Oh I see, not convinced are we?
By Dr Martin Roberts
31 March 2015
FRAUD, AND HOW TO SUPPORT IT
(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