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

by chillyheat on 08.12.13 23:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/christopher-story-european-union-empire.html
I'm not quite sure why you posted that link.

Your link says this: "Christopher Story is the man who has named Barroso José Manuel as the man on whose order Maddie McCann is being held".

By contrast, Michael Shrimpton has woven a fantastical tale about Madeleine being taken all over Europe and then killed.

Michael Shrimpton wrote what is called the 'Michael Shrimpton Report' on Madeleine McCann and has admitted he was the author of it.

So I'm not sure what your point is?

In any case, we are getting slightly off the point, which is the strange assortment of people that TPV has chosen to interview so far, especially on the disapprearance of Madeleine McCann.

My apologies....I got confused because I thought you were referring to Barosso and the DVD. I need to read slower big grin

by Guest on 08.12.13 23:28

I know Barroso and many others at the E.C. and there are things about which I wouldn't believe them any further than I could throw them [which is a limited distance given my age, sex and condition]. But ... jeez ...

by tigger on 09.12.13 5:46

Châtelaine wrote:I know Barroso and many others at the E.C. and there are things about which I wouldn't believe them any further than I could throw them [which is a limited distance given my age, sex and condition]. But ... jeez ...

I'd not heard about this Shrimpon and his book before, but it seems to me - just like some tabloid reports - literature for paedophiles rather than about them.

Btw how does this channel work? What are the hours is it likely to be on air? Is there a schedule of broadcasts?
Is there no-one amongst the staff or just a supporter of David Icke who can upload YouTube videos of each interview?
I find it strange that Birch's interview was available on YouTube very soon after it took place, somebody from what one might term the opposition posted a clip of Christobell's - if they could do it why did no- one else?

Or is it left to the interviewee to record and post it up? I would certainly make sure I recorded such an important event.
I can easily see that self-publicist Birch getting it posted, wouldn't even be surprised if he'd made a contribution to the coffers as I gather Icke made a short appearance to stress the need for donations.

In short what I would expect from a new channel is to tell us wht the are going to broadcast and when.
A website with this information and links of the interviews posted on YouTube.
Some background information on the topics to be discussed - fairly easy for a journalist of twenty years standing.
(E.g. The background on the Syrian conflict)
A few years ago I searched the web for real information on Fukushima. Only Russia Today gave it and linked to an independent source, i.e. an expert who'd been a whistleblower in the industry, Arnie Gunderson.
RT. also told the truth about Libya - ran videos by French journalists to show up the fake victory of 'democracy' there.
I'm not saying they are always truthful but Poulton and co would do well to present this channel in a more professional manner .
If you want to beat the opposition, you have to be better than them, the fireside chat format is for the likes Kelly and co.
All the above my opinion and where is that damn YouTube video? HideHo would have had it up in no time. smilie

by chillyheat on 09.12.13 7:04

Im totally confused about the last few pages of this thread now.... huh

by marconi on 09.12.13 8:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Perhaps Aquila would like to set out exactly what it is she is accusing me of, as she has just, on a public forum, called me a liar.
I think this is the quote of yours Aquila was referring to:

"As mentioned in another thread, I will be appearing on Sonia Poulton's TPV on Monday to give an update of the trial in Lisbon and a picture of where we are now. Will let the forum know the time as soon as it is to hand. You may be more interested to hear that Sonia is also liaising with Martin Grimes, so fingers crossed, he will be on too".

It seems that the claim that Sonia Poulton was 'liaising with Martin Grime' [sp.] was untrue.

Cristobell made a mistake. We all do sometimes. She is very good in her work and she is trying really hard to help solving the case. I don't think she was cheating on us.

by chillyheat on 09.12.13 8:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:Tony, in your honest opinion, how much involvement do the security services still hold in this case?

I don't know. Try asking DCI Andy Redwood

It feels like to me that MI5 have a heavy presence still. And I can't believe Special Branch were used just to be a taxi...

That's what Dr Kate McCann tells us - but even she may not know just how hard Special Branch are working to find Madeleine

Is it correct that Michael Shrimpton trained MI5 agents ?

by Cristobell on 09.12.13 8:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Perhaps Aquila would like to set out exactly what it is she is accusing me of, as she has just, on a public forum, called me a liar.
I think this is the quote of yours Aquila was referring to:

"As mentioned in another thread, I will be appearing on Sonia Poulton's TPV on Monday to give an update of the trial in Lisbon and a picture of where we are now. Will let the forum know the time as soon as it is to hand. You may be more interested to hear that Sonia is also liaising with Martin Grimes, so fingers crossed, he will be on too".

It seems that the claim that Sonia Poulton was 'liaising with Martin Grime' [sp.] was untrue.

I repeated something I was told by private message on twitter, that does not make me a liar - my post clearly says 'liaising' and 'fingers crossed'.

by aquila on 09.12.13 8:51

Cristobell wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Perhaps Aquila would like to set out exactly what it is she is accusing me of, as she has just, on a public forum, called me a liar.
I think this is the quote of yours Aquila was referring to:

"As mentioned in another thread, I will be appearing on Sonia Poulton's TPV on Monday to give an update of the trial in Lisbon and a picture of where we are now. Will let the forum know the time as soon as it is to hand. You may be more interested to hear that Sonia is also liaising with Martin Grimes, so fingers crossed, he will be on too".

It seems that the claim that Sonia Poulton was 'liaising with Martin Grime' [sp.] was untrue.

I repeated something I was told by private message on twitter, that does not make me a liar - my post clearly says 'liaising' and 'fingers crossed'.

This is the last response I'm going to make on this. I would like to compare your two posts.

Post number 1 where you introduce your appearance on TPV.

"As mentioned in another thread, I will be appearing on Sonia Poulton's TPV on Monday to give an update of the trial in Lisbon and a picture of where we are now. Will let the forum know the time as soon as it is to hand. You may be more interested to hear that Sonia is also liaising with Martin Grimes, so fingers crossed, he will be on too".

Post number 2 where you say the following when challenged.

"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."

...........................................................

If you compare the two statements they are clearly not the same thing.

I bow out now, I wish you well.

by Cristobell on 09.12.13 9:17

I am happy for readers to make their own minds up Aquila.

by Woofer on 09.12.13 9:27

Glad to see Aquila has `bowed out` now after having the last word yet again. So we`ll be seeing no more provoking of a long term valued poster who has done more than most for highlighting the discrepancies in this case. I wish Aquila well of course.

by Guest on 09.12.13 10:05

A reminder of the link to broadcasts which are available on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTPVchannel/videos?view

There does seem to be quite a delay with posting particular interviews. The Stephen Birch one was done only a week ago and there's no sign yet of Michael Shrimpton's (not that I'm desperate to hear that one!) as well as Cristobell's.

by Tony Bennett on 09.12.13 10:07

Woofer wrote:Glad to see Aquila has `bowed out` now after having the last word yet again. So we`ll be seeing no more provoking of a long term valued poster who has done more than most for highlighting the discrepancies in this case. I wish Aquila well of course.

On a point of information:

Aquila: Join date: 3 March 2011
Cristobell: Join date: 12 October 2011.

I hope both will continue to help us solve 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann'

by Woofer on 09.12.13 10:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:Glad to see Aquila has `bowed out` now after having the last word yet again. So we`ll be seeing no more provoking of a long term valued poster who has done more than most for highlighting the discrepancies in this case. I wish Aquila well of course.
On a point of information:

Aquila: Join date: 3 March 2011
Cristobell: Join date: 12 October 2011.

I hope both will continue to help us solve 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann'

Abusive comment deleted - Woofer, please refrain from disrespectful comments about other forum members and stick to the topic - ADMIN

by Cristobell on 09.12.13 11:15

I read this forum for a long time before I joined, it can sometimes be perceived as hostile to newcomers.

However, I was far from new to this case. I have been studying, researching and commenting on this case since 2007 and am known by many online, who like myself, have questioned the McCanns abduction story since the beginning.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I was commenting on this case long before I got my 'book deal' - 2010. If anyone believes I am or have, used this case to promote my book, then they must believe me to be completely insane. This case has been the kiss of death to my writing career, I have many, many, times been advised to drop it.

However, like those of us who are still here all these years later, I am incensed by the total injustice of this case. A little girl has lost her life and those responsible are being feted by the powers that be as role model parents, and I will not be silenced by bullies.

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy on 09.12.13 11:18

@ NFWTD, The Michael Shrimpton video was available pronto. I posted a link to the first part (it's in 3 parts) in a thread here last week, can't find it now so here's all 3 parts for anyone interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSf1zSk8sfA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sZmGhywRqY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AItPtGmu3V0

by Cristobell on 09.12.13 11:23

Following on from this and whilst in drama queen mode, there is currently a picture of me on twitter, where they have strategically removed half my hair - they believe I was wearing a wig, and have made me appear like a cancer victim - wishful thinking no doubt.

However, the point is, I have sent forwarded this picture to Jim Gamble, as he often appears on our television screens as spokesman for online bullying, and have asked for his comments.

by Guest on 09.12.13 11:36

I'm glad that I don't do Twitter (though I have been accused of twittering inanely in the past) every time I hear things like that, Cristobell.

There are always going to be sub-humans who abuse the right to free speech but I guess that's a small price to pay for all the benefits that the Internet brings.

How I agree with you about the injustices of this case.

Daisy: thank you for the links. I shall don my tin hat and pluck up courage to listen!

by Cristobell on 09.12.13 11:48

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I'm glad that I don't do Twitter (though I have been accused of twittering inanely in the past) every time I hear things like that, Cristobell.

There are always going to be sub-humans who abuse the right to free speech but I guess that's a small price to pay for all the benefits that the Internet brings.

How I agree with you about the injustices of this case.

Daisy: thank you for the links. I shall don my tin hat and pluck up courage to listen!

Its water off a duck's back these day, and fair dues, I kind of knew what I was letting myself in for. Trying really to show up their hypocrisy on the bullying front, and hoping Jim Gamble will have the courtesy to respond!

by Guest on 09.12.13 12:19

I wouldn't be too optimistic about that in view of who he supports and his own apparently genuine tweets insulting non-believers!

by tigger on 09.12.13 12:29

Cristobell wrote: wrote:I am happy for readers to make their own minds up Aquila. unquote

Christobell wrote in 2012:

Firstly, I am not a 'hater' nor am I a 'forker'. I don't hate Kate and Gerry, nor do I hate Madeleine. I would describe myself as an observer, perhaps, occasionally, a wannabe iconoclast.

( wannabe iconoclast, which icons exactly?)

This is real life however, and in real life, detectives rarely, if ever, solve homicides and missing people cases within 60 minutes, or during an ad break. I have made up my own mind, based on the evidence that exists, though I am always open to persuasion either way, but my gut feeling is, that the parents and their friends, should get themselves ruled out as suspects once and for all. I think this would have been hugely beneficial to the morale and enthusiasm for their search.

The above quotes are from the blog 2012, not much seems to have changed.

Last week Christobel wrote:

For a long, long time, I was hesitant to commit myself to stating what I thought happened (I still haven't), 1) I had no wish to be unkind 2) honesty and integrity and 3) I publish in my own name and am therefore vulnerable to legal action.

unquote

Could you explain why anyone would think you'd hate Madeleine?
As to publish in one's own name, you're not publishing anything controversial about the McCanns as far as I can see, absolutely no need to worry then imo.

(I couldn't get a yellow box up and the font is stuck on bold for some reason)

by Guest on 09.12.13 12:38

Maybe not liable for legal action by publishing doubts in one's real name on the McCanns' story but certainly vulnerable to the vilest imaginable personal abuse.

I have been accused (not on this forum) of hating the McCanns and there being no words to describe how disgusting I am. All I'd done was post a link to the police files!

Anyone who publishes their thoughts in their own name is in my view extremely brave.

by Tony Bennett on 09.12.13 12:56

tigger wrote:
Cristobell wrote: wrote:quote: I am happy for readers to make their own minds up Aquila. unquote

tigger wrote:

Cristobell wrote in 2012:

SNIPPED

REPLY: tigger, you have quoted a paragraph or two from Cristobell's writings in 2012.

I have read most of Cristobell's writings on the McCanns.

In some articles she expresses her views on the case more clearly and robustly than in others.

However, if I quoted some of her strongest observations on the McCanns' version of events, I would be in breach of an undertaking.

So I won't

P.S. Yes, the 'yellow box' function is working worse than ever today. In fact, it's not working properly at all today. There have been loads of problems with it since 'they' introduced it

by Cristobell on 09.12.13 13:07

What I say and how it is interpreted leaves the question wide open Tigger. One of the Hate sites for example has 21 pages of my words taken out of context and deliberately twisted in order to make me appear as an abuser of the McCanns.

Fortunately I have thus far avoided tabloid notoriety and costly legal action by choosing my words carefully. I make no apologies for that, as a writer, I am guided by honesty and integrity, I don't want to look back on my words and feel shame.

I'm not quite sure what it is you want of me Tigger, perhaps you could clarify?

by crystalclear on 09.12.13 13:36

Apologys if this has been posted,or im posting in the wrong thread.
i have just come across this.

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/davidlcke-com-and-the-peoples-voice-taken-down-at-the-same-time-yesterday-was-it-something-we-said/

by tigger on 09.12.13 14:16

Cristobell wrote:What I say and how it is interpreted leaves the question wide open Tigger. One of the Hate sites for example has 21 pages of my words taken out of context and deliberately twisted in order to make me appear as an abuser of the McCanns.

Fortunately I have thus far avoided tabloid notoriety and costly legal action by choosing my words carefully. I make no apologies for that, as a writer, I am guided by honesty and integrity, I don't want to look back on my words and feel shame.

I'm not quite sure what it is you want of me Tigger, perhaps you could clarify?

If you mean stop the myths site, they were having the same problem I have. They were trying to find out whether you believe the McCann story or whether you believe they were involved in the disappearnce of their daughter.

I aslked for enlightenment on your own statements below, also wondered why you should think that others might think you hate Madeleine.
Nobody here has ever suggested that. I don't think we've got 'haters' here. Hate makes one lose perspective and is apointless emotion in my view. We're looking for justice I hope.

So for the third and last time here are my questions.

Which icons are you talking about? (Re wanting to be an iconoclast)
Why would we think you'd hate Maddie?
Do you still feel that the McCs et al should get themselves ruled out as suspects so that they can conduct the search with more enthusiasm?
Does your last three point answer define your opinion on the case? Because i 'not wishing to be unkind' - to whom?
'Honesty and integrity' ?? And publish in your own name, but if you quote e.g. PeterMac's ebook, isn't it Peter risking the wrath of TM?
I can't comment further as we still haven't seen the interview but the above questions aren't about the interview.

Christobell wrote in 2012:

Firstly, I am not a 'hater' nor am I a 'forker'. I don't hate Kate and Gerry, nor do I hate Madeleine. I would describe myself as an observer, perhaps, occasionally, a wannabe iconoclast.

( wannabe iconoclast, which icons exactly?)

This is real life however, and in real life, detectives rarely, if ever, solve homicides and missing people cases within 60 minutes, or during an ad break. I have made up my own mind, based on the evidence that exists, though I am always open to persuasion either way, but my gut feeling is, that the parents and their friends, should get themselves ruled out as suspects once and for all. I think this would have been hugely beneficial to the morale and enthusiasm for their search.

The above quotes are from the blog 2012, not much seems to have changed.

Last week Christobel wrote:

For a long, long time, I was hesitant to commit myself to stating what I thought happened (I still haven't), 1) I had no wish to be unkind 2) honesty and integrity and 3) I publish in my own name and am therefore vulnerable to legal action.

unquote

(I couldn't get a yellow box up and the font is stuck on bold for some reason)

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