnight and I believe that these accounts were NOT the ones that should have been submitted. It's bad enough that they will have to explain why they chose to change the manner in which the funds were being spent i.e. using it for their legal costs so why would they put themselves in the position of having to explain themselves about the apparently deliberate misspelling of Sr Amaral's name or explain how they could get the date wrong in their daughter's disappearance, or explain how, whilst a hearing and future libel trial is underway, that they have printed their own libellious statement about Sr Amaral and his book. One other thing that no one seems to have mentioned but jumps out at you is the mention of risk assessment and whistleblowing. If I was a journalist, I would want the McCanns to explain why they are concerned about whistleblowing and why it forms part of the accounts. Do you think that the McCanns with all the negative press they have received recently would deliberately give the public more ammunition against them. I don't think so. My guess is that these accounts were for themselves to chuckle over in their own childish way not the final version that should have been published.

    ReplyDelete
  104. 104 Who would they have to explain these things to? They are complying with the Companies Act as to proper preparation and audit of accounts, there is no requirement to spell someone's name properly but it does demonstrate what a vindictive and inefficient idiot John McCann really is. Risk assessment registers and whistleblowing policies are just part of the normal standards for accounting/business management practice which they are adopting.

    They have drafted the clauses so widely that they can use the Fund for practically just what they like!

    But from a criminal law point of view, if and when it can be proven, they were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, this is just straightforward fraud!

    ReplyDelete
  105. "Following the end of the financial year we were delighted to hear that Madeleine's parents, brother and sister had been successful in obtaining an injunction banning sales of Mr Amoral's [sic] book and banning him from repeating his claims."

    Am I mistaken, or wasn't Madeleine also included in the list of persons that placed the request for the injunction against Mr. Amaral? Why has Uncle John left her out now??? Has it been brought to their attention that Madeleine could/should not have been included in that legal procedure, because she is a WOC (and, as far as we know there was no legal permit from the court for her to be included)and therefore her parents no longer have any legal rights on her? If the inclusion of Madeleine's name in the injunction was unlawful, couldn't it be grounds for invalidating the whole legal procedures against Mr. Amaral?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anon 80 the leader of the Tory party is well aware of this case and has been sent information many times by many people. The thing to remember is they are like lawyers, they fight against each other in court, but then socialise with them. So if you follow the logic that exposing this case for what it really is, will give them votes, forget it, they are all connected, there are many bad apples in all parties. There is ifo on the internet about sex offenders many of whom are in both the main parties, both Labour and Tory.

    Anon 73 sorry McRosie looks more like an ugly shrek, he makes Wayne Rooney positively handsome.
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  107. I recall seeing that in the press, they definitely said they were also suing for Madeleine. I remember thinking at the time, well I do not understand how they can do that given she is a Ward of Court!

    Maybe they realised that was a big mistake, not even possible , and would only get us talking about legal custody of Madeleine being removed from them in April 2008 just as they were being re-investigated by Rebelo and Brit cops. Rebelo said he was reviewing everything that had been done previously which is pretty standard practice for cops who have not so far managed to solve a crime - a thorough review of the case so far. I think it ws important for Pt police to be able to defend themselves from the Mucks, well we DID investigate every option of Maddie having been taken by a stranger and there are no options! I do not think the lady UK Judge heard anything too pleasant about the McCanns. I also think the same in relation to the lady Pt Judge, the McCanns are absolutely nuts, apart from what Goncalo, Almeida say, what about what the Pt Prosecutor says, they could have been charged with kidnapping/ trafficking her. Boy do those two need a psychiatrist each!

    ReplyDelete
  108. anon 98 - I had noticed that about Bridget 84's post (mispelling Goncalo as Goncarlo, and yes I know I've left out the cedilla) but that mistake does not have a double entendre meaning as the Amaral/Amoral mispelling does.

    Calling Sr Amaral "Amoral" is on the same childish level as referring to the McCanns as the "McScams" or "McScums." Cheap name-calling. One expects it on the Interweb but not in official company documents.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Number78....The positive is intrest against the money in the bank the fund reduced in the year but there remains money in the bank....

    Number 86/87 The fuss over the John Terry article and the super injunction,,,I guess many who have used Carter Ruck are running for cover..these super injunctions were being used against teh UK press we can in this country go over the top in the press however it was stopping investigations being released.

    All I dont understand whu you are surprised about the little details in the accounts being wrong...from the start the little details have been wrong...from looking after you children properly when on holiday.... to not even setting an abuduction theory correctly with the window

    ReplyDelete
  110. How on earth have they got away with it when they are so bungling? More to the point, why have they been allowed to?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Viv 105
    "But from a criminal law point of view, if and when it can be proven, they were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, this is just straightforward fraud!"
    Or even if they simply knew or reasonably believed that she was dead.
    The interesting thing will be to see how many of the trustees, who bear joint and several responsiblity for the Fund, start to bail out.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Carter-Ruck would have been working overtime if in his book Sr Amaral had misspelt the ghastly duo's name as McScam or McCon

    ReplyDelete
  113. To anon 98

    Thank you for pointing it out. Unfortunately, I didn't spot the error until I'd pressed 'send' and there is no facility to edit then. Still it amused you, so that's good. Thanks for ignoring the entire point of my post in order to make your point. Thanks for anon #109 for understanding what I meant, which was that the deliberate and calculated insult within those accounts is both juvenile and vindictive

    ReplyDelete
  114. post 87: You are obviously new to this site, as a super-injunction in this case has been discussed by many posters.
    Have already signed your site petition with copy to my MP. He agreed entirely with the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  115. THE MADELEINE FUND - LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED


    LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED TO SEARCH FOR MADDIE OR TO LINE THEIR OWN POCKETS!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Out of all this the part that jumped out at me was
    "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."
    Where does Gerry wages go ? surely it is their responsibility to keep themselves ,not children selling their toys ? So the "fund/company"is what we have believed it was all this time ,a MEAL TICKET ,poor Maddie

    ReplyDelete
  117. I notice that in the section which deals with "Good Governance" there are mentions of "Whistleblowing" and "Registering conflicts of interest". As this whole scam is controlled by the McCann family and friends, whom amongst them can "Squeal" on the rest for any corrupt actions ? With regard to Conflicts of Interest,could this mean one of the "Team" perhaps feeding stories to the Media without sharing any Kickbacks with the rest ?

    One curious omission from the statements regarding the present Temporary Injunction and hearings in Portugal,there is no mention of Madeleine although her name is included in the action. Without her name being included, the costs of the action could NOT be met from the fund! The other members of the family are mentioned by name, but not Madeleine-----why ?

    In addition to all the other errors( real and deliberate )already posted-on, The Director's Report which has been signed by Brian Kennedy (Director ) is dated thus--6.1.10. This is a very odd way to date an official document,even allowing for a sloppy attitude,it may be illegal.On all the legal documents which I have signed over many years, it was necessary to include the FULL year date,e.g. 6..1.2010 ! Maybe it is just sloppiness,but I suspect everything this crowd does.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anon 93 - yes, I think the way is being prepared for them to somehow link in with CEOP - their logos are similar - if you turn the Maddie eye logo anticlockwise from 7 o`clock to 3 o`clock it becomes the CEOP logo. Missing children is big business whatever the intentions behind it.

    ReplyDelete
  119. If the McCans are telling people they are using the money donated to search for Madeleine, and then using it for other things so it is literally amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds being directed away from that purpose, then it is a fraud.

    People are giving their money on trust that it is being used for what it is IMPLIED it will be used for.

    Anything else is using false pretences. That is criminal.

    People are not sending money with the intention the McCanns buy their house with it.

    ReplyDelete
  120. If the total of the two libel payouts, to the McCanns and the Tapas 7 came to £925,000 (£550k to the McCanns, £375k to the Tapas) and apparently they gave it all to the fund, then how come the total income of the fund from all sources in that financial year was only £629k ? I did wonder if it was because the amount they paid into the fund was net of any legal expenses they incurred, but I thought it was the norm that the costs would also have been paid by the newspapers. Anyone else know if this was the case ?

    If the legal costs were paid by the papers, then there would appear to be at least £300k unaccounted for.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Actually, it looks as if the £500k may have been accounted for in the previous year, 2008. Disregard what I posted previously. Apologies

    ReplyDelete
  122. Cutting Edge Focumentary

    The internationally celebrated model parents, Gerry and Kate Mccann, again open the doors to the inner sanctum of their private grief by allowing the prying public to follow the latest venture in their quest to find their missing daughter abducted while holidaying in Portugal. This heart rending focumentary gives yet another opportunity for the curious to enter their world of deception, lies and intrigue which has held the world captive for nearly three years. Now we exclusively cover the party arranged to celebrate 1,000days of missing Madeleine, supported by a host of high profile celebrities, friends, relations and miscellanious hangers-on.
    This is a budget production as every penny raised is vital to the continuing search for the missing child, whilst this tragic couple await that piece of key information, that missing piece of the jigsaw that will finally end their desparate plight.

    Act -ed out again! Scene - it all before!

    Cast in order of importance...

    Gerry Mccann As himself
    Kate Mccann As herself

    A-list celebrities remain anonymous in order to protect their reputation.

    Director Clarence Mitchell
    Producer Gerry Mccann
    Executive Producer Brian Kennedy

    This production was filmed on location at an unidentified venue somewhere in the United Kingdom, for reasons of privacy the publicised location of Kensington Roof Gardens was decided against. This lavish complex is situated on the fashionable Kensington High Street, with blazing neon lights and exposed to the populace of London and was therefore considered inappropriate for such an intimate, private gathering. The inclusion of the press and photographers was forbidden so it is impossible for us provide coverage of this celebration in any further detail - we are sure that all our supporters and sympathisers will respect our privacy and understand the reasons for this level of security.

    Perhaps at the next anniversary celebration, because there will be one, you will be allowed to participate in our grief by donating to our charity fund 'leave no stone unturned un-limited'.

    The End!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Bridget. post 121. The libel payment to Tapas friends took place in 2008/09 period, so should be in 2009 accounts. The payment from DE took place in 2007/08 period, so should be in 2008 accounts. So no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  124. There is a clause saying in effect that can close the business, keep the money and all they would be liable to is £1 each.
    Looks like legal scam to me.
    Neat, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  125. post87
    Kevin Halligen, due in Westminster Magistrates Court on 27th Jan. but no further reporting. My guess is a D notice on proceedings or super-injunction by others associated with him; unless anyone has info. to the contrary. He claimed he had to flee his address in UK because of his "ARRANGEMENT" with the McCs.
    David Payne- also a SI in force?

    ReplyDelete
  126. @ post #121, don't forget the £125k Clarence Mitchell told delegates during his Dubai conference presentation that the News of the World paid to Kate for the allegedly unauthorised publication of excerpts from her diary.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Post anon 53 wrote :
    Are these people insane, they don't even know when Madeleine was abducted! What's another year?

    I agree, it's shocking, poor Madeleine, how must she feel IF she is still alive and being held captive somewhere (if this info was to get back to her)?
    Do they care about her feelings at all?
    This is how any victim would feel imho...so this is FROM Madeleine to team McCann :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaDjcgbBxk8

    They will be stting up another BIG Dinner Bash for next year already, sea bass being the special dish !!!!!!hope they get the Date RIGHT next year.....or will it be sooner than that Gerry?
    The poor girl is probably dead though :(

    ReplyDelete
  128. Hi Peter Mac

    I prefer involved in the disappearance of Madeleine because it is an all encompassing phrase. There seemed to be a divurgence of opinion at court recently as to whether they were involved in disposing of her body or kidnapping and trafficking her. That is the problem, I have no doubt the Smiths are telling the truth, they did see Gerry carrying Madeleine off appearing deeply asleep and that is the starting point for the police. Was she deeply asleep and drugged or was she dead? Gerry himself has given a lot of credence to the suggestion that all the children were drugged by them. There is a clear whiff of serious scandal and fear about this case, I have never thought it could be a mere accidental death. I do not know what could be so terrible for the women, like Rachel to openly admit such terrible child neglect, what could be worse? I think the GASPAR statement and the other one we have been allowed to see Yvonne Martin just may provide the answer.

    But the premise of the Fund is, we need your money to look for Madeleine, and the evidence to me that they know exactly what happened to Madeleine looks overwhelming. So no matter whether she was dead or alive that is very serious fraud, obtaining money by a very serious deception and that includes libel awards, possibly. Maybe not if they did not actually kill Madeleine, but if they did something else to her it raises the issue, how on earth can they claim they were damaged, libel means your reputation was damaged! Goncalo tells us he knows more than he is saying. This had clearly been thought about carefully, Goncalo points out only UK have jurisdiction for fraud. Goncalo also points out UK could prosecute them for the whole lot and he is so right! They could also prosecute the McCanns here for sex offending or homicide committed abroad. In short whatever it was they did with Madeleine. SOCA only get involved in the most serious cases. CEOP are a part of SOCA and specialise in child sexual abuse. When you read about the sheer vastness of the investigation in UK alone, accidental death again, just does not make sense. This Fund was up and running solicitors put it into being within 48 hours. NO matter which way you look at it I think it just has to be planned and deliberate fraud. Clarence was talking with film makers about Maddie the Movie that would have netted about ten million. The problem for the McCanns was they had a very determined police officer who was going to make sure the world knew they are not innocent in her disappearance and the Americans told the McCanns there had to be an ending with them being found innocent otherwise that film could not be made. It is an indisputable fact that neither Portuguese or British authorities have declared them innocent in her disappearance, no matter how they choose to spin it. So the money we see they have had here is just a small amount to what Gerry actually planned and the hatred of Goncalo Amaral is no joke! IMO Gerry is a narcissist/psychopathic, he thrives on wealth and power, enjoys his ability to con and deceive (this amuses him) and reacts with predictable pure rage to anyone who can see right through him and play him at his own game. I think Goncalo is a very intelligent man who understands the psychology of a serious criminal very well. He is also very brave!

    ReplyDelete
  129. Be interesting to know how much John is paid out of the Fund for doing his bit to spread the word of the abduction fairy story as though it were fact.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Uncle John my ar$e.

    "Rosiepops", like almost all the other rambling, ranting pro-McCanns, is just the product of one very troubled, very restless mind.

    How I wish she would shut up and go away.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Rosiepops lives in Newport, Isle of Wight and recently advertised a dining set for sale on the net. Put the money towards the fund RP!

    ReplyDelete
  132. Does the money Kevin Halligen was alleged to have made off with appear in the deficits or money owed to the account? It was never reported to the British Police,(according to Melanie Cumberland when KH last appeared in court) so are the trustees of the fund applying due diligence to the administration of the fund. Was dodgy detective work ever identified as one of the risks? They have a resposibility to take all possible steps to recover this money.
    However, if it was a sum given directly to KH from Brian Kennedy, other questions need to be asked.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Take it from me - Rosiepops does not live on the Isle of Wight. In fact, she doesn't live anywhere... except in a McCann-addled brain that's also home to umpteen other identities, both pro and anti.

    She's obsessed with controlling the debate. Plus she's been running multiple fleets of IDs on various bulletin boards and forums for years, during which time she's honed both the technical and creative skills - and the terrifying, relentless stamina - to keep all those balls in the air.

    Anyway, it's really getting on my wick. There's basically nowhere left online to discuss this case that isn't stuffed with her hollow, infuriating creations, arguing with and b1tching about each other.

    Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

    ReplyDelete
  134. Rosie certainly controls the mad antis (with their conspiracy theories and gory death details) as well as the pros, do you recall how she used to blast off about Bonnynobrains? It was Rosie who masterminded the Pro and Anti War!

    A bunch of paedophiles, after all the prevailing message has always been, parents do not hurt children, Maddie is just being treated like a princess and we need to light a candle and bring her home. Hold on tight sweetheart, go to that place in your head. There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm.

    Pretty sick stuff isn't it! Could even be David or Fiona Payne.

    ReplyDelete
  135. She didn't just mastermind the war, she fought it. On both sides. Largely alone.

    You name any prominent online McCann discussion, and there's an extremely high probability that she either set it up, brought it down, and usually both.

    Did anyone really believe all those contrived wars-between-the-mods and database-leaking-betrayals that made the 3 Arguidos so boring? Didn't think so. It was just her, stirring things up... must have been hard to take when no-one but her own other creations (though there are certainly plenty of those) could be bothered to get involved in the stupidity.

    David or Fiona Payne? Don't make me laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Wow a fund to pay the McCanns £2,000.00 per month mortgage, much better than working for a living. Who will they meet next week what about Branston or JK Rowling and with an election looming Cameron or Milliband and perhaps Brown (just in case Labour do get in again !!) so many gullible people about, Clarence you are so good at your job, such a *ullshitte* - why are these people not brought to account for what they have done!!

    ReplyDelete
  137. MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED

    or how about

    MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONES UNTURNED LIMITED

    I used to work in an anti fraud team when I got back into this case recently three things alarmed me

    1 Why stone not stones easy to add another s to the stone ie another bank account.
    2 Not a charity so no reason to have to provide a charity payment receipt so the person who donated can claim back tax. Thereby no audit trail.
    3 The send cash comment what control is their to ensure every £ etc is remitted to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Thank you for sharing valuable information. Nice post. I enjoyed reading this post. The whole blog is very nice found some good stuff and good information here Thanks..Also visit my page Accountant Auckland

    ReplyDelete