Sonia Poulton doorsteps Kate for new documentary

Popcorn wrote:I agree with Cristobell. It's refreshing to see a journalist who is apparently keen to shed fresh light on this case and I am a little bemused by the numbers of online commenters (not especially on this forum, but fairly widely spread) who are ready to dismiss this documentary, despite having complained long and hard about the lack of objective reporting of this case by mainstream journalists!
I'm not an uncritical fan of Sonia Poulton (it worries me that so many Madeleine documentary makers are moon-landing deniers like Poulton or alien-landing believers like Richard D Hall). I don't know how insightful her documentary will be, but I am keen to see it and hope that it can find a place on a mainstream terrestrial channel. If nothing else, I think the circumstances around Brenda Leyland's untimely end deserve closer investigation and exposure, especially as both press and TV news outlets run with "troll" horror stories on an almost daily basis, in an attempt, I suspect to help muzzle online comment. I suppose what I'm saying is, why prejudge this documentary? Why not simply wait and see what she comes up with, and then discuss it?

candyfloss wrote:

Popcorn wrote:I agree with Cristobell. It's refreshing to see a journalist who is apparently keen to shed fresh light on this case and I am a little bemused by the numbers of online commenters (not especially on this forum, but fairly widely spread) who are ready to dismiss this documentary, despite having complained long and hard about the lack of objective reporting of this case by mainstream journalists!
I'm not an uncritical fan of Sonia Poulton (it worries me that so many Madeleine documentary makers are moon-landing deniers like Poulton or alien-landing believers like Richard D Hall). I don't know how insightful her documentary will be, but I am keen to see it and hope that it can find a place on a mainstream terrestrial channel. If nothing else, I think the circumstances around Brenda Leyland's untimely end deserve closer investigation and exposure, especially as both press and TV news outlets run with "troll" horror stories on an almost daily basis, in an attempt, I suspect to help muzzle online comment. I suppose what I'm saying is, why prejudge this documentary? Why not simply wait and see what she comes up with, and then discuss it?

Indeed Popcorn, and you have to ask yourself why.  

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Popcorn wrote:I agree with Cristobell. It's refreshing to see a journalist who is apparently keen to shed fresh light on this case and I am a little bemused by the numbers of online commenters (not especially on this forum, but fairly widely spread) who are ready to dismiss this documentary, despite having complained long and hard about the lack of objective reporting of this case by mainstream journalists!
I'm not an uncritical fan of Sonia Poulton (it worries me that so many Madeleine documentary makers are moon-landing deniers like Poulton or alien-landing believers like Richard D Hall). I don't know how insightful her documentary will be, but I am keen to see it and hope that it can find a place on a mainstream terrestrial channel. If nothing else, I think the circumstances around Brenda Leyland's untimely end deserve closer investigation and exposure, especially as both press and TV news outlets run with "troll" horror stories on an almost daily basis, in an attempt, I suspect to help muzzle online comment. I suppose what I'm saying is, why prejudge this documentary? Why not simply wait and see what she comes up with, and then discuss it?

Indeed Popcorn, and you have to ask yourself why.  

That's very unfair. The fact is that Sonia asked for someone to talk about the McCann case but the interview that Cristobel had was actually about trolling. What is wrong with expressing the concerns that Sonia a) appears to be conflating a story about trolling with a story about the McCanns and
B) is supplying sacrificial lambs from the McCann sceptic community under a false pretext (a chance to put the Mccann sceptic point of view) to a newspaper that is very keen to have us all branded as vile trolls and non violent extremists? Why does that mark me out as someone who has a sinister agenda? I hope my concerns are misplaced but I think I should be allowed to express them without having aspertions cast on my motive.

candyfloss wrote:Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton  · 46m46 minutes ago  
@hondo1650 @PORTUGALCDS @vivienmiss @B_balou there are infiltrators, taking these matters into cul de sacs. Will be highlighted.

Cristobell wrote:The old adage mud sticks could not be more applicable than here in this case.  

What harm can Sonia Poulton's documentary possibly do?  

At best it will reach a world wide audience and any hope of a cover up will be lost.  The fewer people who know about a cover up, the more chance of its success.  The public have no power if they have no information.

The way in which it is formatted and presented will not make one iota of difference to any of our lives, it won't affect the investigation, but it may, if we are lucky, help in the campaign to get justice for the little girl who lost her life, the detective who has given everything to his vocation to help the innocent and the vulnerable, and for Brenda Leyland an innocent woman caught up in this evil spiders web, simply for speaking up for the child.  

Those are, or should be, our goals, getting the truth about this 'abduction' out into the public arena.  It doesn't matter who gets the truth out there, or how they go about it, what matters is that we McCann sceptics counter the constant stream of lies that are prolonging the cover up.  Those who are being picky and choosy about the mainstream journalists who are putting their careers on the line to get justice for this child, have somewhat lost the plot.  Positive and negative stories bring people flocking to the McCann files, the blogs and the forums.  The October 2013 'pro' McCann Crimewatch, saw a dramatic rise in membership of the facebook groups and forums.  

If those McCann sceptics (thanks anon) achieve their goal of stopping Sonia's documentary, what exactly will they have achieved?  They will have stopped information reaching the public that might have an influence on the eventual outcome of this case.  They are effectively, doing exactly the same as Team McCann, that is they are demanding censorship of news they don't want the public to see for whatever reasons they may have.    

Unfortunately, there are many writers on this case who have fallen into the trap of believing that they can tell an audience what to think by withholding, obscuring and distorting views and opinions that differ from their own.  They give their audience no credit whatsoever for having the gumption to look further into what they have seen/read.  The most effective writing plants ideas, it doesn't preach.  The aim is to open up debate, to get people looking at the wider issues. Journalists are not dictators presenting one sided issues.  If they were, their careers would come to a rapid halt.  They present (or should at least try to) stories as if they were academic essays, that is they present both sides of the argument so the discussion can begin.  If a journalist presented a theory, along with a statement that there was no room for debate, he would swiftly be confined to the conspiracy theorists/nuts and loons bin.  

We should be grateful that Sonia is attempting to get to the truth of this matter, she is the first mainstream journalist to attempt it and we should wish her well.  I honestly don't know what all this sniping is hoping to achieve, and perhaps those who have picked up on the 'she's up to no good' ideology would be kind enough to explain?

Popcorn wrote:I agree with Cristobell. It's refreshing to see a journalist who is apparently keen to shed fresh light on this case and I am a little bemused by the numbers of online commenters (not especially on this forum, but fairly widely spread) who are ready to dismiss this documentary, despite having complained long and hard about the lack of objective reporting of this case by mainstream journalists!
I'm not an uncritical fan of Sonia Poulton (it worries me that so many Madeleine documentary makers are moon-landing deniers like Poulton or alien-landing believers like Richard D Hall). I don't know how insightful her documentary will be, but I am keen to see it and hope that it can find a place on a mainstream terrestrial channel. If nothing else, I think the circumstances around Brenda Leyland's untimely end deserve closer investigation and exposure, especially as both press and TV news outlets run with "troll" horror stories on an almost daily basis, in an attempt, I suspect to help muzzle online comment. I suppose what I'm saying is, why prejudge this documentary? Why not simply wait and see what she comes up with, and then discuss it?

Châtelaine wrote:IMO Sonia might have been sincere, asking for an "anti", who could use the occasion to bring forward the "case".
With all due respect, the interviewee did not use the occasion ...

Andrew wrote:I'm so hoping sonia is genuine. Really do. Will see

dogs don't lie wrote:15 days til we're into March, not that far away! Hope it results in something good.
Oppps end of March make that 46 days, still not that far away though.

bluebell wrote:Speaking of number of days - tomorrow (14th February) until 3rd May is 100 days.

Does it seem impossible to anyone else that it is now 7 years and 265 days since poor little Madeleine was reported missing ?        

eta:   When will she have peace.