Sonia Poulton's documentary

Don't do it Cristobell

It might be worth making your own recording of the interview – just for your own reference.

Take carter Ruck along.(Tongue in cheek)

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Don't do it Cristobell

Any reason why?

Popcorn wrote:It might be worth making your own recording of the interview – just for your own reference.

Agree with that Popcorn.

Good Luck and Best Wishes Cristobell.

Cristobell wrote:

Resistor wrote:Sonia seems a very fair sort and I'm sure she will deal with all the participants honestly and sensitively.  Well done for volunteering Cristobell, and good luck.  Please keep us posted!

The interview isn't with Sonia Resistor, it is for a well known tabloid  

I think it will be about internet trolls, but I have been reassured that it will not be a hatchet job, and in any case, I haven't done any nasty or threatening tweets to be ashamed of.  

Good luck Cristobell, but if I were you I'd be totally wary of it being a hatchet job. They'll use every dirty trick against you. They will use the fact that you have written books against you and claim you're seeking publicity. Like popcorn said, at the very least, try and make a full video recording of the interview.

candyfloss wrote:

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Don't do it Cristobell

Any reason why?

For all the reasons T B-R has just listed. Plus....
The media cannot point the finger at people who in the eyes of the law have done nothing wrong. Libel. So the amount of information they can print is minimal even if the journalists concerned are genuine
Any errors contained in theories and observations will be used to discredit the argument. For example, comments about Smithman. So many of you are convinced about the significance of him. But for reasons I've already given, it's clear to me that Smithman cannot be what many of you believe. I can't see why the alarm would have been raised while Smithman was still at large; equally the alarm wouldn't have been raised after Smithman had been seen by no fewer than nine people, would it?
This would be (rightly in my opinion) torn apart in minutes. So would any other mistakes. And any feature would also be biased according the paper's own agenda anyway
It will end in tears

Cristobell - best wishes for the interview. Make it very clear to the journo that you are recording the interview for your own purposes and protection. If he/ she won't agree, then call it off. If they have nothing to hide and no underhanded intentions, then they won't mind you recording the interview. If you have an iPhone you can use its "record" function very easily.

Once their story is in print, transcribe your own recording and put it on your blog, word for word, exactly, just to cover yourself in case they skew the story to make you look bad, or in case of any quotes which are less than honest. All journo's have an agenda. You need to know what theirs is upfront, and even if they say they're on your side - beware. Their job is to sell papers.

Assure the journo you will not blog about the story until their story is in print - allow them their "exclusive", but make it very clear you will be publishing your transcription after their story.

Well said Canada.

Agree with all that entirely.

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Don't do it Cristobell

Any reason why?

For all the reasons T B-R has just listed. Plus....
The media cannot point the finger at people who in the eyes of the law have done nothing wrong. Libel. So the amount of information they can print is minimal even if the journalists concerned are genuine
Any errors contained in theories and observations will be used to discredit the argument. For example, comments about Smithman. So many of you are convinced about the significance of him. But for reasons I've already given, it's clear to me that Smithman cannot be what many of you believe. I can't see why the alarm would have been raised while Smithman was still at large; equally the alarm wouldn't have been raised after Smithman had been seen by no fewer than nine people, would it?
This would be (rightly in my opinion) torn apart in minutes. So would any other mistakes. And any feature would also be biased according the paper's own agenda anyway
It will end in tears

At risk of drifting off topic, I don't know that I believe Smithman to be anyone significant. My main interest in Smithman has always been the McCanns' response to this sighting, which was in exactly the right place at the right time. Their response was to ignore it in favour of a 'creepy man' seen the week before their arrival in Portugal, and a women spotted by a British partygoer in Barcelona (and reported a year after the event).

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Resistor wrote:Sonia seems a very fair sort and I'm sure she will deal with all the participants honestly and sensitively.  Well done for volunteering Cristobell, and good luck.  Please keep us posted!

The interview isn't with Sonia Resistor, it is for a well known tabloid  

I think it will be about internet trolls, but I have been reassured that it will not be a hatchet job, and in any case, I haven't done any nasty or threatening tweets to be ashamed of.  

Good luck Cristobell, but if I were you I'd be totally wary of it being a hatchet job. They'll use every dirty trick against you. They will use the fact that you have written books against you and claim you're seeking publicity. Like popcorn said, at the very least, try and make a full video recording of the interview.

Of course I want publicity, I am a writer! Its what every writer wants. Writing is the only skill I have in which to earn a living - my 'attitude' unfortunately makes me unemployable! If I were a carpenter selling handmade chairs, I would be encouraged to advertise my wares, but trying to sell my books for some reason, is seen as whoring! The great Charles Dickins toured towns and cities giving recitals from his books, was he 'whoring' too? I know that is not what you are suggesting, but others have.

I was a writer before the McCanns came along and I am writer still. That I was one of the very, very, few writers in the world prepared, willing and able to speak out against the McCanns did my writing career no favours whatsoever, look at the reviews for Cry and You Cry Alone. I spoke out regardless of the fact that I had a book to launch and I have taken the flak ever since.

They can say whatever this wish Thomas. And on Monday, I am doing a feature for a large local newspaper regarding the abuses that went on in the children's home I was in.

No matter what Kate and Gerry might think, my life does not begin and end with them. I wrote my book CAYCA to help other survivors, they are far more important to me than the McCanns. So too, my diet and exercise book, which I am selling at minimal price, because I know that my system works. Anyone who knows me can see how dramatically my life has transformed since this time last year. My motives are altruistic Thomas, that I am trying to make a meagre living out of it, is hardly the worst crime in the world!

canada12 wrote:Cristobell - best wishes for the interview. Make it very clear to the journo that you are recording the interview for your own purposes and protection. If he/ she won't agree, then call it off. If they have nothing to hide and no underhanded intentions, then they won't mind you recording the interview. If you have an iPhone you can use its "record" function very easily.

Once their story is in print, transcribe your own recording and put it on your blog, word for word, exactly, just to cover yourself in case they skew the story to make you look bad, or in case of any quotes which are less than honest. All journo's have an agenda. You need to know what theirs is upfront, and even if they say they're on your side - beware. Their job is to sell papers.

Assure the journo you will not blog about the story until their story is in print - allow them their "exclusive", but make it very clear you will be publishing your transcription after their story.

Many thanks Canada, lets hope it goes ahead.  The problem with news stories is, that they can often be overtaken by events, the old British classic Drop the Dead Donkey was a great example of that, it refers to dropping the donkey story in favour of something hot coming off the press.  

I hope he goes ahead with it, because it would be a major breakthrough in getting the truth about the abduction out there and I am determined to give him the scoop he is looking for!

I appreciate your words of caution Canada, but you are pretty much speaking to the wrong person!  I had a coffee with my ex-husband the day before going up to Westminster and he warned me to keep my trap shut.  I did the complete opposite

My lads and myself are besotted with the crazy Jim Carey, and after seeing him on the Graham Norton show at Christmas I had a look into his 'positive thinking' philosophy and can now see where his 'somebody stop me' cry came from when he donned The Mask!

This could all of course be the mania side of my bipolar lol, but I'm putting it down to the superfoods (gonna try and catch a re-run of Popeye and his spinach! ha ha)  It may well all end in tears, but so too could every leap I take or have ever taken.  The thing is, I've now got the hang of the picking myself up, dusting myself down and starting again, and its no big deal

@Cristobell, just to be clear, I wasn't accusing you of seeking publicity. I'm just saying that, that is one example of how they will spin things.

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:@Cristobell, just to be clear, I wasn't accusing you of seeking publicity. I'm just saying that, that is one example of how they will spin things.

No problems Thomas, I'm afraid I used your post to pre-empt the attacks that I, and indeed yourself, can see coming, apologies.

Fortunately I am liberated by the fact that I really don't care very much what they say about me, I've had ups, I've had downs, I've done many daft things, and hoping to do many more, its the things I haven't done that I regret the most.

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Don't do it Cristobell

Any reason why?

For all the reasons T B-R has just listed. Plus....
The media cannot point the finger at people who in the eyes of the law have done nothing wrong. Libel. So the amount of information they can print is minimal even if the journalists concerned are genuine
Any errors contained in theories and observations will be used to discredit the argument. For example, comments about Smithman. So many of you are convinced about the significance of him. But for reasons I've already given, it's clear to me that Smithman cannot be what many of you believe. I can't see why the alarm would have been raised while Smithman was still at large; equally the alarm wouldn't have been raised after Smithman had been seen by no fewer than nine people, would it?
This would be (rightly in my opinion) torn apart in minutes. So would any other mistakes. And any feature would also be biased according the paper's own agenda anyway
It will end in tears

I will not be speaking as a definitive expert on the McCanns, Chop Suey, I will be raising the questions we on the forums have been asking for years, including the role of Smithman. Simply pointing out the glaring similarities between Gerry and Smithman will be a step in the right direction. Look at the reaction to the Crimewatch documentary when it was first broadcast.

The MSM it appears, are taking tentative steps towards revealing the suspicions surrounding the McCanns, and this is a massive step forward. I want to point out the things that first alerted me that all was not as it seemed, and the turning points, that is the points that convinced me I was right to trust my instincts. For the first year or so, I would not post negative comments against the McCanns, I bent over backwards to give them the benefit of the doubt, and my enemies will say that I was once a pro McCann. Entirely untrue, and happily I have friends from those very early days who will confirm it. Like everyone else, I found the idea of attacking the parents of a missing child abhorrent, I only became more vocal when I reached that 100% 'beyond the point of any doubt' conclusion in my mind and hopefully I can mention, and he will publish, the main points that brought me there.

Just bumping this thread as it was on the top, but since forumotion did an update it has gone to the wrong place in the thread.

I think Aquila has lost the plot, why would I, Sonia or anyone else for that matter, want their emails and IDs? Does she think we are going to pop in for a cuppa or barrage her with emails? Where does she think she lies on my list of priorities, lol, well just for clarification, she is somewhere beneath, must wash lampshades, its been 2 years ffs and the spider is firmly enmeshed, so no rush there, lol.

Your secrets are safe Aquila, sleep soundly, you have no fear of me. I very, very occasionally muse as to who you might be, but tis usually only a momentary thought, and despite the anger you have towards me, I wish no ill towards you. Indeed, I hope you find some inner peace - a bit of transcendental meditation perhaps? A few chants? There is a lot of projection in your posts, but the reality is the only one spying on you comes from the voice within your own head and its making you frightened of your own shadow. And if it further assists your sleep Aquila, I can rarely find the emails and addresses of VIPs when I need them, as a string of ex disgruntled bosses will probably confirm

Given that the SY investigation seems on the face of it to be at quite an advanced stage now, is it a good idea to be airing this kind of stuff in the MSM?

Could it not play into the McCanns' hands, particularly if there were a trial of some aspects of the case in this country? ie the "unfair trial, jury influenced by MSM stories" line, blah blah.

The more I think about it, the more uneasy I feel, sorry.

None of us are privy to all the evidence which SY and the Portuguese current investigation may have amassed since the PJ files were made public, and putting forward theories based on seven (?) year old evidence could be counterproductive, in my view.

And I'm not sure Martin Smith would be too delighted, either.

Maybe I've misunderstood, quite likely, in which case apologies.

As I said earlier N, I am not going into this as an expert.  I can only say why I think they are involved and why I campaign for justice.  Much of it will also be about the internet wars.  For some reasons the powers that be believe there is an orchestrated campaign 'of hate' against the McCanns, and having done a 7 year tour of duty, I can assure him there is not!  A few loons and wannabe tyrants, but no-one with the ability to organise a booze up in a distillery.  I am hoping this will be a good opportunity to confirm that we are not haters who carry pitchforks, just ordinary people appalled that a small child can disappear and her parents can profit from it!

edit

I don't agree Chop Suey. I am sure Cristobell is quite capable of making her own mind up. I just wish I knew where you were coming from.

edit

This is all rather amusing. We now have to read two forums to make sense of some  posts and here and there posts are 'cross-quoted' . 

Colourfull posts, in both senses of the word, I'm particularly happy to have come across  the term 'Bennett Babe' -  now we finally have a name for the altar- servers.  Rofl x10...

As for Sonia Poulton, I think she acquitted herself quite well just over a year ago and she did say a few things which were pertinent to the McCann case. 
I still have the transcript,  if anybody wants it I can post it up.

@ Chop Suey
I have already read your post why should I read it again? I don't have a problem understanding your post far from it. I would just like you to be more explicit.

If it were a dead case it might need a media campaign to get it back on track. But it's being investigated by NSY and the PJ, who know far more about it than even the greatest internet devotee. Why put yourself at risk when it isn't necessary at this stage?