|
MadeleineMcCann
Aimoo Forum List |
Ticket |
Today |
Member |
Search |
Who's On |
Help |
Sign In |
|
|
| Title: Is there a benefit for the fund to be a charity? | |
| MadeleineMcCann > FUND > Fund Info | Go to subcategory： |
| Author | Content |
TinLizzy
|
||
|
Date Posted：03/26/2012 9:02 AMCopy HTML 6/20/2008 12:33 AM
http://msngroup.aimoo.com/madeleinemccann/thefund.msnw-action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1019&LastModified=4675677964853440860.htm Is there a benefit for the fund to be a charity? DCB The Fund could not originally be set up as a charity as it's objectives were to look for one child only. The Mccanns are now involved with the Amber Alert. If the Fund is contributing to this i.e. by paying for flights/expenses then this changes the original objective of the Fund. Is there a benefit to the Mccanns in getting charity status for the Fund, by showing that it is not just involved in looking for one child ony, at this stage? I have my doubts but would appreciate other views. BrainFreeze If it were a registered charity then there is no way that the funding of lawyers for the Mcs would be allowed - so my guess is they would be loathed to change its status. We've seen no evidence yet that the lawyers are NOT going to be paid for from the fund other than a mere reference. BishopBrennan2 This has been covered in quite a few threads. Bottom line generally was that as a limited company rather than charity, they can pretty much do what they like with the money. Just needs the Directors to agree that the suggested spend falls within the original 'objectives' which are so broadly written as to allow effectively anything at all (including paying for laywers). Kim48 Hi As it is private buSiness going over to conference etc I doubt they could use the fund. I did read somewhere that Hello magazine were funding this trip and didn't EM scott take them over on last trip. I am beginning to wonder if a seperate fund was set up for the legal eagles, look at my Ireland fund thread. As it is a non profit making business they are tied in some ways but have more leverage than a charity. They must pay tax and if over a certain amount vat on the online shop. Th eemployees will be liable to tax and national insurance and ome of the directors expenses will be liable too. I wonder if in the coming months as money seems to be dwindling in th emain fund , will they set up their own charity like PACT to stand side by sid ewith Missing Persons. They maybe pushing this Amber alert so that a centre could be set up here in Europe like th eone in Washington and they would sit on thE BOARD??? KazLux The objectives of Madeleine's fund Leave No Stone Unturned are showing great foresight though, almost as if the 'wider agenda' was estabished in the very first week or two: List of goods and services Nice Classification: 9 List of goods and services Downloadable and non-downloadable internet publications. Nice Classification: 16 List of goods and services Printed matter. Nice Classification: 35 List of goods and services Promotional and public awareness campaigns related to missing children. Nice Classification: 36 List of goods and services Financial services including fundraising collections and the management and monitoring of funds; charitable fundraising; the provision of financial assistance (aid) to families and others affected by missing children; financial grant services. Nice Classification: 41 List of goods and services Provision of non-downloadable internet publications; organising events including fundraising events. Nice Classification: 45 List of goods and services Social services rendered by individuals to meet the needs of others, namely pastoral counselling, advice and guidance services; information services related to the provision of assistance to families and others affected by missing children. jjp Actually Clarence is quoted in 24 Horas of 14 June as saying that the fund is paying for the lawyers. http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15095&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=24+horas DCB Gerry seems to be focused on this Amber Alert and it's partners right now and said some strange things in the press conference as if Madeleine was not to be spoken about now . This did not sit right with me as they were only involved in this because of little Maddie. Remember his white board picture!! Another interesting thing is this goverment and big buiness. If their main home is abroad and their business here then there is a financial loophole where only 5% TO !0% tax paid on some buisness transactions. I f they do get this bill through and a centre is built in Europe maybe the McCanns will move abroad to spearhead the centre .????? Noticed that the company address is 2/6 Cannon st London. Is this a holding address or the address of their lawyers sorting the fund. With the shop operating from Ullapool and Gerry's brother in Scotland, uncle in Leics etc . Who is working from that address on their behalf? JillyComeLately In my opinion (I stress that) the Fund/s are being investigated and will be found to be fraudulent, in which case this is a moot point  If the Fund had been allowed to be a charity (which was never the the McCanns' aim anyway, IMO) they would not have been able to use it to fly in the opposite direction to 'sightings' - Germany, Pope, etc. They most certainly wouldn't have been able to use it to pay their mortgage unless they could prove they were experiencing extreme hardship at that particular time. I don't believe they will EVER be allowed to set up a charity. Kim48 Interesting acc to this the fund is situated at BWB Secetarial, London. Last item on th eblog. http://retiredrambler.typepad.com/tonys ... index.html BWB being Bates, Wells and Braithwaite. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992397.stm Interesting that they mention that a seperate fund would have to be set up fo rlegal costs. This is interesting with trademark http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-number?det ... rk=2456061 KazLux
Kim48 Kazlux KazLux Kim, the OHMI trademark was also filed on the 18th of may. In fact that is rather usual, to claim a trademark both in your country and at the same time Europe- or worldwide. Stevo Having charitable status instead of being just another private limited company gives enormous tax benefits. Having researched this intensively a few months ago, this is where you get into the murky world of those people like Common Purpose. CP is a registered charity but it is extremely difficult to see where their services are of benefit to the public. They are so secretive and they don't release details of their operations so how can this be of benefit to the public? KazLux in Sol on August 4, 2007: by Margarida Davim translation by Astro Fund is not charity The ‘Leaving No Stone Unturned��?fund can already count on almost one million pounds in donations ��?approximately one million and four hundred thousand euros ��?but is not recognized by the Charity Commission, the entity that regulates all beneficient activities in the UK. “In order to be considered a charity, the fund would have to be constituted for the benefit of the public, and not to benefit one individual or a specific case��? a source from the comission explained to Sol. According to the same source, the Charity Commission decided not to accept the request that was made by Madeleine’s parents to register the fund, after analysing the purpose of the collection of donations: “The McCanns failed to prove that they are collecting money to help other cases that are similar to Madeleine’s��? The information that was collected with the english authorities contradicts the statements made by the McCanns��?public relations to Sol, in our edition of July 7. Then, Justine McGuinness assured that the money that is received by Maddie’s parents “is subject to very strict rules, that are imposed by british law on any charity fund��? At that time, the spokesperson for Kate and Gerry even explained that the decision to establish a fund was born from the need to “ensure that everything is done in a transparent way��? Confronted with this inconsistency, Justine McGuiness corrects her initial statement: “The fund is not considered a charity, but it aims to comply with the high standards that are demanded by the Charity Commission��? McGuinness does not explain why she did not clarify this from the beginning, but she guarantees that her role in the campaign to find Madeleine is to “be Gerry and Kate’s spokesperson, and not the Fund’s��? Still, she assures that all donations “are subject to strict british rules that regulate the activities of corporations without lucrative purposes��? According to a source from the Charity Commission, this juridical status means that the money that is collected by the fund “is not exempt of taxes in the United Kingdom��? Justine McGuinness does not comment, and directs any further explanation to the presentation text that can be read on the findmadeleine.com site, where it’s written that the fund’s managers are committed to guarantee the financial and juridical scrutiny of the fund. Although Sol insisted, it was not possible to reach anyone responsible with ‘Leaving No Stone Unturned��?��?including John McCann, Gerry’s brother, and Brian Kennedy, Kate’s uncle. Who is paying for Metodo 3's services? http://www.mccannfiles.com/ Following a great deal of confusion caused by Madeleine's Funds' own brand of secrecy, the answer appears to be as follows: £8,000 monthly fee - paid by 'wealthy supporter' £50,000 monthly, flat-fee 'operational costs' - paid by Madeleine's Fund Any excess over £50,000 per month - paid by 'wealthy backers' The 'wealthy supporter' is almost certainly Brian Kennedy, although this is not explicitly confirmed in the Daily Mail report. It is widely reported that Kennedy was heavily involved in the hiring of Metodo 3, so it would be natural to assume that it is he who is providing the bulk of the additional costs. The 'wealthy backers' are reported to 'include double glazing tycoon Brian Kennedy and Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson'. malena stool Who is paying for Metodo 3's services? http://www.mccannfiles.com/ Following a great deal of confusion caused by Madeleine's Funds' own brand of secrecy, the answer appears to be as follows: £8,000 monthly fee - paid by 'wealthy supporter' £50,000 monthly, flat-fee 'operational costs' - paid by Madeleine's Fund Any excess over £50,000 per month - paid by 'wealthy backers' The 'wealthy supporter' is almost certainly Brian Kennedy, although this is not explicitly confirmed in the Daily Mail report. It is widely reported that Kennedy was heavily involved in the hiring of Metodo 3, so it would be natural to assume that it is he who is providing the bulk of the additional costs. The 'wealthy backers' are reported to 'include double glazing tycoon Brian Kennedy and Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson'. paraiba It looks to me that this news about paying the lawyers from the fund was supposed to be hidden. I think the wealthy backers have backed out. I also think that is why Mitchell is slowly retreating but making subtle leaks for eg: This one about the fund paying the lawyers. Just my opinion . |
Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.
