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

by snook 10.09.15 21:09

It is not abuse. Poulton has teased and hinted for 12 months, now silence. What's with the 'tick tock'? Is that a hint or threat that anyone who dares question the great documentary maker will become a target for her well documented trolling?

I notice when anyone responds to your defence of her with a valid question you fail to reply. Perhaps if Poulton hadn't made so many assertions that she has failed to follow through, no one would have grounds for criticism?

by The Slave 10.09.15 22:58

It's absolutely not a 'threat'. Why would you think it was? I'm on the same side as you. I'm here only for Madeleine McCann, Goncalo Amaral & his family and Brenda Leyland.
I was actually at the inquest. Because Brenda could have been any one of us. I am still furious about what happened.
Absolutely livid.
Not one of you knows what is happening 'backstage' or the toll it's taken.

I am merely standing up for a fellow human being .

by aiyoyo 10.09.15 23:10

With due respect, so poster claimed s/he knows stuff but won't and can't divulge, and then in the same breathe begrudges others par for course criticism - what was that about?

I know some others also claiming to be in the know, and no surprise there, they also said they cannot divulge. Are you lot in the same select committee/group of people receiving classified information from source through private communications? Are you lot Special Members of Sonia's Secret Club, privy to info, but told not to divulge? What is this? Is she playing MI5 all of a sudden? Very odd coming after her thorough teaser fanfare!
Are you people claiming to be in know certain you are not being led down the pixie fairy garden path?

And I thought all this tantalizing to whet people's appetite about the most important documentary on this case that's going to hold shocking revelations that will explode on a high richter scale that will send shock waves reverberating down the years is something she can't wait to get aired to demonstrate her journalistic prowess?
Why the sudden teaser news blackout?

Is there any reason why she can't say something about the no show of the over- promoted documentary? Even if obstacles prevent it, why not just say so? She sure wasn't holding her tongue when she gave liberal running commentaries in the making of it, why the sudden reticent? People don't expect running commentaries, but timely essential bits on useful to know basis would suffice to help her retain her credibility given the ruckus she created.

What's she and her select special members waiting for before they can divulge why the no show of the documentary? For the Vatican to send the Pope to the moon first? Or for the fall of the McCanns' dynasty and machinery?

by aiyoyo 10.09.15 23:27

The Slave wrote:It's absolutely not a 'threat'. Why would you think it was? I'm on the same side as you. I'm here only for Madeleine McCann, Goncalo Amaral & his family and Brenda Leyland.
I was actually at the inquest. Because Brenda could have been any one of us. I am still furious about what happened.
Absolutely livid.
Not one of you knows what is happening 'backstage' or the toll it's taken.

I am merely standing up for a fellow human being .

So you know, but can't say......hmmm.......

The "TOLL" it has taken? On who? Sonia?

by The Slave 10.09.15 23:30

Does Jenny Kleeman get this level of scrutiny? No.
WHY? Could it be because a certain member here is in communication with her?
I think we should be told.

For the very last time.... Please stop abusing someone who is trying to do the right thing by a dead child.
There is footage. There are lawyers, there are some very interesting people involved in making this.
I'm in the documentary and if anyone wantsto check my previous tweets, posts on forums I have always been 'The Slave' on every single forum since the Daily Mirror /3As days.

Madeleine McCann , may she one day Rest in Peace.

by The Slave 10.09.15 23:32

aiyoyo wrote:
The Slave wrote:It's absolutely not a 'threat'. Why would you think it was? I'm on the same side as you. I'm here only for Madeleine McCann, Goncalo Amaral & his family and Brenda Leyland.
I was actually at the inquest. Because Brenda could have been any one of us. I am still furious about what happened.
Absolutely livid.
Not one of you knows what is happening 'backstage' or the toll it's taken.

I am merely standing up for a fellow human being .

So you know, but can't say......hmmm.......

The "TOLL" it has taken? On who? Sonia?

Like you would even care

by aiyoyo 11.09.15 0:43

The Slave wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
The Slave wrote:It's absolutely not a 'threat'. Why would you think it was? I'm on the same side as you. I'm here only for Madeleine McCann, Goncalo Amaral & his family and Brenda Leyland.
I was actually at the inquest. Because Brenda could have been any one of us. I am still furious about what happened.
Absolutely livid.
Not one of you knows what is happening 'backstage' or the toll it's taken.

I am merely standing up for a fellow human being .

So you know, but can't say......hmmm.......

The "TOLL" it has taken? On who? Sonia?

Like you would even care

It's not constructive to come on to claim you know but can't divulge...and insinuate with your tick tock...then insult people's intelligent? What is your point?

If that has taken a toll on Sonia, why can't it be said? It's quite expected really given its the McCanns she's trying to take on !

by joyce1938 11.09.15 0:52

I truly hope the video does come out whenever, make people realize there is no time limit on some things, and we won't be given a commentary if things have not gone to plan for Sonia. If we never get it, well it seems most don't believe it will be worth much, so we have nothing to loose, and maybe a gain, you never can tell. joyce1938

by Guest 11.09.15 0:55

Posters - please remain civil and stay on topic.

by The Slave 11.09.15 0:55

My point is that there are several threads and 202 plus posts about a woman who is trying to do a job.
She gets more vitriol than Dodgy Dr.Payne.
Or indeed almost anyone else.

You are no better than the trolls who reduced Amaral and Sofia to shadows of their former selves.
I hope you all have the grace to apologise ..one day. When she finally gets it past the lawyers.

I stuck my head over the parapet during the Brenda outrage. I only got one hundredth of the spite and venom that's hurled at Sonia. And I felt bad enough.
Armchair critics .
You'd think the people who think the Sun shines out of Mr.Bennett's arse would understand the situation better. Didn't he get traduced left, right and centre for getting off his arse and actually doing something PHYSICAL.
Do you imagine a very complicated documentary with legal ramifications is EASY??? You are dreaming.

by The Slave 11.09.15 0:59

aiyoyo wrote:
The Slave wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
The Slave wrote:It's absolutely not a 'threat'. Why would you think it was? I'm on the same side as you. I'm here only for Madeleine McCann, Goncalo Amaral & his family and Brenda Leyland.
I was actually at the inquest. Because Brenda could have been any one of us. I am still furious about what happened.
Absolutely livid.
Not one of you knows what is happening 'backstage' or the toll it's taken.

I am merely standing up for a fellow human being .

So you know, but can't say......hmmm.......

The "TOLL" it has taken? On who? Sonia?

Like you would even care

It's not constructive to come on to claim you know but can't divulge...and insinuate with your tick tock...then insult people's intelligent? What is your point?

If that has taken a toll on Sonia, why can't it be said? It's quite expected really given its the McCanns she's trying to take on !

That would be 'Intelligence' not 'Intelligent'. And who's intelligence am I insulting? I don't even understand why you think I am doing such a thing.
Some things remain private however 'out there' you are. Some things are not for public consumption.
Have an ounce of sensitivity.

by aiyoyo 11.09.15 1:01

The Slave wrote:Does Jenny Kleeman get this level of scrutiny? No.
WHY? Could it be because a certain member here is in communication with her?
I think we should be told.

For the very last time.... Please stop abusing someone who is trying to do the right thing by a dead child.
There is footage. There are lawyers, there are some very interesting people involved in making this.
I'm in the documentary and if anyone wantsto check my previous tweets, posts on forums I have always been 'The Slave' on every single forum since the Daily Mirror /3As days.

Madeleine McCann , may she one day Rest in Peace.

Jenny Kleeman didn't get this level of scrutiny precisely because she did not invite it.

For heaven's sake, criticism of her antics is not equal to abuse. Stop being melodramatic and personal about it just because you were participative in the making of it.
It's the first time you are telling people you were participative in it.
Kudos to you, but interesting people involved in the making of it or not is beside the point. That does not give you automatic right to silent people here.

I don't doubt she went out to make a bona fide film but her antics is not endearing her nor is the sudden total silence coming on the back of her antics.

by aiyoyo 11.09.15 1:18

The Slave wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
The Slave wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
The Slave wrote:It's absolutely not a 'threat'. Why would you think it was? I'm on the same side as you. I'm here only for Madeleine McCann, Goncalo Amaral & his family and Brenda Leyland.
I was actually at the inquest. Because Brenda could have been any one of us. I am still furious about what happened.
Absolutely livid.
Not one of you knows what is happening 'backstage' or the toll it's taken.

I am merely standing up for a fellow human being .

So you know, but can't say......hmmm.......

The "TOLL" it has taken? On who? Sonia?

Like you would even care

It's not constructive to come on to claim you know but can't divulge...and insinuate with your tick tock...then insult people's intelligent? What is your point?

If that has taken a toll on Sonia, why can't it be said? It's quite expected really given its the McCanns she's trying to take on !
That would be 'Intelligence' not 'Intelligent'. And who's intelligence am I insulting? I don't even understand why you think I am doing such a thing.
Some things remain private however 'out there' you are. Some things are not for public consumption.
Have an ounce of sensitivity.

An ounce of sensitivity from her from the outset would have gone a long way towards her credibility.

Sorry, she put herself out there in such a manner it invites negative. She has only herself to blame.
Since is it highly sensitive (1) why did she not have the common sense to keep a lid on it until the time is right; and (2) since you know her, why did you not suggest to her to stop her silly teasers that serves no useful purpose, instead of coming on here belatedly to jump on people?

by snook 11.09.15 3:22

Poor Sonia. Yes we can all see the toll this mythical project has taken everytime she parks her backside on the Sky sofa she so detests.

As for the ' lawyers ', please don't insult our intelligence. No one commences a project to be aired on mainstream TV without having most of the legalities settled prior to filming commencing. Are we to believe a project that was alleged to be broadcast after the inquest has had its content increased so that it is now much more in depth? If it has then it must be a money no object extravaganza.

Perhaps if Ms truth & openness hadn't bragged so much she wouldn't be criticised for the no show.

As I say, when you put your head above the parapet making outrageous claims, expect to take fire when you don't show.

With regard to the inquest, I don't know why you seem so proud of the debacle it was turned into. It was your band, led by Poulton and her attack dog that harassed a young woman to the extent that court officials had to let her leave via a back door and I understand you were also warned by the court to keep quiet.
I know some people would love to prove murky dealing and great conspiracy in respect of Brenda's death. There wasn't. Yes, Sky probably played a hand by broadcasting rolling news and possibly the dossier was commissioned or at least handled by the Mccanns. She was treated appallingly but that is for her family to complain about if they feel aggrieved, not some shouty fringe individual who manages to make every project about herself.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who wonders why this famed documentary has been advertised as commissioned and independent, that talks were held in January then changed to a few months ago. And, the biggest clue that all is not what it seems, Ms Poulton's assertion that she cannot afford legal advice when in her favourite re as professional victim she screams foul. Yet now, again it seems expensive legal advice is no problem.

I hope you haven't been had but it certainly looks that way.

by Guest 11.09.15 7:35

The Slave wrote:So the hate fest continues.
Nobody on here knows what's occuring. But the hate oozes .
I know some stuff but I'm not divulging it on here. I'd get ripped to shreds.

Tick tock.....

Hate fest? Abuse? If you know stuff that you say you can't divulge on here, surely it's better to keep it to yourself otherwise you are only enticing more criticism and earning a reputation on a par with Ms Poulton. I read some while ago, someone who purports to have direct contact with Ms Poulton; this person claimed there was something in the air about to explode - I've yet to hear the bang.

My post was not generated by hate nor was it abusive. If you doubt me then check it out for yourself on YouTube, the independent journalist was speaking out against mainstream journalism whilst perched on the chair as the voice of Sky News - what does that tell you?

The reason Ms Poulton has been criticized so frequently has been explained over and over again but you still come back for more of the same. You are of course at liberty to support Ms Poulton despite her apparent lack of professionalism but please be reasonable and understand why she is the subject of criticism. Having said that, if you are in the know as regards this proposed documentary, is it possible for you to at least give some indication as to when it might be televised, or can you give Ms Poulton a dig in the ribs for a realistic update? If not I will of course understand that you are sworn to secrecy.

As an aside, if as you say you were in attendance at the inquest into Brenda Leyland's death, you must have witnessed first hand the appalling spectacle staged by Ms Poulton and her independent journalistic tactics - what did you think of that? Was she right or wrong to sabotage the official proceedings of a coroners court?

by Guest 11.09.15 7:39

snook wrote:Poor Sonia. Yes we can all see the toll this mythical project has taken everytime she parks her backside on the Sky sofa she so detests.

As for the ' lawyers ', please don't insult our intelligence. No one commences a project to be aired on mainstream TV without having most of the legalities settled prior to filming commencing. Are we to believe a project that was alleged to be broadcast after the inquest has had its content increased so that it is now much more in depth? If it has then it must be a money no object extravaganza.

Perhaps if Ms truth & openness hadn't bragged so much she wouldn't be criticised for the no show.

As I say, when you put your head above the parapet making outrageous claims, expect to take fire when you don't show.

With regard to the inquest, I don't know why you seem so proud of the debacle it was turned into. It was your band, led by Poulton and her attack dog that harassed a young woman to the extent that court officials had to let her leave via a back door and I understand you were also warned by the court to keep quiet.
I know some people would love to prove murky dealing and great conspiracy in respect of Brenda's death. There wasn't. Yes, Sky probably played a hand by broadcasting rolling news and possibly the dossier was commissioned or at least handled by the Mccanns. She was treated appallingly but that is for her family to complain about if they feel aggrieved, not some shouty fringe individual who manages to make every project about herself.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who wonders why this famed documentary has been advertised as commissioned and independent, that talks were held in January then changed to a few months ago. And, the biggest clue that all is not what it seems, Ms Poulton's assertion that she cannot afford legal advice when in her favourite re as professional victim she screams foul. Yet now, again it seems expensive legal advice is no problem.

I hope you haven't been had but it certainly looks that way.

snook, just read your excellent post - you beat me to it with so much more panache!

ETA: The rest of you guys also - I've just caught up!

by snook 11.09.15 8:38

I think you've summed that up nicely Verdi. I doubt very much though that anybody us will get a reply.

by aiyoyo 11.09.15 8:54

The Slave wrote:
Do you imagine a very complicated documentary with legal ramifications is EASY??? You are dreaming.

NOPE !
No one imagines that at all, least of all me.
Even a dipstick would know a documentary made for MSM channel must be of standards and be free of legal ramifications.

The only person who is dreaming and imagining a very complex documentary to do with the McCanns case with legal ramifications is EASY is perhaps SP herself. Else she would not find herself in a situation of still having to surmount legal obstacles; when that should have been obvious to her from the inception stage that her film will have no takers if it is not libel proof.

It must be exasperating to have gone through the laborious and painstaking efforts, the trials and tribulations only to realize it's not as EASY as SHE imagined. I certainly didn't rate it any good chance of getting legal clearance (unless nearly everything that is worthy has to be taken out ) nor of any MSM channel taking it on, given the history of the litigatious couple to sue.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 10:55

The Slave wrote:My point is that there are several threads and 202 plus posts about a woman who is trying to do a job. You are no better than the trolls who reduced Amaral and Sofia to shadows of their former selves.

@ The Slave

There is a simple reason why Sonia Poulton has had so much attention on the forum for the past few months – and from some of our most discerning posters on the forum.

Let us call a spade a spade.

It is because, so far as getting to the truth about Madeleine McCann is concerned, and for that matter exposing what the truth is in the media, she is nothing less than

AN IMPOSTOR.

She goes on Icke’s People’s TV and, on the Madeleine McCann case, gives us Stephen D Birch, Michael Shrimpton and she-who-must-not-be-mentioned. Three more impostors.

She promises to make a documentary. She doesn’t.

She claims says it will be a stunning expose of the facts. She claims says the mainstream media will broadcast it. One of her supporters claims it has been ‘commissioned’.

Those are her clams. None of them is true.

As for the mainstream media broadcasting a comprehensive documentary like Richard hall’s effort – did any one person on this forum ever believe that.

But what we can document is her regular appearances on the mainstream media.

She tweeted in April: “Good morning to you both. Am not on Twitter much as we're at end stages of filming. Will release update soon”. A few days later she tweeted: ‘Docu almost completed’.

That and all her other promises have been untrue.

But she has found time to knock the work of this forum which so many people read and find useful.

And she helped Murdoch’s Sun to produce a 2-page article which did our cause significant harm.

Those that have put in the time and effort to research, discuss and publicise this case – or those who simply have a strong interest and want the truth – have no time for impostors.

@ The Slave You have been well and truly taken for a ride. Poulton has taken us all for idiots.

You said: “I know some stuff but I'm not divulging it on here”. Not one of you knows what is happening 'backstage' or the toll it's taken.”

Well, I also know some stuff and I am divulging it here. Sonia Poulton may think she has a nice coterie of acolytes, but some of them are not the great fans of her that she thinks they are – and they talk!

So:

1. No-one ever commissioned anything.

2. Poulton has tried all over the place to get the documentary aired, but has no takers.

3. The ‘documentary’ has not yet been put together and may never be.

4. Alan Shearer-Taylor has put in hours and hours of work as her cameraman and Dave Eden hours and hours of work as her production assistant. They have not been paid for their extensive work.

5. There never was a ‘production company’ as she claimed (unless you count Dave Eden).

6. Poulton is not held up by the 'lawyers' and has not shown a script or her unfinished documentary to any lawyer.

7. The much-promised ‘something which will really shock you’ is merely that she has found out that both Michael Wright and Philomena McCann/Rickwood post under false names on the internet. Wow! There is no other shock.

8. The only ‘toll’ that’s been taken by anyone is by poor, unpaid, footslogging soldiers like Shearer-Taylor and Eden. As for Poulton, I never see any sign of any ‘toll’ on her face when she’s getting her fees from Rupert Murdoch while sitting regularly on the SKY sofa. Or other mainstream media sofas for that matter.

Fraud, con-artist, poseur, impostor – different words saying the same thing.

Face up, @ The Slave, you’ve been lied to repatedly by Poulton – and so have we all.

Every time you come on the forum, you attack it and its members, and this time in an especially nasty and hateful way. The Mods have been unusually kind to you and left all of your rubbish up.

You care about ‘getting the word out’?

Do something useful like promoting a really useful documentary.

Richard D. Hall’s

by aiyoyo 11.09.15 19:14

@TB,
Are you sure you had been given the facts right by her insiders?

Well,...according to this insider Slave 'who thinks the Sun shines out of Ms teaser's arse' ( oops not nice and unnecessary... I know... but couldn't resist borrowing a leaf off Slave .....also dish it take it principle) SP's work/script is with lawyers being vetted.

SP must have a very deep pocket since (claim of) lawyers vetting it has been in the process for quite a long while. I won't be one bit surprised if her insiders had been led by the nose and still don't realize it.

The other insider whose name-must not-be-mentioned claiming it was commissioned is bullock, we all deduced that. Any one with an ounce of intelligence would know no critical thinking person would commission a dead duck project to a dead duck journalist.

Objectively speaking, I find it distasteful when people drag TB into it unnecessarily whenever criticism of SP (or any one else for that matter) is made. Why the need to co-relate criticism of SP to that of blind support for TB when that is farthest from the true, and when one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other thing.
Support/criticism for/of TB is one thing;support/criticism for/of SP is another thing altogether. Each matter is independent of the other and mutually exclusive.
I just don't get it why some prefer to make those matters mutually inclusive and invariably drag TB into everything, using him as cheap shot to disparage those who dare disbelieved SP has anything to show for her brags.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 19:44

aiyoyo wrote:I just don't get it why some prefer to make those matters mutually inclusive and invariably drag TB into everything...

A brief response.

All of this really began the moment I dared to suggest, in late October 2013, just days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, that [1] the Smiths might have been fabricating their statements, that [2] DCI Andy Redwood had openly lied to 6.7 million viewers about (a) Crecheman and (b) the real origin of the two e-fits, and that [3] the McCanns had been actively making use of the Smithman sighting since early 2009.

The evening I posted those thoughts for the first time on CMOMM, there were SIX new joiners. Every single one of them joined only to post on the Smithman thread, and only to condemn my suggestions, and all six were outed as trolls soon afterwards.

There has been a co-ordinated campaign, albeit only marginally successful, against CMOMM and myself ever since.

by aiyoyo 11.09.15 21:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I just don't get it why some prefer to make those matters mutually inclusive and invariably drag TB into everything...
A brief response.

All of this really began the moment I dared to suggest, in late October 2013, just days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, that [1] the Smiths might have been fabricating their statements, that [2] DCI Andy Redwood had openly lied to 6.7 million viewers about (a) Crecheman and (b) the real origin of the two e-fits, and that [3] the McCanns had been actively making use of the Smithman sighting since early 2009.

The evening I posted those thoughts for the first time on CMOMM, there were SIX new joiners. Every single one of them joined only to post on the Smithman thread, and only to condemn my suggestions, and all six were outed as trolls soon afterwards.

There has been a co-ordinated campaign, albeit only marginally successful, against CMOMM and myself ever since.

I am aware why are you and this forum are constantly targeted.

But you've perhaps missed my point.
What I tried to say was Ms Poulton and you are two different entities.
Each individual's work is independent and separate from the other one.

I questioned why people that support Ms Poulton are unable to understand when people called a spade a spade, they are doing just that, no co-relation to you.
That criticism of SP can be distinctly on basis of her flaws/demerits, and does not equate to support of you or otherwise. It's as if they are saying that critiques of Ms Poulton must therefore be supporters of TB. What twisted logic is that?
That is what I find distasteful, insulting people as if people have no intelligence to call a spade a spade per se.

by notlongnow 11.09.15 21:26

It's a real shame if this all comes to nothing if that is the case.

What was the purpose of it all?

by Guest 12.09.15 0:31

notlongnow wrote:It's a real shame if this all comes to nothing if that is the case.

What was the purpose of it all?

Self-aggrandizing !!!

by aiyoyo 13.09.15 0:09

notlongnow wrote:It's a real shame if this all comes to nothing if that is the case.

What was the purpose of it all?

God knows ! SP, the only person who knows won't say.

Objectively speaking, I believe she embarks on it believing she can pull it off, but turns out not to be. Naive maybe.

Most people don't believe her documentary will make it to the TV screen anyway for obvious reason.

Sometimes the unexpected can happen - that project cannot materialize to expectation for a host of reasons beyond one's control. There is no shame in it if one's project has no takers and will never appear -- that can be the quirks of it when reality kicks in. People would understand that. If her film is never going to appear, people just would prefer her to tell the God's honest truth, but this is not going to be forthcoming from her by all appearances.

Counting her chickens before they're hatched....and this is the result.

by Guest 13.09.15 8:16

I'm not so sure about her initial intentions. Watching again the video launched in October 2014 announcing the intended documentary and then again the December 2014 update (filmed in what appears to be her home), I can't be convinced that the true theme was to be the 'Untold Story of Madeleine McCann'. Claims such as (my comments in brackets)..

The October 2014 video kicks off with a resume of her professional expertise, suggesting viewers google her name to verify her credentials.
[This is not supposed to be about you, it's about Madeleine McCann]

Brenda Leyland has been pursued to her death for speaking out about the McCanns.
[Very unwise statement to make. The verdict of the coroners court was death by suicide - it's not known why, only assumed]

Questioning the official version of events about the abduction of MM.
[It is not the official version of events, it's the McCanns version of events. The official version is the PJ files]

By making the video I may never be invited again to contribute to mainstream media but that is not enough to shut me up.
[So why has the documentary not materialized?]

The media is failing to represented what is being said online with regard to Madeleine McCann..
[The media has no obligation to report what is being said online]

I'm speaking today because my name, like Brenda, has been handed to Metropolitan police as part of the McCann dossier of people who are dissenting ..
[What relevance has that to the threatened documentary]

Trolls trolls and more trolls..
[Self explanatory]

The truth is ... left their toddlers to look after themselves..
[There is no evidence to confirm that statement]

Brenda Leylands tweet.. should she die in odd circumstances that people would question and not accept the first version of events... It's the same thing that Brenda and I have in common in terms of Madeleine McCann and Brenda Leyland.. people, the questions must be asked and we should not be censorship censored..
[See above]

I have been to many newspapers and presented a critical argument against the official version of events.. I've been told I'm not allowed to call the McCanns neglectful..
[Not sure what to make of that]

We will not be silenced..
[This is true - watch this space]

I've sent an invitation to the Metropolitan Police this morning that I'm more than happy to be interviewed about not believing the official version of events and also sent that open invitation to all newspaper editors and TV and radio editors..

[i][i]We are no longer prepared to be ignored or silenced or demonised just because we say that official version of events should be questioned..
[/i][Again, not sure what to make of such an extraordinary statement].

~~~~~~

I think that's enough to illustrate the true purpose of Poulton's threatened documentary - the Poulton ego and trolling. Her whole approach is totally unprofessional in my opinion, her wording is inappropriate and vague and her claims are not factual. If you want to be taken seriously as a bone fide professional journalist etc. you need to adopt a professional approach to your work, having watched some of her videos I don't think she makes the grade. To hijack someone at their home, place of work or on the street with a hairy burly cameraman and an over sized microphone stuffed in the face of the victim and screeching like a wailing banshee is not exactly the way to endear yourself to a prospective interviewee.

[/i]

by snook 13.09.15 11:05

Excellent analysis Verdi. ' My name has been handed to police in the dossier' ' I am like Brenda ' ok, I paraphrase but you get the the point. How does she know she's in the dossier and how can she compare herself to Brenda? Just exactly what has her input been prior to the announcement of her forthcoming extravaganza?

Me, me me with a liberal dose of me.

by snook 13.09.15 11:50

BTW, not seen a response from @slave? I ask because they are on twitter claiming to have been banned for defending someone. Apparently we are 'one giant ego fest' and 'a cesspit of abuse' !?

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.15 16:01

snook wrote:BTW, not seen a response from @slave? I ask because they are on twitter claiming to have been banned for defending someone. Apparently we are 'one giant ego fest' and 'a cesspit of abuse' !?

'The Slave' was rightly banned for her awful outbursts a couple of days ago for this stated reason: "Repeated abuse of the forum and its members".

She had been banned earlier this year but was allowed back on the understanding that her conduct would improve.

So she is simply lying on Twitter for claiming she was 'banned for defending someone'. Just like she-who-must-not-be-mentioned, who also circulated a false reason for being banned here.

lazzeri-lies-in-the-sun observed that particular episode very well and wrote a very good piece tearing her lies to shreds.

This was the kind of stuff that 'The Slave' dished out to fellow-members of CMOMM the other day:

"So the hate fest continues. Nobody on here knows what's occuring. But the hate oozes...there are several threads and 202 plus posts about a woman who is trying to do a job. She gets more vitriol than Dodgy Dr.Payne. Or indeed almost anyone else. You are no better than the trolls who reduced Amaral and Sofia to shadows of their former selves".

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hashtag on Twitter is by far the best place for her. That has become a true hatefest, with McCann-supporters and McCann-sceptics hating each other, and a lot of the McCann-sceptics hating each other as well. The kind of place also, since 'The Slave' mentioned her attendance at the Brenda Leyland inquest, where Isabelle McFadden stooped to becoming a pro-McCann 'sock' in order to abuse Brenda Leyland.

'The Slave' was I believe reprimanded at least once by HM Coroner for audible comments made from the gallery during the Brenda Leyland inquest, and has expressed approval of Sonia Poulton confronting and hectoring a McCann-supporter as she tried to leave the inquest, nearly poking a camera and a microphone into her face at the same time.

'The Slave' does not belong among the decent McCann-sceptics here.

ETA: To illustrate the point about the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hashtag, she-who-must-not-be-mentioned posted this image on Twitter on 30 August, under the headline in capital letters:

'CMOMM HATERS AND HOUNDERS':

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

The one and only good thing about this exceptionally nasty bit of hating is that 18 months ago, the tweets of she-who-must-not-be-mentioned used to attract dozens of re-tweets.

But this one has only had one re-tweet so far, in 15 days.

Maybe by 'The Slave'?

by Guest 13.09.15 17:13

Here we go again. Early on a Sunday morning new fuel is added to the fire.
Why? Can't we give it a rest? I thought the 'not mention... anymore'
applied to text and pics. But now a pic from the 'forbidden blog' is being posted.
I despair at times.
Please Jill, please mods. can you put an end to this?
I'm asking out of concern for this forum and what it stands for,

parapono