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

On March 24, I wrote this, after Sonia Poulton had appeared on SKY News yet again, discussing some topical issue or other:

++++++++++++++++++++++++    

QUOTE Tony Bennett 24 March 2015:

To say the least, it is curious how Murdoch's SKY News keep turning to her - several times in the past year...wasn't it cigarette-smoking or something just a few weeks ago?

But then who was it who arranged that awful 2-pager in Murdoch's the Sun featuring Rosalinda Hutton as the 'anti-McCann bitch who gets a buzz out of attacking others on the internet'? Poulton again.

Poulton has been 'commissioned' to make a documentary about the McCanns. Or so she says. But she's buttoned up her lips (for once) about who has commissioned her.

Murdoch again?


P.S. What is all this about?

Poulton tweeted this about 11am today:

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
#mccann do you believe abduction? Will you be interviewed for doc? Full recording for you. Even if you've smeared me I am happy to int. you

UNQUOTE

++++++++++++++++

This evening she has been on SKY News yet one more time - I make that at least FOUR such appearances in the last few months:

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

This time she was talking about 'Term Time Holidays'.

It does seem increasingly extraordinary that someone who has (a) railed against the way Brenda Leyland was hounded to death by SKY News, (b) claimed she is making a hard-hitting, factual documentary about Madeleine McCann and maybe Brenda Leyland as well and (c) made a series of short videos approaching people like Iain Duncan-Smith in the street with a microphone and calling him a 'mass-murderer' should be invited on so regularly to the SKY News sofa.

She takes the Murdoch shilling time after time, yet is supposedly a fierce critic of SKY's treatment of Brenda Leyland and an equally fierce critic of the coverage of the Madeleine McCann story by Murdoch's SKY News, Sun, News of the World, Times etc.

What on earth can possibly explain this bewildering paradox?

SP - social affairs commentator.    Is she now on the pay roll officially?   Seems she has a "title" now.

I wonder if because they (Sky/MSM in general) want to influence women in particular and the best way to do that is to get a feisty woman who will discuss whatever is trending even if it is controversial and totally opposite to previous held opinions of only yesterday! It's like EstherMcVey suddenly becoming Privy Councillor - how did that happen?

I think it's to do with trying to lead opinions in a certain direction.

Addressing the OP:

Anyone who "Takes the SKY shilling" announces to the planet that, as far as moral compasses are concerned, the current one owned by SP is well and truly not pointing North.

Paradox? Not particularly. When you work for any media you may start off with the very best of intentions but you are merely a corporate-owned pawn, whoever you are. Ultimately they will ship you around to any topic, any agenda, any task and that's it. You are required to undertake their bidding as your employer - or take a hike.

There is no way on God's Earth that SKY would ever entertain anything negative re Mcs after such colossal investment in S&S et al and their current ongoing attempt to vilify, no, demonise every dissenter of the Mcs on line as trolls. What I would call "Operation Misnomer".

Everyone has a price, they say. Rather like finding an honest politician, I think an honest broadcaster is an even rarer species.
Personally I trust none of them, at all, whatsoever; never have, never will.

The media's remit/nessecity is to have headlines and when there aren't any they make them up. The never ending fool's Golden Goose that is the Mcs is a gift that keeps on giving. No way will SKY cook that bird until/unless the Mcs are found culpable of something & carpeted before the beak. Then, the whole Press/Media/MWT will swiftly swoop in like carrion and reap the spoils. Matters not to them regards the truth; sensation is everything which in turn yields the most money.

Remember, the media is driven by greed and acquisition of £fortunes, they are not in any way disseminators of truth.
That's why they hate the Internet where the truth, if you sift, at least exists.

Mark Willis wrote:You are required to undertake their bidding as your employer - or take a hike.

Yes.

There is no such think as a maverick reporter in the mainstream media.

You get in step.

You do as you are told, you quickly understand the requirements of your employer or you are gone.

Was it always like this? Probably, although we like to think there was a golden age of investigative reporting, but anyone who pulled a pay cheque will have been under the microscope.

The "great" investigative reporters of the past were still likely dancing to the tune of their financial backers.

This is why free speech on the internet is so important.

BlueBag wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:You are required to undertake their bidding as your employer - or take a hike.

Yes.

There is no such think as a maverick reporter in the mainstream media.

You get in step.

You do as you are told, you quickly understand the requirements of your employer or you are gone.

Was it always like this? Probably, although we like to think there was a golden age of investigative reporting, but anyone who pulled a pay cheque will have been under the microscope.

The "great" investigative reporters of the past were still likely dancing to the tune of their financial backers.

This is why free speech on the internet is so important.

Absolutely. We may wish for another Fyfe Robertson or Robin Day, or even Alan Whicker or David Frost, but those who control the media know it is the most powerful weapon for any government.
Essentially, the UK media is the government's mouthpiece.

Poulton tweeted this about 11am today:

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
#mccann do you believe abduction? Will you be interviewed for doc? Full recording for you. Even if you've smeared me I am happy to int. you
===============================

So NOW she's 'AFTER' PRO McCann 'supporters' who BELIEVE the 'abduction', without question?

Not many ANTI's 'believe' .......'abduction' do they?

May be a 'smart' move though.

The Pro's can tell her WHY the McCann's, their friends or people they 'know/knew' were NOT 'involved' in the 'abduction', can't they?

And PROVIDE irrefuteable PROOF of 'that'

jeanmonroe wrote:Poulton tweeted this about 11am today:

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
#mccann do you believe abduction? Will you be interviewed for doc? Full recording for you. Even if you've smeared me I am happy to int. you
===============================

So NOW she's 'AFTER' PRO McCann 'supporters' who BELIEVE the 'abduction', without question?

Not many ANTI's 'believe' .......'abduction' do they?

May be a 'smart' move though.

The Pro's can tell her WHY the McCann's, their friends or people they 'know/knew' were NOT 'involved' in the 'abduction', can't they?

And PROVIDE irrefuteable PROOF of 'that'

Now that would be a first.

It's pretty obvious this is a documentary about trolling. What else will sell?

I also want to ask a couple of questions that may not sit well with posters here.

How much has Sonia Poulton been paid by Sky recently?

Was Rosalinda Hutton rewarded financially for her Sun interview after selection by Sonia Poulton?

At this point Aquila it doesn't matter because we haven't seen the documentary yet. If it turns out to be another load of crap I'm sure we'll all dissect and criticise it and Sonia will 'disappear' like S&S have.

Even if it turns out "bad", there may be useful info so might not be a complete waste.

Sonia Poulton appears to me to be a bear of very little brain who is merely pushy, likes the sound of her own voice, and enjoys appearing on the box. I have NO idea why Sky considers to be an 'expert' on, or competent in, anything! I haven't forgotten yet the ridiculous two-way Sky interview involving a senior ovarian cancer professor and surgeon and... for some unexplained reason... La Poulton (!) He explained the disease, and the dilemmas for afflicted patients with genetic predispositions, and she warbled on about the need to give equal importance to the 'proven' alternative therapies like the consumption of cannabis oil and apricot kernels. The woman appeared to me to be two pennies short of a shilling. How did she get to be viewed as any kind of legitimate presenter, or film or TV programme maker?

comperedna wrote:Sonia Poulton appears to me to be a bear of very little brain who is merely pushy, likes the sound of her own voice, and enjoys appearing on the box. I have NO idea why Sky considers to be an 'expert' on, or competent in, anything! I haven't forgotten yet the ridiculous two-way Sky interview involving a senior ovarian cancer professor and surgeon and... for some unexplained reason... La Poulton (!) He explained the disease, and the dilemmas for afflicted patients with genetic predispositions, and she warbled on about the need to give equal importance to the 'proven' alternative therapies like the consumption of cannabis oil and apricot kernels. The woman appeared to me to be two pennies short of a shilling. How did she get to be viewed as any kind of legitimate presenter, or film or TV programme maker?

How much has Sonia Poulton earned from Sky recently?

Could be loadsamoney, aquila. Why am I reminded of that astonishing pseudoscientist and 'nutritionist' fraud 'Dr' Gillian McKeith, exposed so amusingly and shockingly by Ben Goldacre? It is said that she became a multimillionnaire on the gullibility of the public. Who knows, she may only have had a room temperature IQ, but she had amazing amounts of brass neck, bare-faced cheek, and a domineering personality.

comperedna wrote:Could be loadsamoney, aquila. Why am I reminded of that astonishing pseudoscientist and 'nutritionist' fraud 'Dr' Gillian McKeith, exposed so amusingly and shockingly by Ben Goldacre? It is said that she became a multimillionnaire on the gullibility of the public. Who knows, she may only have had a room temperature IQ, but she had amazing amounts of brass neck, bare-faced cheek, and a domineering personality.

I bought Gillian McKeith's book. I still have it. It's all about looking at your own poo and doing a bit of home analysis. It's about eating miso soup and a lot of other nonsense. The media lapped it up, gave her so many slots and she became a celebrity.

Will Sonia become a celebrity? She most certainly will as long as she tows the line with the Murdoch empire.

She can't even nail Ian D Smith lol ..... how easy would that be? 

aquila wrote:I also want to ask a couple of questions that may not sit well with posters here.

1. How much has Sonia Poulton been paid by Sky recently?

2. Was Rosalinda Hutton rewarded financially for her Sun interview after selection by Sonia Poulton?

@ TheTruthWillOut

I can scarcely believe that you can say that the answers to aquila's two questions 'don't matter'. 

In the case of Sonia Poulton, she purports to be:

* AGAINST SKY News hounding Brenda Leyland to death
* AGAINST the theory that Madeleine was abducted, which has been so assiduously promoted by Murdoch's media: SKY, Sun, News of the World, Times etc. for eight years, and
* AGAINST the serialisation of the Sumnmer and Swan propaganda exercise in Murdoch's newspapers...and so on.

She is clearly being paid by Murdoch and there is clearly a programme controller/editor at SKY who is very keen to use her services at every turn. This is despite her lamentable record at David Icke's 'People's TV' and her appalling journalism in screeching things like 'You Are a Mass Murderer!' to government ministers.

She ought to be able to tell us the truth about how much she's been paid by the very people who hounded Brenda Leyland to death and who have buried so many inconvenient facts in the Madeleine McCann case.

As for Rosalinda Hutton, the notoriety and attention she enjoyed from being displayed over 2 pages of the Sun as 'an anti-McCann bitch who gets a 'buzz' out of attacking other people' may have been sufficient reward for her. (Incidentally, that may not be the last we have heard about that article, it could well be used again by the Sun in any future article about trolls or about Madeleine).

I thought to myself at the time: "Surely to goodness she didn't also get paid for the Sun doing that feature?"   

All I will say is that she has been asked that very question before, but not yet answered it.

Maybe she will shortly tell us on her blog: 'No, the Sun didn't pay me a penny".

As I'm sure you'll agree, @ TheTruthWillOut...eventually... 

...the truth will out

Angelique wrote:I wonder if because they (Sky/MSM in general) want to influence women in particular and the best way to do that is to get a feisty woman who will discuss whatever is trending even if it is controversial and totally opposite to previous held opinions of only yesterday!  It's like EstherMcVey suddenly becoming Privy Councillor - how did that happen?

I think it's to do with trying to lead opinions in a certain direction.

I think there's a lot of truth in there. Loose cannons sell well, especially women. There are all sorts of bizarre characters turning up across all channels for all sorts of reasons who couldn't agree amongst themselves on how to boil an egg. Katie Hopkins is another. It doesn't matter how repugnant their views, how they discredit themselves, its like opinionate commentator is just a role they put on.  'Have gob, will travel.' 

Sonia was making a fool of herself sounding like a hysterical hippie whining about Jeremy Clarkson on Jeremy Vine BBCR2 the other week, and was described as a 'regular.' 

If you believe the media runs the world then you' ll believe SP is part of an underhand criminal plot of the lowest caliber. If you believe the media swings in any direction to (a) make money, (b) not look like it was taken by surprise and (c) court a following by looking informed and authoritative, then SP is a soulless gob for hire who bangs on doors in order to stay in media, and works well for an in vogue demographic. 

I have no time for her. She'd sell her grandmother if it got her the attention she craves. 

Sometimes people seem to forget that these characters aren't 'operatives', they're 'people' and are subject to all the foibles of egomaniacs and wannabes. Unimportnt and inconsequential. a

aquila wrote:

comperedna wrote:Sonia Poulton appears to me to be a bear of very little brain who is merely pushy, likes the sound of her own voice, and enjoys appearing on the box. I have NO idea why Sky considers to be an 'expert' on, or competent in, anything! I haven't forgotten yet the ridiculous two-way Sky interview involving a senior ovarian cancer professor and surgeon and... for some unexplained reason... La Poulton (!) He explained the disease, and the dilemmas for afflicted patients with genetic predispositions, and she warbled on about the need to give equal importance to the 'proven' alternative therapies like the consumption of cannabis oil and apricot kernels. The woman appeared to me to be two pennies short of a shilling. How did she get to be viewed as any kind of legitimate presenter, or film or TV programme maker?

How much has Sonia Poulton earned from Sky recently?

Don't know, but maybe that's why the docu. is taking so long, too many gigs for Sky.   Fed up waiting for it now.

@Tony

I said At this point. This documentary is a myth until we see it. Even if what you just stated turns out to be 100% true, what will it have achieved in the aim of finding out what happened to Madeleine? As for the Sky/Brenda Leyland debacle, that will be for SP to morally justify herself (if she is being paid).

I genuinely think there is too much time and effort wasted right now on what certain individuals/organisations agendas may or may not be. I want to know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible.

Then start exposing those who have used the case for their own purposes if you feel the need to.

Fair enough, Thetruthwillout... and I will admit to being guilty of that. I will desist! :-) I will just say that it is often the bully from the bottom set who becomes the con man.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Tony

I said At this point. This documentary is a myth until we see it. Even if what you just stated turns out to be 100% true, what will it have achieved in the aim of finding out what happened to Madeleine? As for the Sky/Brenda Leyland debacle, that will be for SP to morally justify herself (if she is being paid).

I genuinely think there is too much time and effort wasted right now on what certain individuals/organisations agendas may or may not be. I want to know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible.

Then start exposing those who have used the case for their own purposes if you feel the need to.

It's called going on past form and Tony has felt the need to point out SP's past form, which I am glad he has done as I will now not be too disappointed if it all comes to nothing.

plebgate wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Tony

I said At this point. This documentary is a myth until we see it. Even if what you just stated turns out to be 100% true, what will it have achieved in the aim of finding out what happened to Madeleine? As for the Sky/Brenda Leyland debacle, that will be for SP to morally justify herself (if she is being paid).

I genuinely think there is too much time and effort wasted right now on what certain individuals/organisations agendas may or may not be. I want to know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible.

Then start exposing those who have used the case for their own purposes if you feel the need to.

It's called going on past form and Tony has felt the need to point out SP's past form, which I am glad he has done as I will now not be too disappointed if it all comes to nothing.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here and couldn't care less about SP's passed, present or future "form". 

I think I'll bow out now because I don't feel any of the discussion is actually about the case anymore.

plebgate wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Tony

I said At this point. This documentary is a myth until we see it. Even if what you just stated turns out to be 100% true, what will it have achieved in the aim of finding out what happened to Madeleine? As for the Sky/Brenda Leyland debacle, that will be for SP to morally justify herself (if she is being paid).

I genuinely think there is too much time and effort wasted right now on what certain individuals/organisations agendas may or may not be. I want to know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible.

Then start exposing those who have used the case for their own purposes if you feel the need to.

It's called going on past form and Tony has felt the need to point out SP's past form, which I am glad he has done as I will now not be too disappointed if it all comes to nothing.

@ TheTruthWillOut

One of the reasons (and there are many) why I continually warn about Sonia Poulton's conduct in this matter is the debacle over the horrendous 2-page Sun interview with Rosalidna Hutton.

Poulton openly lied when she tweeted, weeks before that dreadful Sun piece, that one of the mainstream media wanted someone to talk about the case. 

If memory serves (someone may have the exact words), her tweet said 'opportunity to talk about case'.

But it wasn't, was it?

What the Sun wanted to do was to expose 'vile internet trolls'.

It was no such thing.

And I strongly suggest that what the Sun wanted all along was that at least one of the trolls was an anti-McCann vile troll.

And did anyone notice how Hutton volunteered within minutes of Poulton's tweet - and how Poulton ignored other people who came forward?  

It was a complete and utter set-up and I suggest that Poulton knew that it was from the get-go.

Therefore, on the basis of that set of events alone - never mind anything else - anything that Poulton does in relation to the Madeleine McCann case should carry a 'Health Warning'.

Her interview of Stephen D. Birch was another example. She didn't challenge any of Birch's rubbish, letting him spout for half-an-hour. This could only have led viewers of 'People's TV' to think that Birch was on to something of interest, and therefore her broadcast with Birch served merely to confuse people. 

For anyone sincerely seeking the truth, like yourself, @ TheTruthWillOut, these are major considerations.


Now let's have a quick flick through what Poulton told and promised us in her 3-min YouTube video published on 24 December (the one with the Christmas tree in the background): 

1. 'I've been working on the documentary for two months' (i.e. since October 2014) 'with my production team' (so she has been working on it for 6 months now)
2. The working title is: 'The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann' which, she said, "it literally is"   
3. She has been 'disappointed' with mainstream media coverage of Madeleine's disappearance
4. It will be an 'evidence-based' documentary 
5. She would be 'interviewing the central characters'
6. She had already doorstepped 'four of the main characters' - who were 'there at the time' [in Praia da Luz] but 'without much success' 
7. People had been smearing her because she was doubting the abduction
8. 'We're going after the people who have been smearing me' (accompanied by knowing smile) 
9. 'These people [i.e. the people who are smearing me] need to be revealed' (another knowing smile)
10. Someone who you would not expect is a very prolific anti-McCann on social media - someone who will 'shock you all' - and the name of that person will be revealed in my documentary.

On top of that, we know, because Roslinda Hutton has told us, that she has been 'commissioned' by someone to produce this documentary.

To date she has not told us who has commissioned her. During this time she has appeared on SKY News FOUR times and has helped to arrange a 2-page spread in the Sun which firmly planted in the minds of readers of Britain's most popular newspaper the idea that anti-McCanns are vile internet trolls. Both SKY and the Sun are controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

Poulton spent more time in her 3-minute video whingeing about the people who were smearing her on the internet and explaining rather gleefully how she was 'going to go after them' and 'expose' them, than on Madeleine.

These are the facts.

Another fact is that Richard Hall's first Madeleine film has now had around half a million YouTube and internet views and, according to what he said at this talk yesterday, he is about to reveal the 'untold story' of various claimed abductors in his next Madeleine film, to be released any day now



ETA: TheTruthWillOut wrote:


I'm not really sure what you're getting at here and couldn't care less about SP's past, present or future "form".

REPLY by TB: Thank you. It's very helpful for us all to know that
 
I think I'll bow out now because I don't feel any of the discussion is actually about the case anymore

REPLY by TB: Hmmm. Have a look at the titles of, say, the last 30 threads started on here - and I think you will find that it very much IS about the case - and maybe that's why so many people come here every day - to see what people are saying about it

@TB

7. People had been smearing her because she was doubting the abduction
8. 'We're going after the people who have been smearing me' (accompanied by knowing smile)
9. 'These people [i.e. the people who are smearing me] need to be revealed' (another knowing smile)
10. Someone who you would not expect is a very prolific anti-McCann on social media - someone who will 'shock you all' - and the name of that person will be revealed in my documentary
--------------------------------------

'correction'

SP 'said'..............verbatim

"but it's very interesting, because with modern technology, we've quite legally and legitmately, we've been able to trace these people, who are sending quite awful smeary things about myself and my loved ones, so we will be going after them for this documentary because these people need to be revealed, we will also, we've also now traced somebody whose involved with the campaign, of maintaining the abduction theory. Somebody who was very prolific online and it's somebody who will SHOCK people, and we have traced that person, and THAT person, WILL be revealed in the documentary."
------------------------------------------------
10. Someone who you would not expect is a very prolific anti-McCann on social media - someone who will 'shock you all' - and the name of that person will be revealed in my documentary
------------------------------------------------------------------

SP did not 'say' .................'a very prolific anti-McCann on social media..................to be 'revealed'

She 'said' (verbatim) "we've also now traced somebody whose involved with the campaign, of maintaining the abduction theory. Somebody who was very prolific online and it's somebody who will SHOCK people, and we have traced that person, and THAT person, WILL be revealed in the documentary."
------------------------------------------------
"SOMEONE INVOLVED" WITH THE CAMPAIGN, OF MAINTAINING THE ABDUCTION 'THEORY'......AND THAT PERSON WILL BE 'REVEALED' (in the documentary)

The 'polar' opposite to an ANTI McCann 'view', surely?

I feel it is very important to 'qoute' EXACTLY what 'people' have 'said'

Pedantic, maybe, but better for 'us' to quote 'directly' what people are on record as having actually 'said'

It doesn't look to me as though this docu. is coming out any time soon.   If, as the latest tweet suggests, pros are being asked to contact to be interviewed then I imagine that will take some weeks to arrange and film.

l can't see many takers either questioners or pros.

Who, in their right mind, would volunteer to be interviewed for this docu? - unless of course money changed hands and then I would doubt anything that was said as it would not be volunteering.

People might say anything if enough dough was offered.  Not saying this is the case, but always, always think of as many scenarios that could pan out is my motto.

As Tony asked yesterday, has anyone been paid so far?

I too am tired of waiting for this revelation moment.  What sensational information could she possible supply when skulking about the country after eight years, no one else has managed cracked the nut.  As for the woman, I wouldn't trust her further than I could throw her.

jeanmonroe wrote:@TB

7. People had been smearing her because she was doubting the abduction
8. 'We're going after the people who have been smearing me' (accompanied by knowing smile)
9. 'These people [i.e. the people who are smearing me] need to be revealed' (another knowing smile)
10. Someone who you would not expect is a very prolific anti-McCann on social media - someone who will 'shock you all' - and the name of that person will be revealed in my documentary
--------------------------------------

'correction'

SP 'said'..............verbatim

"but it's very interesting, because with modern technology, we've quite legally and legitmately, we've been able to trace these people, who are sending quite awful smeary things about myself and my loved ones, so we will be going after them for this documentary because these people need to be revealed, we will also, we've also now traced somebody whose involved with the campaign, of maintaining the abduction theory. Somebody who was very prolific online and it's somebody who will SHOCK people, and we have traced that person, and THAT person, WILL be revealed in the documentary."
------------------------------------------------
10. Someone who you would not expect is a very prolific anti-McCann on social media - someone who will 'shock you all' - and the name of that person will be revealed in my documentary
------------------------------------------------------------------

SP did not 'say' .................'a very prolific anti-McCann on social media..................to be 'revealed'

She 'said' (verbatim) "we've also now traced somebody whose involved with the campaign, of maintaining the abduction theory. Somebody who was very prolific online and it's somebody who will SHOCK people, and we have traced that person, and THAT person, WILL be revealed in the documentary."
------------------------------------------------
"SOMEONE INVOLVED" WITH THE CAMPAIGN, OF MAINTAINING THE ABDUCTION 'THEORY'......AND THAT PERSON WILL BE 'REVEALED' (in the documentary)

@ jeanmonroe

You're 100% right, of course - an unfortunate slip of the mind - I did mean to say pro-McCann, pro-abduction...


...sorry about that to all

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Tony

I genuinely think there is too much time and effort wasted right now on what certain individuals/organisations agendas may or may not be. I want to know what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible.

Then start exposing those who have used the case for their own purposes if you feel the need to.

agreed.

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton
#mccann do you believe abduction? Will you be interviewed for doc? Full recording for you. Even if you've smeared me I am happy to int. you
--------------------------------------------------

I think SP SHOULD 'interview' a PRO McCann 'supporter'

(one would have thought a PRO McCann 'supporter' would be 'champing at the bit' to defend the McCann's, on a public platform, via SP, publicly, wouldn't you?)

The person can tell her exactly WHY the McCann's, their friends, or people they know/knew were NOT 'involved' in Madeleine's 'disappearance' can't they?

Even though the 'supporter' was NOT THERE, at the time of 'disappearance'!

eg: SP "so WHY are the McCann's, or their T7 friends, or people they know/knew, in your eyes, totally innocent of ANY  possible 'involvement', in the disappearance of their 3 year old daughter?

PRO McCANN 'supporter': "Er, because they said they weren't"

SP: "What direct, irrefutable, concrete evidence, do you personally have, that they were not, could not have been, involved in Madeleine's disappearance?

PMS: "I don't actually have any evidence, per se, other than they only say, and have said, they weren't"

SP: "So you believe everything they say, or have said, without question?"

PMS: "Of course'

SP: "Why"

PMS: "Because they are lovely?"

SP: "Is it possible they could have been involved, at some point, in their daughter's disappearance'?"

PMS: "Well, i wasn't actually there, at the time, so i suppose, i concede, it is possible that they and their friends could have been 'involved' at some stage, i suppose'

SP: "Maybe a massive scam? They didn't have much money before they went to Portugal and now they are millionaires, due in no small part, owing to their daughter's disappearance, donations to their private fund, merchandise, books about her disappearance, out of court settlements, who are about to put in one million of their own money, although there is no proof that they actually have, to date, into their private Madeleine fund, which you no doubt donated to, if Operation Grange closes"

PMS: "Well, as you put it like that, i suppose, it could be, anything is possible, isn't it?"

SP: "So Madeleine could be sitting in a luxury lair, in the UK, totally unharmed, just waiting to be revealed at an opportune moment, say just before the general election, in May?"

PMS: "Erm, could be, i suppose, i've never really thought about that, in all honesty"

SP: "wouldn't that make Madeleine's Fund, totally fraudulent, having been set up after, you have conceded, they possibly knew exactly where Madeleine was, after May 3rd 2007?"

PMS "Put like that, the fund would definitely be fraudulent"

SP: So what do you think now about the McCann's you avidly, ardently, support, defend, without question?"

SP: "Would you, personally, feel absolutely er, totally betrayed, by the McCann's, who you have supported faithfully, these last almost 8 years, unquestionally, if it transpires, they, their friends or persons known to them, knew exactly what had happened to Madeleine in May 2007, and, in fact, she hadn't been abducted, at all? There's absolutely no evidence that she was abducted, is there? Operation Grange's, 38 solely dedicated detectives and staff, in almost 4 years full time investigation, have found no absolutely evidence of an abduction, have they? How would you feel, if you've been lied to, all this time? The McCann's did lie about the jemmied shutter, that they phoned all their relatives and friends in the UK to tell them about, didn't they?"

PMS: "Hmmm, erm, can i think about what you've asked?'

SP: "Course you can"
---------------------------------------------------------

Pro McCann supporter 'interview' anytime soon, by SP?

I DON'T THINK SO!