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

by **PeterMac** 20.04.15 8:17

Releasing it first in the USA may well be a very clever thing to do.
That was it cannot be injuncted or super-inaudibled in the usual way.
It can then be copied, You Tubed, downloaded to disc, and distributed across the rest of the thinking world, for people to watch, and then to judge it on its content and its merits
(unless you are unconditionally pro-McCann and pro-Child neglect of course, in which case you will already have something prepared along the lines of
"we disagree with everything the film contains, or does not contain" ! )

by Doug D 20.04.15 8:54

Thinking about the article overnight.

Why do TM get Tracey to bash out an article at this point?

Three things it does:

a/. Gives publicity to the documentary

b/. Gets in an early trashing of it

c/. Gives out the message that CM is still in charge

TM must have considered these when deciding to go with the article and (a) must have been considered as collateral damage that couldn’t be avoided, but was worth the risk.

(b) is get your spin out early, so as Aiyoyo has suggested, they must be worried about it coming out, which can only be a good thing.

(c) I don’t understand at all.
CM seems to have taken great steps over the last six months or so to distance himself from the campaign with all his statements being attributed to ‘reliable sources’, ‘spokesman’, etc rather than himself. Why throw your name back in the ring suddenly now, unless he realizes the game is up in Brighton and it just doesn’t matter anymore?
It surely can’t be a starter towards the sympathy vote “I have been misled all along” coming out in the next couple of weeks can it?

by HelenMeg 20.04.15 10:02

Also extremely surprised to see the quote from CM. Though he had managed to distance himself quite nicely...why come back now? Is he or isn't he on the payroll? Does anyone know for sure.
Clarence was working for Labour Gov in 2007 - now candidate for Conservatives. Where does this man actually sit? Is he simply an opportunist. I really cant make my mind up about him. I feel he enjoys the attention and wishes to be in a public profile no matter where.

He has had plenty of opportunity and occaision to comment regarding Mc Cann case in recent months but has been abdusrdly quiet - why pipe up now? Very very odd and actually I'm disappointed because I had felt that his silence was encouraging...

by The Slave 20.04.15 10:36

I'm in said documentary. I didn't hold back. nod

by HelenMeg 20.04.15 10:46

The Slave wrote:I'm in said documentary. I didn't hold back.

Really ? Interesting - can you give us any more details? smilie

by The Slave 20.04.15 10:51

Filmed in Leicester 20th March.
I do not believe the McCanns version of events. Nobody can make me believe them.
I have read the files.
Why haven't any of the MSM journalists I questioned outside Leics Coroner's Court read ANY OF THE FILES!?
NOT ONE HAD. Not the Beeb, not ITV, Not Sky.
WHO leaves three children under the age of four ALONE in a FLAT? Etc. Etc...

by The Slave 20.04.15 10:53

Why is the time on my posts two hours out? Is it me? My Laptop says 10.53

by Amy Dean 20.04.15 10:58

It sounds as if your time zone needs changing.

Go to your profile, then preferences and adjust the zone to where you are.

by The Slave 20.04.15 11:10

Thank You, Amy. That was perfect. Sorted. x

by jeanmonroe 20.04.15 11:25

McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said he had not been informed about the new Maddie TV documentary Lee Ryan was working on.

He said: “I am aware of Sonia Poulton and all her conspiracy theories. These film makers always claim they have a commission.

“But we are not going to fuel whatever they are doing in any shape or form by making a comment.”
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's quite a 'comment' from a man who will NOT be 'commenting' in ANY 'shape or form'!

"WE"? (are not going to........)

So Mitchell IS still 'involved' with McCanns.

STILL being 'paid' £28,000pa, as a 'retainer' from Madeleine Fund 'donations'?

'donations' given by handicapped kiddies, OAP's, school kids 'cake bake' sales, etc.,!

Whose 'donations', they THOUGHT, was to be used, were 'misled' to believe, by the McCanns, to be used EXCLUSIVELY to actually SEARCH for Madeleine.

by **PeterMac** 20.04.15 11:27

The Slave wrote:I'm in said documentary. I didn't hold back.

Good for you. I hope that the final edit leaves what you said entire, and not emasculated or altered.
You can of course expect a deluge of vituperation, abuse, and vilification, not to say direct threats from the 'Loyal McCann Supporters" and those who continue to believe that murdering and chopping into pieces ones own daughter and niece is acceptable, and that any police officer who dares to suggest otherwise is to be targeted . . .

by **PeterMac** 20.04.15 11:31

jeanmonroe wrote:McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said he had not been informed about the new Maddie TV documentary Lee Ryan was working on.

That quote alone exposes him as a total cretin, or in the alternative - which may be more likely - a LIAR
No one on the planet did NOT know. It has been on facebook, twitter, every single Madeleine blog and forum for months.

Do they still continue to PAY this buffoon ?
When you consider that he could have said "Of course we have been aware of this for a long time, and hope that it will not continue to portray the false and ludicrous and liblellous . . . . "

But he didn't.
He said, on the record, that he had not been informed.
Is that the same as I didn't know.. Or is he splitting hairs between the active and passive voice.

by HelenMeg 20.04.15 11:35

The Slave wrote:Filmed in Leicester 20th March.
I do not believe the McCanns version of events. Nobody can make me believe them.
I have read the files.
Why haven't any of the MSM journalists I questioned outside Leics Coroner's Court read ANY OF THE FILES!?
NOT ONE HAD. Not the Beeb, not ITV, Not Sky.
WHO leaves three children under the age of four ALONE in a FLAT? Etc. Etc...

The Slave - do you believe that the children were left alone ? I dont - I think that was a myth so that the abduction could be given credibility. My problem with Sonia is that it appears to me that she believes that the Mc Canns neglected their children nigt after night. I think that that is exactly what Team Mc Cann wish everyone would believe.

by Carrry On Doctor 20.04.15 11:38

I agree....TM's havent been prosecuted for child neglect because they weren't guilty of it.

IMO

by jeanmonroe 20.04.15 11:51

The Slave wrote:
Why haven't any of the MSM journalists I questioned outside Leics Coroner's Court read ANY OF THE FILES!?
NOT ONE HAD. Not the Beeb, not ITV, Not Sky.

In your 'dreams' Mr Slave!

the 'files' have been 'read'..........upside down, inside out, front to back, back to front, 'hundreds' of times by MSM 'journos'!

They just haven't 'commented on', or been ALLOWED to 'comment' on, what's IN the 'files'!

"journo's" all know, KNOW, exactly, what is 'in' the 'files'!

They'd be 'remiss/negligent' not to!

MORE THAN THEIR JOB'S WORTH!

They know, that we know, that they know, EXACTLY what's IN the 'files'

Do you seriously think that SP, turning up a 'lot' on Sky News, ITV, recently, hasn't been 'way laid' by people there, and 'asked' about the McCann er, 'project' she has, is, 'working' on?

Really, REALLY?

by Guest 20.04.15 11:57

PeterMac wrote:Releasing it first in the USA may well be a very clever thing to do.
That was it cannot be injuncted or super-inaudibled in the usual way.
It can then be copied, You Tubed, downloaded to disc, and distributed across the rest of the thinking world, for people to watch, and then to judge it on its content and its merits
(unless you are unconditionally pro-McCann and pro-Child neglect of course, in which case you will already have something prepared along the lines of
"we disagree with everything the film contains, or does not contain" ! )

Surely it would have been a lot less hassle to YouTube it in the first place?

by Joss 20.04.15 12:07

Verdi wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Releasing it first in the USA may well be a very clever thing to do.
That was it cannot be injuncted or super-inaudibled in the usual way.
It can then be copied, You Tubed, downloaded to disc, and distributed across the rest of the thinking world, for people to watch, and then to judge it on its content and its merits
(unless you are unconditionally pro-McCann and pro-Child neglect of course, in which case you will already have something prepared along the lines of
"we disagree with everything the film contains, or does not contain" ! )
Surely it would have been a lot less hassle to YouTube it in the first place?

I agree, and wonder why she's making such a big deal out of it?

by Guest 20.04.15 12:10

A major problem I see with Sonia Poulton is her inability to concentrate on any given subject for more than a minute without reverting back to herself. I recall watching a YouTube video (strangely enough uploaded by someone named Lee Ryan) where she was responding to David Icke on her departure from the People's Voice. If she hinted once, she hinted a hundred times 'this is not about revenge but while I'm on the subject............'

Apart from her TV daytime sofa sittings and her tabloid backdoor entrance freedom to comment on current affairs, I have only ever seen YouTube videos featuring Sonia Poulton as leading lady. The camera is always on her mug!

by Guest 20.04.15 12:15

Joss wrote:
Verdi wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Releasing it first in the USA may well be a very clever thing to do.
That was it cannot be injuncted or super-inaudibled in the usual way.
It can then be copied, You Tubed, downloaded to disc, and distributed across the rest of the thinking world, for people to watch, and then to judge it on its content and its merits
(unless you are unconditionally pro-McCann and pro-Child neglect of course, in which case you will already have something prepared along the lines of
"we disagree with everything the film contains, or does not contain" ! )
Surely it would have been a lot less hassle to YouTube it in the first place?
I agree, and wonder why she's making such a big deal out of it?

Her making such a big deal of it is the reason for all this speculation. Could that be her intention? Or perhaps in a moment of madness some months back she made an unfortunate claim about making a documentary which has now escalated to such a degree she can't get out of it yet can't get into it.

Still time will tell, or will it? Bit of a drama queen if you ask me.

by Joss 20.04.15 12:37

Verdi wrote:
Joss wrote:
Verdi wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Releasing it first in the USA may well be a very clever thing to do.
That was it cannot be injuncted or super-inaudibled in the usual way.
It can then be copied, You Tubed, downloaded to disc, and distributed across the rest of the thinking world, for people to watch, and then to judge it on its content and its merits
(unless you are unconditionally pro-McCann and pro-Child neglect of course, in which case you will already have something prepared along the lines of
"we disagree with everything the film contains, or does not contain" ! )
Surely it would have been a lot less hassle to YouTube it in the first place?
I agree, and wonder why she's making such a big deal out of it?
Her making such a big deal of it is the reason for all this speculation. Could that be her intention? Or perhaps in a moment of madness some months back she made an unfortunate claim about making a documentary which has now escalated to such a degree she can't get out of it yet can't get into it.

Still time will tell, or will it? Bit of a drama queen if you ask me.

I agree, she needs to put up or shut up, IMO.

by aiyoyo 20.04.15 13:14

PeterMac wrote:

Do they still continue to PAY this buffoon ?
When you consider that he could have said "Of course we have been aware of this for a long time, and hope that it will not continue to portray the false and ludicrous and liblellous . . . . "

But he didn't.
He said, on the record, that he had not been informed.
Is that the same as I didn't know.. Or is he splitting hairs between the active and passive voice.

Never underestimate this buffoon. Look at the smearing headline !
He's influencing the public conscious from the get go. It's the start of a pre-empt spin.
The deliberate introduction of the phantom film maker when he knew darn well the film maker is SP. He's obfuscating for a reason - drawing attention to the credibility of the maker by his deliberate misinformation; at the same time saying to the film maker we are watching you closely. Same threat as he used on Dr Amaral when he wrote his book.

Not important if he's still McCanns rent-a-gob.
Of significance is, why is he still interested in the case, and still obssessed in helping Kate?
Perhaps he's also protecting his own self interest and would do it even for FOC. In spite of trying to revive his career in Brighton !

It's an orchestrated campaign by the matey mate trio Kate, CM and TK.
I bet Kate's is boiling her blood, using her mates to do her bidding and these two buffoons are happy to lick her boots anytime.

If it's true that the film is going to be broadcast in America, so much the better. Bigger audience, plus First Amendment in Mcs' way. Plus Nancy Grace and Pat Brown are there to do the reviews.

by jeanmonroe 20.04.15 14:26

Don't know were 'this' has come from, out my 'addled' brain!

If the McCann's 'moved' to a different 'country', NZ, France, Canada etc., could Law Enforcement 'there' arrest them 'on suspicion of' regarding their daughter's 'disappearance'?

As we all know, 'there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance'.

Has OG/MET/Scotland Yard, or anyone, ever disclosed what irrefutable, beyond contestation, 'evidence' they have, have found, has found, that eliminates/eliminated the McCanns, their friends, or persons they know, from any possible involvement in their daughter's disappearance?

OTHER than just a 'personal' OPINION/ASSUMPTION/BELIEF by OG 'officers', in particular the ex lead IO at OG, ex DCI Redwood.

We KNOW what IO, ex DCI Redwood, at OG 'said' ('crime by a stranger' based on 'what' is anybody's 'guess') but he never has proven what he 'said' was right, beyond 'question' has he?

There's nothing NOW, that he is retired, to stop ex DCI Redwood, from telling the whole world WHY the McCann's, and their friends, are totally 'innocent' (by hard 'evidence') of any 'involvement' regarding Madeleine's 'disappearance' is there?

Maybe, he hasn't 'found' the 'right forum' to disclose his 'relevant and pertinent' er, information, to! winkwink

By not saying what 'evidence', he has, that 'eliminates' the McCann's and their 'friends', TOTALLY, he leaves a 'cloud of suspicion' hanging over their heads, dosen't he?

Anyway, COULD the McCann's, or their 'friends', be re 'questioned' (on 'entry') by OTHER countries LE? (should they 'move')

by The Slave 20.04.15 15:36

I'm a woman, not a man. So technically I'm Mrs.Slave.

SoniaPoulton will surprise you all. I know of a couple of people 'doorstepped' that will take you aback.

Sonia IS putting up.

I put my head above the parapet because of the injustices witnessed for 8 years and because of MS.Leyland.

Mock away but I put my Tuppence worth to camera.Sometimes you just have to despite the mockery.

And BTW I questioned every journo at LCC and I REPEAT NOT ONE HAD BOTHERED TO READ THE FILES. NOT ONE.
Why would they lie to my face about that when it made THEM look idiotic? IN PUBLIC. (I'm not quiet)

It's 'cut & paste all the way for today's journo.

Be seeing you.

by Richard IV 20.04.15 15:54

The Slave wrote:I'm a woman, not a man. So technically I'm Mrs.Slave.

SoniaPoulton will surprise you all. I know of a couple of people 'doorstepped' that will take you aback.

Sonia IS putting up.

I put my head above the parapet because of the injustices witnessed for 8 years and because of MS.Leyland.

Mock away but I put my Tuppence worth to camera.Sometimes you just have to despite the mockery.

And BTW I questioned every journo at LCC and I REPEAT NOT ONE HAD BOTHERED TO READ THE FILES. NOT ONE.
Why would they lie to my face about that when it made THEM look idiotic? IN PUBLIC. (I'm not quiet)

It's 'cut & paste all the way for today's journo.

Be seeing you.

Well I`ll take your word for it The Slave and look forward to it`s release in USA first (wise move). Let`s hope Sonia heralds it`s release in USA and informs Pat and Nancy Grace etc .

by jeanmonroe 20.04.15 16:13

Apologies for that, Mrs Slave.

However, if, as you say, NO msm, 'have read the files', perhaps you'll put forward a 'theory/thesis' as to WHY they have NOT.

The BBC HAVE 'quoted', verbatim, from the 'files' on their Panorama programmes. (AND on Crimewatch programmes)

Where did they get their 'information' from, if NOT from the 'files'?

by The Slave 20.04.15 16:23

To clarify. None of the journos covering the inquest of Brenda Leyland had BOTHERED to read the files. Yet they think it's OK to comment about a woman that HAD.
Panorama is a flagship prog. It has researchers.
Now Midlands Today has it's own journos. NONE of them had read them.
Ditto ITV news.
Ditto The other guys & gals writing about a deceased woman that day .No Facts.
Just bullshit.

Not every mainstream journo was outside Leicester Coroner's court.
But there were at least ten scribblers and six camera teams.
And Not one of them could be arsed to aquaint themselves of a single FACT whilst cooking up their report on 'The Troll'.
It made me furious. It made me want to weep.

by Carrry On Doctor 20.04.15 18:50

Lee Taylor Ryan has apparently said he has nothing to do with this documentary.....

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

I don't do twitter so I cant look in any more detail.

Has Tracey Kandohla been spun another yarn ?

by plebgate 20.04.15 18:55

In view of what the Slave has posted then I will wait and see about SP. )

Is it possible for The Slave to tell us when she thinks it will be released?

Fed up waiting for SP to say so maybe someone else can.

Get on with it SP, can't see what the hold up is if she knows that it is going to be released in USA first. A "deal" must have been made as it was said it will - (not may be) released there.

Is it Oprah? oooooooohhhhhhhhhh

by aiyoyo 20.04.15 19:06

Carrry On Doctor wrote:I agree....TM's havent been prosecuted for child neglect because they weren't guilty of it.

IMO

Don't understand why UK Police can't charge them for children neglect since they admitted to it on National TV. IF it was any other parents committing the neglect they would have been charged from day one, severely punished and the twins taken away from them or at least subject to SS supervision.

They'd the nerve to say they'd been advised by a legal expert that it falls within boundary of "reasonable" or was it "responsible" parenting ! Of course they didn't name the idiot who said that. Evasive or bare face lie, take your pick. I know which I picked.

by The Slave 20.04.15 22:46

plebgate wrote:In view of what the Slave has posted then I will wait and see about SP. )

Is it possible for The Slave to tell us when she thinks it will be released?

Fed up waiting for SP to say so maybe someone else can.

Get on with it SP, can't see what the hold up is if she knows that it is going to be released in USA first. A "deal" must have been made as it was said it will - (not may be) released there.

Is it Oprah? oooooooohhhhhhhhhh

The film is waiting on The judgement in Lisbon. The icing on all our cakes we hope. Amaral's vindication.
It is in 'post production'.
We have all waited 8 long frustrating years.Have a little more patience.
From what I know ( not much) it will be interesting.

Latest topics