the amy winhouse foundation cancelled because some loser bought the domains when she died...

[joko]

but why? why does have to give back the donations?

there are lots of other variations...why not co.uk....? his best bet would be to just use theamywinehousefounfdation.com....or amy.winehousefoundation.com ... thatll let the knobs know their cash has been wasted...to try to cheat a charity is a rotten trick.

i dont understand why this minor hiccup means he has to cancel the whole business....i mean would you cancel all your plans and stop your company forming just because of a domain name?

does he perhaps not want to bother with all the effort now shes gone and this is an excuse?

i suspect theres more to this....

any thoughts

http://www.dailymail....dation-donations.html

[joko]

well i hope he manages to sort it all out and get another name, get his donations back and continue...and doesnt let the sh1tbags win on this one.

[joko]

yes chuck, i meant the 'the' one for the domain name really, but the point i was making was there are all sorts of things he could choose...amy winehouse charity foundation, A W institute, organisation, support foundation...etc

it seems in fact its just a bit of paper work he has to correct and a bit of admin contacting the people who donated to ask for another cheque...

maybe its just been dramatised for publicity...and to shame the losers

[ladybirder]

How easy is it to contact someone who has sent a cheque without a note to say who they are? Your bank wouldn't give name and address out would they?

[rov1100]

If you set yourself up as RichardBranson foundation and cheques came rolling in I'm sure there must be a law to stop you benefitting from someone else's name.

[Zeuhl]

It's called 'Passing Off'

[Zeuhl]

Also, if he has to replace the cheques received to date he will only receive a fraction of them.

He can't directly contact those who have sent just a cheque without contact details and many people will not see or hear any announcement. Of those that do, many will never get round to replicating that initial moment of generosity.

[jno]

in the latest shocking news, it seems Amy had no illegal drugs in her body when she died. That will disappoint a lot of people who desperately wanted to use her as an example of what happens to evil drugtakers.

[ladybirder]

But she had alcohol in it though.

[Barmaid]

Why doesn't he just register it as an unincorporated association as a charity or charitable trust?

[Zeuhl]

Can you do that if someone else has already registered same name as a company? I'm not sure.

[Barmaid]

No idea, but I reckon this is all a load of fuss over nothing. It is clear that the cheques were sent to Mitch Winehouse as a result of him saying he would establish the AWF. At the time it was unincorporated. The cheques should rightly go to the "purposes" he expressed at the time and not to the corporate body incorporated by McCann. Nothing to stop Mitch making a Declaration of Trust to say that he holds these cheques on behalf of the AWF and then opening a bank account with a mandate to accept cheques in various names eg The A W Foundation; The A W Charitable Fund; The A W Charitable Trust etc. Most charities experience this problem daily.

[Zeuhl]

Excellent solution barmaid.
presumably his legal advisors will know that too.

I was just concerned the other party had established the company first.

I mean, Great Ormond Street can pay in cheques made out to GOSH but they have had time for that to establish itself as an accidental alter ego.

[Barmaid]

I suspect his legal advisors do know that. I also suspect the Daily Wail doesn't........