The Ramblings of Sonia Poulton - an introduction to People's Voice

At least, she wasn't reading from auto-cue ....

I'll give them some time and see where they get.

I freely admit I've read more than I've seen of this 'new tv channel' but, from the little I have seen, it seems to me fixing a camera to Speaker's Corner would be a more effective way of broadcasting an alternative to MSM which is representative of 'the people's voice'. .

However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise and will try to find time to tune in during the coming weeks.

aquila wrote:

@ultimaThule wrote:I freely admit I've read more than I've seen of this 'new tv channel' but, from the little I have seen, it seems to me fixing a camera to Speaker's Corner would be a more effective way of broadcasting an alternative to MSM which is representative of 'the people's voice'. .

However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise and will try to find time to tune in during the coming weeks.

Breakfast and daytime television deal with this weak agenda - they can go from how terrible things are in Syria to should you breast feed to how to make sure your goldfish isn't diseased, should you flush it down the loo and what affect will it have on your childrens' rights to own a games console.

If you listen to what Poulton says it makes no sense. Listen to her words they aren't radical. It is in no way different from mainstream media.

Just my opinion of course.

One big difference, they have guests on that the MSM wouldn't, Cristobell talking about the McCann case as an example.

candyfloss wrote:

aquila wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I freely admit I've read more than I've seen of this 'new tv channel' but, from the little I have seen, it seems to me fixing a camera to Speaker's Corner would be a more effective way of broadcasting an alternative to MSM which is representative of 'the people's voice'. .

However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise and will try to find time to tune in during the coming weeks.

Breakfast and daytime television deal with this weak agenda - they can go from how terrible things are in Syria to should you breast feed to how to make sure your goldfish isn't diseased, should you flush it down the loo and what affect will it have on your childrens' rights to own a games console.

If you listen to what Poulton says it makes no sense. Listen to her words they aren't radical. It is in no way different from mainstream media.

Just my opinion of course.

One big difference, they have guests on that the MSM wouldn't, Cristobell talking about the McCann case as an example.  

Agreed.

It's early days and won't be to everyones liking, but gradually people will come across it, some will dismiss it out of hand and others may well have their curiosity piqued by issues that they may not have come across before and it may send them on a journey to discover the meaning behind the propaganda that's being flooded into our media daily.

When people go out on a limb, take the chance to do something they believe in knowing full well there will be plenty of critics ready to trash them, I salute them to be honest. If it gets a few more thousand people digging deeper it can only be a good thing. Icke sells out to audiences of thousands all over the world, and whether people think he is bonkers or not, at least it gets people thinking. The power of free thought is what TPTB are trying to suppress, they don't want challenge. They just want people to be idiotic consumers who don't challenge the lies we are being fed.

At least PVTV are actually DOING something.

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

I trust none of them.....They are a hindrance IMO
Notice she uses the word "Vile" a lot 

aquila wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:At least, she wasn't reading from auto-cue ....

I'll give them some time and see where they get.

Châtelaine, you're a nicer person than I am then. I can only see self-seeking nonsense and directionless twaddle.

I hope I'm wrong.

aquila, I am impressed by her open honesty, a real desire for an 'alternative', her frank admission that the office space, the operation, is basic, but she intends to do something that has not been done so far, which is to provide something we have all been looking for, namely to raise an independent voice against the entrenched corrupt self-protection of the status quo.
So far, we have become more and more entrapped by elite organisations, electing themselves, accountable only to themselves, and making their own laws to suit their ends and keep the populace, that's you and me at the 'individual' level, more and more disempowered.
For some time now I have been hoping that someone with the where-with-all to do it, would start a 'free press'.
Why have I left this to others and not got off my **** to do it myself, well, because I do not have the where-with-all, nor the backing, nor the energy nor the youth to start and deliver such an enterprise.
BUT I can support someone who has, and will be doing so.
Yes it has all been a bit shambly, lacking the slickness that we have come to expect from our TV screens, and initially that may make it appear 'incompetent'.
But, I see nothing but honesty in Sonia Poulton. I think she is feeling her way, as anyone, reaching out into a new, unknown world.
One thing is for sure.
I have, through following the Madeleine McCann case, come to realise that it coincides with an increasing invasion of people's privacy and freedoms, to defend themselves and protect themselves against the corporate theft and control of their basic rights and freedoms.
I have come to realise that there are two facets to the 'law' which I now term as... 'Legal' versus 'Lawful'.
What we once thought of as 'legal' we also took for granted as meaning also 'lawful'.
I now see that the 'laws' that are signed in secret, behind closed doors and which claim rights and powers over the populace, argue their position as being 'legal'.....as such, inscribed in 'political acts and laws'.
This does not however make them 'lawful'.
I now see a clear distinction between 'legal' and 'lawful'.
To me, 'legal' is made by politicians, for the most part now, corrupt and self-serving.
The word 'lawful', however, portrays a much more profound reflection of 'basic and fundamental principals', of 'right versus wrong', of the law of 'common sense' and 'instinctive knowledge'.
The battle we now have is to break free from the straight-jacket forced upon us, by the few who have pushed their dishonest and corrupt 'illegal laws' into the faces of us, the citizens; the very people who place our politicians into positions of power, to behave in a 'lawful' fashion yet who are not doing so.
Our representatives are now acting not for us, but against us.
This has become so large, so entrenched, it is going to take a lot of 'populace' action, to rise up against it and bring it back to 'lawful' fundamentals.
However crude or unpolished the Sonia enterprise might seem at its rough beginnings, it is the first of what we have been needing, increasingly, for a long time now.
I wish her and her team well and will be supporting her.

Sonia said on twitter that they have a new editor starting on Monday who will be putting the videos up.

The People's Voice is a very new channel and teething problems are to be expected, it will take time to get everything fully up and running.  I personally do not like to throw cold water on a new venture, and in fact I applaud them for having the bravery to give it a go, it puts them into the category of the movers, shakers and music makers, people prepared to take a chance with their money, careers and lives, to give a voice to those who otherwise would not be heard. 

Just for information, I was told last week by someone by private message on twitter (not Sonia) that they were liaising or attempting to liaise with Martin Grime.  I found this quite exciting news and passed it on.  The 'teaser' as it has been referred to, was from me, not TPV.  I used the word liaison, as they did in the pm, it was not a promise that he would appear, I merely repeated the snippet I had been given.

@bobbin wrote:

aquila wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:At least, she wasn't reading from auto-cue ....

I'll give them some time and see where they get.

Châtelaine, you're a nicer person than I am then. I can only see self-seeking nonsense and directionless twaddle.

I hope I'm wrong.

aquila, I am impressed by her open honesty, a real desire for an 'alternative', her frank admission that the office space, the operation, is basic, but she intends to do something that has not been done so far, which is to provide something we have all been looking for, namely to raise an independent voice against the entrenched corrupt self-protection of the status quo.
So far, we have become more and more entrapped by elite organisations, electing themselves, accountable only to themselves, and making their own laws to suit their ends and keep the populace, that's you and me at the 'individual' level, more and more disempowered.
For some time now I have been hoping that someone with the where-with-all to do it, would start a 'free press'.
Why have I left this to others and not got off my **** to do it myself, well, because I do not have the where-with-all, nor the backing, nor the energy nor the youth to start and deliver such an enterprise.
BUT I can support someone who has, and will be doing so.
Yes it has all been a bit shambly, lacking the slickness that we have come to expect from our TV screens, and initially that may make it appear 'incompetent'.
But, I see nothing but honesty in Sonia Poulton. I think she is feeling her way, as anyone, reaching out into a new, unknown world.
One thing is for sure.
I have, through following the Madeleine McCann case, come to realise that it coincides with an increasing invasion of people's privacy and freedoms, to defend themselves and protect themselves against the corporate theft and control of their basic rights and freedoms.
I have come to realise that there are two facets to the 'law' which I now term as... 'Legal' versus 'Lawful'.
What we once thought of as 'legal' we also took for granted as meaning also 'lawful'.
I now see that the 'laws' that are signed in secret, behind closed doors and which claim rights and powers over the populace, argue their position as being 'legal'.....as such, inscribed in 'political acts and laws'.
This does not however make them 'lawful'.
I now see a clear distinction between 'legal' and 'lawful'.
To me, 'legal' is made by politicians, for the most part now, corrupt and self-serving.
The word 'lawful', however, portrays a much more profound reflection of 'basic and fundamental principals', of 'right versus wrong', of the law of 'common sense' and 'instinctive knowledge'.
The battle we now have is to break free from the straight-jacket forced upon us, by the few who have pushed their dishonest and corrupt 'illegal laws' into the faces of us, the citizens; the very people who place our politicians into positions of power, to behave in a 'lawful' fashion yet who are not doing so.
Our representatives are now acting not for us, but against us.
This has become so large, so entrenched, it is going to take a lot of 'populace' action, to rise up against it and bring it back to 'lawful' fundamentals.
However crude or unpolished the Sonia enterprise might seem at its rough beginnings, it is the first of what we have been needing, increasingly, for a long time now.
I wish her and her team well and will be supporting her.

Excellent post bobbin  

candyfloss wrote:
Excellent post bobbin  

***
Seconded

aquila wrote: [...] Cristobell, you said clearly on this forum in a post that Sonia Poulton was liaising with Martin Grimes. It's here for all to see. You said it in your announcement of your interview.

***
Shall we now start looking at the "wider" picture?

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

aquila wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:At least, she wasn't reading from auto-cue ....

I'll give them some time and see where they get.

Châtelaine, you're a nicer person than I am then. I can only see self-seeking nonsense and directionless twaddle.

I hope I'm wrong.

aquila, I am impressed by her open honesty, a real desire for an 'alternative', her frank admission that the office space, the operation, is basic, but she intends to do something that has not been done so far, which is to provide something we have all been looking for, namely to raise an independent voice against the entrenched corrupt self-protection of the status quo.
So far, we have become more and more entrapped by elite organisations, electing themselves, accountable only to themselves, and making their own laws to suit their ends and keep the populace, that's you and me at the 'individual' level, more and more disempowered.
For some time now I have been hoping that someone with the where-with-all to do it, would start a 'free press'.
Why have I left this to others and not got off my **** to do it myself, well, because I do not have the where-with-all, nor the backing, nor the energy nor the youth to start and deliver such an enterprise.
BUT I can support someone who has, and will be doing so.
Yes it has all been a bit shambly, lacking the slickness that we have come to expect from our TV screens, and initially that may make it appear 'incompetent'.
But, I see nothing but honesty in Sonia Poulton. I think she is feeling her way, as anyone, reaching out into a new, unknown world.
One thing is for sure.
I have, through following the Madeleine McCann case, come to realise that it coincides with an increasing invasion of people's privacy and freedoms, to defend themselves and protect themselves against the corporate theft and control of their basic rights and freedoms.
I have come to realise that there are two facets to the 'law' which I now term as... 'Legal' versus 'Lawful'.
What we once thought of as 'legal' we also took for granted as meaning also 'lawful'.
I now see that the 'laws' that are signed in secret, behind closed doors and which claim rights and powers over the populace, argue their position as being 'legal'.....as such, inscribed in 'political acts and laws'.
This does not however make them 'lawful'.
I now see a clear distinction between 'legal' and 'lawful'.
To me, 'legal' is made by politicians, for the most part now, corrupt and self-serving.
The word 'lawful', however, portrays a much more profound reflection of 'basic and fundamental principals', of 'right versus wrong', of the law of 'common sense' and 'instinctive knowledge'.
The battle we now have is to break free from the straight-jacket forced upon us, by the few who have pushed their dishonest and corrupt 'illegal laws' into the faces of us, the citizens; the very people who place our politicians into positions of power, to behave in a 'lawful' fashion yet who are not doing so.
Our representatives are now acting not for us, but against us.
This has become so large, so entrenched, it is going to take a lot of 'populace' action, to rise up against it and bring it back to 'lawful' fundamentals.
However crude or unpolished the Sonia enterprise might seem at its rough beginnings, it is the first of what we have been needing, increasingly, for a long time now.
I wish her and her team well and will be supporting her.

Brilliant post Bobbin, I read it  twice and agree with every word.

We, who do not believe the McCanns have been confined to the back streets of the internet, up until very recently, the mainstream newspapers would not publish letters that did not support the parents. We have been 'gagged' for nearly 7 years and we now have a media outlet that is prepared  to give us a voice.  I personally am very grateful for that, hopefully we can show that we are genuine people with genuine motives. 

However, their giving us a voice, does not allow us to dictate who they should interview and who they should block.  They are not in a position to judge who is right and who is wrong, they are reporting the news, not creating it.   There is a huge difference.

Aquila, can you take a time out ...?  

aquila wrote:

aquila wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

aquila wrote: [...] Cristobell, you said clearly on this forum in a post that Sonia Poulton was liaising with Martin Grimes. It's here for all to see. You said it in your announcement of your interview.

***
Shall we now start looking at the "wider" picture?

Well the wider picture could possibly begin in truthfulness. I like to think this forum is truthful. Telling people on the forum that Sonia Poulton is liaising with Martin Grimes and fingers crossed he'll make an appearance on this newbie channel is far from truthful. Martin Grimes will not speak about this case - see McCannfiles.

So what exactly is the wider picture and why did it start with either an exaggeration or a lie?

How do you explain what you said on this forum Cristobell and your retraction of things this evening?

Aquila there is no need to pursue this further, Cristobell has explained, so let that be and end to it.

Does it really matter whether Cristobel said Grimes was appearing or not? I read it that the PV were in talks with him and he *may* appear, he obviously said no, so what's the problem?

aquila wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Does it really matter whether Cristobel said Grimes was appearing or not? I read it that the PV were in talks with him and he *may* appear, he obviously said no, so what's the problem?

So you really believe that Martin Grimes is talking to anyone? Do you really believe that Martin Grimes would not only break his silence but break it to liaise with Sonia Poulton and a weird channel formed by Ike?

Then you have to ask yourself why someone on this forum would even bother to suggest that.

The way I see it is, Poulton asked Grimes to appear, he said no and that was the end of that!