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

by MRNOODLES 15.09.15 13:30

IMO SP is just a chancer, a wannabe shock jock. She latches onto controversial subjects, shoots from the hip without thinking of the consequences. But really she laps up the flack at the trouble she stirs up, Similar to the other, unamed one.

I sort of came to that conclusion, when she latched onto the white poppy brigade. And spouted about that on twatter, then blubbed at the hassle she got from that.

I look at it like this, if some of her least favourite MPs made empty promises about certain things, like she has about her docu. She'd be first in the queue to point out what's wrong.

by Guest 15.09.15 23:02

MRNOODLES wrote:IMO SP is just a chancer, a wannabe shock jock. She latches onto controversial subjects, shoots from the hip without thinking of the consequences. But really she laps up the flack at the trouble she stirs up, Similar to the other, unamed one.

I sort of came to that conclusion, when she latched onto the white poppy brigade. And spouted about that on twatter, then blubbed at the hassle she got from that.

I look at it like this, if some of her least favourite MPs made empty promises about certain things, like she has about her docu. She'd be first in the queue to point out what's wrong.

Couldn't agree more, I think she revels in creating a stir - confirmed by the apparent hilarity every time she speaks out about being trolled/threatened or whatever else she likes to call it.

I see Fido the faithful has retweeted her latest missive. I reckon it's a PACT!

by **Tony Bennett** 18.09.15 10:38

Verdi wrote:
Couldn't agree more, I think she revels in creating a stir - confirmed by the apparent hilarity every time she speaks out about being trolled/threatened or whatever else she likes to call it.

I'm bringing to the attention of forum members this tweet yesterday:

Karl Krezelewsk ‏@ KRotcepsni
Having read about the recent arrest of one of Sonia Poulton's friends/fan, & if only 1% of it is true then some Antis are in trouble [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Now, it seems that the individual concerned is one Royden James Jones, commonly known on the internet as 'The Outlaw', or just as 'Jimmy Jones'. And he has indeed been arrested for making 'malicious' [which usually means libelous] communications over the internet or on e-mails.

In some way that I don't fully understand, he and Sonia Poulton - and some other people who claim to have been the victims of child sexual abuse, some from the Bryn Eston children's home in North Wales where a paedophile ring abused boys - have been regularly with collaborating with or slagging each other off on the net for years. Others associated are Darren Laverty, who claims to have been a victim of child sexual abuse ay Bryn Eston, Steve Messham, who 'outed' Lord McAlpine but then hastily withdrew his purported identification, and a child sexual abuse victim whom Sonia Poulton befriended but later tore apart in an article about her in one of the tabloids.

The entire group seems to include a great many dysfunctional, angry people who start accusing each other of all manner of things, and then back down and make new alliances, that sort of thing. Quite what Sonia Poulton's connections are with this group I am not sure, but that she is, or has been, connected with them over a substantial period of time is not in doubt.

It's not possible to trust what any one of them say about each other, but for anyone interested, these three links are a way into this nest of angry trollers. There are comments about Poulton which may or may not be true:

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

I can't say that I take seriously Karl Krezelewsk's warnings that 'anti-McCanns' may be 'in trouble'.

However, I have warned members here before of the possibility that Sonia Poulton may be assisting one of the mainstream media to prepare a documentary about trolling - and that that might feature one or more 'anti-McCann trolls'

by Guest 18.09.15 12:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Couldn't agree more, I think she revels in creating a stir - confirmed by the apparent hilarity every time she speaks out about being trolled/threatened or whatever else she likes to call it.

I'm bringing to the attention of forum members this tweet yesterday:

Karl Krezelewsk ‏@ KRotcepsni
Having read about the recent arrest of one of Sonia Poulton's friends/fan, & if only 1% of it is true then some Antis are in trouble [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Now, it seems that the individual concerned is one Royden James Jones, commonly known on the internet as 'The Outlaw', or just as 'Jimmy Jones'. And he has indeed been arrested for making 'malicious' [which usually means libelous] communications over the internet or on e-mails.

In some way that I don't fully understand, he and Sonia Poulton - and some other people who claim to have been the victims of child sexual abuse, some from the Bryn Eston children's home in North Wales where a paedophile ring abused boys - have been regularly with collaborating with or slagging each other off on the net for years. Others associated are Darren Laverty, who claims to have been a victim of child sexual abuse ay Bryn Eston, Steve Messham, who 'outed' Lord McAlpine but then hastily withdrew his purported identification, and a child sexual abuse victim whom Sonia Poulton befriended but later tore apart in an article about her in one of the tabloids.

The entire group seems to include a great many dysfunctional, angry people who start accusing each other of all manner of things, and then back down and make new alliances, that sort of thing. Quite what Sonia Poulton's connections are with this group I am not sure, but that she is, or has been, connected with them over a substantial period of time is not in doubt.

It's not possible to trust what any one of them say about each other, but for anyone interested, these three links are a way into this nest of angry trollers. There are comments about Poulton which may or may not be true:

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

I can't say that I take seriously Karl Krezelewsk's warnings that 'anti-McCanns' may be 'in trouble'.

However, I have warned members here before of the possibility that Sonia Poulton may be assisting one of the mainstream media to prepare a documentary about trolling - and that that might feature one or more 'anti-McCann trolls'

Hmmm!

by Guest 22.09.15 12:31

I note the December 2014 Christmas special Poulton update YouTube video has been removed from the public eye - private only it appears. However the original October 2014 oyez oyez moment remains in situ.

I did uncover this little exposé, courtesy of Sky News..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] @2:40

Classic case of takes one to know one?

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.15 12:59

Verdi wrote:I note the December 2014 Christmas special Poulton update YouTube video has been removed from the public eye - private only it appears.

Goodness, yes, you are right @ Verdi - Sonia has withdrawn it.

There's only one possible reason - embarrassment at all the unfulfilled promises she made in that vid.

Meanwhile, I have found that tweet where she promised McCann-sceptic volunteers that they would be able to talk the4 media about their 'take' on the Madeleine McCann case. She can't erase that one. Here it is:

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton · 33m 33 minutes ago
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] am looking for a passionate [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] anti, prepared to be identified for a newspaper feature. Chance to put case forward.

As we all now know, this was a very deliberate lie she told. I remember folk saying on Twitter things like 'Great! A breakthrough into the mainstream media at last!' etc.

Yet within 24 hours she had chosen she-who-must-not-be-named, knowing in advance that the Sun was preparing a bitter attack on internet trolls, and specifically wanted a nasty anti-McCann troll as part of their 2-page spread. And this in the aftermath of Brenda Leyland being hounded to death by one of Rupert Murdoch's other media, SKY News.

Still, despite withdrawing her 'Christmas Promise' video, and deceiving McCann-doubters in her tweet, above, there are still supporters elsewhere who will continue to cheer her on, expecting that 'breakthrough' documentary anytime soon...

by Guest 22.09.15 20:20

@Tony Bennett wrote: There's only one possible reason - embarrassment at all the unfulfilled promises she made in that vid.

Amen to that - I can think of no other reason.

I'm pleased you located the dreaded tweet inviting McCann sceptics to ~~put their neck on the block~~ volunteer their services to put the record straight in the media. Remembered it so clearly, I'm blowed if I could find it but them I'm not twitter savvy!

From the bits I plucked and posted up thread, the video was rather boastful - although somewhat contradictory. For example..

.. it's an evidence based documentary and it's err what we did at this end, we sought to .. seek interviews from essential characters .. of .. the Madeleine McCann disappearance and err.. I have to say that's not exactly been forthcoming but that hasn't stopped me because I believe there are some people who are very much involved with .. err .. the whole scenario have questions to answer and who have not been asked those questions so I doorstepped them, I doorstepped four of the main characters thus far to who were there erm.. when Madeleine McCann was said to have disappeared in Portugal..

Has she successfully interviewed key players or hasn't she - to be or not to be, that is the question.

by Guest 22.09.15 23:16

Posting this latest l-azzeri blog here - reason will become apparent when read..

Madeleine - Untold Stories

So many claim they know so much in the case of this missing child and when asked how they know, what they know, their claim is followed up by a further claim - that they will damage an ongoing investigation if they were to make known their claims.

We've had Andy Redwood a former DCI with the Metropolitan Police claim the McCanns and their buddies are not suspects in the case of their daughter Madeleine who mysteriously vanished when in the care of this group of adults.

I say in the care of the group, as the group have made claims and statements also.

Their claim is that THEY ALL were checking on the McCann kids, therefore they are all to a degree responsible for whatever happened to her.

They also ALL claim NOT to have been checking on each others kids, ONLY ON THE McCANN KIDS!

Further, they ALL claim too that none of them were checking at all on ANYONE's kids but their own.

And we have Matthew Oldfield claiming he was the only one (with exception of Kate and Gerry McCann) to check on the McCann kids ON THE NIGHT they reported Madeleine as missing.

Matthew Oldfield had never met the McCann kids before that vacation, seeing Madeleine only once when a tiny baby. Why would he be checking on them?

Jane Tanner, well she claimed she listened at the shutters of the McCann bedroom window, but NOT on the night Madeleine vanished.

And her husband claimed he entered the McCann apartment through an unlocked patio door and checked on the McCann kids, but NOT on the night they reported Madeleine as missing.

And then we have Gerry McCann, he claimed his buddy David Payne checked on his kids, the McCann kids on the Wednesday night, and he thinks Payne told him all was okay. McCann said he himself never checked on the kids of the others.

McCann and Payne are therefore at odds with each other's statements. Both are lying of course!

McCann also said that on the night O'Brien claimed to have gone into the McCann apartment, that NO ONE but he and Kate McCann entered that apartment. McCann said the apartment was locked securely, both front door and back patio door.

If so, O'Brien could not have waltzed through the apartment entering by an unlocked patio door.

McCann is therefore calling O'Brien a liar and vice versa.

And good old Matthew Oldfield (who checked twice on the McCann kids, so he claims, on the night Madeleine vanished, and one of these checks he claims, he took upon himself to carry out, without informing the McCanns of his intention to do so) well he was sick on one of the evenings and didn't go out to the bar with the others. and would you believe on that night RUSSELL O'BRIEN told police that he had taken the key to the Oldfield apartment to go and check on the Oldfield child.

Oldfield was IN his apartment. No need for O'Brien to go and check on the Oldfield child she was being looked after by her father.

What a fine mess this lot have gotten themselves into.

But tragically for Madeleine a mess involving her disappearance.

Payne? Well Payne said he NEVER checked on anyone's kids, not even his own. He and his wife Fiona Payne had a child monitor with them which they used when out of an evening so that they didn't have to leave the bar where they were at, to go check.

And then we have the story by David Payne where he said that BEFORE the group were set to go out for the evening that he went to visit Kate McCann at her apartment while Gerry McCann was playing tennis.

As is par for the course, the stories told by Kate McCann and David Payne, and indeed Gerry McCann on this count, do not tie up.

No surprise there!

Dianne Webster the mother of Fiona Payne's said no one was checking on each others kids, only their own.

Kate McCann said no one was checking on each others kids, and that she and Gerry McCann didn't check on anyone else's kids.

And Kate and Gerry McCann, to date they have NOT stated which NIGHT it was that they changed their checking routine, that is, they claimed they always entered the apartment by the front locked door, and this they changed, stating that at some point during the holiday, they changed this routine, from entering by the front locked door to using an unlocked patio door.

They have as is usual for them been evasive as to which night they changed to this routine, and evasive also as to a reason for doing so.

Other than McCann in his little documentary saying, that he changed from using front door to using back patio door because of the 'noise' that he didn't want to wake his kids.

(to make such a statement would imply that his kids had been awake at some point, when left alone in the apartment, while he and Kate McCann were out enjoying themselves. It implies that a specific noise related to the front door when he or she accessed, had caused the kids to wake, and that he did not want a repeat of this, so had changed routine)

No explanation what noise he was referring to.
No mention of which night he made this change.

And no explanation as to which kid this noise had woken, or if it was one, two, or all three of his kids who had been disturbed by this 'noise.'

No mention of how he comforted them to get them back to sleep, and how long this took.

(And bear in mind, his FIRST statement to police, he said on the night Madeleine vanished both he and his wife Kate McCann used the front door and used their key to unlock it to gain access. Nothing mentioned at that time by Gerry McCann about having changed their routine. SEVEN DAYS after this statement, he came up with the story of the unlocked back patio door)

We also have the statement by Gerry McCann, that when HE did his check, saw the bedroom door more widely open, that he thought Madeleine had gotten out of bed. He thought she had been wakened by the noise from the twin kids - (presumably their crying)

Now these statements quite clearly cannot all be true. But these are the claims made by the parents and their buddies.

And there are many more such claims by the group, which quite obviously are not true.

Essentially a bunch of lies, by a bunch of liars!

Which brings me back to the claims made by the former DCI Redwood, who once led the Met investigation, Operation Grange re missing Madeleine.

Anyone reading the above, and learning that the parents and their buddies lied, misled the police in Portugal, and the UK police also, by not being truthful in their claims and statements, must be astounded, not only that they would lie in the case of a missing child, but more astounded that the former DCI would make such a claim - that these people were not only, not suspects in the case of this missing little girl, but they were of no interest to the investigation.

Of course some have said, that he could not have acted otherwise, as if he was investigating them, not declaring them innocents, would alert them to this.

This is an investigation that followed the initial investigation in Portugal, it commenced, what 3/4 years after Madeleine vanished?

Unlike the initial investigation when all was fresh, when these people were still making statements, where they could be caught out, the Met were handed on a plate 30,000 records, many containing hundred of pages (said DCI Redwood) from the Portuguese. So a huge investigation by the Portuguese Police. All that the group had said was already documented. He Redwood/Met had also, the statements the group gave to the Leicestershire Police, which as we can see above, is a mountain of lies, and counter lies by these people. And quite obviously so.

These people KNOW what they have done, KNOW they have not been truthful with police authorities.

Four years down the line when the Met began their review and then investigation, there was no need to make such a statement to the effect that these people were not suspects.

They, the Met claimed they would not be making a running commentary on the case. All good and well. So why the need to make any claim at all regarding the innocence/guilt of these people.

Why not simply stay schtum on this?

So, no I do not hold with this - 'oh the Met had to say the group were innocent so as to not alert them to any investigation.'

Of course there are cases where a police authority has said when pressed, that a suspect was not a suspect in a bid to put the press or suspect off the scent.

But really, in the McCann case, a case they began investigating 4 years down the line after the child had disappeared!

DCI Redwood made many claims during his time on Operation Grange. None of which have led to discovering what became of Madeleine.

DCI Redwood also led the public up the garden path with his Crimewatch production. A production where he re-hashed the McCann story, their timeline, to suit his own, and with no evidence whatsoever for having done so. A re-hash of their tales with one of his own.

His tale allowed Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield, Kate McCann, and Gerry McCann off the hook in the outrageous statements they gave as to their movements on that night.

The DCI's tale allowed the story by Gerry McCann, Matthew Oldfield and Kate McCann regarding their alleged checks INSIDE the apartment that night to go unchallenged.

The DCI's tale allowed for the story of that alleged open bedroom window to go unchallenged.

The DCI's tale allowed for the story the more open bedroom door to go unchallenged.

(the DCI said the alleged abductor struck just before 10 pm, so WHO opened that bedroom door as described by Gerry McCann, on his visit to the apartment at just after 9pm)

The DCI's tale allowed for the unlocked back patio door story to go unchallenged.

The DCI's tale allowed for the front door story (was it/wasn't it, un/locked) as Gerry McCann couldn't remember whether he had locked it or not. Well that is the tale McCann told in ONE of his versions.

The DCI's tale allowed for no challenge on Gerry McCanns CHANGE OF STORY. McCann first told police he entered by the front locked door using his key to gain access. SEVEN DAYS later he changed his story. Seems he forgot he had entered the apartment by an unlocked patio door for which he did not require a key to gain access.

Huge difference in Gerry McCanns claims here:.

In claim one - his front door version. He had to walk a distance past the unlocked back patio door, walk to the top of the street, a 'T' junction, take a left, walk a few yards, enter a car park, cross the car park, head towards a little opening which led on to a footpath, walk along this footpath passing the shuttered window of the bedroom where his kids slept, and just beyond was the front door. Had McCann taken this route he would have seen instantly if that shutter window was open.

McCann claimed too in his first version that, his wife Kate McCann, on her check, had followed this same route, entering the apartment by this same front door, using her key to unlock it.

Had Kate McCann taken this route she too would have seen that the shutter and window were open.

WAS THIS THE REASON McCANN NEEDED TO CHANGE HIS STORY SEVEN DAYS LATER, BECAUSE QUITE OBVIOUSLY HAD THEY BOTH ENTERED BY THAT FRONT DOOR, HAVING TAKEN THE ROUTE THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE DONE ON EACH OF THE NIGHTS THEY ABANDONED THESE KIDS, THIS FRONT DOOR STORY EXPOSED THEIR LIES. EXPOSED THEIR TALE OF A JEMMIED WINDOW AND SHUTTER FOR WHAT IT WAS - A TALE INVENTED TO BEEF UP THEIR STORY OF AN ALLEGED INTRUDER? A SHUTTER WHICH I MIGHT ADD THE POLICE SAID WAS NOT DAMAGED IN ANY WAY, THAT IT HAD BEEN OPENED FROM THE INSIDE. AN INSIDE JOB, IN OTHER WORDS!

And Gerry McCanns second version:

He entered by the UNLOCKED back patio door.

For this he had to walk from bar, mid way up the street towards the apartment, open a little gate which was at street level. Climb a flight of stairs, open the child safety gate at the top of the stairs, which the McCanns claim they had locked, then slide open the unlocked patio door.

NOW I ASK YOU. McCANN A CARDIOLOGIST, HOPEFULLY WITH A GOOD MEMORY AS HE DEALS WITH THE HEALTH MATTERS OF THE SERIOUSLY ILL, HE LEAVES HIS THREE KIDS, THE ELDEST 3 YEARS OLD, HIS TWIN KIDS, 2 YEARS OLD, IN AN UNLOCKED APARTMENT. DOES THIS FOR FIVE NIGHTS ON THE TROT, CHECKS ON THEM A COUPLE OF TIMES A NIGHT SO HE CLAIMS, AND THE GUY CANNOT REMEMBER HOW HE ENTERED THAT APARTMENT ON THE NIGHT HIS DAUGHTER VANISHED?

PULL THE OTHER ONE McCANN!

This apartment located on the corner of a street, the doors, back and front, literally a street apart, gaining access to either side, not something one could forget.

And most definitely NOT SOMETHING one could confuse with the other.

How would it be possible to mistake that long walk to the top of the road, through a car park, along a narrow path in front of the kids bedroom window to the front door, with - having walked half the distance to a side gate, climbing a flight of stairs, unlocking a child safety gate at the top and then sliding open an unlocked patio door?

ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE NOT REMEMBERED WHICH DOOR.

So pull the other one DCI Redwood when you said that the Met Police do not only, not suspect the McCanns and their buddies of involvement in this child's disappearance, but when you said they were of no interest to the investigation. If the Met are not interested in the above statements made by these people, not interested in their movements on the night Madeleine vanished, and not interested in full and complete re-enactment of the events taking account of EVERY detail they have all given - then the investigation by the Met is a farce.

And why would Redwood retire just when he was about to get a result in the case of the most famous missing child on the planet?

In any police investigation this group HAVE TO BE OF INTEREST - how could they not be - those stories they invented? Those police witness statements?

But the now retired DCI he was no better than the group of adults who all claimed to have been looking out for her and her brother and sister - he was prone to porkies too - crechedad the perfect example!

And like the parents it would seem that he was in no rush either to trace the missing child/what became of her.

The good old ex DCI for weeks on end had his 'trailer' screened on TV, his REVELATION MOMENT, not to be missed, how he had changed the timeline, found Crechedad, and had two EFITS of his now MAIN SUSPECT.

His CRIMEWATCH PRODUCTION, HIS TRAILER HAD TAKEN MONTHS UPON MONTHS TO PUT TOGETHER.

So no rush to find the guy in the e.fits or to find Madeleine.

Would not a police authority having such information have released these E.Fits IMMEDIATELY when they came into its possession?

NOT THE METROPOLITAN POLICE!

AND NOT THE PARENTS!

Met had them for around 18 months I believe before they bothered their asses releasing them into the public domain.

McCanns they had them for YEAR AND YEARS and NEVER released them into the public domain!

NOW WHAT DOES THAT TELL US ABOUT THE McCANNS AND THE METROPOLITAN POLICE INVESTIGATION?

DID WE EVER HEAR THE McCANNS COMPLAIN THAT THE MET HAD NOT RELEASED THEM?

Course we didn't!

They ALL KNOW that Madeleine McCann is not alive! The evidence held, points absolutely to this being the case. There was NO rush by either party to find this 'alive and findable little girl' as Gerry McCann describes his daughter.

Only a mug would believe the contradictory and outrageous stories this group have told thus far.

Recently there have been other claims of another untold story of Madeleine, in fact BILLED as THE untold story of Madeleine McCann.

There is no such thing!

As always the person making the claim has failed to come up with this story. Like DCI Redwood's tale, there will be a trailer, a little teaser.

But of course, no more can be said. And yes, you have guessed it, because it will be detrimental to an ongoing investigation!

DCI Redwood was detrimental to his own investigation!

But this 'untold story' for someone, anyone to make such a claim, this person would, I think you will agree, have to know more, or at least have the same information which is held by the Portuguese Police, the Metropolitan Police and the Leicestershire Police?

And that folks is, where these claims of the untold story of Madeleine McCann must end! Clearly this person does not hold more information than police authorities. And IF this was/is the case - WHY was the information not passed to police investigating the crimes committed against Madeleine McCann?

We all know that Murdoch, Sky, has backed the McCanns, Martin Brunt being the dope to carry out much of the atrocious lies, and scams created, and none more horrible than when he did what he did to Brenda Leyland, going along also with the outrageous lowlife, Summers and Swan and their ridiculous claims. Yes they too, claimed to have the untold story. Shame on them. Shame on Brunt!

The person claiming to be releasing this latest 'untold story' of Madeleine, is on the Murdoch payrol. Up there then with Summers and Swan, Brunt! That has to be questioned, and for obvious reasons. Or maybe not - in fact - that ANSWERS any questions some may have!

There is ONLY ONE untold story in this case, and that is the TRUTH, a truth which Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, David Payne, Fiona Payne, Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Oldfield, Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, and Dianne Webster, hold.

It is a truth that I doubt this lot will ever speak of. They will not be lining up to confess to having been untruthful in their accounts of the evening the child was reported as missing.

They will never stand before the UK public, sit on the Lorraine Kelly sofa, stand before the world and admit that their stories don't add up, that they are, as retired British detective John Stalker said - HIDING SOMETHING!

What it will take for them to do what they know is right is anyone's guess. But while they, the buddies, believe they can lie low, and get away with it, not be challenged on their statements, which all can see, cannot be the truth. While Kate and Gerry McCann believe they can keep making appearances and have Clarence Mitchell invent story after story to protect them. When the UK media insist on printing untrue stories about the Portuguese Police, and failing to put in print the details which are known to thousands around the world, the truth of matters, when these people are being protected and funded financially also, they will ALL remain schtum.

Unless someone in the UK media grows a pair and tells the story as it should be, with honesty, then each and every one of them fail Madeleine, and all missing children.

Without the truth, Madeleine's Untold Story what became of her, what she suffered during that vacation, whatever she suffered on the day/night evil visited, will forever remain UNTOLD!

There is not a journalist/reporter out there, trumped up or otherwise, who knows the absolute truth of what happened to this child. Not a one can claim to have the untold story!

McCanns and their buddies - they KNOW!

lazzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
22nd September 2015

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

by guest12345 23.09.15 10:17

Agree with the end of that post, no journo has any more knowledge or access to information that anyone else who has a laptop.

The problem seems to be that there is an assumption that the Tapas groups inconsistencies and behaviors means they are guilty of the removal of Madeleine. This is not necessarily true, it simply means that they are guilty of telling lies to cover themselves from 'something'. but what??...neglect and thus any form of prosecution arising from this.

The McCanns, Redwood and basically everyone knows/knew that right from day 1 Madeleine died in the apartment. IMO the reason why OG do not consider them suspects is because they know where the McCanns were (at the tapas restaurant) as the events unfolded. I also suspect they have additional evidence on file which would lead them to this conclusion.

IMO the only reason the McCanns continue the lie about searching for her alive, is to keep death by neglect charges at bay and to keep the money rolling in. The reason there has been no reconstruction of the night with the tapas group is IMO due to there being no point in reconstructing lies, it's a waste of time (until a case of neglect is brought, but that would only happen when a body is found or the guilty party confesses).

Anyway, in the meantime, the only reasons i can see for the likes of Poulton and various other people to be getting involved in this case, is purely for self promotion. Its a big audience and sparks debate, so a great leg up into the limelight. The other reason of course is that it gives the family and others someone else to point the finger at as a troll/supporter/potential court case revenue.

by kaz 23.09.15 10:53

guest12345 wrote:Agree with the end of that post, no journo has any more knowledge or access to information that anyone else who has a laptop.

The problem seems to be that there is an assumption that the Tapas groups inconsistencies and behaviors means they are guilty of the removal of Madeleine. This is not necessarily true, it simply means that they are guilty of telling lies to cover themselves from 'something'. but what??...neglect and thus any form of prosecution arising from this.

The McCanns, Redwood and basically everyone knows/knew that right from day 1 Madeleine died in the apartment. IMO the reason why OG do not consider them suspects is because they know where the McCanns were (at the tapas restaurant) as the events unfolded. I also suspect they have additional evidence on file which would lead them to this conclusion.

IMO the only reason the McCanns continue the lie about searching for her alive, is to keep death by neglect charges at bay and to keep the money rolling in. The reason there has been no reconstruction of the night with the tapas group is IMO due to there being no point in reconstructing lies, it's a waste of time (until a case of neglect is brought, but that would only happen when a body is found or the guilty party confesses).

Anyway, in the meantime, the only reasons i can see for the likes of Poulton and various other people to be getting involved in this case, is purely for self promotion. Its a big audience and sparks debate, so a great leg up into the limelight. The other reason of course is that it gives the family and others someone else to point the finger at as a troll/supporter/potential court case revenue.

Not sure if I understand you correctly but are you saying that the McCanns are only guilty of 'something' ( neglect ? ) which the OG is aware of and thus is prepared to keep the 'something' secret whilst hunting for the real guilty people? Is this what a genuine enquiry would do? If so, the OG team has really left itself open to ridicule ..............................which thinking about it, it has, so maybe you're right. To be honest if it was simply a matter of being prosecuted for neglect ( which let's face it, would never have happened ) I would ditch the lies in the interests of finding my child and damn the consequences.

'lazzerli-lies-in-the-sun' is brilliant and well worth a visit to the site. Sonia Poulton? Jumping on the bandwagon comes to mind and for anyone to think we are ' FEARFUL ' of her ..............................dream on. Talk about overestimating your abilities!

by comperedna 23.09.15 11:32

The Sky Debate with... Sonia Poulton!

Yes folks, its everyone's favourite polymath and guru on everything... again! This time she was introduced as Our Social Affairs Commentator: one of two participants (the other was journalist Petrie Hoskin) in

The Sky Debate.
'Why do teenagers lack confidence'

A report on teenagers and lack of confidence has just been published. Sonia read it with great interest as she has a teenage daughter. Petrie has a teenage son. Petrie's contribution was straightforward and sensible.
From Sonia we learned the following:

'We have to look at the fact that society has changed.'
'Its a big age range between 11 and 24'
She, Sonia, has studied psychology and 'it', psychology, should be 'taught at primary school'.
'The brain is an amazing piece of equipment'... Then there was a half-uttered piece about 'moulding brains' next that I'm not quite sure I understood... etc etc etc

Do others listen carefully to the precise content of what she says... or claims? If so, why is she on the box at all?
It puzzles me.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.09.15 12:11

comperedna wrote:The Sky Debate with... Sonia Poulton!

Yes folks, its everyone's favourite polymath and guru on everything... again! This time she was introduced as Our Social Affairs Commentator:

Thank you very much for the news, @ comperedna

Let's review: Madeleine McCann, Rupert Murdoch and Sonia Poulton: The Story So Far

1. Madeleine McCann disappeared 3 May 2007

2. Within days, Tony Blair's chief spin doctor Clarence Mitchell appointed

3. Murdoch's Sun, News of the World and SKY News are the worst offenders in promoting ridiculous stories about 'sightings' of Madeleine

4. Sep 2008, Clarence Mitchell stops working full-time for the McCanns - gets job at Freud Communications working for Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law Matthew Freud

5. 2009 David Cameron meets Rupert Murdoch on his Mediterranean yacht - they strike a deal: 'You get me BSkyB, I'll get my papers to switch to your party'. It all works out very well

6. Cameron appoints Murdoch man, former editor of the NOTW, as his Director of Communications

7. 2010 Cameron appoints Clarence Mitchell as his Deputy Director of Communications - wins General Election

8. 2007-2011 Murdoch papers continue to print utter rubbish about 'sightings' of Madeleine McCann and various assorted suspects

9. 2011 Kate McCann writes book, Murdoch paper the Sun serialises it

10. Same week, Murdoch's News International CEO Rebekah Brooks threatens David Cemeron - Operation Grange set up

11. 2012-3 Enter Sonia Poulton, airs three rubbish interviews on Icke's TPV re Madeleine McCann - Birch, Shrimpton, S-W-M-N-B-N - sacked by Icke - promises documentary about him - doesn't for so-called 'legal reasons'

12. Brenda Leyland hounded to death by Murdoch's SKY News 4 Oct 2014

13. Three days later: Poulton does YouTube video: "I'm going to make a doc about Brenda'

14. Poulton alliance with S-W-M-N-B-N - both attack CMOMM

15. Poulton's Christmas vid 'I'm going to make a doc about Madeleine McCann' - promises and promises not fulfilled, but: 'I will make doc after Leyland Inquest'

16. Poulton attends Leyland Inquest - tarnishes the Inquest by ruthlessly hounding an attendee with a microphone and camera outside the very door of the building

17. More unfulfilled promises about a Madeleine documentary - Christmas promotional video pulled

18. Starts to appear regularly on Rupert Murdoch's SKY News sofa despite claims she is outraged at how they hounded Brenda Leyland to death and that she has the 'Untold Story' of Madeleine McCann to tell

19. Suddenly invited on all sorts of media as 'Social Affairs Commentator'

20. Gets S-W-M-N-B-N to make a fool of all McCann-sceptics in Murdoch's the Sun

21. Poulton openly boasts about door-stepping Kate McCann, with two cameramen in tow - no-one in the mainstream media breathes a word of criticism about this

22. Poulton publicly refers to CMOMM s a 'cess-pit' on Twitter

23. Poulton on Murdoch's sofa again today, 23 September 2015.

To paraphrase Rolf Harris: 'Can anyone tell what's going on yet..?'

by guest12345 23.09.15 13:25

kaz wrote:
guest12345 wrote:Agree with the end of that post, no journo has any more knowledge or access to information that anyone else who has a laptop.

The problem seems to be that there is an assumption that the Tapas groups inconsistencies and behaviors means they are guilty of the removal of Madeleine. This is not necessarily true, it simply means that they are guilty of telling lies to cover themselves from 'something'. but what??...neglect and thus any form of prosecution arising from this.

The McCanns, Redwood and basically everyone knows/knew that right from day 1 Madeleine died in the apartment. IMO the reason why OG do not consider them suspects is because they know where the McCanns were (at the tapas restaurant) as the events unfolded. I also suspect they have additional evidence on file which would lead them to this conclusion.

IMO the only reason the McCanns continue the lie about searching for her alive, is to keep death by neglect charges at bay and to keep the money rolling in. The reason there has been no reconstruction of the night with the tapas group is IMO due to there being no point in reconstructing lies, it's a waste of time (until a case of neglect is brought, but that would only happen when a body is found or the guilty party confesses).

Anyway, in the meantime, the only reasons i can see for the likes of Poulton and various other people to be getting involved in this case, is purely for self promotion. Its a big audience and sparks debate, so a great leg up into the limelight. The other reason of course is that it gives the family and others someone else to point the finger at as a troll/supporter/potential court case revenue.

Not sure if I understand you correctly but are you saying that the McCanns are only guilty of 'something' ( neglect ? ) which the OG is aware of and thus is prepared to keep the 'something' secret whilst hunting for the real guilty people? Is this what a genuine enquiry would do? If so, the OG team has really left itself open to ridicule ..............................which thinking about it, it has, so maybe you're right. To be honest if it was simply a matter of being prosecuted for neglect ( which let's face it, would never have happened ) I would ditch the lies in the interests of finding my child and damn the consequences.

'lazzerli-lies-in-the-sun' is brilliant and well worth a visit to the site. Sonia Poulton? Jumping on the bandwagon comes to mind and for anyone to think we are ' FEARFUL ' of her ..............................dream on. Talk about overestimating your abilities!

Yes, OG/PJ and all other forces are aware of their guilt of neglect, as are that majority of the general public. OG are not looking at the parents as suspects (rightly or wrongly).

The reason why they are all letting this carry on even though they know the parents are guilty of neglect is because the PJ would be pushing for death by neglect, a much heftier charge. These charges cannot be pressed until there is either a cadaver, or they get a confession from/enough evidence to prosecute the guilty party.

The McCanns have to keep up the pretense she is still alive and the tapas group have to all maintain they were all checking their kids, else they are all in the dock, hence the 'pact of silence'.

The safest place the McCanns can sit is in the "Someone took her, alive, in a 3 minute window of opportunity" seat. No neglect, public sympathy and ultimately ££££££ for everyone.

If they "ditch the lies" as you suggest, they are immediately vilified by everyone and guilty of neglect at the very least.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.09.15 13:32

guest12345 wrote:
The safest place the McCanns can sit is in the "Someone took her, alive, in a 3 minute window of opportunity" seat.

But of course the cunning DCI Andy Redwood on the BBC Crimewatch McCann show widened the '3-minute window' to 50 minutes by producing his fake 'Crecheman'.

That gives him 50 whole minutes to invent some fable with which to end this charade

by guest12345 23.09.15 14:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:
The safest place the McCanns can sit is in the "Someone took her, alive, in a 3 minute window of opportunity" seat.
But of course the cunning DCI Andy Redwood on the BBC Crimewatch McCann show widened the '3-minute window' to 50 minutes by producing his fake 'Crecheman'.

That gives him 50 whole minutes to invent some fable with which to end this charade

I believe the single purpose of this was to discredit Jane Tanner to the public once and for all, in the nicest possible manner (even though her statements and most of what fell out of her mouth were discredited very early on by various forces). She can now slope off into the shadows without being the subject of attention and question, whilst putting a stop to her wasting every ones time and effort.

Crecheman is IMO a complete fake. It does not take that long for a person to come forward, especially with all creche records to hand, lists of holiday makers in the area at the time and the willingness of people to help, based on worldwide media coverage.

Smithman is also fake (IMO) and as such nothing will come of that sighting (as it didn't happen, IMO was just created to help get Murat off the hook), therefore based on the vague descriptions by the Smiths, that evidence can be thrown in the bin.

I don't personally think OG or the PJ are focusing on either of those supposed sightings. They are just the 2 that have been thrown around the media since the early days and early stories (Tanner and Smith).

by aiyoyo 23.09.15 16:16

Verdi wrote:I note the December 2014 Christmas special Poulton update YouTube video has been removed from the public eye - private only it appears. However the original October 2014 oyez oyez moment remains in situ.

I did uncover this little exposé, courtesy of Sky News..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] @2:40

Classic case of takes one to know one?

Covering her track already !
Rather premature and self defeating given she has announced on LBC she's going to put out a trailer soon to coincide with Brenda Leyland's death annivesary?
How is that going to work?

I hadn't seen that little expose before.
It's fascinating! In it she is saying people shouldn't waste Police's time over trivial, unless when one is harassed (as she was she claimed), receiving hate, harassment messages and death threats then the Police should treat it seriously.

She bemoans the Police did nothing even after she'd lodged three reports.

Wonder what the Police will make of it, if (when) the outed trolls in her film (if it ever appears), lodge police complaints against her unlawful hacking, tracing and tracking of their ips/identities? How else would she have gotten the 2nd dossier so to speak, the one she worked on with or without help to compile so that she got material for her film?
No wonder she struggles to get lawyers' libel free stamp.

Naturally this question is valid - IF the OBJECTIVE for her untold story of Madeleine pertains to justice for Madeleine, why not give the evidence to the Police and not be dangling it as carrot to rabbits? Why say her volition to talk is constrained b/c of ongoing criminal investigation and then on the other hand say she is going to release a teaser of it through trailer? Collision! Can't talk about it but can show on video, what !

It's yet to be seen if her objective is an honorable one or is Madeleine's case a stepping stone she is using as catalyst to champion her own cause as victim of trolls? Time will tell....

by **Tony Bennett** 06.10.15 20:25

Another major sighting of Sonia Poulton on our mainstream media this morning, this time on ITV's 'This Morning', where she was discussing some blogger called Perez Hilton, who caused controversy by posting this pic of himself and young son in the shower together (left of picture]:

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

Poulton...

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

...said he should never have put this pic online.

The Daily Mail has helpfully published the Twitterati's reactions to Poulton's comments:

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

The Mail article said;

"Sonia argued it was the fact the picture was posted online which troubled her. She said: 'For me it's not the photo, as a mother myself I bathe with my daughter regularly and plan to show her boyfriend those photos at some stage in the future to embarrass her as we've all done as parents. But it's the putting it online'."

She is the media's darling right now - just 48 hours after video of her door-stepping Madeleine McCann's mother was transmitted.

Strange old world

by Guest 06.10.15 23:07

@Tony Bennett

"..as a mother myself I bathe with my daughter regularly.." - Sonia Poulton

~~~~~~

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton Sep 29

@robert_mctavish lol my daughter loved it but then we went there for her 18th so she was ready for it

~~~~~~

Is it me?

by aiyoyo 07.10.15 9:48

Her independent project and her appearances on Sky's sofa is mutually exclusive.
The inference that she can't be paid by Sky and still be doing something else that risks compromising her position with Sky or fall out with Sky has no leg to stand on.

I don't see why she can't independently be doing her own project at will if she wished to while on stand by for the odd ad hoc jobs? Her ad hoc appearance on Murdoch's sofa is few and far between and mostly on trivial gossip social issues if I'm not wrong. A single mum has to make a living after all, even a blond.

Cannot imagine Sky obliging her to a binding contract that forbids her to undertake anything else outside of Sky nor would she accept such crazy term for a few odd jobs here and there.

Just saying......

by pennylane 07.10.15 10:00

aiyoyo wrote:Her independent project and her appearances on Sky's sofa is mutually exclusive.
The inference that she can't be paid by Sky and still be doing something else that risks compromising her position with Sky or fall out with Sky has no leg to stand on.

I don't see why she can't independently be doing her own project at will if she wished to while on stand by for the odd ad hoc jobs? Her ad hoc appearance on Murdoch's sofa is few and far between and mostly on trivial gossip social issues if I'm not wrong. A single mum has to make a living after all, even a blond.

Cannot imagine Sky obliging her to a binding contract that forbids her to undertake anything else outside of Sky nor would she accept such crazy term for a few odd jobs here and there.

Just saying......

I thoroughly agree! thumbup

by worriedmum 07.10.15 11:03

aiyoyo

quote ''A single mum has to make a living after all, even a blond.'' unquote

Oooh, aiyoyo, have you got a time -machine? Have you landed in the 1960's? eek

by Guest 09.10.15 15:35

Just had a look at Ms Poulton's official site to see if there's any indication as to when the complete documentary/film is to be released. There isn't but I noticed this to the side of her complete unabridged biography..

SONIA POULTON IS A WRITER, BROADCASTER AND SOCIAL COMMENTATOR

Contact:

If you would like to commission me to write an article for your publication or you wish to syndicate one of my features, please email me or call **********... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

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

by snook 09.10.15 16:47

I doubt very much Sky would not insist on some kind of contractual obligation on commentators on its channel be they direct employees or freelance. Sky would not want to be embarrassed (as it sees it) by a maverick who might make its policy line look stupid.

by aiyoyo 11.10.15 12:16

snook wrote:I doubt very much Sky would not insist on some kind of contractual obligation on commentators on its channel be they direct employees or freelance. Sky would not want to be embarrassed (as it sees it) by a maverick who might make its policy line look stupid.

They must be some varying conditions imposed on full time employees and freelancers.
But I doubt it would be something that binding that suffocates a freelancer that she can't do anything independently outside of the random jobs she gets from Sky.
On a worst scenario, if maverick should choose to go against policy line, Sky will simply refuse to air it, so ultimate control rests with Sky.

Would imagine nothing gets passed editor in chief or equivalent superior in broadcasting department without it being officially sanctioned first before printing/airing.

by Mark Willis 11.10.15 13:47

Verdi wrote:Just had a look at Ms Poulton's official site to see if there's any indication as to when the complete documentary/film is to be released. There isn't but I noticed this to the side of her complete unabridged biography..

SONIA POULTON IS A WRITER, BROADCASTER AND SOCIAL COMMENTATOR

Contact:

If you would like to commission me to write an article for your publication or you wish to syndicate one of my features, please email me or call **********... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

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

And there it is, in bold, all you need to know regards the merit, direction, remit, putative purpose of the never beginning story of the not-much awaited SP documentary. If it was a book I'd expect a forward by Summat and SwannyRiver....

by Guest 11.10.15 19:39

Mark Willis wrote:
Verdi wrote:Just had a look at Ms Poulton's official site to see if there's any indication as to when the complete documentary/film is to be released. There isn't but I noticed this to the side of her complete unabridged biography..

SONIA POULTON IS A WRITER, BROADCASTER AND SOCIAL COMMENTATOR

Contact:

If you would like to commission me to write an article for your publication or you wish to syndicate one of my features, please email me or call **********... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
And there it is, in bold, all you need to know regards the merit, direction, remit, putative purpose of the never beginning story of the not-much awaited SP documentary. If it was a book I'd expect a forward by Summat and SwannyRiver....

Like a shaggy dog story ain't it?

Meanwhile in the south east of England, beyond the fringe (in fact probably even beyond anything that might resemble humanoid), Britain's home troll correspondent slash windbag extraordinaire, continues unabated to spit deadly venom in the name of revenge.

Check it out - what a very bitter person.

by Joss 12.10.15 4:06

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:
Verdi wrote:Just had a look at Ms Poulton's official site to see if there's any indication as to when the complete documentary/film is to be released. There isn't but I noticed this to the side of her complete unabridged biography..

SONIA POULTON IS A WRITER, BROADCASTER AND SOCIAL COMMENTATOR

Contact:

If you would like to commission me to write an article for your publication or you wish to syndicate one of my features, please email me or call **********... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
And there it is, in bold, all you need to know regards the merit, direction, remit, putative purpose of the never beginning story of the not-much awaited SP documentary. If it was a book I'd expect a forward by Summat and SwannyRiver....

Like a shaggy dog story ain't it?

Meanwhile in the south east of England, beyond the fringe (in fact probably even beyond anything that might resemble humanoid), Britain's home troll correspondent slash windbag extraordinaire, continues unabated to spit deadly venom in the name of revenge.

Check it out - what a very bitter person.

It's funny you should say that about SP, because i watched a David Icke video the other night titled,

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

and about her where he spoke of his experience with SP and TVP, and he pretty much describes her in the same way and called her a Diva, lol. Regardless of what people think of Icke, i think he should know about SP because she was working for him at one time.

by Mark Willis 12.10.15 15:37

Verdi wrote: Like a shaggy dog story ain't it?

Meanwhile in the south east of England, beyond the fringe (in fact probably even beyond anything that might resemble humanoid), Britain's home troll correspondent slash windbag extraordinaire, continues unabated to spit deadly venom in the name of revenge.

Check it out - what a very bitter person.

More Scooby Do, I think. It was those pesky Poultons and Huttons all along...
As for bitter, I thought, gosh, John Smith's Bitter but yes, doesn't hold a candle to she of the "herbal" inhaling.
Waiting for God? Oh....

by Guest 28.10.15 23:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Just about to talk chaos of child support agency on LBC

by jeanmonroe 29.10.15 1:27

Verdi
.
Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 7 hrs7 hours ago

Just about to talk chaos of child support ~~agency~~ on LBC
-----------------------------

I thought the McCann's 'within the bounds of parental responsibility' was 'off the AGENDA' for 'discussion' by ANYONE! winkwink