Re: Sonia Poulton 'Teaser Trailer' out now (4 Oct 2015)

by Joss 25.10.15 11:36

HKP wrote:
Joss wrote:
HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rosalinda Hutton[size=44], address known, Kent: 42/91200/15 - Publicly accusing another of being a paedophile: Malicious Communications Act, currently being investigated by Essex & Kent Police forces [/size]

[size=44]I think being investigated by Essex & Kent police forces does imply 'criminal'[/size]
I would think the Police would determine exactly what type of offense has been committed after they investigate things, whether civil or criminal, if that is how they do things in such a case?
I agree however if you're reported to police it's generally because someone thinks you have conducted a crime as such. Don't really see how it can be a civil matter in this case IMO.

She is probably thinking Libel which as far as i know is a civil matter. But i agree it is criminal to wrongfully accuse someone of being a child molestor, which is a criminal act punishable by law if proven.
And as far as the other one making death threats, definitely criminal.

by **Jill Havern** 25.10.15 11:46

HKP wrote:"I have referred the warning to Kent". What warning? or am I just being thick?

From one of Tony's emails to Essex police he says: "You kindly told me the following day that you have referred the matter to Kent Police with a view to Ms Hutton receiving a formal warning."

by Guest 25.10.15 11:52

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
HKP wrote:"I have referred the warning to Kent". What warning? or am I just being thick?
From one of Tony's emails to Essex police he says: "You kindly told me the following day that you have referred the matter to Kent Police with a view to Ms Hutton receiving a formal warning."

That inferrs that the investigation is complete and the outcome is a formal warning, no?

by **Jill Havern** 25.10.15 11:53

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

Of course Tony is well known to Essex police - he's been dealing with them in regard to the Les Balkwell case: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Joss 25.10.15 11:59

Penalties for harassment

In the magistrates' court in England and Wales

Criminal harassment is a 'summary only' offence dealt with by the magistrates' court and carries a maximum sentence of:

6 months' imprisonment; and/or
a fine not exceeding £5,000.

Upon conviction, a magistrates' court can make a restraining order, breach of which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years' imprisonment.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Proving harassment to secure a conviction

To obtain a conviction for criminal harassment, the prosecution needs to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, three elements:

the defendant has pursued a course of conduct
the course of conduct amounted to harassment of another person
the defendant knew or ought to have known that the course of conduct amounted to harassment

Harassment is defined as causing alarm or causing distress, and a course of conduct which can include speech must involve conduct on at least 2 occasions. The incidents do not have to involve the same type of behaviour on both occasions.

by **Jill Havern** 25.10.15 12:00

HKP wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
HKP wrote:"I have referred the warning to Kent". What warning? or am I just being thick?
From one of Tony's emails to Essex police he says: "You kindly told me the following day that you have referred the matter to Kent Police with a view to Ms Hutton receiving a formal warning."
That inferrs that the investigation is complete and the outcome is a formal warning, no?

Tony isn't here at the mo, so I'm not at liberty to say anything else. Suffice to say I've seen all the correspondence between Tony and Essex police. I haven't seen the correspondence between him and Kent police yet.

by Joss 25.10.15 12:05

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course Tony is well known to Essex police - he's been dealing with them in regard to the Les Balkwell case: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Exactly.

by **Jill Havern** 25.10.15 12:07

Joss wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course Tony is well known to Essex police - he's been dealing with them in regard to the Les Balkwell case: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Exactly.

Tony also gets results.

by Joss 25.10.15 12:10

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Joss wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course Tony is well known to Essex police - he's been dealing with them in regard to the Les Balkwell case: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Exactly.
Tony also gets results.

Yes he does.

by Guest 25.10.15 12:18

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
HKP wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
HKP wrote:"I have referred the warning to Kent". What warning? or am I just being thick?
From one of Tony's emails to Essex police he says: "You kindly told me the following day that you have referred the matter to Kent Police with a view to Ms Hutton receiving a formal warning."
That inferrs that the investigation is complete and the outcome is a formal warning, no?
Tony isn't here at the mo, so I'm not at liberty to say anything else. Suffice to say I've seen all the correspondence between Tony and Essex police. I haven't seen the correspondence between him and Kent police yet.

Yes let's just leave it there GeG I wouldn't want anything said out of turn etc.

by Guest 25.10.15 12:39

To knock all this into some sort of perspective, parapono made a very pertinent point over yonder early this morning which has been conveniently ignored, so I'm posting here because I think it deserves a more discerning audience (hope that's OK parapono). Remember it is weekend - snipped..

Things must really work differently in the UK.

Here in the Netherlands the police doesn't give private
information by telephone.
Police stations aren't open 24/7 for information about official
complaints possibly made against you.
Certainly not on a Saturday night.
If you went in during office hours to ask about this,
after showing your ID,
the answer would be that you just have to wait.
They'll act on a complaint against you in their own time.
They wont even tell you whether any complaint was made.

I've been involved with a few criminal cases in the UK in the past (the right side of the law of course!) and can confirm that the above applies in the UK as well as the Netherlands - unless procedures have changed dramatically in recent years. If, as a member of the public, you visit a cop shop and start asking questions about a complaint made against you, or anybody else for that matter, the duty desk will merely tell you that if a complaint has been made it will be looked into and they will contact you when/if necessary - they certainly won't give out information about case detail.

I'm sure late Saturday night, the night shift duty officer that Ms Hutton spoke to over the phone, was more than sympathetic. Perhaps she told him/her tales of manic depression, child abuse, institutionalized brutality and being the victim of internet trolls - she may have even give the long awaited documentary a bit of a plug?

As aiyoyo wrote up-thread, you would think a long serving award winning top legal secretary would understand basic policing procedures.

by Liz Eagles 25.10.15 12:46

I'm not posting on this thread again. I'm sick to the back teeth with Cristobell rants and the cry for freedom of speech whilst censoring her own blog to spew vitriol at anyone who takes her fancy. There will no doubt soon be martyrdom, threats of suicide and all manner of 'Brenda Leyland' type stuff. I'm not buying tickets to the panto.

Posting up accusations of paedophilia against Tony Bennett from an anonymous poster is sick.

Posting up '[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] fiddler' is sick.

Everyday the McCann hashtag is increasingly occupied by nutcases - each one calling the other a paid shill or resorting to personal insult, threats etc not to mention the pornographic nonsense. All this in 140 characters per post.

CMoMM is a good forum. Cristobell tried to wreck it, she's done the same thing to MMM. There is now only a 'are you in my camp' or 'are you in Tony Bennett's camp' left. CMoMM has never been about that imo.

Cristobell, I wish you well but I rather doubt you'll stop your antics.

Oh, and remember Madeleine.

by snook 25.10.15 12:50

I made the same comment myself Verdi either further up or on a different thread. Same goes for legal advice. Has she got access to 24/7 legal eagles?

I think the best thing to do now is completely ignore her. Starve her of that which she craves.

by Guest 25.10.15 12:51

aquila wrote:I'm not posting on this thread again. I'm sick to the back teeth with Cristobell rants and the cry for freedom of speech whilst censoring her own blog to spew vitriol at anyone who takes her fancy. There will no doubt soon be martyrdom, threats of suicide and all manner of 'Brenda Leyland' type stuff. I'm not buying tickets to the panto.

Posting up accusations of paedophilia against Tony Bennett from an anonymous poster is sick.

Posting up '[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] fiddler' is sick.

Everyday the McCann hashtag is increasingly occupied by nutcases - each one calling the other a paid shill or resorting to personal insult, threats etc not to mention the pornographic nonsense. All this in 140 characters per post.

CMoMM is a good forum. Cristobell tried to wreck it, she's done the same thing to MMM. There is now only a 'are you in my camp' or 'are you in Tony Bennett's camp' left. CMoMM has never been about that imo.

Cristobell, I wish you well but I rather doubt you'll stop your antics.

Oh, and remember Madeleine.

"There will no doubt soon be martyrdom, threats of suicide and all manner of 'Brenda Leyland' type stuff..."

Agreed, I think it's been working up to that for quite some time. Remember many moons ago she said that she wished to follow in Brenda Leyland's footsteps?

by Guest 25.10.15 12:55

snook wrote:I made the same comment myself Verdi either further up or on a different thread. Same goes for legal advice. Has she got access to 24/7 legal eagles?

I think the best thing to do now is completely ignore her. Starve her of that which she craves.

Sorry snook I must have missed it!

You are right best ignore her. I meant to say I bet she's wallowing in all this attention, it matters not to her whether it's negative or positive attention.

by snook 25.10.15 12:57

No doubt she is Verdi. I marine however she is going to lose many of her adoring fans over this.

Oops! Too late. She's already comparing herself to Brenda.

by Guest 25.10.15 13:21

Verdi wrote:To knock all this into some sort of perspective, parapono made a very pertinent point over yonder early this morning which has been conveniently ignored, so I'm posting here because I think it deserves a more discerning audience (hope that's OK parapono). Remember it is weekend - snipped..

Things must really work differently in the UK.

Here in the Netherlands the police doesn't give private
information by telephone.
Police stations aren't open 24/7 for information about official
complaints possibly made against you.
Certainly not on a Saturday night.
If you went in during office hours to ask about this,
after showing your ID,
the answer would be that you just have to wait.
They'll act on a complaint against you in their own time.
They wont even tell you whether any complaint was made.

I've been involved with a few criminal cases in the UK in the past (the right side of the law of course!) and can confirm that the above applies in the UK as well as the Netherlands - unless procedures have changed dramatically in recent years. If, as a member of the public, you visit a cop shop and start asking questions about a complaint made against you, or anybody else for that matter, the duty desk will merely tell you that if a complaint has been made it will be looked into and they will contact you when/if necessary - they certainly won't give out information about case detail.

I'm sure late Saturday night, the night shift duty officer that Ms Hutton spoke to over the phone, was more than sympathetic. Perhaps she told him/her tales of manic depression, child abuse, institutionalized brutality and being the victim of internet trolls - she may have even give the long awaited documentary a bit of a plug?

As aiyoyo wrote up-thread, you would think a long serving award winning top legal secretary would understand basic policing procedures.

Of course it's ok to post it.
Thanks for doing so. roses

I'm quite happy to hear UK Justice is quite similar to ours.
I already got that impression from Judge Tugendhat,
you just confirmed it.

parapono

Patiently waiting for Justice to be done.
In Lisbon. Anywhere else.

by MRNOODLES 25.10.15 13:59

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At least that proves one thing. The entire www didn't collapse because she switched her laptop off for a couple of hours. big grin

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 14:24

Ladyinred wrote:
hentie wrote:Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

She's got too much time on her hands, allowing her craziness to spiral out of control. Why doesn't she get a job instead of sitting at a computer all day spouting bile.

But...but she has a job...a freelance one working with her best mate SP to produce the documentary....

And also it would appear spend all her daylight hours writing her voluminous opinion on the Madeleine case, and has been doing so for 8 long years. This is what she claimed anyway -

that she has been crusading for Madeleine using her birth given name (therefore by her definition not a coward and her smearing and libelling of people not criminal offence because she's doing all these bravely in her birthcert name); and showing her face all over the places - the internet, the Sun....

that she is the most popular thing on planet earth, writing and crusading for this case and people been following and liking her with 75% followers defeated from here.

and she's still working on this case (alongside Grange as she imagined, with them doing all the field work and her doing all the mouth work), and no harm building her non existence career on the back of Madeleine name !

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 14:27

aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
hentie wrote:Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

She's got too much time on her hands, allowing her craziness to spiral out of control. Why doesn't she get a job instead of sitting at a computer all day spouting bile.
She has a job Ladyinred, she's an author, playwright and journalist.

and more....
psychologist...
case expert on Madeleine case...
etc..
Everything under the sun she writes about or gives her opinion she claimed expertise in...

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 14:46

HKP wrote:
Joss wrote:
HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rosalinda Hutton[size=44], address known, Kent: 42/91200/15 - Publicly accusing another of being a paedophile: Malicious Communications Act, currently being investigated by Essex & Kent Police forces [/size]

[size=44]I think being investigated by Essex & Kent police forces does imply 'criminal'[/size]
I would think the Police would determine exactly what type of offense has been committed after they investigate things, whether civil or criminal, if that is how they do things in such a case?
I agree however if you're reported to police it's generally because someone thinks you have conducted a crime as such. Don't really see how it can be a civil matter in this case IMO.

Civil or criminal, up to the Police and the law to determine surely ?

Can't tell me a self professed legal secretary does not know the simple basic such as that ?

But then IIRC she said she hasn't been able to stick to one job so maybe a rolling stone gathers no moss applies here. And the reason for her multiple job changes ? Impression given was she cannot keep her mouth shut thus cannot keep her job safe, dislike authority likes to do the exact opposite of what is expected of her, and always has been like that ever since young, boasting all these giving the impression she's proud she stood out (even for all the wrong reasons).

How can it be up to individual to decide how they want to be charged? Ludicrous !

by Joss 25.10.15 14:51

aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
hentie wrote:Those agreeing with her every word, in effect backing her, are doing her no favours IMO.
She has either a mental condition or is pretty evil (I put 'pretty' evil as it seems less harsh)
Either way she is not being honest, either to her readers or herself.

If there was someone who cared for her (difficult in view of her attitude) they should take her to one side.

She's got too much time on her hands, allowing her craziness to spiral out of control. Why doesn't she get a job instead of sitting at a computer all day spouting bile.
She has a job Ladyinred, she's an author, playwright and journalist.

and more....
psychologist...
case expert on Madeleine case...
etc..
Everything under the sun she writes about or gives her opinion she claimed expertise in...

And a most awesome legal secretary, smilie

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 14:53

Verdi wrote:

I'm sure late Saturday night, the night shift duty officer that Ms Hutton spoke to over the phone, was more than sympathetic. Perhaps she told him/her tales of manic depression, child abuse, institutionalized brutality and being the victim of internet trolls - she may have even give the long awaited documentary a bit of a plug?

Ye Gawd, don't think she's that stupid to tell Police her colourful/fantasy history on first conversation...or they would know she's head case.....

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 14:58

MRNOODLES wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At least that proves one thing. The entire www didn't collapse because she switched her laptop off for a couple of hours.

ha ha ...cup of tea as respite in between her meltdowns ...that would be it !

She won't like to hear the earth does not revolve around her big grin

by Joss 25.10.15 14:58

aiyoyo wrote:
HKP wrote:
Joss wrote:
HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rosalinda Hutton[size=44], address known, Kent: 42/91200/15 - Publicly accusing another of being a paedophile: Malicious Communications Act, currently being investigated by Essex & Kent Police forces [/size]

[size=44]I think being investigated by Essex & Kent police forces does imply 'criminal'[/size]
I would think the Police would determine exactly what type of offense has been committed after they investigate things, whether civil or criminal, if that is how they do things in such a case?
I agree however if you're reported to police it's generally because someone thinks you have conducted a crime as such. Don't really see how it can be a civil matter in this case IMO.

Civil or criminal, up to the Police and the law to determine surely ?

Can't tell me a self professed legal secretary does not know the simple basic such as that ?

But then IIRC she said she hasn't been able to stick to one job so maybe a rolling stone gathers no moss applies here. And the reason for her multiple job changes ? Impression given was she cannot keep her mouth shut thus cannot keep her job safe, dislike authority likes to do the exact opposite of what is expected of her, and always has been like that ever since young, boasting all these giving the impression she's proud she stood out (even for all the wrong reasons).

How can it be up to individual to decide how they want to be charged? Ludicrous !

In RH's world perhaps? And yes, as the awesome legal secretary she purports she has been she should definitely know this.

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 15:23

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can feel a BB1 coming on.....

yep, here it comes.....

Bet she never looks into the mirror, or.....

She has flaming cheek to whinge people posting using screen names are gutless.
Ahem...what about those gutless that slag off and libel members here on her blog that she let through uncensored?

Does she not realise she's a hypocrite of the highest order letting those that are afraid even to use their screen names to say on forum what they said on her blog. Those that slag off people preferring to hide as "anonymous" on her blog.
Imagine, gutless even to use screen names, and yet these kinds she has no qualms encouraging and supporting by letting them slip through her censorship.

Say it all really, and she wonders why she came in for criticism.

by sallypelt 25.10.15 16:49

If any proof is needed that this woman doesn't know what day of the week it is, just read two of the statements snipped from her blog on the mentioned dates, below:

Saturday, 16 August 2014

"BURIED BY THE ANTI'S - Banned for having an opposing view"

25 October 2015

"I actually left CMoMM because I was appalled at the stalking and harassment of this innocent [Smith] family"

The question is, was she banned or did she leave?

by cockerspaniel 25.10.15 18:16

sallypelt wrote:If any proof is needed that this woman doesn't know what day of the week it is, just read two of the statements snipped from her blog on the mentioned dates, below:

Saturday, 16 August 2014

"BURIED BY THE ANTI'S - Banned for having an opposing view"

25 October 2015

"I actually left CMoMM because I was appalled at the stalking and harassment of this innocent [Smith] family"

The question is, was she banned or did she leave?

by Guest 25.10.15 18:29

sallypelt wrote:If any proof is needed that this woman doesn't know what day of the week it is, just read two of the statements snipped from her blog on the mentioned dates, below:

Saturday, 16 August 2014

"BURIED BY THE ANTI'S - Banned for having an opposing view"

25 October 2015

"I actually left CMoMM because I was appalled at the stalking and harassment of this innocent [Smith] family"

The question is, was she banned or did she leave?

She received a seven-day suspension for disruption, IIRC.

by hentie 25.10.15 18:36

Ladyinred wrote:
sallypelt wrote:If any proof is needed that this woman doesn't know what day of the week it is, just read two of the statements snipped from her blog on the mentioned dates, below:

Saturday, 16 August 2014

"BURIED BY THE ANTI'S - Banned for having an opposing view"

25 October 2015

"I actually left CMoMM because I was appalled at the stalking and harassment of this innocent [Smith] family"

The question is, was she banned or did she leave?

She received a seven-day suspension for disruption, IIRC.

Then she claimed on Twitter, etc., etc, that she had been banned PERMANENTLY