Another serious blunder for Sonia Poulton and 'The People's Voice' - They interview Robert Green, but refuse to interview the Hollie Greig Hoax Team

Tony - Without your expertise in analysis and attention to detail we all know many people would get away with crimes - it is a talent (plus your courage and persistence) I admire.
 
Thanks for replying with such patience and so politely.
 
I do actually agree with what you say that TPV have not honoured their promise to give rights of reply and, as Tigger said, offered both perspectives of each situation they expose.  Yes, it does seem as if TPV haven`t done their homework before deciding they will take `sides`. They could end up looking stupid and lose credibility if they don`t up their professionalism.
 
I`m of the view that if you give people enough rope they will eventually hang themselves which is why I always encourage people to carry on spouting their views - they will eventually shoot themselves in the foot.   I realise that, in the meantime, many unthinking folks will believe rubbish they are told. Perhaps I`m giving the general population too much credit for not being gullible.  
 
Would your views of TPV change if they`d stuck to their promise of letting people with opposing views have a right of reply?  If you were them, how would you go about it?

Tony Bennett wrote:
G.  Clay Regazzoni’s comments:

I think you should be relaxed about TPV, I usually find it is apparent when somebody is talking rubbish, but having to sort the wheat from the chaff is the price we must pay for being presented with both the wheat and the chaff in the first place. I wouldn't like it any other way.

REPLY: Any news/analysis channel should strive to put out wheat all the time, not chaff. I can’t be ‘relaxed’ about TPV’s coverage of Hollie Greig because they have given a voice to liars who have falsely claimed that 31 people raped Hollie over a sustained period of 14 years, and denied a voice to those who have exposed this cruel fraud. If you are ‘relaxed’ about TVP putting out lies and denying a voice to those who have worked so hard to unravel the truth, then we are indeed miles apart on that issue.   

Tony, apart from anything else, thanks for taking the time to construct that monster post. I suspect we're miles apart on several issues, but that's OK. I'm not too familiar with the Hollie Greig case and I can't afford to be - I don't have whatever you've got, and can only deal with one matter at a time!

Looks like if you're so offended by PVTV there are only a few options open to you. Ignore it (my chosen option!), try to get some right of reply there yourself (obviously not on McCann but maybe on Greig?) or take to task their very right to broadcast at all. I just think there's a grave danger in saying, well, I'm an intelligent person, I can discriminate, but the next guy faced with the same info might not be so clever, so I'd better intervene on his behalf. I'd say let that guy take his chances, he's probably got more about him than I give him credit for. The alternative is the tip of a very slippery slope.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
G.  Clay Regazzoni’s comments:

I think you should be relaxed about TPV, I usually find it is apparent when somebody is talking rubbish, but having to sort the wheat from the chaff is the price we must pay for being presented with both the wheat and the chaff in the first place. I wouldn't like it any other way.

REPLY: Any news/analysis channel should strive to put out wheat all the time, not chaff. I can’t be ‘relaxed’ about TPV’s coverage of Hollie Greig because they have given a voice to liars who have falsely claimed that 31 people raped Hollie over a sustained period of 14 years, and denied a voice to those who have exposed this cruel fraud. If you are ‘relaxed’ about TVP putting out lies and denying a voice to those who have worked so hard to unravel the truth, then we are indeed miles apart on that issue.   

Tony, apart from anything else, thanks for taking the time to construct that monster post. I suspect we're miles apart on several issues, but that's OK. I'm not too familiar with the Hollie Greig case and I can't afford to be - I don't have whatever you've got, and can only deal with one matter at a time!

Looks like if you're so offended by PVTV there are only a few options open to you. Ignore it (my chosen option!), try to get some right of reply there yourself (obviously not on McCann but maybe on Greig?) or take to task their very right to broadcast at all. I just think there's a grave danger in saying, well, I'm an intelligent person, I can discriminate, but the next guy faced with the same info might not be so clever, so I'd better intervene on his behalf. I'd say let that guy take his chances, he's probably got more about him than I give him credit for. The alternative is the tip of a very slippery slope.

Where is so called 'freedom of speech' if the right to reply is denied Clay?

How does that work?

aquila wrote:

Where is so called 'freedom of speech' if the right to reply is denied Clay?

How does that work?

You'll have to excuse me Aquila as I know next to nothing (in fact, nothing) about the individuals in question, so I don't know why one side has been denied a voice on this instance - I've only got the reaction from people here, who I largely trust, to go by that something is amiss. Consequently it becomes apparent to me that PVTV have a clear agenda - something that I would have suspected anyway. So PVTV retain their right to broadcast what they like, and I retain my right to treat their output with complete indifference, in pretty much the same way I treat all of the media.

@Clay

There's a link on this topic (page 2) where the right to reply has been denied. Now I don't care if we're talking about 'is Santa a fraud' for the point I'm trying to make. The fact is that TPV denied the right to reply. Whether I've read up on the Hollie Grieg case or not makes not a jot of difference - in fact it's rather worse if one hasn't as one side of a story has been aired and put out there on the internet and the other side has been the right to reply AND to me it seems they've practically begged.

It's much the same with the Madeleine stuff. 35 minutes given to Steven Birch, an audience with Shrimpton all out there on the internet available to view. Cristobell's interview? Where is it? If I were Cristobell I'd be feeling a tad peeved (and maybe a little bit used) that my interview re Madeleine isn't out there. I understand Cristobell has sent an email (I'm not sure to whom she sent it) but it's still not there.

Just my opinion.

aquila wrote:@Clay

It's much the same with the Madeleine stuff. 35 minutes given to Steven Birch, an audience with Shrimpton all out there on the internet available to view. Cristobell's interview? Where is it? If I were Cristobell I'd be feeling a tad peeved (and maybe a little bit used) that my interview re Madeleine isn't out there. I understand Cristobell has sent an email (I'm not sure to whom she sent it) but it's still not there.

Just my opinion.

If you're saying they're not credible I completely agree. I'm currently exercising my right to completely ignore them. Others might not be content with that and might seek to silence them. Personally I wouldn't go that far.

From the transcript I read of Cristobell's "interview" it seemed to me she was only invited on to lend a bit of weight to Poulton's virtual monologue anyway.

Maybe they've been "asked" not to put it up! Cristobell did say somewhere that she was aware CR were watching.

Doug D wrote:Maybe they've been "asked" not to put it up! Cristobell did say somewhere that she was aware CR were watching.

Well only Cristobell can tell us what the response to her email is. Your comment does rather fall down though if Stephen Birch and Shrimpton's contributions are posted up on youtube for all to see. Good grief that would mean that Cristobell would be the only person being picked on to be silenced - that can't be right. TPV must have been fairly confident to post up the stuff from the other two interviewees, so why not Cristobell?

HGH have been denied the right to reply after practically begging and Cristobell's interview is nowhere to be seen.

Is that right for an unbiased view?

I feel sorry for both of them.

My Apologies - i don't do forums very well but there are lots of good comments here - and lots of ones i think.....WTH????

But that is why i don't do forums - nothing personal about this forum, just forums in general.

I have always been rightly criticised for talking to much - so i genuinely could spend my life on these things replying to everyone - therefore i tend to give them a wide berth. 

Having said all that, i would just like to add the following.

Firstly our new blog 

Secondly, i really do understand the upset regarding any criticism of TPV - why? Because this country does need a new voice.

But in a country so seemingly full of corruption, it needs one that tells the truth.

I think its worth remembering that TPV is paid for by the people.

I couldn't agree more with Tony's sentiments - if any new alternative media is going to represent themselves they way TPV has, unbiased, honest, diligent and with integrity - but more importantly representing "The People's Voice" then surely they have an obligation to the people (their employers) to be just that?!

Therefore in my view there can be no excuse for interviewing anyone without checking the veracity of their claims. 

I watched an interview Sonia did with a blogger the other night - it was good! And the bloggers research (and world view) seemed extremely sound & pertinent to me.

But therein lies the problem.

Bullshit mixed with anything will still leave the smell of bullshit - and how is the viewer supposed to know what to believe? 

It's no good saying that the viewer should do their own research because TPV becomes nothing more than what we have already.

However Tony was spot on with one of his observations - this is all about David Icke.

David was never going to allow us a right of reply - and the Ofcom complaint became a convenient excuse.

Sonia, and possibly many of the other presenters have all been used - and David's exposure (and that of his son) has grown exponentially.

And it hasn't even cost him a penny!  

Pyrite wrote:My Apologies - i don't do forums very well but there are lots of good comments here - and lots of ones i think.....WTH????

But that is why i don't do forums - nothing personal about this forum, just forums in general.

I have always been rightly criticised for talking to much - so i genuinely could spend my life on these things replying to everyone - therefore i tend to give them a wide berth. 

Having said all that, i would just like to add the following.

Firstly our new blog 

Secondly, i really do understand the upset regarding any criticism of TPV - why? Because this country does need a new voice.

But in a country so seemingly full of corruption, it needs one that tells the truth.

I think its worth remembering that TPV is paid for by the people.

I couldn't agree more with Tony's sentiments - if any new alternative media is going to represent themselves they way TPV has, unbiased, honest, diligent and with integrity - but more importantly representing "The People's Voice" then surely they have an obligation to the people (their employers) to be just that?!

Therefore in my view there can be no excuse for interviewing anyone without checking the veracity of their claims. 

I watched an interview Sonia did with a blogger the other night - it was good! And the bloggers research (and world view) seemed extremely sound & pertinent to me.

But therein lies the problem.

Bullshit mixed with anything will still leave the smell of bullshit - and how is the viewer supposed to know what to believe? 

It's no good saying that the viewer should do their own research because TPV becomes nothing more than what we have already.

However Tony was spot on with one of his observations - this is all about David Icke.

David was never going to allow us a right of reply - and the Ofcom complaint became a convenient excuse.

Sonia, and possibly many of the other presenters have all been used - and David's exposure (and that of his son) has grown exponentially.

And it hasn't even cost him a penny!  

Interesting post. Thank you.

I tend to agree with you. From what I've read (on the Icke site) the PEOPLE that are funding this new venture aren't being given a voice at all. I've read so many complaints from contributors saying their questions are going unanswered/Ignored.

Don't know how anyone can class this as a 'News' channel. It's not. It's what's known as
Conspiratainment. Nothing more nothing less.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conspiratainment

Daisy wrote:
Interesting post. Thank you.

I tend to agree with you. From what I've read (on the Icke site) the PEOPLE that are funding this new venture aren't being given a voice at all. I've read so many complaints from contributors saying their questions are going unanswered/Ignored.

Don't know how anyone can class this as a 'News' channel. It's not. It's what's known as
Conspiratainment. Nothing more nothing less.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conspiratainment

It seems to me that the only people who've had their hopes dashed are the ones who actually had high hopes in the first place. I do not include myself in that group.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Daisy wrote:
Interesting post. Thank you.

I tend to agree with you. From what I've read (on the Icke site) the PEOPLE that are funding this new venture aren't being given a voice at all. I've read so many complaints from contributors saying their questions are going unanswered/Ignored.

Don't know how anyone can class this as a 'News' channel. It's not. It's what's known as
Conspiratainment. Nothing more nothing less.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conspiratainment

It seems to me that the only people who've had their hopes dashed are the ones who actually had high hopes in the first place. I do not include myself in that group.

Nor me. Don't know why people keep looking for some kind of leader (or cause) to sort things out for them anyway. It isn't going to happen.

Daisy wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Daisy wrote:
Interesting post. Thank you.

I tend to agree with you. From what I've read (on the Icke site) the PEOPLE that are funding this new venture aren't being given a voice at all. I've read so many complaints from contributors saying their questions are going unanswered/Ignored.

Don't know how anyone can class this as a 'News' channel. It's not. It's what's known as
Conspiratainment. Nothing more nothing less.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conspiratainment

It seems to me that the only people who've had their hopes dashed are the ones who actually had high hopes in the first place. I do not include myself in that group.

Nor me. Don't know why people keep looking for some kind of leader (or cause) to sort things out for them anyway. It isn't going to happen.

That and that  

ChillyHeat wrote:

Daisy wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Daisy wrote:
Interesting post. Thank you.

I tend to agree with you. From what I've read (on the Icke site) the PEOPLE that are funding this new venture aren't being given a voice at all. I've read so many complaints from contributors saying their questions are going unanswered/Ignored.

Don't know how anyone can class this as a 'News' channel. It's not. It's what's known as
Conspiratainment. Nothing more nothing less.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conspiratainment

It seems to me that the only people who've had their hopes dashed are the ones who actually had high hopes in the first place. I do not include myself in that group.

Nor me. Don't know why people keep looking for some kind of leader (or cause) to sort things out for them anyway. It isn't going to happen.

That and that  

"Nor me. Don't know why people keep looking for some kind of leader (or cause) to sort things out for them anyway. It isn't going to happen."


I would agree with that also - but what it will take is cooperation en mass, which will need some sort of organisation - perhaps a little like the Occupy movement. 


TPV was perhaps seen as a possible catalyst to get things started - shame.


Back on topic - this website has picked up the story and produced an excellent article.

I made a post on the wrong thread - I was off topic and so I'm bringing it into the correct place.

@Cristobell

Did you get a reply to your email (I can only assume you were sending it to TPV - you weren't specific) re the publication of your interview Cristobell?

I hope your interview is available soon otherwise it's lost and the likes of Shrimpton and Birch have a voice and you don't. I do worry that you might have been used.

Editing to add

I know you are passionate about finding the truth for Madeleine so what has blocked your interview being published?

HGH haven't even been afforded the courtesy of speaking (after reasonable requests). Cristobell, you were invited and given as an authority on the MM case and haven't been afforded the courtesy of your interview being available on youtube.

UPDATE ON ROBERT GREEN

Robert Green was remanded in custody in Scotland earlier this year but then released to his home near Warrington, Cheshire, on strict bail conditions, including being tagged.

With typical hype, the Holle Demands Justice folk have described this, falsely, as being 'under house arrest'.

He appears again at Aberdeen Sheriffs Court on Monday 21 January.

Here's the most recent footage of Mr Green (video - 1 minute long):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=362LAWWjFDw

Sonia Poulton gets a mention on the video; she praises Green for enduring house arrest when he 'hasn't been charged with anything'.

This is yet another piece of Poulton mis-reporting, either careless, or more likely deliberate.

Green was properly charged in late 2013 for repeated breaches of injunctions ordering him to cease 'naming and shaming' 22 innocent people and calling them 'paedophile rapists'.

One of the targets of the false claims of Hollie's mother Anne and Robert Green is former hairdresser, Sylvia Major, a member here on CMOMM, and a former friend of Anne Greig.

The donation buttons on the various Hollie Greig Justice / Hollie Demands Justice / Free Robert Green sites (there are several of them) have always been prominent. No-one knows where the money goes. It appears to have gone mostly to PayPal accounts in the names of Anne Greig and Belinda McKenzie. There is no actual organisation, no committee, no Treasurer, no accounts, nothing.

There are cogent reasons for calling the whole thing a scam.

The latest appeal is: 'Donate to Robert Green - He is now on the bread line'.

At the same time the media- and internet-savvy people behind this 'Hollie Hoax' have gained extra publicity by nominating Green for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Meanwhile Sylvia Major, who had to close her hairdressing business after Green dropped leaflets in the streets around her home caling hr a paedophile, is trying to find a way of deleting all the despicable references to her as a child abuser on the internet.

And this whole edifice of deceit and hoaxery has been constructed on the alleged story put together by a young lady who is Downs Syndrome and has the severest of learning disabilities.

Shame on those who have perpetrated this hoax.

Shame on Sonia Poulton for supporting the hoaxers.

And congratulations to David Leask and the Glasgow Herald for exposing the hoax