Re: Jenny Kleeman/Guardian Documentary Film on Madeleine McCann out soon

by **Richard D. Hall** 04.05.15 12:55

Are you accusing me of lying?

The words were not written by any janitor, they were written by a chief exec.

by Liz Eagles 04.05.15 13:33

Richard D. Hall wrote:Are you accusing me of lying?

The words were not written by any janitor, they were written by a chief exec.

I'm glad you responded Richard. I resisted the temptation to ask Sceptic if he was calling you a liar, which clearly is what he's doing.

by **PeterMac** 04.05.15 14:25

Why does this forum so quickly descend to this level ?

by Mark Willis 04.05.15 14:30

Verdi wrote:aiyoyo today @ 3:25 pm

I fully understand the meaning of freelance, as I know how it will differ from one profession/trade/job to another. I would have thought where there is reputation at stake, such as the press, a working agreement (contract) would apply. Still I've never worked in journalism so what do I know.

Thanks for putting me right although I can't really get my head around what you're saying. I'm probably juggling between expectations from a normal freelance journalist and one that is encroaching on McCann spin territory. The McCanns seem to be the exception to every rule.

When I was a journo I was freelance as well as working for several publishers regularly.
All you need to know is your remit is to articulate what the sub-editor's agenda/ostensible slant on someone, some thing requires. Getting carte-blanche to say whatever I wanted took me years to achieve, where my copy would be unexpurgated.
However, when the topic is political - that's a different story. No editor is going to allow anything appearing in their rags that in any way questions the Mcs heavily backed by Government narrative.
Look what happened to Dr Kelly and BBC.
So do not expect SP or JK to ever reflect the kind of position adopted here appearing on a TV set near you soon.
Jon Gaunt was booted off TalkSport for less.
It is a given, I know, but never volunteer anything to the Press.

by Sceptic 04.05.15 15:25

Richard D. Hall wrote:Are you accusing me of lying?

The words were not written by any janitor, they were written by a chief exec.

No not at all Richard and I do apologise if that is the way it came across that is the problem with this medium at times - the point I was trying to make was that to be a chief executive one would have to be of a certain educational professional standard, in my opinion rightly or wrongly I felt the terminology/comments i.e "fishy" etc would not be the words used by someone In such a position and felt the instruction to reply possibly had been passed down the management/staff structure yet signed in the chief executives name
Once again I apologise for any offence/misunderstanding I may have caused - keep up the excellent work

by aiyoyo 04.05.15 15:41

Mark Willis wrote:When I was a journo I was freelance as well as working for several publishers regularly.
All you need to know is your remit is to articulate what the sub-editor's agenda/ostensible slant on someone, some thing requires. Getting carte-blanche to say whatever I wanted took me years to achieve, where my copy would be unexpurgated.
However, when the topic is political - that's a different story. No editor is going to allow anything appearing in their rags that in any way questions the Mcs heavily backed by Government narrative.
Look what happened to Dr Kelly and BBC.
So do not expect SP or JK to ever reflect the kind of position adopted here appearing on a TV set near you soon.
Jon Gaunt was booted off TalkSport for less.
It is a given, I know, but never volunteer anything to the Press.

A true freelancer is different from a quasi freelancer working for several publishers regularly, and therefore at the very basic level having to observe in house remit required by sub-ed or editor. Of the latter, you don't have a free hand until you proved with your works and earned their trust.

Political topic is a completely different ball game. It is sensitive area; often there is an official line to toe and special sanction involving different levels. We don't know if political influence has been used to lean on press/media freedom of speech/coverage where the mcs case is concerned. What is indisputable however is that they got an unprecedented high level of helps from the government.

True Freelancer, as RH points out (that he is) produces own piece free of constraints by someone else's rule, then market the end product. If they manage to interest publishers/tv channels to print/broadcast their work, fine. If not, don't have to deal. This type of freelancer has total freedom of speech in their work, and needs not to compromise to someone's remit.

IIRC, he said he got the impression JK isn't freelance.
She may be quasi freelance, working regularly for the Guardian, obliging her to observe certain in-house requirement and remit. It goes with saying that that kind of quasi freelance with limited freedom also has limited freedom in any say on output of end product. Its the editor that decides end product.

As for your last bit, I totally agree, never volunteer anything to the Press.

by Mark Willis 04.05.15 15:54

aiyoyo wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:When I was a journo I was freelance as well as working for several publishers regularly.
All you need to know is your remit is to articulate what the sub-editor's agenda/ostensible slant on someone, some thing requires. Getting carte-blanche to say whatever I wanted took me years to achieve, where my copy would be unexpurgated.
However, when the topic is political - that's a different story. No editor is going to allow anything appearing in their rags that in any way questions the Mcs heavily backed by Government narrative.
Look what happened to Dr Kelly and BBC.
So do not expect SP or JK to ever reflect the kind of position adopted here appearing on a TV set near you soon.
Jon Gaunt was booted off TalkSport for less.
It is a given, I know, but never volunteer anything to the Press.

A true freelancer is different from a quasi freelancer working for several publishers regularly, and therefore at the very basic level having to observe in house remit required by sub-ed or editor. Of the latter, you don't have a free hand until you proved with your works and earned their trust.

Political topic is a completely different ball game. It is sensitive area; often there is an official line to toe and special sanction involving different levels. We don't know if political influence has been used to lean on press/media freedom of speech/coverage where the mcs case is concerned. What is indisputable however is that they got an unprecedented high level of helps from the government.

True Freelancer, as RH points out (that he is) produces own piece free of constraints by someone else's rule, then market the end product. If they manage to interest publishers/tv channels to print/broadcast their work, fine. If not, don't have to deal. This type of freelancer has total freedom of speech in their work, and needs not to compromise to someone's remit.

IIRC, he said he got the impression JK isn't freelance.
She may be quasi freelance, working regularly for the Guardian, obliging her to observe certain in-house requirement and remit. It goes with saying that that kind of quasi freelance with limited freedom also has limited freedom in any say on output of end product. Its the editor that decides end product.

As for your last bit, I totally agree, never volunteer anything to the Press.

The non-contentious articles I wrote ended up being accepted verbatim, I had earned that right after learning from my editor's redactions.
With something like the Mcs case you play to house rules or take a hike.

by Guest 04.05.15 23:04

Mark Willis wrote:
Verdi wrote:aiyoyo today @ 3:25 pm

I fully understand the meaning of freelance, as I know how it will differ from one profession/trade/job to another. I would have thought where there is reputation at stake, such as the press, a working agreement (contract) would apply. Still I've never worked in journalism so what do I know.

Thanks for putting me right although I can't really get my head around what you're saying. I'm probably juggling between expectations from a normal freelance journalist and one that is encroaching on McCann spin territory. The McCanns seem to be the exception to every rule.
When I was a journo I was freelance as well as working for several publishers regularly.
All you need to know is your remit is to articulate what the sub-editor's agenda/ostensible slant on someone, some thing requires. Getting carte-blanche to say whatever I wanted took me years to achieve, where my copy would be unexpurgated.
However, when the topic is political - that's a different story. No editor is going to allow anything appearing in their rags that in any way questions the Mcs heavily backed by Government narrative.
Look what happened to Dr Kelly and BBC.
So do not expect SP or JK to ever reflect the kind of position adopted here appearing on a TV set near you soon.
Jon Gaunt was booted off TalkSport for less.
It is a given, I know, but never volunteer anything to the Press.

So it's much as I thought, although maybe I foolishly used the word 'contract' implying a document drawn up identifying specific requirements and a signature at the bottom. Still, contract or agreement or arrangement or verbal agreement or verbal instruction or verbal request - call it what you like - at the end of the day a journalist is required to 'fit the bill' so to speak. As you say, it took years to achieve autonomy, by that time the fat controller must have sufficient confidence in your integrity to allow you a free hand.

It is a rather farcical notion to swallow, that a sensitive issue such as the case of Madeleine McCann, would permit any old random errant journalist freedom to write whatever they feel, totally disregarding the journals general persuasion.

by plebgate 05.05.15 8:16

Two docus coming out and now a book by Chelsea Hoffman, just read that on twitter.

Anyone know when this book is due out as Chelsea Hoffman says she dares them to sue her when it is published.

by snook 05.05.15 9:28

I see Hoffman as a silly little girl. Her style of writing is appalling. She also wrote a piece almost agreeing with The Sun.She justified this as having to stick to publisher guidelines to keep herjob!

by plebgate 05.05.15 13:55

snook wrote:I see Hoffman as a silly little girl. Her style of writing is appalling. She also wrote a piece almost agreeing with The Sun.She justified this as having to stick to publisher guidelines to keep herjob!

Thanks for info. Haven't read the piece but going on your post I wont get too excited about this book. No info. as to when it will be published anyway.

If it turns out to be any good (will no doubt read a review here) I think it would be a good idea for her to pledge 5% of sales to Rocky's legal fees and pay any monies Tony Bennett still owes.

If she did that I would certainly buy several copies as gifts.

by snook 06.05.15 17:31

Hi Plebgate. I think it's another case of a bandwagon jumper. All these commentators have a lot to say without really saying anything. Really, can any of them claim to have even a fraction of the amassed knowledge contained in this forum? Hoffman really is the most big-headed young lady I have ever had the misfortune to come across. A quick look at her tweets tells you all you need to know. No-one is as bright as her. No-one is as eloquent as her and nobody, apart from her, is brave enough to tell the truth. ( Except when, as she admits, she writes to the publisher's remit in order to keep her job, hence the 'troll' article, almost a cut-and-paste from The Scum)

by **Tony Bennett** 02.06.15 20:49

snook wrote:Hi Plebgate. I think it's another case of a bandwagon jumper. All these commentators have a lot to say without really saying anything. Really, can any of them claim to have even a fraction of the amassed knowledge contained in this forum? Hoffman really is the most big-headed young lady I have ever had the misfortune to come across. A quick look at her tweets tells you all you need to know. No-one is as bright as her. No-one is as eloquent as her and nobody, apart from her, is brave enough to tell the truth. ( Except when, as she admits, she writes to the publisher's remit in order to keep her job, hence the 'troll' article, almost a cut-and-paste from The Scum)

Some fair points there, @ snook.

Now, some have been wondering for 9 months about Sonia Poulton's much-vaunted documentary, about Brenda Leyland...no, about the untold story of Madeleine McCann...no, about the libel trial that Amaral lost...and about Jim Gamble's involvement in the 'trolls dossier' etc. etc....if, that is (she now tells us), the film is OK with whoever her libel solicitors are. If not, she will presumably have to make a few cuts to it before it is shown.

So it may seem somewhat churlish to raise a question about why Jenny Kleeman and The Guardian have not yet put out their film about Madeleine...after all, it's only been about 3 to 4 months since she first contacted Richard Hall about her proposed film.

What could be the reason for the delay?

Here are some possibilities:

1. It's not quite ready yet

2. It is awaiting a convenient date, to be set by the McCann Team and the powers-that-be that are in charge of public perception about the case, or

3. She is actually a journalist of significant integrity who wishes to safeguard her professional reputation as a truly independent reporter - and who has had a thorough look at the case in some depth and decided to abandon the project, as she cannot in all good conscience do justice to the story without properly explaining why McCann-doubters entertain those doubts.

PLUS she has a further problem since she first proposed her project.

Namely, the success of Leanne Baulch's 'GoFundMe' project.

Jenny Kleeman's film was stated on the record to be about the beliefs of those who doubt the McCanns' account of events.

How therefore can she possibly make this film without telling the viewers - and in some detail - about the 1,500-plus donors to a fund which has already raised nearly £27,000 - and which is clearly supported, with very articulate reasons being given as to why people support Goncal Amaral and doubt the McCanns, by a whole swathe of the population who are very obviously NOT trolls?

by **tigger** 04.06.15 6:28

notlongnow wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:I anticipate that the JK documentary will be a televised version of parts of the Summers and Swan book. Its targets and approach are easy to predict as they are laid out in the S&S book:

1. To discredit, by association with a small number of crazed tweets, all supporters of Amaral and those who question the abduction theory. This process is well underway in the national UK media.

2. To barely mention, except to pour scorn upon, the dog's evidence - ridiculing it as the key to the case against the McCanns

It is likely that the documentary forms another part of the whitewash - a TV version was needed because the S&S book - 'the authorized and official version of the Maddie case' - turned out to be such a commercial flop. We can therefore anticipate a tone and content that fits with the ongoing whitewash narrative.
Indeed,it all feels as if they are getting ready for the final act,no doubt with one last visit to PDL in the summer.
Sadly,the curtains will not quite shut at the end of the play,it will keep simmering on for years.

That's very much my take on the JK effort.

But there's been a 'disaster' in TM terms as has been pointed out above. Including the GA fund in the documentary would be tricky, excluding it may lead to questions from the public, including it will be even worse, leading those ignorant of the facts to find real answers.
In the end it could be the film of the book - Guardian surely won't pass up a Nearly Pullitzer Prize Winner?

Sometimes I think the Chief of propaganda in Saddam's government is to be preferred over the MSM at least you know where you are.

I recently attended a discussion on Putin. Two exiled Russian writers, a press expert on Russia, a retired diplomat. All anti Putin. Yet the public went away thinking they'd seen a balanced discussion.

by Guest 04.06.15 8:24

Bishop Brennan wrote: wrote:
1. To discredit, by association

That's the game.

Anyone who has tried to seriously and rationally question stuff soon gets surrounded by loonies on any forum.

by jeanmonroe 04.06.15 13:33

BlueBag wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote: wrote:
1. To discredit, by association

That's the game.

Anyone who has tried to seriously and rationally question stuff soon gets surrounded by loonies on any forum.

So, is 'loonies' going to be the 'prefered' new 'name' of supposedly 'serious' tv media/investigative journalists who 'comment' on the Madeleine McCann 'case'?

Can i now 'officially' call Martin Brunt/J Gamble...........a pair of 'loons'? laughat

Well, what they both come 'out with' is..............PANTS!

Now, i like Metropolitan Police Service 'TROLLS', (ref: J Lawton, Daily Star) but, i also like pro McCann 'LOONIES', but which 'ones' do i like the most?

FIGGHHHHTTTTTT!

(My money's ON the MPS 'trolls'!)

by Joss 04.06.15 13:38

BlueBag wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote: wrote:
1. To discredit, by association

That's the game.

Anyone who has tried to seriously and rationally question stuff soon gets surrounded by loonies on any forum.

Yeah, it tends to bring them crawling out of the woodwork in every case i have ever followed online. There have been some real eye opening doozies that i can recall.

by The Slave 14.07.15 10:43

Ms.Kleeman doesn't seem to get as much vitriol as Ms. Poulton on here, despite being equally 'tardy' with her doco.
I wonder why.
People are even putting forward plausible excuses for Kleeman. Why not for Sonia?

by snook 14.07.15 12:27

I don't know how you can even compare them. Kleeman made a short request for input and quietly went away. Whether she will make her programme remains to be seen. Contrast with Poulton. She has used it as an excuse for self publicity, given many different explanations as to who, why and when. Made disparaging remarks about anyone who dares question her. She delights in trying to humiliate people but doesn't have the guts to face them in debate. Anyone who disagrees is a, her favourite word, TROLL. What professional throws tidbits to her adoring public like she does? It was definitely going to be shown on MSM, now she is obviously floundering and trying to extricate herself without looking as stupid as some of us knew this exercise would be. Serious programme makers don't brag about tracing people and breaking the law to obtain personal details. She is a joke. I doubt Ms Kleeman has an attack dog either who threatens people with machine guns, nor I doubt would Jenny be delighting and cackling over such behaviour? Perhaps you should be asking what her game is? The violent online attack on Tony showed her true colours. Poulton needs a dose of self awareness, not to mention a sprinkling of common decency. What kind of person rails and screams about the injustice done to Brenda Leyland whilst taking money with her other face from the very organisation that drove poor Brenda to her death? Why would anyone offer support when they don't even have a clue what they would be supporting?

by Joss 14.07.15 13:33

snook wrote:I don't know how you can even compare them. Kleeman made a short request for input and quietly went away. Whether she will make her programme remains to be seen. Contrast with Poulton. She has used it as an excuse for self publicity, given many different explanations as to who, why and when. Made disparaging remarks about anyone who dares question her. She delights in trying to humiliate people but doesn't have the guts to face them in debate. Anyone who disagrees is a, her favourite word, TROLL. What professional throws tidbits to her adoring public like she does? It was definitely going to be shown on MSM, now she is obviously floundering and trying to extricate herself without looking as stupid as some of us knew this exercise would be. Serious programme makers don't brag about tracing people and breaking the law to obtain personal details. She is a joke. I doubt Ms Kleeman has an attack dog either who threatens people with machine guns, nor I doubt would Jenny be delighting and cackling over such behaviour? Perhaps you should be asking what her game is? The violent online attack on Tony showed her true colours. Poulton needs a dose of self awareness, not to mention a sprinkling of common decency. What kind of person rails and screams about the injustice done to Brenda Leyland whilst taking money with her other face from the very organisation that drove poor Brenda to her death? Why would anyone offer support when they don't even have a clue what they would be supporting?

Snook, and we have Poulton's prior track record to go by as well, so not expecting anything much from her really.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.07.15 20:07

Jenny Kleeman

I had news from someone who watches the forum a lot that Jenny Kleeman had been seen once again on SKY News a week or two back, reviewing the morning papers with another commentator.

I am told that that morning there was a story in one of the morning papers about a child having been abducted 'like Madeleine McCann'.

My informant's recollection is that Jenny Kleeman was critical of the newspaper headline and said words to the effect 'We don't really know whether she was abducted or what really happened to her'.

Assuming my informant is more or less right, this may well explain the non-appearance of her proposed documentary.

Did anyone here catch Jenny Kleeman on SKY that morning?

by Guest 14.07.15 23:46

snook wrote:I don't know how you can even compare them. Kleeman made a short request for input and quietly went away. Whether she will make her programme remains to be seen. Contrast with Poulton. She has used it as an excuse for self publicity, given many different explanations as to who, why and when. Made disparaging remarks about anyone who dares question her. She delights in trying to humiliate people but doesn't have the guts to face them in debate. Anyone who disagrees is a, her favourite word, TROLL. What professional throws tidbits to her adoring public like she does? It was definitely going to be shown on MSM, now she is obviously floundering and trying to extricate herself without looking as stupid as some of us knew this exercise would be. Serious programme makers don't brag about tracing people and breaking the law to obtain personal details. She is a joke. I doubt Ms Kleeman has an attack dog either who threatens people with machine guns, nor I doubt would Jenny be delighting and cackling over such behaviour? Perhaps you should be asking what her game is? The violent online attack on Tony showed her true colours. Poulton needs a dose of self awareness, not to mention a sprinkling of common decency. What kind of person rails and screams about the injustice done to Brenda Leyland whilst taking money with her other face from the very organisation that drove poor Brenda to her death? Why would anyone offer support when they don't even have a clue what they would be supporting?

by jeanmonroe 15.07.15 11:00

Tony Bennett wrote:Jenny Kleeman

I had news from someone who watches the forum a lot that Jenny Kleeman had been seen once again on SKY News a week or two back, reviewing the morning papers with another commentator.

I am told that that morning there was a story in one of the morning papers about a child having been abducted 'like Madeleine McCann'.

My informant's recollection is that Jenny Kleeman was critical of the newspaper headline and said words to the effect 'We don't really know whether she was abducted or what really happened to her'.

Assuming my informant is more or less right, this may well explain the non-appearance of her proposed documentary.

Did anyone here catch Jenny Kleeman on SKY that morning?

I did.

But on the previous evening on newspaper 'review'

The 'guy' was 'banging on' about the Cyprus hotel 'maddie' 'abduction attempt', and JK 'jumped in' and said 'hang on, we don't know if she (maddie) was abducted, or what actually happened to her'

The 'host' and 'guy' VERY 'quickly' moved on to next 'story'!

by snook 15.07.15 15:09

jeanmonroe wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Jenny Kleeman

I had news from someone who watches the forum a lot that Jenny Kleeman had been seen once again on SKY News a week or two back, reviewing the morning papers with another commentator.

I am told that that morning there was a story in one of the morning papers about a child having been abducted 'like Madeleine McCann'.

My informant's recollection is that Jenny Kleeman was critical of the newspaper headline and said words to the effect 'We don't really know whether she was abducted or what really happened to her'.

Assuming my informant is more or less right, this may well explain the non-appearance of her proposed documentary.

Did anyone here catch Jenny Kleeman on SKY that morning?

I did.

But on the previous evening on newspaper 'review'

The 'guy' was 'banging on' about the Cyprus hotel 'maddie' 'abduction attempt', and JK 'jumped in' and said 'hang on, we don't know if she (maddie) was abducted, or what actually happened to her'

The 'host' and 'guy' VERY 'quickly' moved on to next 'story'!

Well done Jenny !

by lj 15.07.15 17:15

jeanmonroe wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Jenny Kleeman

I had news from someone who watches the forum a lot that Jenny Kleeman had been seen once again on SKY News a week or two back, reviewing the morning papers with another commentator.

I am told that that morning there was a story in one of the morning papers about a child having been abducted 'like Madeleine McCann'.

My informant's recollection is that Jenny Kleeman was critical of the newspaper headline and said words to the effect 'We don't really know whether she was abducted or what really happened to her'.

Assuming my informant is more or less right, this may well explain the non-appearance of her proposed documentary.

Did anyone here catch Jenny Kleeman on SKY that morning?

I did.

But on the previous evening on newspaper 'review'

The 'guy' was 'banging on' about the Cyprus hotel 'maddie' 'abduction attempt', and JK 'jumped in' and said 'hang on, we don't know if she (maddie) was abducted, or what actually happened to her'

The 'host' and 'guy' VERY 'quickly' moved on to next 'story'!

Wow, and that on SKY!

by **Tony Bennett** 15.07.15 18:39

lj wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Jenny Kleeman

I had news from someone who watches the forum a lot that Jenny Kleeman had been seen once again on SKY News a week or two back, reviewing the morning papers with another commentator.

I am told that that morning there was a story in one of the morning papers about a child having been abducted 'like Madeleine McCann'.

My informant's recollection is that Jenny Kleeman was critical of the newspaper headline and said words to the effect 'We don't really know whether she was abducted or what really happened to her'.

Assuming my informant is more or less right, this may well explain the non-appearance of her proposed documentary.

Did anyone here catch Jenny Kleeman on SKY that morning?

I did.

But on the previous evening on newspaper 'review'

The 'guy' was 'banging on' about the Cyprus hotel 'Maddie abduction attempt', and JK jumped in and said 'hang on, we don't know if she (Maddie) was abducted, or what actually happened to her'

The 'host' and 'guy' VERY quickly moved on to next 'story'!

Wow, and that on SKY!

I will now be very surprised if Jenny Kleeman and the Guardian proceed with their documentary - unless perhaps they are saving it up for some kind of 'special occasion' in the future.

Three or four of us - the forum-owner here included - sent her a lot of factual information to consider, maybe sending her home, as once did the Scots to 'proud Edward's army, 'to think again'.

I wonder if Jenny Kleeman has been crossed off Rupert Murdoch's Christmas card list? Sonia Poulton was still on it, last time I heard

by jeanmonroe 16.07.15 9:31

JK, knows, KNOWS, that over 2,000 people, that have donated to GA's lawyers appeal 'fund', including CURRENTLY SERVING MPS officers, appalled at the treatment of a SIO, in an investigation, into a 'missing' child, are NOT 'sick trolls'!

WHAT, DCI Wall 'thinks' of serving, fellow, MPS officers, 'supporting' her former fellow POLICE 'colleague', in Portugal, is anybody's 'guess'.
---------------------------------------------------
£13+ MILLION, Operation Grange 'mission' statement?

"NEVER, in the field of Metropolitan Police investigations, has so much been owed, by so MANY, to so FEW"

by willowthewisp 16.07.15 11:04

Mr Cameron's slush fund must about be running on empty now or are they waiting for Mr Goncalo Amaral's appeal to be heard before Operation Grange can conclude, what happened in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Abduction,my **se?