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

by plebgate on 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 on 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 on 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 on 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 on 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 on 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 on 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** on 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 on 03.04.15 14:23

Thankyou for that Mr SteelMan.

by DaSteelMan on 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.

by Richard IV on 03.04.15 14:34

When you think about it, JK is hardly going to tarnish her reputation. She is now quite well established in the `media establishment` doing `what the papers say` and acceptable documentaries. She`s not going to upset the McCanns now is she and have her name blackened.

by jeanmonroe on 03.04.15 14:47

DaSteelMan wrote:

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.

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.
====================================
"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"

"THE AGENDA"? As 'PORTRAYED' by whom, for whom?
=============================
"She also referred to me as a group, as a collective."

Well, THAT'S just plain...... 'weird'!
===========================================
"....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......"

"Investigative journalism" at it's very, VERY, BEST then?
================================================
She said she "wouldn't interview anyone that didn't want to be interviewed."

Stating the bleed**g obvious!

You can't 'interview' someone that dosen't want to be 'interviewed'!
--------------------------------

Is Mrs Kleeman prepared to put her outstanding documentaries, reputation, on the 'line' for a few of Murdoch's 'shillings'?

"Another one bites the dust"?

by DaSteelMan on 03.04.15 15:18

@ DaSteelMan

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

I agree with these suggested acid-tests.

I know @veniviedivici is now hassling her on Twitter in his usual unhelpful way ... but what if she was just to put out a tweet on the lines of:

"Yes, I am doing a film on 'X' for reasons 'Y' and I want you to contact me" .... I'm not explaining well, but you get my drift.

For some reason my Twitter DM conversation with her has vanished. Perhaps she deleted the DM conversation? Perhaps it deletes when you block/unblock someone? Fortunatly Ive screenshot the entire conversation.

by jeanmonroe on 03.04.15 16:28

For some reason my Twitter DM conversation with her has vanished. Perhaps she deleted the DM conversation? Perhaps it deletes when you block/unblock someone? Fortunately I've screenshotted the entire conversation..

DaSteelMan
====================================
And there's the 'rub'

'people' can be 'played' at their 'own' game!

I have loads of 'screen shots' where 'people' have sworn blind 'i didn't say that' 'that wasn't me'

when 'confronted' by the 'evidence'(ss) we sheepishly hear "Agh, oh, er..... OH, THAT one?"

And it's on the internet faster than you can say, "sh*t, did i just say/do that?"

Put you 'convo' shots on a disk, for 'research' only purposes, obviously. winkwink

eta: It's not 'illegal' to 'screen shot'

the McCann's media 'monitor' Michael Wrong and the McCann's 'dossier' compilers have 'taught' us THAT! laughat

by Tony Bennett on 03.04.15 21:26

@DaSteelMan wrote:Tony, I want to ask you a question in private. PM to you doesn't work. Is the email link active?

My e-mail is all over the net and you are welcome to contact me at:

ajsbennett@btinternet.com

by whatsupdoc on 03.04.15 22:57

I don't seem to be able to edit my post so can I just correct the link to Richard D. Hall's website. It's www.richplanet.net/index.php

by MRNOODLES on 03.04.15 23:06

If you ask me, it smells a bit of pre-empting Ed forming some sort of government come May. And maybe Labour will shut down Op Grange and finish it off with a docu about the poor McCanns and their innocence and all the fruit loop trolls who doubt them. Plus that election vote where half of us (including me) saying we'd vote Ukip will be used against us.

Just my opinion which I hope I'm way off the mark.

by Mark Willis on 04.04.15 7:52

Let's make this simple and cut to the quick.

Look what happened to Ms Hutton and The Sun.

That should a warning to all, NEVER volunteer anything or yourself to the Press (MSM)

They are a dying breed owing to the Internet (which they see as anathema to their "trade"), the medium by which all news will one day usurp TV as more devices become Internet enabled.

However "nice" Ms Kleeman is she is working for the Guardian which is MSM ergo YOU or anyone else will have the MSM's agenda spin put on anything you say.

My advice to everyone is to never (if you can avoid them) speak to the Press or MSM in any shape or form as veracity is an alien concept to them.

To conclude, look what happened to poor Brenda RIP. Perhaps a non sequitur but the MSM?; therein lies danger to anyone.

by jeanmonroe on 04.04.15 10:56

So,.'ANTI' McCann 'trolls'

We've had MB (proxy 4 Sky News) 'contacting' a 'friend' of BL, and sent 'packing' because Sky wouldn't 'pay' for an, er, 'interview', days before he started 'following' BL and then 'contacting' her (literally) for his 'exclusiff' on 'trolls'. (non believers, ANTI, of McCann 'story')

Then we have SP, 'asking' for only ANTI McCann 'people' to contact her, for a 'piece' in a Murdoch (Sky news 'owner') paper about ANTI McCann 'trolls'

We all know how well that went, don't we?

RH 'made out' to be a complete, 'vindictive' nutter!

Now we have Channel 4 'doing a piece' on 'trolls', supposedly, and outside R Hall's 'tour' venue(?) and 'asking' only ANTI McCann 'people' to contact them.

Re; "SteelMan"

thinking

"If it looks like a 'plan', smells like a 'plan', etc., ..................IT'S A 'PLAN''!

By MSM 'against' INSOLENT, non-believing, 'ANTI McCann',......... 'nutters'

Of course, we'll hear ALL 'msm', screaming from the 'rooftops', should it all go 'pear shaped' for their 'perceived' er, 'heroes'...................."THEY (McCanns) DIDN'T FOOL US, NOT FOR A MILLI-SECOND. WE ALWAYS 'KNEW' THEY WERE 'INVOLVED'. WE'RE NOT 'DUMMIES' Y'KNOW.

by Mark Willis on 04.04.15 11:06

This is the current agenda by the McMSM.
After the massive backfire by SKY they are trying to lure the unsuspecting into thinking the media will give them a voice on matters McCann.
That is never going to happen. Certainly so far.
It will never happen unless or until the Mcs are charged and convicted of anything.
Until such a time then the Press will stitch you up, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

P.S.
After Savile died of course the BBC wouldn't air anything given how that would be exposing their own doorstep to being soiled.
Naturally, MWT dived in, like he will when/should the tide turns re Mcs.

by aquila on 04.04.15 11:22

@Mark Willis wrote:This is the current agenda by the McMSM.
After the massive backfire by SKY they are trying to lure the unsuspecting into thinking the media will give them a voice on matters McCann.
That is never going to happen. Certainly so far.
It will never happen unless or until the Mcs are charged and convicted of anything.
Until such a time then the Press will stitch you up, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

P.S.
After Savile died of course the BBC wouldn't air anything given how that would be exposing their own doorstep to being soiled.
Naturally, MWT dived in, like he will when/should the tide turns re Mcs.

MWT is a bit of a mystery. How can this man be given a pass to watch child porn?

His credentials as a police officer are less than clear. One could almost say they are murky/opaque.

...but hey ho, MWT is flogging his stuff to the mainstream media and he's doing very well backed up occasionally by a top bloke who was his mentor.

It's as much of a mystery as why Jim Gamble went to Vietnam and is now flogging his stuff to the media, the establishment and peddling his wares as some sort of child protection internet guru when in actual fact his track record and achievement in CEOP is well....not clear.

MWT has now done an expose in The Mirror regarding the murder of Jill Dando which offers nothing other than to say it was a mob hit but it came with all the promise of some sort of breakthrough that's a similar breakthrough that DCI Redwood portrayed to the media in the Crime Watch extravaganza. A load of old hogwash.

by Mark Willis on 04.04.15 11:32

"A load of old hogwash."

Indeed it is given the same gun used turned up in Liverpool some years later.
Mob/gang hit my aunt Fanny. About as credible as Dr Kelly's "suicide"
Much more credible is the possibility of Dando exposing paedophile rings very much too close to home...

MWT goes where the rewards (££) are, whichever way the wind blows.
He is pro Mc as of now but will hastily do a 180 should they be prosecuted.

by aquila on 04.04.15 13:23

@Mark Willis wrote:"A load of old hogwash."

Indeed it is given the same gun used turned up in Liverpool some years later.
Mob/gang hit my aunt Fanny. About as credible as Dr Kelly's "suicide"
Much more credible is the possibility of Dando exposing paedophile rings very much too close to home...

MWT goes where the rewards (££) are, whichever way the wind blows.
He is pro Mc as of now but will hastily do a 180 should they be prosecuted.

Didn't Jill Dando's fiance Alan Farthing become Surgeon-Gynaecologist to the Royal household?

That's quite an honour.

by Mark Willis on 04.04.15 14:13

@aquila wrote:
@Mark Willis wrote:"A load of old hogwash."

Indeed it is given the same gun used turned up in Liverpool some years later.
Mob/gang hit my aunt Fanny. About as credible as Dr Kelly's "suicide"
Much more credible is the possibility of Dando exposing paedophile rings very much too close to home...

MWT goes where the rewards (££) are, whichever way the wind blows.
He is pro Mc as of now but will hastily do a 180 should they be prosecuted.
Didn't Jill Dando's fiance Alan Farthing become Surgeon-Gynaecologist to the Royal household?

That's quite an honour.

Yes, like a promotion amongst "friends" - so to speak.
And also "Kitty" Richard was interviewed.

by Guest on 04.04.15 20:26

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@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

TB, did you go to Richard's show today? Look forward to reading your comments if you did.