Oh I see, not convinced are we?
By Dr Martin Roberts
31 March 2015
FRAUD, AND HOW TO SUPPORT IT
by
Kate McCann
(Publishers: Transworld International)
If, when doing the weekly shop, we are tempted by a BOGOF offer to pick up an extra packet of biscuits, we should hardly expect to be charged for both packets at the supermarket checkout. That would be a deception on the part of the vendor, who will have contravened an inducement to purchase, i.e. the terms of an advertisement which, according to the IPA code, should be legal, decent honest and truthful. It's no different to selling a car with 'no known faults' when it hasn't actually got an engine.
The following is owing to Mike Hamilton, writing exclusively for The Sun:
"The parents or Madeleine McCann plan to plough their own money into the search for their missing daughter if police halt their investigation. Kate and Gerry McCann both 47, of Rothley Leics., fear public donations have dried up as the search approaches its eighth anniversary. So they have pumped almost £1 million into a fund for Madeleine that would be running at a loss without their cash. The money came from Kate's book about Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal in May 2007 and the search for her."
It is made absolutely clear here that "their (the McCanns') own money...came from Kate's book about Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal in May 2007 and the search for her."
Kate McCann has only written one book so far, the various editions of which have incorporated a conspicuous advertising 'flash' on its front cover. This reads:
"All royalties donated to Madeleine's Fund."
All royalties, as announced by Transworld publishing, since the flash was an intrinsic feature of the publication, and not a superimposed sticker.
According to Mike Hamilton however, some of these very royalties must have been directed to the author personally, in order for it to be considered her money, and deriving, as it did, from her book.
It follows, inevitably, that Transworld publishers were responsible for incorporating a misleading inducement to purchase with their product offering.
If all the royalties were paid into the fund in the first instance, then they could not subsequently be placed there as 'top up' funding by Kate McCann, coming from her own pocket so to speak. If, on the other hand, the McCanns are boasting of personal income from book sales, as Mike Hamilton informs his readers, then Transworld are clearly at fault.
Is a 'class action' appropriate here, I wonder?
See link comment 8 @ 5 February 2016 at 10:49
12 comments:
We aren’t, we aren’t! Dear doggy is as unconvinced as rtgr, and they look alike. Fancy that!
rtgr
Quote Gromit: "I despair!"
Brilliant H!
It cost me a paragraph to make the same point a while ago. If I could have said it in pictures like this I'd have saved my breath!
Kind Regards
M.R.
In the early days I thought there had been a car accident, and what we, the viewing public were seeing was an over-the-top solution to elapsed time.
@17:37
I've just rediscovered those very paragraphs:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
'Fraud and How to Support it' (31 March 2015).
M.R.
. . .It is made absolutely clear here that "their (the McCanns') own money...came from Kate's book about Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal in May 2007 and the search for her."
Kate McCann has only written one book so far, the various editions of which have incorporated a conspicuous advertising 'flash' on its front cover. This reads:
"All royalties donated to Madeleine's Fund."
All royalties, as announced by Transworld publishing, since the flash was an intrinsic feature of the publication, and not a superimposed sticker.
According to Mike Hamilton however, some of these very royalties must have been directed to the author personally, in order for it to be considered her money, and deriving, as it did, from her book.
It follows, inevitably, that Transworld publishers were responsible for incorporating a misleading inducement to purchase with their product offering.
If all the royalties were paid into the fund in the first instance, then they could not subsequently be placed there as 'top up' funding by Kate McCann, coming from her own pocket so to speak. If, on the other hand, the McCanns are boasting of personal income from book sales, as Mike Hamilton informs his readers, then Transworld are clearly at fault.
Is a 'class action' appropriate here, I wonder?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
'Fraud and How to Support it' (31 March 2015).
Great as usual ,however,I left a comment about RM and clever avoidance over his having been in 5a. This kind of falls in that vein,how do we describe royalties?
Anonymous @17:36
As you wisely hint, I dare say Transworld would 'weasel' their way out of the situation by dissociating 'royalties' from, say, 'an advance'. That said it would have to have been an advance of reckless proportions to match the sum KM is since supposed to have injected on her own behalf.
Btw. not only do I recall your sharp comment concerning Murat's 'dodging the ball', it was that very observation which prompted the item 'Hat Trick' below.
Kind regards
M.R.
http://fytton.blogspot.nl/2016/02/the-fund-revisited.html
Excellent analysis. I wrote to Dowd asking if she could find any declaration from the McCanns accounts of the half million paid to Bell Potinger to keep the story in the headlines.
No reply forthcoming, but my request was before my realisation that she was firmly in the Bennett camp.
Under the pseudonym ‘Miss Marple,’ she blogs on an internet discussion forum about missing children, stirring both constructive debate and dissent. http://www.enidodowd.com/fateful-decisions.html
Ah well, such is life, but at least I found a home for my BBFs Kate and Theresa pic.
XXXH
m
https://twitter.com/autonomy14/status/699199773816057856
https://twitter.com/Killdara/status/699854314316132353
Best technology news website regarding android windows send email from facebook google facebook and many more how to tutorials helping the users.
best business apps
Post a Comment