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

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.

 The interesting part for myself is that it is going to be released in the US first.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong- but if the rest of the worlds media pick up on it and only repeat what
is alleged in the US documentary word by word then it cannot be libelous in the UK if it's repeated verbatim?

If true - this release could be smart move.

It begs the question why after eight years no one in America, or anywhere else has tried to find the truth XTC.

XTC wrote:

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.

 The interesting part for myself is that it is going to be released in the US first.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong- but if the rest of the worlds media pick up on it and only repeat what
is alleged in the US documentary word by word then it cannot be libelous in the UK if it's repeated verbatim?

If true - this release could be smart move.

If any part of the documentary is libelous then it is not factual or if it is advertised as opinion only, then it's not libelous and still not necessarily factual !?!

I have grave reservations about this.  Why the need to wait for the conclusion of the Lisbon courts?  The court action against Goncalo Amaral has no reflection on the guilt or innocence of the McCanns.  If they lose this court action then it will put them in a poor light in the eyes of the world because it shows them to be heartless and mercenary but otherwise IMO it has no relevance to any ongoing investigation. 

What does Sonia Poulton intend to do with this information to impact her proposed documentary?  Any one not already familiar with bits of this case that has been broadcast across the media for the last eight years to enhance the appeal of cornflakes, I should imagine has no interest in the case.

The Slave @ 11:46 pm says:

"From what I know ( not much) it will be interesting."

No disrespect but if you don't know much how can you favourably promote the documentary?  I'm sure you meant well by putting yourself forward for interview and hope I for your sake it doesn't backfire.  Journalists are not the most honorable or truthful amongst men and should be handled with extreme caution.  They don't give a damn who they ruin just as long as they get their scoop.

HelenMeg wrote:

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.

I too believe they were left alone. I think that is when, what I believe is an accident, happened. That would make their neglect a negligent homicide. That is the reason why they put so much emphasis on "she has not come to any harm". and of course the abduction.

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?

The interest in the US is about zero now, at least that is my impression when I read a rare piece about it, and when I talk about it. There are so many heartwrenching cases here. On the other side the channels are always looking for some story, so I have no doubt this will find a spot somewhere. I'll try to watch it. I know how to save it to a tivo box. Can anyone tell me how to convert it from there to a / several you tube videos?

XTC wrote:

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.

 The interesting part for myself is that it is going to be released in the US first.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong- but if the rest of the worlds media pick up on it and only repeat what
is alleged in the US documentary word by word then it cannot be libelous in the UK if it's repeated verbatim?

If true - this release could be smart move.

If she "hangs" her documentary up on the verdict in the Dr. Amaral case it might help to give his opinion a wider audience. All that in the case the verdict is in his favor. 
I am very curious now.

Please if anyone knows of a date it will be shown, publish it here?

Does anyone that is aware of SP's track record previously really believe this is going to be any, to quote Nancy Grace "Bombshell" information? I don't think Pat Brown will touch it either, as Amazon removed her book at request by the McCann's, on the Madeleine McCann mystery, and from what i read on her last blog about it she is done with the case.
But not to be a Debbie downer will wait and see what she has produced, and then have a better opinion on it all.

I don't 'get' the negativity regarding this.
Is Rich Hall's work on MSM?
No.
Do we know about it? Yes we do.

Now why would SP's documentary be any different?

Because of her 'reputation'? Well there are certain people on this forum who also have 'reputations'. 

I think ANYTHING that drives home the FACT that the McCanns have NOT been 'cleared' etc would be welcome.
Shall we all just keep typing away ? 
And hope for the best?
Or get PROACTIVE?

The Slave wrote:I don't 'get' the negativity regarding this.
Is Rich Hall's work on MSM?
No.
Do we know about it? Yes we do.

Now why would SP's documentary be any different?

Because of her 'reputation'? Well there are certain people on this forum who also have 'reputations'. 

I think ANYTHING that drives home the FACT that the McCanns have NOT been 'cleared' etc would be welcome.
Shall we all just keep typing away ? 
And hope for the best?
Or get PROACTIVE?

Do you know if SP's doco. is going to be about the McC's not being cleared in the disappearance of their daughter?
And also if i might ask, in what way would you suggest we become proactive?

PeterMac wrote:

The Slave wrote:I don't 'get' the negativity regarding this.
Is Rich Hall's work on MSM?       No.
Do we know about it?    Yes we do.

And half a million people or so have ploughed through it.
If SP's is shorter and tighter and edited down to make salient points just ONCE, she might double that number of hits

That aside, what could Sonia Poulton possibly have to offer that hasn't already been covered?  I hear murmurings of doorstepping and previously unheard of interviews but who would be prepared to speak out to Poulton rather than the police if they have anything worthwhile to contribute?

As regards doorstepping persons directly or indirectly involved with Madeleine McCann's disappearance, I know for sure if it were me I would tell her where to stick her nose along with her camera.

Joss wrote:

The Slave wrote:I don't 'get' the negativity regarding this.
Is Rich Hall's work on MSM?
No.
Do we know about it? Yes we do.

Now why would SP's documentary be any different?

Because of her 'reputation'? Well there are certain people on this forum who also have 'reputations'. 

I think ANYTHING that drives home the FACT that the McCanns have NOT been 'cleared' etc would be welcome.
Shall we all just keep typing away ? 
And hope for the best?
Or get PROACTIVE?

Do you know if SP's doco. is going to be about the McC's not being cleared in the disappearance of their daughter?
And also if i might ask, in what way would you suggest we become proactive?

What is the point of harping on about the McCanns not being cleared anyway?  Anybody that has shown any interest in the case already knows that and anybody that hasn't shown any interest in the case probably doesn't care one way or the other.

Proactive, a word much over used by Gerry McCann, or misused I should say.  Voicing ones opinion before the world only to give Sonia Poulton a platform to big herself up (how common) is not something on my bucket list and never will be.  I will be content to reserve my energies for a more worthwhile cause, whatever that may be.

Verdi wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

The Slave wrote:I don't 'get' the negativity regarding this.
Is Rich Hall's work on MSM?       No.
Do we know about it?    Yes we do.

And half a million people or so have ploughed through it.
If SP's is shorter and tighter and edited down to make salient points just ONCE, she might double that number of hits

That aside, what could Sonia Poulton possibly have to offer that hasn't already been covered?  I hear murmurings of doorstepping and previously unheard of interviews but who would be prepared to speak out to Poulton rather than the police if they have anything worthwhile to contribute?

As regards doorstepping persons directly or indirectly involved with Madeleine McCann's disappearance, I know for sure if it were me I would tell her where to stick her nose along with her camera.

This production is about trolls. It can't be about anything else imo. It began with SP's TPV entrance into Icke telly (and swift exit under an argumentative You Tube cloud) giving a platform to...Michael Shrimpton, Stephen Birch and Rosalinda Hutton. All three interviews were disastrous. Rosalinda Hutton spoke about being trolled and promoted her book

Remember that on this forum Rosalinda Hutton declared that she was appearing on TPV and Martin Grimes might be appearing, which, when challenged repeatedly turned into it was a PM on Twitter.

Rosalinda Hutton was then interviewed by the nice man from The Sun who placed her firmly in the troll category. RH was used for the second time but she seems to have faith in SP for some reason which I don't understand.

Sonia Poulton, who takes the Murdoch shilling more often nowadays is still promoting Rosalinda Hutton in her yet to be released documentary - see the photograph of the two of them.

Yet there is still no documentary, just an empty promise of a great reveal that is still in the making and we are informed by someone on the forum will not be released until after the Lisbon trial decision has been published - that could be now or never.

There is the promise of something that may or may not happen at an undetermined time.

Even Santa has a deadline.

I don't think I've ever seen anything by SP so my opinions are naturally guided by what's posted on here. I do try to be optimistic though!

However, if all three of her Icke interviews were indeed 'disastrous'... then maybe she's just not really cut out to be a reporter/'media character'?  Brunt makes a good living from it but simply now 'repeats' instead of 'reports' and seems to follow the 'kerching'...so why should we be surprised if SP is any different?

Not knowing her previous output maybe she set out to champion injustices...but the (conscious or subconscious) motivation might now be the buzz of seeing herself on the silver screen and being talked about?  It can happen to the best of us, I'm sure.  One only has to watch a bit of reality TV to see how 'motivated' and obsessed people are to be seen, and talked about, simply for appearing on that rectangular screen of moving images that we seem to stare at.  Being a 'celeb' (no matter how minor) is quite enough to corrupt lots of people and get them to sell their soul to the highest bidder?

Reading the thread comments I'm not expecting anything too great... and a small part of me is even a little bit concerned as to the true agenda!  However, my recollection of some of the comments prior to Richard D Hall's production were that some were rather negative. I didn't expect too much, (my having been a quite passionate online "UFO skeptic" over the years), but I was very impressed and I find myself directing people to it at any opportunity, (no matter how irrelevant it may be to whatever we're chatting about!!). Indeed, I think everyone agrees it is a very worthwhile piece of work.  So...as I said at the beginning... I do try to be optimistic about SP's work.  Maybe Richard D Hall's "Buried By Mainstream Media" has raised the bar to such an extent amongst independently minded journalists that SP's work will, after all, be worth watching!

n.b.   When I put my tin-foil hat on I like to fantasize that now that Rebecca Brooks has sailed over the pond to the USA... and since she is quite mercenary and now no longer a part of Cameron's "Chipping Norton" set... and since she pushed for Grange... and since Murdoch is miffed at what happened with Leveson... and since SP is releasing it in the USA.... that part of me hopes it's all connected and that Sky are gearing up (or at least putting the frighteners on the UK Establishment) to change tack in order to coin it in with "They did it" scoops round about the time Snr. Amaral is victorious and as No 10 changes hands!!!! (... though I must admit I do need *LOTS* of tin foil, and a very darkened room, and maybe a couple of glasses of wine, to join up all those particular dots!!!).

Knitted wrote:I don't think I've ever seen anything by SP so my opinions are naturally guided by what's posted on here. I do try to be optimistic though!

You've never seen anything by Sonia Poulton and you're guided by what's posted on here?

Isn't that stretching things a bit too far? You've been on this forum for quite some time in various names. I can't believe you claim to have not seen the TPV stuff or the threads from last year.

aquila today @ 8:21 pm

Excellent post! 

I'm not aware of Hutton's imaginary rendezvous with Martin Grimes, although the claim doesn't surprise me in the least.  Not much to choose between her and Poulton, perhaps that's their connection, certainly both attention seekers.

I can't understand why SP has so much faith in RH, unless she setting her up although I can't see how that might be.  If, as you suggest possible, the documentary is about trolls then I'm not remotely interested, even if it turns out that RH is the target (said with tongue in cheek!).

aquila, just allow us others to think for ourselves please.
There are more than enough capable mods to sort things out, if necessary.
That's what they're for.
Knitted is a member here, just like you and me.
You're just muddying the waters. Not helping one bit.
All in my opinion and with due respect.
parapono

parapono wrote:aquila, just allow us others to think for ourselves please.
There are more than enough capable mods to sort things out, if necessary.
That's what they're for.
Knitted is a member here, just like you and me.
You're just muddying the waters. Not helping one bit.
All in my opinion and with due respect.
parapono

I stand corrected by you parapono.

Knitted today @ 10:30 pm

All you need do is google Sonia Poulton YouTube and it will lead you to what she calls her 'YouTube Channel', easy as ABC and a lot less time consuming than it took you to type your post. 

I recommend her response to being kicked-off the Peoples Voice and any with the name Rosalinda Hutton attached.  If you enjoy reality TV which is less convincing than Wallace and Gromits cursed were-rabbit, you could also take a quick look at her performance outside David Cameron's House on New Years Eve...  eat your heart out Anneka Rice you've got some serious competition there.

PeterMac wrote:

The Slave wrote:I don't 'get' the negativity regarding this.
Is Rich Hall's work on MSM?       No.
Do we know about it?    Yes we do.

And half a million people or so have ploughed through it.
If SP's is shorter and tighter and edited down to make salient points just ONCE, she might double that number of hits

PeterMac

Richard D Hall I rate as a very good analyst of evidence.

Not so convinced of David Icke though-  Lizards apart ( see the TV series  'V' - or ' They Live! ' an excellent film by the way) David Icke makes some very interesting general points despite the oprobrium from the media in general.

Yet re: the lack of interest in the US,  we really should all have learnt the lesson of PR  in the modern era and the fact that any subsiding story can be revived at the drop of a hat. Particularly if the wearer of the hat is very influential and powerful.

It is in the current times not difficult to revive old stories from the murder of JFK to the alleged suspicious death ( and suruptitious replacement ) of George the tortoise from Blue Peter as an offering to the recent crop of alleged journalists. They will go with anything in my opinion.

I don't know Sonia Poulton but if she does succeed in her alleged aim of offering a different narrative to the Madeleine saga via the US media then all power to her elbow.

If she doesn't then no harm done as like all anti theses vis: Madeleine it probably will be the editors ( with the owner looking over their shoulder) that will spike any critical analysis. It has been in the past and it might be in the future. Nothing new there I feel.

But if she succeeds then fine.

It's worth a try.

Mr Amaral didn't just try he wrote a book  and he has paid an enormous price so far.

Hopefully he will get some recompense ( appeals aside ) and I wish him luck.

I wish Sonia Poulton luck too but she needs to realise that like an interveiwee your words can be manipulated by dealing with forces which are more powerful than yourself and their is always a price to pay.

Mr Amaral is paying his.

The question for Sonia is whether she thinks the price is worth it?

All opinion of course.

aquila wrote:

Knitted wrote:I don't think I've ever seen anything by SP so my opinions are naturally guided by what's posted on here. I do try to be optimistic though!

You've never seen anything by Sonia Poulton and you're guided by what's posted on here?

Isn't that stretching things a bit too far? You've been on this forum for quite some time in various names. I can't believe you claim to have not seen the TPV stuff or the threads from last year.

Sorry.. I honestly don't think I've ever seen anything by SP.  I not sure why that's so hard to believe?  Since I don't think I've ever seen anything by SP what's odd about my forming opinions drawn by what I read here? Please tell me why it's any different to anything else in life? I've never driven a Volvo but my thoughts are swayed by what people have told me ('built like a tank, reliable'), I've never shopped in Harrods but my thoughts are swayed by what I've heard ('just a big department store, nothing special'). I recall months ago saying we should give SP the benefit of the doubt until we see her output... but, it's yet to appear and, since I am only Human, I'm now being swayed by what I read here. It's (surely?) simply Human to form opinions on what we're told or read. Where it matters and where my decisions count I do, fastidiously, try to draw upon evidence and facts...but until the doc comes out it's all rather academic, isn't it?.  Hence I am quite happy to 'go with the flow'. Once I see it, I will of course. develop an informed view!

Anyway... I never watched anything on TPV. I don't rate Icke at all. I purchased his 'Guide to Global Conspiracy Theory' book and struggled to read anymore of the "pseudo psycho babble supernatural nonsense" beyond the first page... I ploughed on but his leaps of logic and lack of rationality I couldn't stomach. It was a shame as many of his facts were valid, many of the dots being joined were undoubtedly correct... but the 'spiritual woo' ruined it all for me.  Anyway, I watched just a couple of bits of TPV's posted on YouTube. I wasn't impressed. I did try to watch it once more but they were streaming it as a 'live' channel, (again, I think, on YouTube?). As I do not have a TV licence it is against the law to watch any live broadcast and I rigorously avoid the risk of the powers that be ever being able to track that I watched a live stream. 

Finally, just to clarify (since I get the impression you are insinuating something?):  I have only ever been on here with one other name, that was "Sonmi-451". I've been open about it. Indeed, I never foresaw anyone would have the remotest issue with it, (very few people use their real, full, name here... Is TB the only one? So I genuinely struggle to see why it bugs you so much?... Oh well, each to their own :D).   Anyway, since I feel I must defend myself, I'd never posted with both ID's at the same time. I didn't visit this site for a while last year, but then started reading as a guest and simply rejoined with the name/email I was using elsewhere rather than go back to using an email I no longer accessed.  I didn't think it was any concern to anyone, but then Admin created a new thread saying that having two IDs was against house rules. As soon as I saw it I contacted them and said I had an old ID as well as my current one. As I've said to you (twice now, I recall) I change my emails and log in IDs regularly. It's simply a habit. Indeed, I probably find it just as unfathomable that people don't change them often and/or have multiple online IDs, as you find it odd that some do. 

Verdi wrote:Knitted today @ 10:30 pm

All you need do is google Sonia Poulton YouTube and it will lead you to what she calls her 'YouTube Channel', easy as ABC and a lot less time consuming than it took you to type your post. 

I know I can Google her...and I now realise just how silly I must look for not bothering to look her up myself! 

I'm not much of a 'people' person. I can watch a film, love it, be engrossed in it, but ask me who was in it and I'll glaze over with blank eyes! I spend most of every day online, but I'm one of those people driven by content not by the names of people involved.  So I wasn't interested in 'her', just the awaited output.  Consequently the thought hadn't even crossed my mind to look up anything she'd done previously.  Anyway, since I'm beavering away burning the midnight oil in my workshop, and I'll look even more of an idiot if I don't now look her up, I shall pop it on and see her for myself! Thank you!

UPDATE: 1 hr (& several clips) later!!
Interesting! I can see why it's not cut and dried. My thoughts:
- I don't think she's professional.  I see many amateur vloggers 'holding it together' and 'maintaining focus' better than she did. I'm basing that, for example, on the Cameron visit, the Danny Alexander questioning and her initial response to Icke. She was entirely forgettable.
- I don't think she always knows her subject matter, but regurgitates soundbytes in the way that politicians do. I'm basing that on, for example, where she is called in as a 'speaker' on a subject.
- I only found the one clip of her and Rosalind Hutton and I'm not sure what the point of it was, albeit it was only one and a half minutes long so I may be missing something.  Maybe the incisive questioning was edited out from the bit I viewed... because the short clip showed SP to be very passive when RH wasn't answering the question.
- She doesn't come across well. In some clips she has a rising cadence at the end of her sentence that I personally find difficult to listen to. I once listened to a radio (Radio 4?) discussion about the 'invasion' of that form of speech and I recall one linguist saying that in England (as opposed to the US) it tends to show the speaker is unsure or skeptical of what they are talking about... particularly if the speaker is not a youth, (where the trend is becoming prevalent).

So...I don't rate her as a journalist. A talking head on a TV sofa prepared to get up at the crack of dawn maybe, but I am surprised people call her a journalist based upon what I've seen. 

However... She does seem passionate about injustice and I have full respect that she's 'out there' broaching 'anti-Establishment' topics.

So what do I think?  After having now watched her in action I think she'll try and do an honest job and her heart will likely be in the right place.  But I don't think she's cut out to be a journalist and therefore isn't up to doing a quality, insightful, value-adding, program.  I do, as in all things, look forward to having my expectations exceeded... and so the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

@Aquila... I now realise I would have seen SP in the same video as when Bill Maloney confronted Nick Clegg, (& then when she chases Danny Alexander). I had no idea it was her and didn't realise she was a professional journalist, (there was no indication in her actions to suggest she was), so if we'd shaken hands on a bet that I'd never seen her I would now be reaching for my wallet and paying up! However, I would argue you'll only have won the bet on a technicality as I didn't know it was her!

Watched SP interview Hutton and Birch on TPV.
Both pathetic - random rambling - nothing achieved except to perhaps confirm what a self-absorbed entity RH is and what a clown Birch is.
Seen SP on SKY and she rose without a trace.
We saw what SP did to RH in The Sun which for some peculiar reason RH is still proud of.

SP's forthcoming documentary is as elusive as Lord Lucan but not as interesting.
This "reveal" doc has been put back more than a library book.

I have as much confidence in her as I do Birch and I think betwee him, SP and RH they could replace Wilson Keppel and Betty as a much more credible vocation.

Mark Willis wrote:Watched SP interview Hutton and Birch on TPV.
Both pathetic - random rambling - nothing achieved except to perhaps confirm what a self-absorbed entity RH is and what a clown Birch is.
Seen SP on SKY and she rose without a trace.
We saw what SP did to RH in The Sun which for some peculiar reason RH is still proud of.

SP's forthcoming documentary is as elusive as Lord Lucan but not as interesting.
This "reveal" doc has been put back more than a library book.

I have as much confidence in her as I do Birch and I think betwee him, SP and RH they could replace Wilson Keppel and Betty as a much more credible vocation.

Ha! Ha! Ha!  Can't argue with that.

The Slave wrote:I don't 'get' the negativity regarding this.
Is Rich Hall's work on MSM?
No.
Do we know about it? Yes we do.

Now why would SP's documentary be any different?

Because of her 'reputation'? 

Well..... there is that. 
Then there is the drama fanfare that isn't helping to boost confidence in the professionalism department, which is critical if she wants to be taken professionally.  She's leaving too many ammunitions for her adversaries.

Can only go one way (south) I fear, if only because of who and what she is up against.
The heavier the substance in her film, the harder they will make a meal of it.  
They have got to - turn the table and fight back - that's the inevitable way it will go I'm afraid.  Can you see them taking it lying down ? 
 
In fact they'd already started ....the smearing ....in the Daily Star using their favourite rent-a-gob journalist.

BTW, kudos to you for speaking up.  
You should be safe from final edit as I cant see SP cutting off her own nose to spite her face.  Be prepared for the inevitable vitriol from their blind followers.

Anyone who has followed this case knows that there is zero chance of her doc being aired in the UK on MSM or in the papers (who easily fooled RH which makes me suspicious of ostensible intent re SP as she knows better than that)

Mark Willis wrote:Anyone who has followed this case knows that there is zero chance of her doc being aired in the UK on MSM or in the papers (who easily fooled RH which makes me suspicious of ostensible intent re SP as she knows better than that)

The final nail in the coffin for me was the latest fad for H-RH, the subject of politics.  She was becoming quite fervent about a certain source of highly prized fish eggs, standing as candidate for the SNP in the forthcoming general election.  In her words  "You go girlfriend".

Oh dear dear, cringe cringe and cringe again and have another bonus cringe!

Verdi wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:Anyone who has followed this case knows that there is zero chance of her doc being aired in the UK on MSM or in the papers (who easily fooled RH which makes me suspicious of ostensible intent re SP as she knows better than that)

The final nail in the coffin for me was the latest fad for H-RH, the subject of politics.  She was becoming quite fervent about a certain source of highly prized fish eggs, standing as candidate for the SNP in the forthcoming general election.  In her words  "You go girlfriend".

Oh dear dear, cringe cringe and cringe again and have another bonus cringe!

Feel (sort of) assured that I was/am cringing here, too.
If you stripped the Mc case of those whose egos are the schtick then I'm sure none of us would lose any sleep over it.
When will the general public catch on to the fact that all MSM is an illusion; a pantomime they invent daily with goodies and baddies, all playing their parts.
It's why I dwell here and there on the Net where genuine people reside.
By now the planet should know the score. That TEAM McCann are as untouchable as Blair (Chilcot anyone?).
That inquiry, like the Westminster peadophile one will forever be pushed further into oblivion as will the Mc one by those who have more power than the millions on line who have this case (mostly) sussed.

We must persist in the perhaps vain hope that the sheer wealth of opinion on the Net will just have to be addressed by the ill-fated MSM, inexorably doomed to be superceded by the Internet. But that is still a long way off and I hope in my remaining lifetime that TV/Press, like the radio, will be demoted down the prime source of news list, when the Net is the "box in the corner" in everyone's living room. Maybe, with everyone having that facility on their mobile phones, that will tilt the process of the necessary change to how news, real unadulterated news, reaches the ears of the people, instead of the propaganda merciless oligarchs who control our/filter anything detrimental to themselves.

That day will come. Not soon enough for me.

ha ha ha  at H-RH comment.   "You go girlfriend" - in Sisterhood mode again then.   awwwww bless.