IT IS MICHAEL WRIGHT - THANK YOU 3 AS!!!
CAN ANYONE HELP?? WHO IS THIS MAN WITH KATE? 
Caption in the Daily Mail, one of Clarence Mitchell's most tame British Papers:PR push: Maddy's parents Gerry and Kate McCann are about to launch a campaign to win back public support, said a family friend and the story? Not quite so keen Clarence:
Tycoons who bankrolled Madeleine fund refuse to fund McCanns' legal defence
Last updated at 13:11 13 September 2007http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481518/Tycoons-bankrolled-Madeleine-fund-refuse-fund-McCanns-legal-defence.html
Well, would you support this man? This picture is symbolic IMO! Kate, faded into the background...
Gerry's
favourite colour combination, dark blue top, beige trousers, just ask the whole of the Smith Family and Jane Tanner!
and just as we rather belatedly get last year's account up to April 2008 the other bombshell for the McCanns, yes, it is official, British Agencies continue to investigate them:
Organised & International Crime Directorate
5th Floor Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard xxx Fax xxx Direct Line xxx E-mail xxx
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Ms xxx Our ref: xxx
xxx@xxx
Date:28th January 2009
Dear Ms xxx
RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
HOME OFFICE MATERIAL RELATING TO MADELEINE MCCANN
I am writing further to my correspondence on the 16th December 2008. We are now in a
position to offer a full reply to your request. I would like to apologise for the length of time it
has taken to respond to your request. This delay has been due to giving full and due
consideration to the public interest test together with the necessity to consult with other
agencies.
It is noted that your request was to essentially seek information for any record or document
or extract thereof reporting or evidencing that neither of the parents of Madeleine Beth
McCann possessed any credit card or debit card from any financial institution during the
period 25th April 2007 and 12th September 2007. You additionally requested any record or
document or extract thereof reporting or evidencing that the alleged affirmation was made by
any official of the Home Office to any police officer in the Leicestershire Constabulary and
failing the existence of any written record whether such affirmation was made verbally the
name of the official(s) and the recipient officer(s). The request was also seeking information
of any record or document or extract reporting or evidencing the credit card or debit
transactions made by the parents of Madeleine Beth McCann between the 4th May 2007 and
21st July 2008.
Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act) and we are now able to provide you with a substantive response to your
request.
Section 1 of the Act places two duties on public authorities when handling requests. The first
of these duties, provided at s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information requested
is actually held by that authority. The second duty is for that information to be disclosed
where it has been confirmed that it exists. This is provided under s1(1)(b).
The Home Office can neither confirm nor deny that we hold information relevant to your
request as our duty under s1(1)(a) does not apply by virtue of the following provisions of the
Act:
* Section 27(4) – prejudice to International Relations;
* Section 31(3) – prejudice to Law Enforcement activities; and
* Section 38(2) – endangering Health & Safety.
This letter therefore also serves as a refusal notice under s17(1) of the Act.
Furthermore, the Home Office will not comment on any of the information contained in
Goncal Amaral’s book, ‘A Verdade da Mentira’ as it would potentially undermine ongoing
investigations.
There are a number of sensitivities relevant to your request, given that Madeleine McCann is
still missing and the investigation is still ongoing. Confirming or denying whether any
information is held could undermine the investigation, prejudice international relations and
could endanger the health and safety of members of the public.
We have considered public interest considerations in making our decision and we have
attached these to this letter. We believe that, at this time, the public interest strongly favours
neither confirming nor denying that the information you have requested is or is not held by
the Home Office.
This response should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you
have requested either does or does not exist.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of
our handling of your request by submitting your complaint within two months to the below
address quoting reference xxx
Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Or email: xxx
During the independent review the department’s handling of your information request will be
reassessed by an official that was not involved in providing you with this response. Should
you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of complaint to the
Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
I realise that you may be disappointed with this response. However we have considered
your request with great care, and the Home Office always seeks to provide as much
information as it is able to.
Thank you for your interest in the Home Office.
Yours sincerely
xxx
Team Leader
UK Central Authority
Public Interest Considerations
s.17 – Refusal of request
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent
relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is
relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must,
within the time for complying with section1(1), give the applicant a notice which -
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
s.27 – International Relations
(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice,
(a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other state,
(b) relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation or
international court
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) –
(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1)
s.31 – Law Enforcement
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt
information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice,
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1)
s.38 – Health & Safety
(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to-
(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual.
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1)
Harm and prejudice
The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is still ongoing. There are
significant unknowns in relation to her disappearance. Leicestershire Constabulary are the
lead force in the UK dealing with this investigation but the principle investigation agency is
Policia Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal. We believe that significant harm to the investigation could
result from either confirming or denying that we hold the information you have asked for.
Should this investigation lead to a prosecution, saying whether or not this information is or is
not held by the Home Office would risk undermining the human rights of any suspect to a fair
trial and the rights of a victim, particularly if the prosecution would fail due to such an
announcement.
If the Home Office was to either confirm or deny that it did or did not hold any information that
was gathered in the course of this investigation, it might risk compromising the conduct of
this investigation. This could ultimately prejudice the administration of justice. In any event,
to confirm or deny that any such information that was or was not obtained in the course of a
criminal investigation, either voluntarily or through compulsory powers, ought not to be
generally disclosed, save as far as it is necessary for the purposes of establishing or
defending rights in litigation.
There is consequently a strong public interest in ensuring that evidence is not contaminated
for any future trial. In addition there is a strong public interest to preserve relations with the
Policia Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal whilst Madeleine remains missing.
Two of the Home Office’s objectives are to support the efficient and effective delivery of
justice, and to lead visible, responsive and accountable policing. The manner in which the
Home Office works to support the Police Service as a whole is one of our core business
functions.
If the Home Office prejudiced such a high-profile and sensitive investigation by confirming or
denying that we either do or do not hold any of the information that you have requested, we
would be seen as working against the efforts of both UK and Portuguese policing authorities,
undermining their determined efforts to locate Madeline McCann and her assailants. This
would not be in the best interests of the public..
Any prejudicial effects to these ongoing investigations could jeopardise the health & safety,
of Madeline McCann, in that it might significantly affect the chances of her being found.
There is no actual public interest served in releasing information that may jeopardise the
health & safety of any individual.
There is a strong public interest in the UK maintaining the arrangements it currently enjoys
with other States in matters of judicial and mutual legal cooperation in criminal and other
matters. Any act that would prejudice this investigation may discourage other States with
complying with reasonable requests issued by the UK or from pursuing legitimate
investigations in the UK for fear that the product of such requests or investigations may be
disclosed to private citizens.
Good Morning All,
Folling my post detailing the Madeleine Fund accounts yesterday I copy below today’s Daily Mail's opinion on the recently release accounts for the Fund I copy them below:-
"Where the £2m you gave to find Madeleine McCann has gone
The fund set up to help find Madeleine McCann raised almost £2million in the first ten months after she vanished, it was revealed yesterday.
The wave of shock and public sympathy that swept Britain after her suspected abduction led supporters to donate money at a rate of almost £260 an hour.
Accounts lodged with Companies House show the fund received £1.4million in bank donations, another £391,000 over the internet and £64,000 from the sale of T-shirts and wristbands.
In total, it received £1.85million in its first ten months and earned £33,424 in interest. It spent £815,113 on the search for Madeleine in that time.
This included £26,000 to fund the purchase of merchandise and £250,000 on the fees for private investigators.
But the accounts – which have been made public for the first time – have been published with a warning that donations had gone on to fall dramatically and were now ‘significantly lower’ than in the immediate aftermath of the three-yearold’s disappearance in Portugal in 2007.
Support for her parents – Kate and Gerry – was rocked when Portuguese police named them as suspects, and when it emerged they had used public donations to pay two £2,000 instalments on their mortgage.
Madeleine vanished from a holiday flat in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007, while her parents ate dinner at a nearby restaurant with friends.
The accounts provide a fascinating insight into the surge of support the family received, but also the costs of their worldwide campaign to find their child.
The fund’s biggest expense in the first ten months was £250,000 spent on private investigators hired to try to find her, including the Spanish agency Metodo 3.
Agency boss Francisco Marco boasted he would find Madeleine within three months, but his ‘leads’ seemingly came to nothing and the firm is no longer involved with the hunt.
The fund spent £123,573 on campaign management, which is believed to include the salary of the McCanns’ temporary spokesman Justine McGuinness and the fees of a PR agency.
A later spokesman, former BBC journalist Clarence Mitchell, had his salary paid by one of the couple’s wealthy benefactors.
The fund spent £111,522 on legal fees and expenses and £81,904 on posters and television and newspaper adverts appealing for information about Madeleine. Mr and Mrs McCann, both 40, set up the fund in May 2007.
Legal restrictions meant it could not be set up as a charity, so it is run as a not-for-profit company by a board made up of McCann friends, colleagues and relatives.
Mr McCann’s brother John is its chairman and wrote a foreword to the accounts. He said: ‘As expected, the level of donations has fallen over time, although we have a number of loyal donors continuing their support.’
He went on: ‘However our expenses are ongoing and likely to increase . . . The release of the police investigation files has enabled our investigative team to access a wealth of new information to be followed up, resulting in increased search and investigation activity.
'We will continue to ensure that Madeleine is not forgotten and will leave no stone unturned in our continued search for her.’
The accounts cover the months from May 2007 to March 2008, when the fund had £1.05million remaining in its coffers.
It has since been boosted by several libel payouts to the McCanns and their friends, the so-called Tapas Seven, which they donated to the fund.
The McCanns were cleared as suspects last August.
Their spokesman Mr Mitchell said: ‘People will be able to see that every penny of the money they so generously donated has been spent properly in the hunt to find Madeleine.’"