Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

by **PeterMac** 16.04.15 9:55

Richard Hall always gets a fair hearing, and people discuss the films he makes, and their content, rather than concentrating on his presentation skills or his voice for example.
The lack of heavy editing is noted, but no one dwells on it too much
S&M, or T42 were rightly criticised for producing films which said nothing and added nothing to what was already widely known
but again the criticism was directed at the finished product, not the colour of their hair.
Although we had grave reservations about Winters and Goose prior to publication, the criticism was of the book's contents, layout, style and evidence total lack of research and inability to engage with the salient facts and important issues. His senility and her youth were mentioned merely in passing.

by jeanmonroe 16.04.15 10:14

If, IF, SP's 'mystery' person 'who will shock us all' due to 'involved in campaign/maintaining the abduction theory' is GH, then i'm afraid SP might have had her guns 'spiked'!

But who's 'fault' is that?

She has, supposedly, 'known' this 'name' for months and months.

Kept it to herself!

She could have 'named' this person a long time ago.

Indeed, we asked her to.

If, IF, she's missed her 'scoop', that's not our 'fault' is it?

by Angelique 16.04.15 10:48

I have had to go back to the beginning of this thread to re-adjust what might be going on.

Could it possibly be "muddying the water" and/or distraction. Let's face it SP can say it turned out that she was hampered by libel threats so could not proceed and all the while distracting people from what is happening and needs to be buried.

As in, the verdict on the Trial is due, the Inquest for Brenda Leyland and Richard Hall's success with his DVD Buried by Mainstream Media.

by aiyoyo 16.04.15 11:21

joyce1938 wrote:Well said peter mac, I don't know why all this bitching going on ,give it a chance ,don't know anyone else trying to the same ,so just lets judge after it is released.joyce1938

To be fair to people, SP is not doing herself any favour by her association to that attention seeker and vile mouth brag RH. Posting pic of herself with SP as if trailer advertisement to show she's so part of 'that' team is so unnecessary. What is she trying to prove? If, by chance, the film fails, the press and media are going to be like colony of vultures - RH's debacle in the sun will be used for regurgitation, that as well as the film will be used against the entity that commissioned the film and the maker of the film. If her film features trolls, then both sides are going to be scrutinized and critiqued when it comes to film Reviews. And we know press and media critiques are fond of sensationalising to captivate audience or sell papers.

RH adopting the role as team SP 'official' mouthpiece, dropping her foot in it calling the documentary "Works of Art" is an unmitigated disaster ( in the likes of CM), when we all know documentary is supposed to be non fiction. RH is to team SP what CM is to McCanns.

Neither is SP doing herself any favour, using twitter to do her business telling people about tolls and threats and what not, all not necessary types of info. Considering the nature of her film (exposing the controversies on the nation's 'popular' couples and more) people already know it won't be welcomed by certain quarters, and expectedly she's going to face those adversaries.
Let the film roll and the content will speak for itself. Let people judge then, and then take the credits where due.

One can understand the reasons why this commissioning is offered to SP. No reputable journalist on full pay with a career to protect would touch it with a barge pole because it has the potential of a suicide mission given the subject matter. The Mcs are infamously known to use their PR and legal machineries to spin and to sue people off the pants left right centre at will.

Better to keep low profile without all these fanfares until the film is released, and let the content be judged.

by aiyoyo 16.04.15 11:31

jeanmonroe wrote:If, IF, SP's 'mystery' person 'who will shock us all' due to 'involved in campaign/maintaining the abduction theory' is GH, then i'm afraid SP might have had her guns 'spiked'!

CAN'T be! GH never maintains the abduction theory. In fact to the contrary.

I'm guessing hera exposee might be a relatively known public figure (not necessary celebrity, but someone known in the public domain) if not to general public then at least to the internet world. I would think it would have to be someone known in the public, if it's going to have the SHOCK factor she alludes to.

by stillsloppingout 16.04.15 11:41

News just breaking now that South Yorkshire Police who funded DNA testing on a man in Greece they suspected of being Ben Needham , the results have come back as negative .
The family have funded this I believe . so it does have a relevance .

Im sorry I don't have the full story but ive just seen it .

by Guest 16.04.15 12:28

PeterMac wrote:I suppose it is too much to expect people to wait, and then to judge the film on its merits . . .
Yes, I thought so.

Fair comment but SP did feed the world with little appetizers, bolstered by a photo-shoot with her champion of the moment, so it's quite understandable that people will speculate. IMO that's the reason behind her actions, to excite speculation. All very well when promoting a block buster movie but not so sensible for a documentary alleged to be factual.

ETA: Sorry aiyoyo you beat me to it and so wonderfully phrased.

by jeanmonroe 16.04.15 12:55

I did say 'if, IF' didn't i?

by lj 16.04.15 14:12

jeanmonroe wrote:If, IF, SP's 'mystery' person 'who will shock us all' due to 'involved in campaign/maintaining the abduction theory' is GH, then i'm afraid SP might have had her guns 'spiked'!

But who's 'fault' is that?

She has, supposedly, 'known' this 'name' for months and months.

Kept it to herself!

She could have 'named' this person a long time ago.

Indeed, we asked her to.

If, IF, she's missed her 'scoop', that's not our 'fault' is it?

Jean, help me out here please, who is GH?

by **Tony Bennett** 16.04.15 14:29

lj wrote:
Jean, help me out here please, who is GH?

I think it must be Gary Hagland - article here:

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

...several other articles about him on the forum

by jeanmonroe 16.04.15 14:36

Tony Bennett wrote:
lj wrote:
Jean, help me out here please, who is GH?
I think it must be Gary Hagland - article here:

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

...several other articles about him on the forum

Spoilsport! laughat

by lj 16.04.15 18:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
lj wrote:
Jean, help me out here please, who is GH?
I think it must be Gary Hagland - article here:

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

...several other articles about him on the forum

Ah, thanks Tony.

I hate abbreviations

by Guest 16.04.15 18:31

lj wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
lj wrote:
Jean, help me out here please, who is GH?
I think it must be Gary Hagland - article here:

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

...several other articles about him on the forum
Ah, thanks Tony.

I hate abbreviations

Says the woman who calls herself lj titter

by **Tony Bennett** 16.04.15 23:20

Given how helpful Sonia Poulton says her friend Rosalinda Hutton was to her the other day [pic below],

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

...there is still more concern about what might and might not feature in Poulton's documentary, if and when it ever comes out.

This stems from Hutton's pronouncements elsewhere tonight:

QUOTE HUTTON

The only thing I believe with this case...is don't believe anything!

I think it is a little bit absurd for online detectives to fall out with each other over their individual theories when the only access to the case they have is via the computers in their living rooms. If Operation Grange, with EVERYTHING available to them, can't crack it, then it's highly unlikely [that anyone else can].

From my own experience, some middle class professionals are, shall we say, very lackadaisical when it comes to taking care of their kids...When you are trying to juggle work and kids, your greatest wish is for someone to take them off your hands for a few hours so you can have a bit of peace. If one of their friends invites them for a play date, you pack them a week's worth of clothes and keep your fingers crossed - then you hit the off licence and 'phone all your known party animal friends gleefully shouting 'I'm free'. As these nights are temporary, short lived, and once in a blue moon, you make the most of them.

Neglect from the [McCanns and their friends], for me anyway, is quite believable. The callous way the group talk about the sick babies they left alone in their apartments is very telling. Rebecca almost jokes about the stinking nappies and vomiting of the various kids is dismissed as of no consequence. There is no remorse, no in retrospect, wtf were we thinking? There is no sense whatsoever that they did anything wrong, not from any of them. There is an early interview where Gerry actually says, they don't consider what they did to be irresponsible.

If Gerry and Kate, and indeed, all the Tapas group, truly believed they were wrong to have left the children, they wouldn't be able to defend their position so vigorously. The arguments they use to defend that particular form of childminding, were probably used when the 'collective' decision was made about what to do with the kids in the evenings. If they thought it was wrong, there would now be a sense of shame that would be impossible to hide. I mean seriously, could a regular 'mom' honestly say they left their 8 month old sick baby alone in a holiday apartment while she and her husband went out to dinner without even a tinge of regret or remorse? What kind of people are they?

UNQUOTE

Thus Hutton has deduced:

1. I don't believe anything about the case
2. People are wasting their time researching this case on the internet
3. The McCanns and their friends, like many middle class parents, are a bit neglectful about their children and like to get away from them when they can
4. Operation Grange 'can't crack it' (not: 'doesn't intend to crack it')
5. The Tapas group made a 'collective' decision about what to do with the kids in the evening
6. The Tapas group thought they were right to leave the children as often as they did that week, without checking.

And a whole lot of other factual matters about the case are completely omitted from tonight's ananlysis by Hutton.

If her friend Sonia Poulton is producing a documentary which includes some or all of those gold nuggets of wisdom, not a few people are going to be pretty disapppointed

by lj 16.04.15 23:25

admin wrote:
lj wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
lj wrote:
Jean, help me out here please, who is GH?
I think it must be Gary Hagland - article here:

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

...several other articles about him on the forum
Ah, thanks Tony.

I hate abbreviations

Says the woman who calls herself lj

was called and stuck with it. I would probably not even react to it. big grin

by TheTruthWillOut 16.04.15 23:26

Arthur Daley and Delboy..! big grin

I think this Gif is apt:

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

by aiyoyo 17.04.15 4:17

Tony Bennett wrote:Given how helpful Sonia Poulton says her friend Rosalinda Hutton was to her the other day

RH alleges to be part of the production team (quote below).
Good luck to SP anyway. RH is away with the fairies....lets hope SP research works is not drawn from her best mate's contribution on the case.

" Works of art, of any description, are all the better for time, care and attention to detail. Rush jobs are swiftly forgotten, as I, and many others, know their cost. The best work we can produce, takes time, effort and sheer grit and determination. We love our work as much as a Bake Off competitor loves their showstopper or an Olympian loves hitting the finishing line first. Sonia doesn't just want to make a run a mill documentary, she wants to make a GREAT documentary. She doesn't go into a project half arsed, its why she is a successful mainstream journalist and those with fear of failure are not. "

by Mark Willis 17.04.15 8:48

Well, well. Here's another surprise (not)
Now SP tells us that her work of art won't be until after Lisbon denouement.
No wonder that cat is filing its nails.
Personally, given we have SP and RH, who needs Laurel & Hardy?

by Joss 17.04.15 8:57

[Quote]:snipped

I think it is a little bit absurd for online detectives to fall out with each other over their individual theories when the only access to the case they have is via the computers in their living rooms. If Operation Grange, with EVERYTHING available to them, can't crack it, then it's highly unlikely [that anyone else can].

LOL, So where does RH get her info from then? Is she an "insider" in the case with OG? Or is she just like the rest of the armchair sleuths that blog about the case, behind their living room computers? Contradictiory much! daft

by Liz Eagles 17.04.15 9:01

Joss wrote:
:snipped

I think it is a little bit absurd for online detectives to fall out with each other over their individual theories when the only access to the case they have is via the computers in their living rooms. If Operation Grange, with EVERYTHING available to them, can't crack it, then it's highly unlikely [that anyone else can].

LOL, So where does RH get her info from then? Is she an "insider" in the case with OG? Or is she just like the rest of the armchair sleuths that blog about the case, behind their living room computers? Contradictiory much!

Oh no, RH is not an armchair sleuth, YOU are....unless using 'WE' is useful.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 17.04.15 9:19

Tony Bennett wrote:Given how helpful Sonia Poulton says her friend Rosalinda Hutton was to her the other day

Wasn't it Sonia Poulton who set Hutton up to be interviewed by SKY where she told them she was proud to have trolled the McCanns?

What sort of friend does that?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.04.15 9:19

Mark Willis wrote:Well, well. Here's another surprise (not)
Now SP tells us that her work of art won't be until after Lisbon denouement.
No wonder that cat is filing its nails.
Personally, given we have SP and RH, who needs Laurel & Hardy?

Or Arthur Daley & Delboy?

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

by **Tony Bennett** 17.04.15 9:23

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Given how helpful Sonia Poulton says her friend Rosalinda Hutton was to her the other day
Wasn't it Sonia Poulton who set Hutton up to be interviewed by SKY where she told them she was proud to have trolled the McCanns?

REPLY: Yes, Sonia Poulton totally arranged that for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper

What sort of friend does that?

REPLY: Maybe both of them got a fee for this article. Absolutely nothing would surprise me any more about this pair

by jeanmonroe 17.04.15 9:58

'RH' wrote:

"If Operation Grange, with EVERYTHING available to them, can't crack it, then it's highly unlikely [that anyone else can]."
------------------------------------

So, presumeably, OG do HAVE, now, 'everything' FROM D Payne, ('the few things') that D Payne considered 'relevant and pertinent to establish the material truth' (about a 3 years old child's, 'disappearance')

The 'few things' that D Payne would not, and did not, tell, divulge, to Leicestershire Police officers, in a formal 'interview' in 2008.

Because 'that' was 'the wrong forum'!

Who 'witholds', subject to 'perverting the course of justice', possibly 'vital, crucial, important, relevent, pertinent' INFORMATION, from investigating police officers, about a 3 years old child's 'disappearance'?

Rhetorical.

D Payne does!

And is 'allowed' to!

The PJ and LP, imo, DID 'crack' the 'case', but then, erm, 'interference' from very 'senior' people, in the UK, began!.

And, again, imo, OG have 'prolonged', continued, the 'interference' at every 'turn'.

WHY?

Now that's a whole 'different' story!

by jeanmonroe 17.04.15 10:19

"If Operation Grange, with EVERYTHING available to them, can't crack it, then it's highly unlikely [that anyone else can]."
-----------------------------------

Police Scotland , imo, 'might', er, 'crack it'.

Give the OG, Madeleine 'case' to Police Scotland, M Kular, (3 days) Karen Buckley, (2 days) case 'solvers', for a month, and see how they 'get on'.

Nothing to 'lose' have they?

NO 'trips' to Portugal, just give Police Scotland the T9 and JW's 'statements'!

10 'files'.....that's all.

Is RH seriously telling us that if OG 'can't crack it' then nobody else is 'likely' to?

Has ANYONE 'else' been ASKED to?

by sar 17.04.15 13:39

SP AGAIN on Sky News talking about "pushy parents" 13.39 hrs

by Joss 17.04.15 13:59

aquila wrote:
Joss wrote:
:snipped

I think it is a little bit absurd for online detectives to fall out with each other over their individual theories when the only access to the case they have is via the computers in their living rooms. If Operation Grange, with EVERYTHING available to them, can't crack it, then it's highly unlikely [that anyone else can].

LOL, So where does RH get her info from then? Is she an "insider" in the case with OG? Or is she just like the rest of the armchair sleuths that blog about the case, behind their living room computers? Contradictiory much!
Oh no, RH is not an armchair sleuth, YOU are....unless using 'WE' is useful.

She is above & beyond all of that dontcha know, she's spesh, her and her buddy SP, lol. smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 17.04.15 14:01

sar wrote:SP AGAIN on Sky News talking about "pushy parents" 13.39 hrs

Thank you.

Look again at the OP.

Sonia Poulton was on SKY on

24 March and
4 April and now again today on
17 April.

Three times in just 24 days.

And she is being paid by Murdoch for appearing on these chat shows.

Just as Murdoch probably paid her and Hutton for that dreadful 'I'm an anti-McCann bitch' Sun article.

Murdoch also pays Jim Gamble and Mark Williams-Thomas to comment on the McCann case on SKY - oh, and their other mate, 'Dr' Joe Sullivan.

It really is hard to see how a paid Murdoch hackette can deliver a hard-hitting documentary on what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

by Joss 17.04.15 14:06

jeanmonroe wrote:"If Operation Grange, with EVERYTHING available to them, can't crack it, then it's highly unlikely [that anyone else can]."
-----------------------------------

Police Scotland , imo, 'might', er, 'crack it'.

Give the OG, Madeleine 'case' to Police Scotland, M Kular, (3 days) Karen Buckley, (2 days) case 'solvers', for a month, and see how they 'get on'.

Nothing to 'lose' have they?

NO 'trips' to Portugal, just give Police Scotland the T9 and JW's 'statements'!

10 'files'.....that's all.

Is RH seriously telling us that if OG 'can't crack it' then nobody else is 'likely' to?

Has ANYONE 'else' been ASKED to?

Good point. Has RH followed any other crime cases?, doesn't she know sometimes it is a member/s of the public that have found a missing child or person, or stumbled upon deceased remains. It does happen from time to time.

by Joss 17.04.15 14:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
sar wrote:SP AGAIN on Sky News talking about "pushy parents" 13.39 hrs
Thank you.

Look again at the OP.

Sonia Poulton was on SKY on

24 March and
4 April and now again today on
17 April.

Three times in just 24 days.

And she is being paid by Murdoch for appearing on these chat shows.

Just as Murdoch probably paid her and Hutton for that dreadful 'I'm an anti-McCann bitch' Sun article.

Murdoch also pays Jim Gamble and Mark Williams-Thomas to comment on the McCann case on SKY - oh, and their other mate, 'Dr' Joe Sullivan.

It really is hard to see how a paid Murdoch hackette can deliver a hard-hitting documentary on what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

Agreed, and i think it is evident that she won't bring forth anything much, if at all, that will be anything "bombshell" news in an unfavourable way to the McC's in any documentary. Probably something about the nasty "trolls" probably. But the crow pie awaits if i am wrong big grin