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

by Guest 07.06.15 20:14

Mark Willis wrote:Well said, Tony.
Takes me back to Day 1. The Mirror Forum. 3 Arguidos. Madeleine Foundation....
The days of you being the first to walk the walk. The days when we had bloggers who did their research like you have/do.
When we could trust those we figured were on the side of good, the desire to seek justice for Madeleine and illuminate whatever her parents may or may not have done.
Today it is/can be a farce.
Yet, there obtains a constant.
Yourself Tony, what I call "The Havern" (phonetically apt!), namely, this site and its members, its debates, its sincerity.
It really is the place to come to for the griff, same as the mccannfiles is to archives.

The Twitter mccann tag is a pathetic playground for all manner of idiots and nastiness.
I dip in only to see those rare snippets of up-to-the-minute links, be that actual news, to a sensible blog, an impartial news item on line, news from Lisbon/Portugal, Goncalo etc.
No point engaging with anyone on there, even the "good guys". The whole place is a joke.

So here is where I go. I don't comment much but read it all and have done since Adam was a lad.
Always a good barometer to how functional a site is when the criticism of said becomes rife.
The irony, such as that which emanates from the likes of Ms Hutton, is both staggering, sad and hilarious at the same time.

I've seen them all: from Morais to Spudgun, Serageant's Inn, Blacksmith, Lazzeri: from Steel Magnolia to Pat Brown, Hoffman.
These days we have/endure: Poulton to Kleeman, to Hutton and Birch. Who one chooses to engage with is up to you.

Some of the "early days ones" I once trusted have turned out to be straw men/women, some self serving but fortunately some bona fide.

Eight years. Don't expect any denouement soon. This is the latter-day Lord Lucan of cases.

Seconded! Or should that be thirdeded?

by jeanmonroe 08.06.15 0:54

WOW!

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

That's some 'thigh gap' SP 'has! high5

by Mark Willis 08.06.15 7:30

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Well said, Tony....
....soon. This is the latter-day Lord Lucan of cases.
Seconded! Or should that be thirdeded?

I like that! Thirdeded. clapping

Not sure if one could say tertiaryed but I'm up for thirdeded. big grin

by j.rob 08.06.15 13:22

The latterday Lord Lucan - how very apt. Just goes to show what you can get away with when you have friends in very high places.

by Guest 08.06.15 15:39

jeanmonroe wrote:WOW!

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

That's some 'thigh gap' SP 'has!

Is that what it is? There was I thinking it was a heavy duty industrial sludge gulper smilie

!

by sar 30.06.15 0:25

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it once again, Operation Grange, from the moment it was a twinkle in Rebekah Brooks' eye, to today, the date of the General Election, 2015, has only been about influencing public perception
The question is why is the Murdoch empire so engaged in this?

Two middle class doctors from Leicester?

It's got to be way bigger than that.

What a puzzle this is.

...so why would anyone press for a reopening if they knew the case was 'true'

by snook 30.06.15 8:53

It's called hiding in plain sight sar. The Mc's are obviously very confident of their position. I believe they publicly called for a British review (remember they wanted a review, not the Case reopened) because they are desperate for public vindication. Had they any interest in finding a live child they could have had Portugal re open the case at any time. They chose not to. BTW, our Sonj has gone very quiet. I wonder if she's busy trying to extricate herself from the hole she dug herself?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.06.15 9:21

sar wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it once again, Operation Grange, from the moment it was a twinkle in Rebekah Brooks' eye, to today, the date of the General Election, 2015, has only been about influencing public perception
The question is why is the Murdoch empire so engaged in this?

Two middle class doctors from Leicester?

It's got to be way bigger than that.

What a puzzle this is.
...so why would anyone press for a reopening if they knew the case was 'true'?

Because the eventual outcome was determined in advance by what I have called 'The Committee'.

The Committee appointed someone they thought would be a good actor - DCI Andy Redwood - in the starring role of influencing public perception, rather than a police officer noted for his fearless and impartial search for the truth. And they may have thought they have gone one better with attractive blond 'I dress to impress' DCI Nicola Wall.

It is all one expensive charade at the taxpayer's expense - and as far as I can tell very few on this forum are fooled by it any longer.

by Joss 30.06.15 14:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
sar wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it once again, Operation Grange, from the moment it was a twinkle in Rebekah Brooks' eye, to today, the date of the General Election, 2015, has only been about influencing public perception
The question is why is the Murdoch empire so engaged in this?

Two middle class doctors from Leicester?

It's got to be way bigger than that.

What a puzzle this is.
...so why would anyone press for a reopening if they knew the case was 'true'?
Because the eventual outcome was determined in advance by what I have called 'The Committee'.

The Committee appointed someone they thought would be a good actor - DCI Andy Redwood - in the starring role of influencing public perception, rather than a police officer noted for his fearless and impartial search for the truth. And they may have thought they have gone one better with attractive blond 'I dress to impress' DCI Nicola Wall.

It is all one expensive charade at the taxpayer's expense - and as far as I can tell very few on this forum are fooled by it any longer.

ITA, and think that is exactly what's going on.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.15 11:28

Laura Youngson wrote:Quote Textusa:

Please understand why death before the third exists.

It benefits only one person.

All others (guests, Ocean Club and nannies) are "thrown" from participants who were caught up in events and complied lie so as to "confirm" a scenario that was condemning to the T9 into being active participants who acted in a disgusting and sick play in roles they accepted for days to be a part of.

This quote from Textusa for me makes me agree that death occurred on 3rd May. Why would everyone involved lie if death occurred a few days before? I mean, just look at how many people would have to lie and agree to 'act in a disgusting and sick play......'

TB, is it possible that you have been thrown off the scent by believing death occurred earlier in the week because you are of the belief that pretty much everyone is lying.

She also says death before the 3rd benefits only one person - does she mean Gerry? Why not Kate as well?

@ Laura Youngson Welcome to the forum, a bit belatedly as I see you joined us over four months ago, back on 12 April, in fact just a few days after my response elsewhere on the forum to some of Textusa's comments.

In response to your post:

LY: This quote from Textusa for me makes me agree that death occurred on 3rd May. Why would everyone involved lie if death occurred a few days before? I mean, just look at how many people would have to lie and agree to 'act in a disgusting and sick play...'

REPLY: I have investigated in depth over the past 9 years two very suspicious deaths. Stuart Lubbock. And Lee Balkwell.

In the case of Stuart Lubbock, there were eight other people with Lubbock, at Michael Barrymore's Roydon mansion, the night he died. All eight lied comprehensively about what happened that night. I can demonstrate that four of those did so because to a greater or lesser degree they were actively involved in Stuart's death. Two others, both homoexual friends of Barrymore's, probably lied as a result of misplaced loyalty to Barrymore. Two others - young women picked up by the Barrymore group at Harlow's Millennium night-club - also lied comprehensively either out of sheer fear or because they were paid off, or a combination of both.

In the case of Lee Balkwell, the facts suggest that the occupants of two properties at Baldwins Farm, Upminster, Essex killed or seriously injured Lee Balkwell between 12 midnight and 1.03am on Friday 18 July 2002 and then placed his upper body into the inspection hatch of a concrete mixer drum. They then switched the drum on, either to mask existing injuries, or to kill him. ln fact, as both tachograph and CCTV evidence confirms, the drum was switched on TWICE, once at 12.59 am and again, four minutes later, at 1.03am. I suggest that those involved in this action - several individuals - comprehensively lied about what happened. I further suggest that for the past 12 years a large number of corrupt police officers have conspired to lie and cover up what really happened to Lee. Just as they have done for 28 years in the case of the cover-up of who killed Daniel Morgan.

Can large numbers of people lie comprehensively to cover up a murder, or a death for which they could be held responsible?

Of course.

LY: TB, is it possible that you have been thrown off the scent...

REPLY: Unlike Eddie & Keela...

LY: ...by believing death occurred earlier in the week because you are of the belief that pretty much everyone is lying.

REPLY: It is obvious that some of the witnesses were lying. As I have studied all the witness statements over the years, I have formed the view that there are very few witnesses of whom we can be sure that they were only trying to tell police the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

LY: She also says death before the 3rd benefits only one person - does she mean Gerry? Why not Kate as well?

REPLY: Textusa/Maria Santos often talks in riddles. And as we saw on the forum last month, she can also act deviously, trolling our forum by deliberately pretending to be 'Pedro Silva' from 'JustAThoughtYouKnow2'. It's no use asking me what she means. Ask her.

On the subject of when Madeleine really 'disappeared', I find that the analyses of HideHo and others on the many contradictions surrounding the story of the alleged 'high tea' with Madeleine at 5.30pm on 3 May, and the discussion on here by PeterMac, Blue Bag and others of the 'Last Photo' - and when it might have been taken, to be persuasive

by **Tony Bennett** 21.08.15 18:32

ANOTHER Sonia Poulton interview with the leading mainstream media - this time on ITV's 'This Morning' on Tuesday (18 August).

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

It seems that a half-hearted attempt is being made to let children know if they are watching X-rated sex and violence on the internet.

But only if the videos are made in the U.K. Oh well.

Poulton was wheeled on to give her two pennyworth, which seemed to be: "OK, I was part and parcel of the pop music industry for decades which helped to sexualise millions of children and glorified drugs and violence - but now I've changed my mind, and we must do something and stop this".

One new thing I learned about Poulton is that she was once 'Media Tutor to the Spice Girls'.

A sort of Clarence Mitchell, then?

It's approaching a year since we were promsied her Bremdonia Poluton, one-time 'Media Tutor' to the Spice Girls Leyland/Madeleine McCann documentary.

I hear that there is no final film yet and that there are no mainstream media takers.

What a surprise.

by snook 21.08.15 21:08

Tony, I think credit for naming the Spice Girls and being their media mentor is another one of her delusions and is hotly disputed by the editor of Top of the Pops magazine where the name first appeared. In fact so good at all things pop is she that a record label she started folded after 12 months.

Recently whilst reading something unrelated to McCann but about the alternative media, Ms Poulton's name came up often and I might add, from differing sources.

The consensus seems to be that she is a nasty troll who comments in various forums under various names to discredit victims of child abuse. One of these pseudonyms is Jane Russell.

Whilst making an attack as Jane she forgot her identity and wrote as Sonia. During her rant about what a fab journo she is she also let slip that she was busy with two documentaries and a book.

Overall the opinion is that she is an agent of the MSM but pretends otherwise to keep a foot in both camps, feeding dirt to media corporations.

I know many of the alternative media lot are always at each others throat but she in particular is not trusted by many.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.08.15 22:05

snook wrote:Overall the opinion is that she is an agent of the MSM but pretends otherwise to keep a foot in both camps, feeding dirt to media corporations.

That's exactly why I started this thread some 50 pages ago.

How can someone appear so regularly on the mainstream media, yet not be working for them?

How could she now produce an earth-shattering Madeleine documentary that would basically show the mainstream media to have covered up a terrible lie for the past eight years?

I have previously warned that by purporting to make a 'no-holds-barred' documentary on Madeleine McCann, she has talked to an awful lot of McCann-sceptics - who knows how much of what she has learned might be used against them one day?

Surely we should all take heed from that utterly awful 2-page spread in the Sun about the 'nasty anti-McCann bitch who gets a buzz out of attacking others' - Rosalinda Hutton. That was personally arranged from start to finish by Sonia Poulton - for the Sun and its owner, Rupert Murdoch.

by Liz Eagles 22.08.15 17:01

Poulton isn't going to produce anything other than trolls, being a troll and being trolled. Sitting on a sofa (her latest) and being paid to speak to Eamonn Holmes, the man who anchored the media attack on Brenda Leyland is...well...make up your own mind.

I watched the latest sofa interview with Sonia Poulton speaking of some sort of social duty to oppose something or other and how it's vital to send a message to someone or other.

I watched the link from a post by Bampots on MMM. If someone can post it here that would be good.

by Guest 22.08.15 17:13

Aquila,TB posted it upthread yesterday.

by Liz Eagles 22.08.15 17:22

Ladyinred wrote:Aquila,TB posted it upthread yesterday.

thank you, I missed that.

by comperedna 23.08.15 13:32

What Gilliam McKeith was to sound dietetic advice, Sonia Poulton is to investigative journalism and film making. IMHO.

by Liz Eagles 23.08.15 14:10

comperedna wrote:What Gilliam McKeith was to sound dietetic advice, Sonia Poulton is to investigative journalism and film making. IMHO.

The last tweet Sonia Poulton made was on 2nd August - not even a tweet to announce her sofa interview with Eamonn Holmes. Not a single tweet after her appearance either. Not a single 'mwah'. There seems to be no contact with Sonia and her followers. Now this is Sonia Poulton who is an avid tweeter/twitterer and uses Twitter to 'campaign'. Not a single tweet, not even a re-tweet. This is Sonia Poulton who was so outraged at what happened to Brenda Leyland she turned up at the Coroner's Court with a film crew and bullied a woman into leaving the building via the back door. When Tony Bennett was in court the media didn't do that to him.

3 weeks of no tweeting on her own twitter account, a McCann hashtag which is now filled with pornographic content and spamming, yet not a word from Sonia to say how dreadful this is.

Ms Hutton has changed tack and is now 'writing for pleasure' without the usual need to stick in a couple of personal blogs and then a Tony Bennett hate blog. Ms Hutton is showing exceptional restraint for someone dedicated to trashing Tony Bennett and CMoMM.

What about the promises of some announcement of a documentary?

I can't be bothered to look up how many weeks ago Poulton wrote that.

Editing to Add:

Please ignore the remark about Ms Hutton's remarkable restraint. There is another hate blog today.

by aiyoyo 23.08.15 14:11

Tony Bennett wrote:@ Tony Bennett
I hear that there is no final film yet and that there are no mainstream media takers.

What a surprise.

I'm not one bit surprised. Quite expected really.

She did a very good job of destroying her own credibility. All her tantalizing teasers and promises of snippets turned out to be nothing more than just bravados. She is all hat and no cattle; and also made a fool of herself bickering with CM on twitter and belittling her disbelievers using social media. Bragging to people - just you wait and see what I can do, and then zilch, zero, nothing. Her behavior is classic sign of a grandoise delusionist then a professional journalist that she claimed to be.

I suspect the claim that it was commissioned is probably a lie. Fabricated to big up the project as well as to afford it credence to people, which otherwise is not a given, and also to fool her gullible blogger buddy into doing her biddings.

Is it credible that anybody with vested interest in the Mccann case would commission a project without having a firm or tentative deal secured with a MSM channel already on the table? Unless the entity commissioning it is a dumbo, easily fooled by SP promises, it makes no sense that anybody would want to commission (as in fund or back a project) to a sub class relatively obscure journalist who has no good track record on anything, let alone track record of 'documentary' making for MSM standards; and no deal with the MSM already secured ahead of the filming. Only an idiot would commission a project with a very real prospect of it being left on the shelf.

I rather tend to the belief SP was pulling the wool over people eyes than believe there is a dimwit commissioner.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.08.15 14:31

aquila wrote:Ms Hutton has changed tack and is now 'writing for pleasure' without the usual need to stick in a couple of personal blogs and then a Tony Bennett hate blog. Ms Hutton is showing exceptional restraint for someone dedicated to trashing Tony Bennett and CMoMM.

Er...o no she hasn't changed tack.

Her deep need to attack this ever-popular forum and myself remains entrenched - and this was published today under the title: 'Discussing the McCanns':

[EXTRACT]

Tony Bennett became the unacceptable face of those who did not believe the McCanns. Taking on the case as investigator, prosecutor, Judge and Jury, he confirmed time and time again, that even the most reasonable of people who dared to question the abduction story were cut from the same hardfaced vigilante cloth as himself and thus we were all treated by the media with the same disdain and contempt. Most of us had nothing to do with his 'Madeleine Foundation' (a way to steer donations to himself?), or his hounding of the McCann family and their associates but we were all tarred with the same despicable brush.

For the McCanns, Bennett was the gift that kept on giving, he gave them headlines during the quiet periods, provided evidence of harassment in their damages claim against Goncalo Amaral and invoked public sympathy for their cause. Who could fail to feel sorry for them, Bennett's stalking knows no bounds.

However, the majority of McCann sceptics are nothing like Bennett. They were drawn to the case through their sympathy for the little girl who's life was taken and who's image has been abused for this past 8 years...

So, most McCann-sceptics good; Tony Bennett bad - and the 'gift that kept on giving' to the McCanns.

She may have forgotten by now about the disastrous 2-page spread in Murdoch's Sun earlier this year in which she boasted of being 'a nasty anti-McCann bitch who gets a buzz out of squishing and attacking McCann supporters'.

At least one kind soul has responded with a defence of me - it wasn't me, honest!

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

One of your very best, Christobel...a superb over-view...with the exception of the slagging off...again...of Tony Bennett. He may be irritatingly OTT with his huge lists of important points, and he cannot always see that other people legitimately think differently, but he is doggedly trying to be 'Mr Relentless for Truth' in finding out what really happened...whether to Stuart Lubbock, Lee Balkwell, or Madeleine...and he has suffered for it.

candyfloss's forum helpfully has a prominent 'Sticky' page which enthusiastically directs members and guests over there straight to Hutton's blog posts, where they can carry on reading a seemingly continuous stream of anti-CMOMM and anti-Tony Bennett posts.

Oh well...
never mind

by Liz Eagles 23.08.15 14:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
aquila wrote:Ms Hutton has changed tack and is now 'writing for pleasure' without the usual need to stick in a couple of personal blogs and then a Tony Bennett hate blog. Ms Hutton is showing exceptional restraint for someone dedicated to trashing Tony Bennett and CMoMM.
Er...o no she hasn't changed tack.

Her deep need to attack this ever-popular forum and myself remains entrenched - and this was published today under the title: 'Discussing the McCanns':

[EXTRACT]

Tony Bennett became the unacceptable face of those who did not believe the McCanns. Taking on the case as investigator, prosecutor, Judge and Jury, he confirmed time and time again, that even the most reasonable of people who dared to question the abduction story were cut from the same hardfaced vigilante cloth as himself and thus we were all treated by the media with the same disdain and contempt. Most of us had nothing to do with his 'Madeleine Foundation' (a way to steer donations to himself?), or his hounding of the McCann family and their associates but we were all tarred with the same despicable brush.

For the McCanns, Bennett was the gift that kept on giving, he gave them headlines during the quiet periods, provided evidence of harassment in their damages claim against Goncalo Amaral and invoked public sympathy for their cause. Who could fail to feel sorry for them, Bennett's stalking knows no bounds.

However, the majority of McCann sceptics are nothing like Bennett. They were drawn to the case through their sympathy for the little girl who's life was taken and who's image has been abused for this past 8 years...

So, most McCann-sceptics good; Tony Bennett bad - and the 'gift that kept on giving' to the McCanns.

She may have forgotten by now about the disastrous 2-page spread in Murdoch's Sun earlier this year in which she boasted of being 'a nasty anti-McCann bitch who gets a buzz out of squishing and attacking McCann supporters'.

At least one kind soul has responded with a defence of me - it wasn't me, honest!

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

One of your very best, Christobel...a superb over-view...with the exception of the slagging off...again...of Tony Bennett. He may be irritatingly OTT with his huge lists of important points, and he cannot always see that other people legitimately think differently, but he is doggedly trying to be 'Mr Relentless for Truth' in finding out what really happened...whether to Stuart Lubbock, Lee Balkwell, or Madeleine...and he has suffered for it.

candyfloss's forum helpfully has a prominent 'Sticky' page which enthusiastically directs members and guests over there straight to Hutton's blog posts, where they can carry on reading a seemingly continuous stream of anti-CMOMM and anti-Tony Bennett posts.

Oh well...

Tony, I edited my post as I just saw the latest nasty blog from Hutton.

by Guest 23.08.15 23:07

aquila wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
aquila wrote:Ms Hutton has changed tack and is now 'writing for pleasure' without the usual need to stick in a couple of personal blogs and then a Tony Bennett hate blog. Ms Hutton is showing exceptional restraint for someone dedicated to trashing Tony Bennett and CMoMM.
Er...o no she hasn't changed tack.

Her deep need to attack this ever-popular forum and myself remains entrenched - and this was published today under the title: 'Discussing the McCanns':

[EXTRACT]

Tony Bennett became the unacceptable face of those who did not believe the McCanns. Taking on the case as investigator, prosecutor, Judge and Jury, he confirmed time and time again, that even the most reasonable of people who dared to question the abduction story were cut from the same hardfaced vigilante cloth as himself and thus we were all treated by the media with the same disdain and contempt. Most of us had nothing to do with his 'Madeleine Foundation' (a way to steer donations to himself?), or his hounding of the McCann family and their associates but we were all tarred with the same despicable brush.

For the McCanns, Bennett was the gift that kept on giving, he gave them headlines during the quiet periods, provided evidence of harassment in their damages claim against Goncalo Amaral and invoked public sympathy for their cause. Who could fail to feel sorry for them, Bennett's stalking knows no bounds.

However, the majority of McCann sceptics are nothing like Bennett. They were drawn to the case through their sympathy for the little girl who's life was taken and who's image has been abused for this past 8 years...

So, most McCann-sceptics good; Tony Bennett bad - and the 'gift that kept on giving' to the McCanns.

She may have forgotten by now about the disastrous 2-page spread in Murdoch's Sun earlier this year in which she boasted of being 'a nasty anti-McCann bitch who gets a buzz out of squishing and attacking McCann supporters'.

At least one kind soul has responded with a defence of me - it wasn't me, honest!

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

One of your very best, Christobel...a superb over-view...with the exception of the slagging off...again...of Tony Bennett. He may be irritatingly OTT with his huge lists of important points, and he cannot always see that other people legitimately think differently, but he is doggedly trying to be 'Mr Relentless for Truth' in finding out what really happened...whether to Stuart Lubbock, Lee Balkwell, or Madeleine...and he has suffered for it.

candyfloss's forum helpfully has a prominent 'Sticky' page which enthusiastically directs members and guests over there straight to Hutton's blog posts, where they can carry on reading a seemingly continuous stream of anti-CMOMM and anti-Tony Bennett posts.

Oh well...
Tony, I edited my post as I just saw the latest nasty blog from Hutton.

Just had a look at that. To whom it may concern, please note it was not this Verdi that she claims to have censured on her latest blog for calling her Mutton. A figment of her rampant imagination or someone taking my name in vain - either way it aint me!

40+ years studying psychology is clearly an epic failure! Back to school for you girlfriend nod

by snook 23.08.15 23:35

If you listen to her message she promoting media censorship, now in light of her ( blah, blah boring) treatment at the keyboards of others. Once again she tried to make it all about her.
The filth that passes as entertainment in music these days does indeed need to be kept from children but seeing as they are the very market it is aimed at, good luck.
How ironic that someone who tried to base a career on one of the most violent & misogynistic genres now wants censorship.

I think her latest foray onto the sofa shows us exactly what her game is. Surely she despises censorship of any kind?
Nothing says trailblazing truther like outraged middle aged mom on GMTV.

by snook 23.08.15 23:37

Hutton is convinced you, Verdi and Tony are one and the same.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.08.15 23:49

snook wrote:Hutton is convinced you, Verdi and Tony are one and the same.

At least SEVEN other members of candyfloss's forum believe the same! (or so they say)

It's a form of 'Groupthink'.

THREE of those members over there think I am 'BlueBag' as well.

And at least NINE of them there think l am actively working for the McCanns and am being paid by them (or that is what they say they believe), moreover some of those nine say that I am lying about having to pay Carter Ruck tens of thousands of pounds in court costs.

More 'Groupthink', I fear.

Speaking of Hutton, here's a nice pic of her, a friend (on her right) and her son (on her left):

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

by **Jill Havern** 23.08.15 23:51

Tony Bennett wrote:
snook wrote:Hutton is convinced you, Verdi and Tony are one and the same.
At least SEVEN other members of candyfloss's forum believe the same! (or so they say)

It's a form of 'Groupthink'.

THREE of those members over there think I am 'BlueBag' as well.

And at least NINE of them there think l am actively working for the McCanns and am being paid by them (or that is what they say they believe), moreover some of those nine say that I am lying about having to pay Carter Ruck tens of thousands of pounds in court costs.

More 'Groupthink', I fear.

Speaking of Hutton, here's a nice pic of her, a friend (on her right) and her son (on her left):

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

On the Wright show? titter

by **Jill Havern** 23.08.15 23:53

snook wrote:Hutton is convinced you, Verdi and Tony are one and the same.

Nope. I'm Tony.

by Liz Eagles 23.08.15 23:53

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
snook wrote:Hutton is convinced you, Verdi and Tony are one and the same.

Nope. I'm Tony.

I beg to differ, I'm Tony.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.08.15 23:58

aquila wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
snook wrote:Hutton is convinced you, Verdi and Tony are one and the same.

Nope. I'm Tony.
I beg to differ, I'm Tony.

Cue: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 49 seconds onwards

by Liz Eagles 24.08.15 0:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
aquila wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
snook wrote:Hutton is convinced you, Verdi and Tony are one and the same.

Nope. I'm Tony.
I beg to differ, I'm Tony.

Cue: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 49 seconds onwards