Re: SONIA POULTON outside the MCCANNS FRONT DOOR - Picture from Poulton - Plus message from a forum member

#76 · by rustyjames on 04.02.15 21:32

Also appears quite extensively on this page from Stop The Myths

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=7235&start=75

What's particularly interesting is the view over there from some posters back in November ......

Of course, it is possible poulton is doing a programme about the antis. The only way they would allow themselves to be interviewed was if they thought it was an anti McCann piece. She needs to regain her credibility, such as it was, after lizard TV, and a programme exposing the antis would be just the ticket. It would actually sell for starters, probably world wide, and make a pretty penny judging by the way sweepygate spread. And she did just seem to walk right into anti land, and after her previous comments about trolling she appears to have done a 180 if she really is an anti now. I am seriously beginning to suspect this is what is happening, anyone else agree or is it just me.

A Trojan horse?

It would be funny if the antis just opened their doors and let her in, and felt free to 'open up'.

They won't know till she airs it.

Big risk for them to take: MSM would pay her BIG time for a proper expose of the antis but would ignore her if she presented a 'Tribute To The Trolls'.

#77 · by rustyjames on 04.02.15 21:37

For the record I'm completely undecided what the content will be at the moment and will give the benefit of the doubt until the video is released.

#78 · by Ayniia on 04.02.15 21:38

@sharonl wrote:
@plebgate wrote:Looking at the photo again, I am surprised that the cops weren't called. A cameraman and SP on private property and no cops called, yes that does surprise me.

What happened to the security that they had installed back in 2007? The cameras, the panic buttons etc?

I don't really know anything about Poulton but does anyone believe she entered the Mccan property (I mean getting trough the garden gates and all) and spoke to Kate withouth an appointment or her knowing in advance? That she asked some really hard questions and Kate was just like "ok I didn't answered the PJ but I'm going to answer you..." really? IMHO no wayyyyyyy! So I'm not very excited about her documentary at all. My prediction, it'll be more of the same and again a disappointment. I've been wrong before but thats just MHO.

#79 · by aiyoyo on 05.02.15 0:40

@secrets and lies wrote:Am I correct in saying there is a suspicion that SP has been commissioned by SKY to do some kind of damage limitation exercise after the Brenda incident? That she was hired to tempt out "anti-McCann" "trolls" to further explore the idea of K+G McCann's as the victims of trolling. And that, in the interest of balance, this programme would also explore the other side of the coin i.e. the "pro trolls"

So the documentary, if there even is a documentary, is about trolling rather than questioning The McCanns/MSM's version of the events of May 3?

But why such an elaborate ploy. Surely there are easier ways to find people willing to talk about their loathing and contempt for the "official story".

I must say, I am still willing to give SP the benefit of the doubt, but we live in such a corrupt world, as far as honest news reportage is concerned, it would not in the least bit surprise me if the above scenario turns out to be the true purpose of such a film.

If so, we are back to where we are! If the programme's intention were to shut down and discourage the sort of dialogue we have have on these sites, it simply won't work. Aa long as people care about justice, I should imagine such an underhanded effort would only inspire us to try harder.

And do the rest of the public even care?

Yes, I think that seems to be the general perceived paranoia.

But, going by the title "Untold Story of Madeleine" one would think it will be about what was left untold by mainstream outlets, like Gaspars statements for example, and generally to expose why the mainsteam media did not lift the lids on the factual evidence on the case.

I get the impression Brenda Leyland's demise is the catalyst to this doc, so maybe it's also about trolling. Am guessing the doc is likely to feature the reasons why many believed there was no abduction and why many disbelieved Mcs version of events and took to fora and other social media to discuss and to question the Mcs' version and as a consequence 'trolling' is the by-product of it.
On how pro Mcs defenders trolling has taken its toll on Mcs disbelievers and claimed its first victim, Brenda Leyland. On how and why she was singled out, hounded and made example of. How rabid pro-Mcs defenders trolled the Mcs doubters and outed them, hence the dossiers - the Brenda Leyland's inquest proceedings as well as result will be featured elements I would think.

She said in her teaser video that people will be shocked when the identity of the Pro-troll is revealed.
So we can expect shocking revelation of at least one, if not a few more, of those that hide behind anonymities to attack the Mcs doubters. She elected her friend RH to speak for the stance of antis against the pros, and we all know what a complete and utter unmitigated disaster that turned out to be. If the Sun's piece was meant to be part of the mention in the doc. it's like one step forward and two steps back even before the going gets going. Bad start, unless she disassociates or avoid being associated to that debacle at all cost.

That's my educated guess of the doc anyway.
Because of her unimpressive track records, some are not confident SP is capable of delivering a meritable doc, while some even questioned her motive might not be for the good of Justice on Madeleine side. IMO all these perssimisstic assumptions are just paranoia. We shall see what she delivers and judge her on the result. Depending on the depth of her research and sources, the result is still anyone's guess. I don't hold high hope for optimal result from her, but so what? Provided she does not make an unmitigated disaster of it like her friend RH, some good might be had. If we await till an exemplary journalist to come along to do such a doc we shall be here till kingdom cometh......

ETA: Will she be persecuted for doorstepping? We shall see. But what will that make of Brunty bad behavior?

#80 · by Maggs Shaw on 05.02.15 6:27

@aiyoyo wrote:
@secrets and lies wrote:Am I correct in saying there is a suspicion that SP has been commissioned by SKY to do some kind of damage limitation exercise after the Brenda incident? That she was hired to tempt out "anti-McCann" "trolls" to further explore the idea of K+G McCann's as the victims of trolling. And that, in the interest of balance, this programme would also explore the other side of the coin i.e. the "pro trolls"

So the documentary, if there even is a documentary, is about trolling rather than questioning The McCanns/MSM's version of the events of May 3?

But why such an elaborate ploy. Surely there are easier ways to find people willing to talk about their loathing and contempt for the "official story".

I must say, I am still willing to give SP the benefit of the doubt, but we live in such a corrupt world, as far as honest news reportage is concerned, it would not in the least bit surprise me if the above scenario turns out to be the true purpose of such a film.

If so, we are back to where we are! If the programme's intention were to shut down and discourage the sort of dialogue we have have on these sites, it simply won't work. Aa long as people care about justice, I should imagine such an underhanded effort would only inspire us to try harder.

And do the rest of the public even care?

Yes, I think that seems to be the general perceived paranoia.

But, going by the title "Untold Story of Madeleine" one would think it will be about what was left untold by mainstream outlets, like Gaspars statements for example, and generally to expose why the mainsteam media did not lift the lids on the factual evidence on the case.

I get the impression Brenda Leyland's demise is the catalyst to this doc, so maybe it's also about trolling. Am guessing the doc is likely to feature the reasons why many believed there was no abduction and why many disbelieved Mcs version of events and took to fora and other social media to discuss and to question the Mcs' version and as a consequence 'trolling' is the by-product of it.
On how pro Mcs defenders trolling has taken its toll on Mcs disbelievers and claimed its first victim, Brenda Leyland. On how and why she was singled out, hounded and made example of. How rabid pro-Mcs defenders trolled the Mcs doubters and outed them, hence the dossiers - the Brenda Leyland's inquest proceedings as well as result will be featured elements I would think.

She said in her teaser video that people will be shocked when the identity of the Pro-troll is revealed.
So we can expect shocking revelation of at least one, if not a few more, of those that hide behind anonymities to attack the Mcs doubters. She elected her friend RH to speak for the stance of antis against the pros, and we all know what a complete and utter unmitigated disaster that turned out to be. If the Sun's piece was meant to be part of the mention in the doc. it's like one step forward and two steps back even before the going gets going. Bad start, unless she disassociates or avoid being associated to that debacle at all cost.

That's my educated guess of the doc anyway.
Because of her unimpressive track records, some are not confident SP is capable of delivering a meritable doc, while some even questioned her motive might not be for the good of Justice on Madeleine side. IMO all these perssimisstic assumptions are just paranoia. We shall see what she delivers and judge her on the result. Depending on the depth of her research and sources, the result is still anyone's guess. I don't hold high hope for optimal result from her, but so what? Provided she does not make an unmitigated disaster of it like her friend RH, some good might be had. If we await till an exemplary journalist to come along to do such a doc we shall be here till kingdom cometh......

ETA: Will she be persecuted for doorstepping? We shall see. But what will that make of Brunty bad behavior?

Perhaps she might have an hour slot on Sky, or even the BBC, Channel 4.

#81 · by wombat42 on 05.02.15 8:53

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Poulton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonia_Poulton

#82 · by aiyoyo on 05.02.15 10:14

Not BBC, I would be surprised if BBC give it time of the day.

ITV or Channel 4 maybe.

Sky ? Probably.

Wait and see. Who commissioned her is key to that.

#83 · by Ayniia on 05.02.15 15:44

Sorry if this was already mentioned as I admit I didn't read the whole topic but the picture could be from when she mentions in her Jim Gamble letter,I was reading it and: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10928-an-open-letter-from-sonia-poulton-to-jim-gamble

"For the record, I approached the McCanns at their Leicester home...
When I received no response to an interview, after several requests over the period of a year, I realised that I had a public duty to pursue this. Thus, myself and a small camera crew went to the McCanns house and asked to talk with them. ..
Kate, I should point out, didn't find my approach at all 'attacking' as you insist on shrieking all over Twitter, until I told her why I was there and what questions the public - the very public who have been funding the search both through private donations and the current Operation Grange investigation - want answering..."

SONIA POULTON outside the MCCANNS FRONT DOOR - Picture from Poulton - Plus message from a forum member - Page 4 AlbL6m6r_bigger

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 1 hr1 hour ago
@prophonics Here, this was straight after talking with Kate #mccann I like to stop the myths, too! Let truth be told. pic.twitter.com/OqMASZQPC6

She doesn't say when the picture was taken . From Poulton's words Kate wasn't delighted about the reason she was there so I don't think she'd be welcomed back?

#84 · by plebgate on 05.02.15 17:52

Thanks for that Ayniia, but as it seems all is not clear I do think SP should post something to clarify things.

I am now with Tony and company who believe that we should be rather sceptical about it all.

#85 · by Ayniia on 05.02.15 18:15

@plebgate wrote:Thanks for that Ayniia, but as it seems all is not clear I do think SP should post something to clarify things.

I am now with Tony and company who believe that we should be rather sceptical about it all.

But I am of that opinion too! I have no "faith" whatsoever in her doc. I'm just a bit curious about her naming names thing.
I was just reading her letter to Gamble and realized the picture must've been taken then and not when she published it.

#86 · by plebgate on 05.02.15 18:19

@Ayniia wrote:
@plebgate wrote:Thanks for that Ayniia, but as it seems all is not clear I do think SP should post something to clarify things.

I am now with Tony and company who believe that we should be rather sceptical about it all.

But I am of that opinion too! I have no "faith" whatsoever in her doc. I'm just a bit curious about her naming names thing.
I was just reading her letter to Gamble and realized the picture must've been taken then and not when she published it.

Sorry if you misunderstood my post Ayniia, I wasn't querying your post at all just giving my take on things re. SP. smilie

In fact I think your post was very good and that is why I think things should be made clear as what you suggest is quite possible IMO.

#87 · by Maggs Shaw on 05.02.15 18:28

They (Sonia and RH) have been tweeting like a pair of fishwives!!! and quite frankly, I would not trust them to take my dog for a walk..let alone make and contribute to a sensitive, important documentary about the injustice to a defenceless little girl. It is shocking!! Sonia is no more a journalist than I am an astronaut and it is about time she wound her neck in.

#88 · by Ayniia on 05.02.15 18:28

@plebgate wrote:
@Ayniia wrote:
@plebgate wrote:Thanks for that Ayniia, but as it seems all is not clear I do think SP should post something to clarify things.

I am now with Tony and company who believe that we should be rather sceptical about it all.

But I am of that opinion too! I have no "faith" whatsoever in her doc. I'm just a bit curious about her naming names thing.
I was just reading her letter to Gamble and realized the picture must've been taken then and not when she published it.
Sorry if you misunderstood my post Ayniia, I wasn't querying your post at all just giving my take on things re. SP.

In fact I think your post was very good and that is why I think things should be made clear as what you suggest is quite possible IMO.

Thank you and I don't think I misunderstood your post, I just wanted to make clear I'm in the skeptical side too winkwink

I just pointed out that about the picture because from people's comments it seemed the picture was taken right before she publish it, but reading what she said seems to me that maybe people on twitter were doubting about her visit to the Mc's so she posted the picture to prove she was there.

#89 · by Filly65 on 05.02.15 21:56

Didn't know where to put this but just wondering if anyone else has just seen Sonia Poulton on the sky news report about Twitter trolls?

#90 · by Smokeandmirrors on 05.02.15 22:02

@Filly65 wrote:Didn't know where to put this but just wondering if anyone else has just seen Sonia Poulton on the sky news report about Twitter trolls?

Yes, interesting timing........

#91 · by Maggs Shaw on 05.02.15 22:10

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@Filly65 wrote:Didn't know where to put this but just wondering if anyone else has just seen Sonia Poulton on the sky news report about Twitter trolls?
Yes, interesting timing........

Extremely good timing!! Loaded to the hilt with self grandiose and the narcissistic lady exposed herself, and her motives beautifully.

#92 · by aiyoyo on 06.02.15 1:34

@Filly65 wrote:Didn't know where to put this but just wondering if anyone else has just seen Sonia Poulton on the sky news report about Twitter trolls?

Any link please?

#93 · by Smokeandmirrors on 06.02.15 5:21

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Filly65 wrote:Didn't know where to put this but just wondering if anyone else has just seen Sonia Poulton on the sky news report about Twitter trolls?

Any link please?

Just saw it on the news item about Twitter trolls on SKY news Aiyoyo

#94 · by Joss on 08.02.15 15:57

@Filly65 wrote:Didn't know where to put this but just wondering if anyone else has just seen Sonia Poulton on the sky news report about Twitter trolls?

What did she say? This seems to be some kind of work up to the BL inquest IMO.

#95 · by Filly65 on 08.02.15 22:48

I didn't see the full item as I was doing other things but when I noticed her speaking it was about how she had been a victim of online trolling.

#96 · by **Tony Bennett** on 08.02.15 23:38

@Filly65 wrote:I didn't see the full item as I was doing other things but when I noticed her speaking it was about how she had been a victim of online trolling.

Exactly so.

It was Thursday morning.

I have tried to give fair warning to members here about Sonia Poulton, but many people seem to think this is some kind of personal vendetta by me motivated by jealousy (!).

I can only do my best; if other people see this is anything less than a wholehearted desire by me that all genuine seekers after the truth about Madeleine are not deceived by Poulton and SKY, then I am sad, and sorry.

Within the space of less than a couple of weeks, Poulton has:

* appeared on the SKY sofa to comment on (IIRC) smoking/health issues (and been paid for that)

* arranged for her friend Rosalinda Hutton to spread the notion that there are loads of 'anti-McCann trolls' out there every bit as nasty as her and Brenda Leyland (and been paid for that), and

* appeared AGAIN on SKY News, once again complaining about how evil internet trolls are (and been paid for that as well).

Yet Poulton trolls those she dislikes and disagrees with as menacingly as the worst of them.

And with a foul mouth as many of her tweets illustrate.

In another place, a poster has asked these three very good questions:

1. Can anyone please explain why SKY News is employing, in even the most menial position, the Icke TV failure Sonia Poulton?
2. Can anyone please explain why Murdoch is now employing a proven troll as a commentator on trolls?
3. What kind of credibility can SKY News hope to retain having allowed Sonia Poulton to act as a commentator on trolling for them?

Let me attempt a suggested answer:

A. She has been hired by SKY News to protect their reputation, when what they did to Brenda Leyland gets exposed at the Inquest. SKY News are probably at this minute preparing a documentary on 'vile internet trolls' to be shown on the evening after the Inquest verdict is announced

B. She is being paid handsomely by SKY News

C. She deliberately got Hutton to smear anti-McCanns in the Sun a week ago

D. They don't care that she is a 'journalist' of no reputation who made a fool of herself and David Icke's 'People's TV' by her ill-chosen subjects for interview, don't care that Poulton is one of the nastiest trolls around when she gets half a chance - because she can now (so SKY News think) help to restore their reputation - which will be badly dented when the Coroner sums up how SKY News hounded Brenda Leyland to death.

#97 · by Joss on 09.02.15 2:59

@Filly65 wrote:I didn't see the full item as I was doing other things but when I noticed her speaking it was about how she had been a victim of online trolling.

Thanks for your reply.

#98 · by Joss on 09.02.15 3:04

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Filly65 wrote:I didn't see the full item as I was doing other things but when I noticed her speaking it was about how she had been a victim of online trolling.
Exactly so.

It was Thursday morning.

I have tried to give fair warning to members here about Sonia Poulton, but many people seem to think this is some kind of personal vendetta by me motivated by jealousy (!).

I can only do my best; if other people see this is anything less than a wholehearted desire by me that all genuine seekers after the truth about Madeleine are not deceived by Poulton and SKY, then I am sad, and sorry.

Within the space of less than a couple of weeks, Poulton has:

* appeared on the SKY sofa to comment on (IIRC) smoking/health issues (and been paid for that)

* arranged for her friend Rosalinda Hutton to spread the notion that there are loads of 'anti-McCann trolls' out there every bit as nasty as her and Brenda Leyland (and been paid for that), and

* appeared AGAIN on SKY News, once again complaining about how evil internet trolls are (and been paid for that as well).

Yet Poulton trolls those she dislikes and disagrees with as menacingly as the worst of them.

And with a foul mouth as many of her tweets illustrate.

In another place, a poster has asked these three very good questions:

1. Can anyone please explain why SKY News is employing, in even the most menial position, the Icke TV failure Sonia Poulton?
2. Can anyone please explain why Murdoch is now employing a proven troll as a commentator on trolls?
3. What kind of credibility can SKY News hope to retain having allowed Sonia Poulton to act as a commentator on trolling for them?

Let me attempt a suggested answer:

A. She has been hired by SKY News to protect their reputation, when what they did to Brenda Leyland gets exposed at the Inquest. SKY News are probably at this minute preparing a documentary on 'vile internet trolls' to be shown on the evening after the Inquest verdict is announced

B. She is being paid handsomely by SKY News

C. She deliberately got Hutton to smear anti-McCanns in the Sun a week ago

D. They don't care that she is a 'journalist' of no reputation who made a fool of herself and David Icke's 'People's TV' by her ill-chosen subjects for interview, don't care that Poulton is one of the nastiest trolls around when she gets half a chance - because she can now (so SKY News think) help to restore their reputation - which will be badly dented when the Coroner sums up how SKY News hounded Brenda Leyland to death.

Just as i thought. I mentioned about SP trying to restore MB & Sky news credibility for them a while ago, and i agree in what you say. I think its fairly obvious. SP is only concerned about her paycheck IMO, and RH is on the bandwagon too.

#99 · by snook on 09.02.15 20:59

I hardly ever comment on here but do enjoy the very informative threads. I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Tony on this one.
Poulton is a nasty duplicitous individual who enjoys inciting others to attack.
I see she is now accusing Gamble of 'trolling and harassing' her ! The woman is dangerous and has now bought her attack dog boyfriend into proceedings.
I sincerely hope her supporters wake up and smell the coffee , or in her case the BS !

#100 · by ultimaThule on 09.02.15 23:38

Having seen Ms Poulton ~~tottering after~~ 'doorstepping' various politicians etc, I am reminded of Denis Healey remarking that Geoffrey Howe's verbal attack on him was "like being savaged by a dead sheep", albeit in the case of Ms P that would be a deceased ewe or, as the more acerbic would have it, rancid mutton.

With regard to her forthcoming documentary, as I very much doubt that this particular still from the rushes is of the top of KM's head, I suspect it will be far more revealing of the maker than the subject:

SONIA POULTON outside the MCCANNS FRONT DOOR - Picture from Poulton - Plus message from a forum member - Page 4 <a href=

SONIA POULTON outside the MCCANNS FRONT DOOR - Picture from Poulton - Plus message from a forum member - Page 4 <a href=

SONIA POULTON outside the MCCANNS FRONT DOOR - Picture from Poulton - Plus message from a forum member - Page 4 Poulto12

" />

SONIA POULTON outside the MCCANNS FRONT DOOR - Picture from Poulton - Plus message from a forum member