Re: Is SKY NEWS making a film about Madeleine McCann? - Report from Richard D Hall's meeting in Nottingham last night (1 April)

by DaSteelMan 03.04.15 7:42

I like Sonia, and I think she is genuine but I must admit that the Sun article made Rosalinda look terrible.

I like Jenny too .... but there is just something not right.

by Guest 03.04.15 7:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The jury is still out on Sonia for me.

I think we should wait until she actually does something.
Er, she has...

1...given a platform on Icke TV to self-seeking madman Stephen D Birch

2...backed the cruel 'Hollie Demands Justice' group, which insists that member here Sylvia Major and 30 others are paedophiles who serially raped Hollie Greig at locations across north-east Scotland for 14 years from the age of 6 to 20

3...given a platform to Robert Green of the Hollie Demands Justice group whilst refusing to give a platform to those telling the truth about Anne Greig's campaign of vengeance and lies

4...arranged for the Sun newspaper, Britain's most popular, to feature Rosalinda Hutton over two pages, describing how she was an 'anti-McCann bitch' who got a 'buzz' out of attacking others.

I am aware that I have made some mistakes in trying to analyse this case.

I also believe anyone should be given a fair chance.

But the above record is IMO a truly terrible record if we are looking at Poulton's ability to even understand what is true and what is not

I understand that, it's not great grounds to trust her (I don't, she hasn't earned it)...

She might be trying to make a name for herself for purely selfish reasons. This case will be one of the biggest ever if it cracks.

I'm waiting to see what she does with the promised documentary, she might accidentally hit the target this time or put some kind of cat among the pigeons.

by snook 03.04.15 7:59

The point is, Poulton is,touting this promised documentary as THE ONE that will expose the Mccann dirty laundry and implying it break the case. She is,either deluded or (my money is on the second), up to her usual self promotion or worse kick.I don't make a habit of studying her work in depth but from what I gather she has turned on people she purported to help in previous project. Why would this be any different. Her knowledge of the case is, being generous, basic and as Tony pointed out her previous forays into McCann territory have been a disaster. As far as Jenny is concerned I think Steelman made the right decision.

by DaSteelMan 03.04.15 8:03

I think we are going to see tit for tat, journo wars.

I fear the Brenda Leyland tragedy wont be the last.

by Mark Willis 03.04.15 8:09

You saw what happened to Ms Hutton. You have to remember that all these broadcasters/MSM and such are there purely for themselves, not you. They toe the corporate line and with the Guardian and Ms Kleeman the words "barge" and "pole" spring instantly to mind.

by Mark Willis 03.04.15 8:11

This Guardian thing is nothing but a Sting. Lure in those who are most negatively vocal about the McCanns and demonise them like they did with poor Ms Leyland. Surely this is obvious?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.15 8:12

DaSteelMan wrote:I have tweeted Jenny for a few years because I like her documentary work, especially for Channel 4 Despatches. I have asked her why the likes of herself and other freelancers stay away from the McCann case.

Now she wanted to do an interview on video with myself on the topic of: "Growing number of people that believe the media isn't telling the real story of M McCann".

Not an indepth interview on the aspects of the case, but the general feeling of why people like myself feel the way we do about the Main Stream Media's biased coverage.

All sounds great, yeah? Sounds plausible?

I immediately asked the following questions:

1) Who was funding the documentary? ... Ans: The Guardian

2) Where will this 'docu' be broadcast? ... Ans: The Guardian website

3) Are you planning on tricking /portraying people like myself in bad light, like Brenda Leyland? ... Ans: No, the film is about people who think the media haven't asked the right questions.

4) Why are you doing this now, at this time? ... Ans: I've been getting lots of tweets from people wanting me to do this.

Now, I was considering this because I've got nothing to hide. I use my real name and use my real identity etc and I have never crossed any line of legality towards anyone when outing my feelings on the case. However ... an alarm bell rang:

A) The Guardian were the only UK newspaper to to accept Leveson recommendations

B) Hacked Off also want Leveson recommendations pushed through and are friendly with The Guardian

C) Gerry McCann was allowed to write an article in The Guardian around the time of the Brenda Leyland tragedy

So the Jenny Kleeman / Guardian / Hacked Off / Leveson / Gerald McCann connection is evident.

However, Jenny may be 100% genuine in her reasoning for wanting to interview ordinary folk on opinion of why MSM are not asking the right questions. I deep down hope she is genuine, because I like her and the work she does. But why is The Guardian willing to fund her and her crew to travel 100s of miles to interview myself and probably others?

It also crossed my mind that this was a planned Team McCann counteraction to Sonia Poulton's documentary or Richard D. Halls.

It also crossed my mind that Jenny also is a regular for the newspaper review on Sky News and of course there is the Gamble, Brunt connection.

As I said, I hope Jenny is doing this for the right reasons, but reading the fact that Jenny was stalking outside of Richard D. Hall's gig and not allowing him to see the final version of any agreed interview suggests something is not quite right.

Needless to say, I will refuse to get involved.

@ DaSteelMan

Thank you very much for posting this infomation about Jenny Kleeman for us all to digest.

And your points (A), (B) and (C) are absolutely relevant.

From what you have written, we can deduce that Jenny Kleeman and the Guardian have no interest whatsoever in reporting any of the many 'hidden' facts about the case that have been so skilfully buried by the McCann Team and the mainstream media for the past 8 years.

I wonder, then, what Jenny Kleeman's motive was for pursuing Richard Hall, and then filming outside his meeting the other night?

Was it:

(A) Because she wants to share with Guardian readers the facts and truths that Richard Hall covered in his documentary?,

OR

(B) To portray him just as someone into flying saucers and various off-beat alternative views, enabling the Guardian to try to pass off all McCann-doubters as deluded conspiracy theorists?

A few acid tests of her article/documentary might be:

1. Whether she mentions Richard's documentary in a positive light and perhaps shows a clip from it

2. Whether she mentions the alerts of Martin Grime's dogs - and highlights the fact that Grime is so highly regarded internationally that he was head-hunted by the F.B.I., and

3. Whether she acknowledges things like: the large number of people who have watched Hall's documentary, the professional authors & criminal profilers etc. who doubt the official version, PeterMac's e-book, written by an ex-police inspector, etc. etc.

A journalist's prime duty is to inform. In most cases, it is also a journalist's task to provide balance between opposing views.

We will probably know soon if Kleeman passes these tests.

P.S. I bought a ticket for Richard Hall's show in Hatfield (Herts) tomorrow morning; if anyone from CMOMM is also going, I look forward to meeting you there

by Guest 03.04.15 8:19

B) To portray him just as someone into flying saucers and various off-beat alternative views, enabling the Guardian to try to pass off all McCann-doubters as deluded conspiracy theorists?

Richard will get battered with this.

You can take that to the bank.

by Mark Willis 03.04.15 8:21

This one Tony:

"(B) To portray him just as someone into flying saucers and various off-beat alternative views, enabling the Guardian to try to pass off all McCann-doubters as deluded conspiracy theorists?"

That's the current (ongoing) dark design since Summers & Swan and Sky went into overdrive.

by Mo 03.04.15 8:26

I didn't know Peter Mac had written an E-book could you please let me know the title. Thanks

by DaSteelMan 03.04.15 8:32

My last comment within this thread:

4) Why are you doing this now, at this time? ... Ans: I've been getting lots of tweets from people wanting me to do this.

Well, I've checked her timeline. There are ZERO tweets to her asking her to do this.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.15 8:34

Mo wrote:I didn't know Peter Mac had written an E-book could you please let me know the title. Thanks

Scroll down to the bottom of this link and you'll find the link for PeterMac's e-book there (in red):

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No doubt Jenny Kleeman and the Guardian editor will have read that e-book, cover to cover, were impressed with it, and will share the key findings of that book with their readers.

Her journalistic reputation is at stake here, after all winkwink

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.15 8:35

DaSteelMan wrote:My last comment within this thread:

4) Why are you doing this now, at this time? ... Ans: I've been getting lots of tweets from people wanting me to do this.

Well, I've checked her timeline. There are ZERO tweets to her asking her to do this.

Apart from yours winkwink

@ DaSteelMan

by DaSteelMan 03.04.15 8:38

Tony, I want to ask you a question in private. PM to you doesnt work. Is the email link active?

by **Richard D. Hall** 03.04.15 11:02

With regards the theory a newspaper might use the UFO issue to discredit me.

1. Anyone who thinks intelligent life must only exist on Earth, one of billions of planets in the Universe, and nowhere else is close minded.

2. The McCann's own, privately employed private investigator, Gary Hagland believes in UFO's. He has even written a book about his own experience with a UFO.

3. The subject of UFO's covers any unidentified object in the sky, such as undisclosed secret craft. All my films on the UFO phenomenon are objective and packed full of evidence, I conclude that many UFO's are of human origin.

4. The percentage of people who believe the authorities are covering things up on the UFO issue is very high.

If the UFO issue were to be used in general, to discredit the films, the word desperation comes to mind.

It seems to me there is a hegelian dialectic under way which includes Brenda Layland. The problem - reaction - solution. It seems they are packaging the "problem" now to put out soon. I predict some major media coverage which will include the Brenda Leyland story and also references to material which questions the official story, such as my films.

by jeanmonroe 03.04.15 11:08

Thankyou, Mr Hall.

Whatever 'problem/solution' the UK Madia 'come up with' there is still 'the elephant in the room', isn't there?

As the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police wrote: “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance”.

So, no 'amount' of 'they never dunnit, thaze iz well innocent, innit?' from UK Madia or 'elsewhere' there IS still 'no clear evidence' that eliminates the McCanns from 'possible' involvement in their daughter's 'disappearance'

So the McCanns 'Certificate of absolute absolution', perhaps encased in a 'very nice' Redwood surround, picture 'frame', won't be hanging up on their Rothley Manor wall, anytime 'soon' will it?

by Liz Eagles 03.04.15 11:23

Of course believing in UFO's is going to be used against anything Richard D. Hall has to say. Of course it is.

Going from UFO's to the Madeleine Case is a leap the media will jump up and down on with spikes and broken glass in the soles of their shoes. They don't need to do any research to earn a buck doing that.

Whatever I believe or don't believe in is irrelevant. This is what the MSM will do. Richard has given it to them on a plate.

There will be nothing other than 'man who believes in UFO's does nationwide tour and speaks of Madeleine McCann case and media corruption to prove his point'. That's what will happen.

Then there is Sonia Poulton who has been on the David Icke team who is now becoming a bit of a favourite with Sky News to give a banal opinion across many issues - the latest being cancer can be cured with home remedies.

The bottom line is that all of this only serves to make money for the media. Brenda Leyland's death which was imo a direct result of these bastards in Sky is gone and forgotten. It ended at the inquest. There will be nothing done about it. The family will not pursue anything imo. They are the little people whose lives must go on and to take on a news corporation, even if they felt compelled to do so would eat them and their loved ones from the inside out.

Just my opinion.

by **sharonl** 03.04.15 11:54

Of course they are making a film. Since when do we get a film, documentery or book from a McCann sceptic that is is not followed up by another one from Team McCann?

Saying that though, you would think that they would have learned from the Summers and Swan disaster.

by whatsupdoc 03.04.15 12:08

I support many of Richard's views and think he does his research better than most. I've watched many of his films.

Since the internet arrived , I have collected a lot of information and it has been obvious that MSM has misled us.

I studied the airbrushed pictures from"Mars" or was it a desert on Earth and know for a fact that red and blue were reversed on many on the lander pictures until NASA "corrected" them. They even had the NASA logo shown as red and white instead of blue and white. Their excuse was "out of band anomalies". I lost all faith in NASA at this point. I swapped red and blue and all the images , including the test chart matched up with the pictures I already had of the lander before it was launched...the wire colours, clamps and fittings etc. The BBC ignored my before and after pictures...no surprise there then.

I know 9/11 was a lie but David Cameron said in HoC that it was a terrorist attack. I saw him say it. We can't upset our relationship with US even though we are covered by chemtrails.Check YouTube. There are many professional people such as architects and structural engineers who know 9/11 was a lie. I know the video editing work was done badly and hours after the event. I also think Professor Judy Wood is correct.

MSM say conspiracy theory because they want to make us look fools and force us to believe their lies. It's water off a duck's back to me.

Some people just aren't interested in conspiracy theories...too busy with TV or even trying to survive.

Some people can't understand the physics involved.

Some people just haven't the time to check things out even though it doesn't take long on the internet if you know where to search. Don't forget Google cache for many interesting bits of info. Can I suggest that they watch Richard's films on Richplanet.tv

So we are left with a few people who have time and interest to check things out for themselves and compare them with Richard's findings.

The government DO cover up many things. Don't let the government think for you.

by whatsupdoc 03.04.15 12:19

I haven't heard any adverse comments about R D Hall's 4 part series on Madeleine McCann. That's because he researched the subject and focussed on just the truth.

by plebgate 03.04.15 12:20

What's stopping Jenny K and The Guardian from asking, in print, why the 48 questions that Mrs. was asked were not answered?

Why are they interested in getting so-called antis to go public?

I would find it far more interesting to read about the 48 unanswered questions than why some so-called antis are blogging/posting about this case.

Heck if Jenny K were to read the blogs/forums of the so-called antis that would more than answer her questions, why do they want people publicly named?

Mark Willis is right I think, do not get involved with the press. We have seen them turn on so many when it suits.

by DaSteelMan 03.04.15 13:39

@Richard D. Hall

To be honest, I really think UFO interest does not have a stigma anymore. You ask most scientists/astrologists if they believe in intelligent lifeforms existing beyond Earth and I reckon a high % would say yes.

If Team McCann wants to discredit you (which I think they do) then the same could also be said of them. I'm referring to Team McCann having support from the Tarot card / psychic community. We all know the names of these people. Not that I would condemn these people, but you get my point re hypocrisy.

@ All

Spoke to Jenny Kleeman this morning and posed some questions to her. The conclusion is that I will NOT be speaking to her. To be honest, I'm disappointed in her, because I like her.

Gamble ---> Brunt ---> Sky News ---> Jenny Kleeman ---> The Guardian ---> Hacked Off ---> Gerry McCann

by Richard IV 03.04.15 13:53

It is highly suspicious to my mind that Richard D. Hall has not been discredited by the McCanns as yet. He has produced the most comprehensive and professional set of films so far on the disappearance of MBM watched by thousands. Yet they cannot sue him because he has not made a profit. So you can bet your boots he will be discredited in any way possible. They can try casting him as a UFO loon but IMO it won`t get them very far as most people have the sense to realise that Earthlings aren`t the only form of intelligence in the whole universe.

As someone has asked on here, why does JK and/or The Guardian want names to shame when there is plenty written about this case being the most suspect this century on the internet. BUT examples need to be held up and pictured - "hey folks, just look at this individual who has been muck spreading about the McCanns, here is his/her picture and he/she fully admits it and he/she is a right nasty individual or a nutter". This is what happened to Brenda and then to Rosalinda. I`m sorry but I would not trust any journalist.

by jeanmonroe 03.04.15 13:58

DaSteelMan wrote:

@ All

Spoke to Jenny Kleeman this morning and posed some questions to her. The conclusion is that I will NOT be speaking to her. To be honest, I'm disappointed in her, because I like her.
-------------------------------

So from 'adding' J Kleeman, to DM (ing?) J Kleeman, to 'speaking' with J Kleeman, all in such a 'short' time 'span'?

"The conclusion is that I will NOT be speaking to her. To be honest, I'm disappointed in her"
=========================

BECAUSE?

( 'forewarned is forearmed' right? for the 'unsuspecting' that may be 'contacted' )

thinking

There certainly seems to be a 'flurry' of 'activity' around, at the moment, dosen't there?

eta: just 'found' this

"Information reaches me that Channel 4 are preparing a film provisionally called 'Trolling' which is to be aired later this spring."

Now THAT could 'explain' the recent 'flurry' of 'activity' couldn't it?

J Kleeman 'works' for Channel 4.

by Richard IV 03.04.15 14:15

DaSteelMan wrote:
@ All

Spoke to Jenny Kleeman this morning and posed some questions to her. The conclusion is that I will NOT be speaking to her. To be honest, I'm disappointed in her, because I like her.

Gamble ---> Brunt ---> Sky News ---> Jenny Kleeman ---> The Guardian ---> Hacked Off ---> Gerry McCann

Through what medium did you communicate DSM ? There is no record of you communicating with her via twitter.

by DaSteelMan 03.04.15 14:15

jeanmonroe wrote:DaSteelMan wrote:

@ All

Spoke to Jenny Kleeman this morning and posed some questions to her. The conclusion is that I will NOT be speaking to her. To be honest, I'm disappointed in her, because I like her.
-------------------------------

So from 'adding' J kleeman, to DM (ing?) J Kleeman, to 'speaking' with J Kleeman, all in such a 'short' time 'span'?

"The conclusion is that I will NOT be speaking to her. To be honest, I'm disappointed in her"

BECAUSE?

From the questions I asked her, my instincts tell me that I may well be correct that the agenda is to portray 'abduction' doubters as trolls.

She also referred to me as a group, as a collective. I don't know Richard D. Hall; I've never spoken to him and its only last few days I've been posting in this group. I am on record of saying Richard D. Hall's documentary is fascinating like lots of people.

To be fair to Jenny, she says the reason she contacted me was because she says I've pestered her lots of times to look at the McCann case. This is TRUE, I like Jenny's work and for a few years I've said she should look at the case (like other journos). However she is not interested in aspects of inconsistencies - she is interested in 'doubters' and with her Sky News/Guardian/Hacked Off connections then this to me is no good.

Again, to be fair to Jenny, she said she wouldn't interview anyone that didn't want to be interviewed.

by DaSteelMan 03.04.15 14:17

@RichardIV

we spoke via DM on Twitter.

I just unfollowed her because I'm huffy and I feel disappointed in her. Wink

by **sharonl** 03.04.15 14:17

U

DaSteelMan wrote:@Richard D. Hall

To be honest, I really think UFO interest does not have a stigma anymore. You ask most scientists/astrologists if they believe in intelligent lifeforms existing beyond Earth and I reckon a high % would say yes.

If Team McCann wants to discredit you (which I think they do) then the same could also be said of them. I'm referring to Team McCann having support from the Tarot card / psychic community. We all know the names of these people. Not that I would condemn these people, but you get my point re hypocrisy.

@ All

Spoke to Jenny Kleeman this morning and posed some questions to her. The conclusion is that I will NOT be speaking to her. To be honest, I'm disappointed in her, because I like her.

Gamble ---> Brunt ---> Sky News ---> Jenny Kleeman ---> The Guardian ---> Hacked Off ---> Gerry McCann

There may well be an intelligent life form beyond Earth, but as you correctly say, the McCanns will disagree and use this to discredit Richard. No problem, we just to ask the question, "do these abductors really exist?" It seems that Richard has already asked this question in his new film. Judging by the quality of information in his last film, I should imagine that he will also answer that question, the answer being "no".

So whilst the McCanns cannot possibly provide any evidence that no life form exists anywhere away from Earth, Richard May well provide enough evidence that the abductors do not exist.

The McCanns should learn from their past mistakes, they are better off remaining silent instead of shooting themselves in the foot every time.

But, let Team McCann attempt to discredit Richard Hall, just hope they are prepared for the embarrassment as they advertise their appalling tactics and these factual films to the public.

by jeanmonroe 03.04.15 14:23

Thankyou for that Mr SteelMan.

by DaSteelMan 03.04.15 14:27

Are these the actions of a Team that are sitting calm and assured that their 'whitewashers' (Op Grange) are working brilliantly for them?

Team McCann are desperate. Hence these last ditch tactics.

Have a good weekend.

Is SKY NEWS making a film about Madeleine McCann? - Report from Richard D Hall's meeting in Nottingham last night (1 April)