Re: Sonia Poulton: The McCanns and the Police

by Boba Fett 29.04.18 12:24

kaz wrote:
Boba Fett wrote:Interesting that Poulton is accused of not presenting anything "new" and is simultaneously criticised for not mentioning the sniffer dogs (old news).

Tough crowd.
Obviously 'The Dogs' do not, in her opinion, come under the umbrella of , ''McCanns and the Police.'' We shall have to subscribe to her version of 'Pay and View' to get any further.

I don't think it's obvious at all. Perhaps she concluded that it had all been done before, and as such didn't want to waste precious time/resources covering it. Maybe the next documentary will be a 45 minute Eddie & Keela special. Who knows?

As for the barbed comment about her method of funding, it's not my money so I'm not complaining.

by kaz 29.04.18 12:37

Boba Fett wrote:
kaz wrote:
Boba Fett wrote:Interesting that Poulton is accused of not presenting anything "new" and is simultaneously criticised for not mentioning the sniffer dogs (old news).

Tough crowd.
Obviously 'The Dogs' do not, in her opinion, come under the umbrella of , ''McCanns and the Police.'' We shall have to subscribe to her version of 'Pay and View' to get any further.

I don't think it's obvious at all. Perhaps she concluded that it had all been done before, and as such didn't want to waste precious time/resources covering it. Maybe the next documentary will be a 45 minute Eddie & Keela special. Who knows?

As for the barbed comment about her method of funding, it's not my money so I'm not complaining.

I think it's obvious inasmuch as it WASN'T included and that must have been her decision. To be honest everything she has included in her documentary to date 'has all been done before ' by people willing to stick their necks out and actually GIVE an opinion. Granted regurgitation of the known facts might well be her remit but why would you want to fund that? I never meant the comment to sound 'barbed.' I was just stating the fact.

by Boba Fett 29.04.18 12:43

kaz wrote:I think it's obvious inasmuch as it WASN'T included and that must have been her decision. To be honest everything she has included in her documentary to date 'has all been done before ' by people willing to stick their necks out and actually GIVE an opinion. Granted regurgitation of the known facts might well be her remit but why would you want to fund that? I never meant the comment to sound 'barbed.' I was just stating the fact.

I don't want to fund it, I haven't contributed a penny towards it and won't be doing so. I'll gladly watch it for free, though, as I found it vaguely informative and am always interested in finding another perspective on this case even if it's one I disagree with.

I'm just surprised at the level of criticism she is receiving for producing a video which isn't entirely favourable towards the McCanns.

As I say, tough crowd.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.04.18 13:01

Bayonne wrote:The fundraiser page: https://www.patreon.com/soniapoulton

Here, Sonia says the next film she will release will be in June: "Each month, patrons can vote - from a selection - which film they want me to make next

Skip over to : http://www.theuntoldstoryofmadeleinemccann.com/

and I see...

"This film is Part 1. Part 2 will follow on the conclusion of investigations in Portugal and London. There is material that simply cannot be used while live police investigations are in progress."

So now we have two separate and contradictory reasons as to why Part 2 may be delayed:

(1) "It will follow on the conclusion of investigations in Portugal and London".

(2) "It depends on how the Patreon goes".

Sonia's recent film mentioned 'inconsistencies' and 'contradictions' quite a few times.

And there have been rather a lot of these in what Sonia has said about her documentaries in the past.

I suspect her 'patrons' might want to know which is the correct reason.

So give us the truth, Sonia, which of the above is the reason why Part 2 may be delayed?

Or is there perhaps a third reason?

by Guest 29.04.18 13:11

This is just a baseless vicious attack against a particular person.

Go to any fora and/or blog that focuses on the case of Madeleine McCann (or any other subject for that matter) and you will see a 'donate' button, with the exception of CMoMM, I hasten to add. Even good old Nigel Moore of mccannfiles had to reluctantly seek a little financial help for the upkeep of his website.

You pay for a newspaper, you are effectively financing them, along with the millions they rake in through advertising and sponsorship. Do you complain about that? Again the choice is yours whether or not you buy a newspaper. For goodness sake get a grip, this is not a playground brawl.

Whether or not you donate - the choice is yours and your alone.

CMoMM is not a place to harbour this kind of petty resentment. Can we please stick to the subject matter alone - Sonia Poulton's documentary.

Thank you!

by Phoebe 29.04.18 13:39

@ Verdi. Hear Hear! thumbsup

by **Ladyinred** 29.04.18 14:02

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "A baseless vicious attack", is this comment aimed at TB? If so, I see nothing vicious about his comments.
I recall you spent months taking the p*** out of SP...oops, sorry Ms Poulton.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.04.18 16:10

Verdi wrote:This is just an baseless vicious attack against a particular person.

@ Verdi

Do you want to know what a 'baseless, vicious' attack against a particular person really looks like?

Then try this - from just over two years ago. Her opposition to me began soon after I doubted the authenticity of the 'Smithman' sighting (oh, and by the way, sticking with the subject of 'baseless, vicious' attacks, she refers to this venerable and honourable forum as 'a cesspit'):

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

In case some can't read the small writing, she begins by referring to "a bigger filth called Tony Bennett..."

Note also her reference to "hate forums". Yes, yes, she is referring to CMOMM.

Some people may think this is personal on my side, but it really isn't.

My opposition to her has always been solely on the basis that she has not advanced the cause of the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann, but has often detracted from it. I have given the specifics of that many times on here, so no need to repeat them.

When I have a moment next week I will view Sonia's film a second time and explain why, once again, she seeks to lead people away from the truth and not towards it, and especially in relation to her known opposition to the understanding of the case now shared by the vast majority of CMOMM members and of course as set out in summary on our home page.

by **sharonl** 29.04.18 16:27

I am beginning to get a horrible feeling that apart from the demise of Madeleine McCann, something else also happened over there on or just after 29th April 2007. Why else would this group have been employed to keep the focus on May 3rd? Is, someone else being protected here? Keeping the focus on May 3rd may prevent the McCanns from ever being prosecuted but the ridiculous story of Gerry running around PDL carrying Madeleines' corpse is doing them no favours at all.

So if Sonia Poulton is not directly protecting the McCanns, who or what is she protecting?

by polyenne 29.04.18 18:16

Boba Fett : I agree. During my time here, ive seen a few people villified, some admittedly for good reason.

Whatever her previous faults may have been (for some people) and/or the company she chooses to keep, in my opinion, SP has produced a worthwhile documentary that tries hard to be factual, does not embellish the truth and isn’t sensationalist. For that she should be applauded.

The key will be to raise awareness and ensure subsequent episodes are released in a reasonable timescale and at regular intervals. It would seem apparent that, with 10 episodes, she’ll deal with key elements in turn. Together, they should open the eyes & minds of those who still feel the McCanns (and the T7) are innocent of any wrongdoing.

by Guest 29.04.18 21:19

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "A baseless vicious attack", is this comment aimed at TB? If so, I see nothing vicious about his comments.
I recall you spent months taking the p*** out of SP...oops, sorry Ms Poulton.

No, my comment was not specifically aimed at Tony Bennet, Ladyinred - OK?

I'm fully aware of my past attitude towards Sonia Poulton in relation to her public persona, which remains intact and will be resumed as and when something occurs that warrants it. On this occasion however, I comment only on the subject of her ostensibly looking for financial support to continue her work.

My comment remains true to the word.

by Guest 29.04.18 21:50

Tony Bennett wrote:@ Verdi

Do you want to know what a 'baseless, vicious' attack against a particular person really looks like?

Then try this - from just over two years ago. Her opposition to me began soon after I doubted the authenticity of the 'Smithman' sighting (oh, and by the way, sticking with the subject of 'baseless, vicious' attacks, she refers to this venerable and honourable forum as 'a cesspit'):

Again, I'm totally aware of the attacks made in the public arena against you, Jill, other members and CMoMM in general but is it necessary to continue this feud on the open forum? It's not very healthy for the forum's image, nor very helpful to the forum's purpose - I'm sure you will agree.

The 'cesspit' is a widely used epithet by forum critics generally, you need to ask why the forum has been subjected to this childish name calling. Personally, I don't believe it is based only on the controversial work of the forum, I think the reason runs a lot deeper.

The thing is, over the years to this day, there have been some really bonkers theories put forward but they are all ignored - why then is CMoMM the target, because 'we' are on the right course? Why would that upset anyone, isn't the ultimate aim justice for Madeleine McCann, no matter who finally solves the mystery? It could of course be argued that this band of critics are McCann employees but that's a bit far fetched - as ridiculous as the suggestion that you or Jill or Sharonl are in the McCanns employ. You know that's just fabrication, the accusers know it's just fabrication, you're not obliged to prove it.

By all means defend yourself modus 'eye for an eye - tooth for tooth', most people in your position would do the same, including me. I just ask that CMoMMs open forum is not used as a field of battle. Twitter and facebook nurture feudal combat, let it begin and end there. I like to see the forum go from strength to strength, not destroyed by outsiders with nothing better to do than make mischief.

If they make there way in here, just like Sergei Malinka, or source close to (who was given ample opportunity to state his case even though his raison d'etre was blatantly clear), then and only then time enough for action. Meanwhile let's stick to the purpose of the forum and not let these people create a distraction - please.

What promised to be a fruitful weekend, with PeterMac's new e-book chapter published on the forum thanks to Jill Havern and an update on the MMRG letter sent to the Portuguese authorities thanks to Paulo Reis and Sharonl - all pushed aside in favour of a YouTube video that threatens to go nowhere.

by Guest 29.04.18 22:14

polyenne wrote:Boba Fett : I agree. During my time here, ive seen a few people villified, some admittedly for good reason.

Whatever her previous faults may have been (for some people) and/or the company she chooses to keep, in my opinion, SP has produced a worthwhile documentary that tries hard to be factual, does not embellish the truth and isn’t sensationalist. For that she should be applauded.

The key will be to raise awareness and ensure subsequent episodes are released in a reasonable timescale and at regular intervals. It would seem apparent that, with 10 episodes, she’ll deal with key elements in turn. Together, they should open the eyes & minds of those who still feel the McCanns (and the T7) are innocent of any wrongdoing.

It's a YouTube video. Sonia Poulton does not administer a forum or blog dedicated to the case of Madeleine McCann, there is no scope for development of this one off video. Here today - gone tomorrow, already yesterday's news.

The most it can achieve is to create fresh interest in the case, in which case viewers will google Madeleine McCann or such like, invariably search results will lead direct to CMoMM, being the foremost place of interest as regards the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann.

The bigger picture - every one's a winner 2thumbs

!!!

by Guest 30.04.18 12:57

Sharonl wrote:So if Sonia Poulton is not directly protecting the McCanns, who or what is she protecting?

I truly believe Sonia Poulton works for herself and herself alone - after all, who is she in the grand scheme of things? She professes to be all manner of philanthropic goodies to capture the hearts of the nation but there's little evidence of any do-gooding by way of deed rather than shouting from a soap-box.

Look at her history - she jumps on any bandwagon with a cargo of subjects of social public interest. She animates herself, sits on the edge of her seat pointing fingers and waving her arms about and shouting the odds, invariably shouting down her adversary. She's not in with the in crowd, she's in with the bad guys - all the time trying to further her career, by hook or crook!

If it hadn't been for her name circulating around the various fora and blogs that discuss the case of Madeleine McCann, I for one would never have heard of her then or now. I don't think she has the time to be 'working' for any one or anything in particular - far too busy looking for new openings.

In this particular instance, the McCanns and the police video, it would appear she has latched onto the SkyNews mode of documentary and indeed, in addition to the style, she has used the same sources as Martin Brunt presented in the Sky documentary of yesteryear, May (that month again) 2017..

Of course the SkyNews documentary is far superior to that of Ms Poulton, both in content and presentation but there, the Sky is the limit. They have all the requisite resources for the making of a documentary par excellence. Now there could be a significant connection, Ms Poulton is after all on the pay-roll of Sky - stands to reason she would use her contacts to enhance her standing, albeit on a soap-box.

Nah, I don't think she's got sufficient clout to be a leading crusader for campaign McCann. Besides, if she were in the McCanns employ, she wouldn't be scratching around for money to finance her venture. She's not fully conversant with the case, despite pretending otherwise, therefore in no position to have any powerful significance. I think she's just an opportunist maximising on any available snippet. be it gossip or otherwise, to feather her own nest. She's not a threat, she's just a daytime sofa fog-horn who likes to ruffle feathers - to add to her nest no doubt!

These seasoned journalists are very wiley, they use the tricks of the trade to make the unbelievable appear believable.

Ms Poulton's YouTube film doesn't claim to finally be the 'Untold Story' promised for so many months. For what it is, it's a good production, outlining some of the discrepencies that we are all so painfully aware of, having followed the case for so long. It's not a journalistic investigative documentary, it's a summation of a conspiratorial cover-up of a major crime - The disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

R.I.P.

by Guest 30.04.18 16:00

Tony Bennett wrote:When I have a moment next week I will view Sonia's film a second time and explain why, once again, she seeks to lead people away from the truth and not towards it, and especially in relation to her known opposition to the understanding of the case now shared by the vast majority of CMOMM members and of course as set out in summary on our home page.

I don't believe anyone can state with authority, the opinions of forum members. There are only a few members at present who comment on the case of Madeleine McCann, there are many members and guest readers who may have differing views about the case.

I am aware that some members of CMoMM, I can't say majority, minority or anywhere in between, still do not agree with the theory of Madeleine's earlier fate nor indeed the compelling evidence against Martin Smith and his alleged sighting. I wouldn't for a moment insult them by suggesting, nor even thinking, that because they run contra to the MMRGs conclusions, they are working for, working with or supporting the McCanns.

You can't make people think in a particular way just because it suits, nor can you instil ideas into their minds by constant repetition.

grouphug

by Mark Willis 30.04.18 20:50

Hear hear!

by **Tony Bennett** 01.05.18 0:22

Undoubtedly the 'star' of Sonia Poulton's The McCanns and the Police was retired Met Police Detective Colin Sutton, whom Sonia Poulton referred to in the film as 'distinguished'.

During the film, he was given, I think, seven segments, amounting to several minutes.

I wonder if those of you who have been singing so loudly the praises of this film took notice of the very last exchange between Sonia Poulton and Colin Sutton in the film? (starts at 42 mins 55 secs).

Well, if not...

...here is the transcript of that final exchange:

Sonia Poulton: “Retired detective Colin Sutton is in no doubt about what should happen with the remaining money [in Operation Grange’s budget]”:

Colin Sutton: “The - the starting point has got to be back at Ground Zero…you know, this is when the report was made…”
[an uncanny echo here of DCI Redwood’s comment back on Crimewatch in 2013: “Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to – to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning – and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing”].

Colin Sutton continued: “...These were the last people to see her…This is what they say…These are the people close to her…
"Let’s eliminate those…Let's get them out of the way. And that would serve everybody – you know, you know, that would be in the interests of both, tuh, the general public, but also Kate and Gerry McCann, because, there’s, there’s an awful lot of, tattle, you know, tittle tattle on the internet, and rumours, and, you know, this, this is a case that has aroused so many opinions, and quite strong opinions in some cases, er, if you...
"comprehensively, conclusively, forensically eliminate Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends from any involvement, then that squashes almost all of that rumour mill…That takes it all away". [42 mins 55 secs to 43 mins 40 secs].

So is this the 'end game' so far as the 'distinguished' Colin Sutton is concerned? Is this it...

Clear the McCanns for once and for all - get rid of the tittle tattle, rumours and the strong opinions [here read e.g. CMOMM, PeterMac, Richard Hall and Lizzy Taylor] - and then SQUASH them - and take them all away?

.

by Boba Fett 01.05.18 0:32

I think Colin Sutton was being quite cute and clever there. He's not daft. He knows very well that any re-examination of the McCanns' testimony would do anything but eliminate them from the inquiry; rather, that it would instead lead them to a very uncomfortable place.

I saw it as a shrewd way of putting pressure on Operation Grange to come up with some answers for their £12m efforts.

It seems to me, Tony, that your personal grievances with Sonia Poulton are clouding your judgement of what is a decent documentary.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.05.18 1:15

Boba Fett wrote:I think Colin Sutton was being quite cute and clever there. He's not daft. He knows very well that any re-examination of the McCanns' testimony would do anything but eliminate them from the inquiry; rather, that it would instead lead them to a very uncomfortable place.

I saw it as a shrewd way of putting pressure on Operation Grange to come up with some answers for their £12m efforts.

It seems to me, Tony, that your personal grievances with Sonia Poulton are clouding your judgement of what is a decent documentary.

I would agree with you that Colin Sutton is a shrewd man.

From where I sit, though, his shrewdness extends mainly to having forged a post-retirement career in being an amenable 'rent-a-quote' ex-cop who knows how not to rock the boat but at the same time float a tempting quote to the media to add a little bit of spice and interest to his regular, and lucrative offerings.

Why, the 'distinguished', shrewd man has been at it again even today:

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

New inquiry call for 'spy in bag'. Daily Mail - 2018-04-30 - News -. POLICE should re-examine the death of the 'spy in the bag' Gareth Williams, a former Scotland Yard detective said. Colin Sutton, one of the most senior officers involved in the original inquiry, said this was necessary in light of the Salisbury nerve agent attack ...

That's clever. Linking a Soviet spy with some handy nerve agent in his hand to the killing of a man locked into a hold-all while the room was given a deep clean. More easy publicity for Colin.

--------------

But coming back to his pontifications about the Madeleine McCann case, these are some of the things he was saying a year ago:

Former Scotland Yard detective Colin Sutton says the most "most likely and credible scenario" for Maddie's disappearance is a targeted kidnap

The former Met murder detective said a trafficking gang could have been watching the apartment so they were aware of the family's "routine".

As the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance approaches, the top cop analysed what he believes are the five possible ways she could have gone missing.

Sutton said those close to Maddie - her parents and their friends - would be his first port of call as a detective.

But he said Portuguese cops appeared to make this their only line of investigation early on in the probe.

He said: "By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route."

Colin says Maddie may have been stolen by people traffickers ordered to take a young blonde girl

While cops initially believed Maddie could have wandered off and been killed, Sutton believes the tot would surely have taken her beloved toy "Cuddle Cat" if she had walked out of the apartment.

He said: "Incidents of children wandering off are much more common than a targeted or non-targeted abduction.

"However Cuddle Cat is a compelling fly in the ointment with this theory."

He said it was highly unlikely that an opportunist had snatched her, saying that most predatory paedophiles are "not interested in pre-school age children".

He said: "The chances of a predatory paedophile just happening across Madeleine and being able to abduct her without being detected are just so remote.

"I don’t know of any other opportunistic abduction of a girl so young."

And he also believes it is extremely unlikely that she was killed as part of a burglary gone wrong, as most burglars are drug addicts looking for something small they can easily sell.

He said: "Junkies don’t take three-year-old girls."

--------------------------------------

On the subject of Sonia Poulton, I tried to tell [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the other day that my objection has always been that she has taken people away from the truth about what happened to Madeleine, but he wouldn't have it, preferring to think that this was a 'feud' of some kind or 'an eye for an eye' revenge. He is prone to these flights of fancy sometimes.

As it happens, I am very sure that this (taking people away from the truth) is the case with The McCanns and the Police. I am preparing an analysis for the forum, examining from start to finish in which direction she is trying to take us.

I am sure that Sonia Poulton has done many good things in her life - but on Madeleine McCann she has yet to convince me that she is a sincere seeker after truth.

P.S. I had a good laugh at your attempts to say that Brexit could interfere with extraditing the McCanns. Can't you come up with anything more persuasive than that?

by plebgate 01.05.18 7:04

Yes Tony I had a laugh too about the comment re. Brexit could interfere with any extradition.

Comments like that are meant to disrupt this forum and to goad. Ignore would be my advice. You and many others have put in too much work for this sort of silliness, but we should expect more since the letter was sent to Portugal by the MMRG.

by Boba Fett 01.05.18 9:36

plebgate wrote:Yes Tony I had a laugh too about the comment re. Brexit could interfere with any extradition.

Comments like that are meant to disrupt this forum and to goad. Ignore would be my advice. You and many others have put in too much work for this sort of silliness, but we should expect more since the letter was sent to Portugal by the MMRG.

Laugh it up, fuzzball, but why not play the ball not the man? If you found my post laughable, I would like to see your response on the thread so that I can tear it down.

What's really laughable is TB's attempt to discredit Colin Sutton above - nothing he has quoted there is out of the ordinary. Still, you have to admire the effort, I suppose. What's the phrase? God loves a trier.

[adm]
Boba Fett, you're starting to get on my nerves.

Reign it in, or find somewhere else. This is not twitter or facebook.

Last warning.[/adm]

by Boba Fett 01.05.18 10:20

Aaaaaanyway, back on topic - great documentary, Sonia, if you're reading. Keep it up!

by sallypelt 01.05.18 10:24

Boba Fett wrote:
plebgate wrote:Yes Tony I had a laugh too about the comment re. Brexit could interfere with any extradition.

Comments like that are meant to disrupt this forum and to goad. Ignore would be my advice. You and many others have put in too much work for this sort of silliness, but we should expect more since the letter was sent to Portugal by the MMRG.

Laugh it up, fuzzball, but why not play the ball not the man? If you found my post laughable, I would like to see your response on the thread so that I can tear it down.

What's really laughable is TB's attempt to discredit Colin Sutton above - nothing he has quoted there is out of the ordinary. Still, you have to admire the effort, I suppose. What's the phrase? God loves a trier.

"laugh it up fuzzball, but why not play the ball not the man?"

You couldn't make it up, could you? Hypocrisy comes to mind?

by Boba Fett 01.05.18 10:38

Boba Fett is leaving voluntarily, so don't worry, "Admin".

by **Jill Havern** 01.05.18 10:39

Thank you.

by sar 01.05.18 10:48

by **Jill Havern** 01.05.18 11:01

by Phoebe 01.05.18 11:30

Tony, above, has reproduced certain statements attributed to Colin Sutton. How many of these have we actually witnessed him utter and how many are "quotes" from newspapers and other media sources.
I don't believe a word from MSM sources. Remember, last year Rhani Sadler was shown walking beside Goncalo Amaral while "interviewing" him - something he denies actually happened! The press and the BBC made false claims about the Smiths recanting their belief that it was Gerry they saw that night. I seem to remember Sutton expressing annoyance last year over clever editing which he claimed had altered the context of what he actually said in the Sky report for the 10th anniversary.Pat Brown was similarly annoyed over comments attributed to her.
Newspaper "quotes" can often be as misleading as endorsements on a book sleeve - a selection of words actually used but taken out of context to impart a different meaning from the whole utterance.
I have no problem with C.S. stating that the best method for the T9 to clear themselves of suspicion is to participate in a reconstruction. The Portuguese authorities themselves have said something very similar, noting that in refusing to cooperate the McCanns lost the opportunity to clear themselves.
For me, the first an most important message to get across to a misinformed, ofttimes gullible public is that there is absolutely NOTHING to support the abduction claim and that the T9's stories do not add up. That must be the starting point for a genuine investigation.
Grange must be unbiased, starting from a NEUTRAL position. It should not operate under the assumption that the McCanns are innocent of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance (as it has done thus far) but equally, as a normal, impartial investigation it also should not begin with the assumption that they are guilty. The guilt or innocence of any parties should be established (for a future trial) by the work of the investigation itself, not by a predetermined belief. Sutton, as a former policeman knows this. To investigate from the perspective that the T9, alone, are suspects would inevitably place in legal jeopardy any conclusions the investigation might arrive at. It is contradictory to insist that Grange should investigate properly, in the normal manner, then complain when commentators, like Sutton, suggest this course of action.

by Verity 01.05.18 12:07

Operation Grange was set up in May 2011 with a remit to 'investigate the abduction as though it happened in the UK'.
Colin Sutton is suggesting that it goes back to ground zero, presumably dismissing the last 7 years and £13million already spent, and even the dogs as they are never mentioned, to eliminate the parents and squash rumourmill - so what is the point because how can that happen without the government admitting they were wrong in the first place with their 'very narrow and pointless remit', which leaves them open to Misconduct in Public Office especially in light of the PJ conclusions in 2007 who, after all, have the jurisdiction anyway?
What a mess and what a can of worms Colin's suggestion would create. How would the government even allow it?

by Guest 01.05.18 12:19

Colin Sutton speaks as his belly guides him.

Much like the other mouthpiece, Mark Williams-Thompson, he opens mouth before engaging brain.

Sutton is accredited to making a number of off-the-cuff comments about the case of Madeleine McCann, which have been harvested by the interested observer and put together to form a comprehensive dossier of quotes - mostly contradictory.

Take what he says on any one occassion with a pinch of salt. Apart from anything else, he was not is not nor will ever be, assigned to investigating the case of missing Madeleine McCann so his comments are but throw away one offs.

Just how many retired cops have we now commenting on the case? If they really want to make a difference, then use time constructively - that excludes squatting down on Lorraine Kelly's comfy sofa for an informal chat. Take note Ms Poulton!

Bums on seats!