Sonia Poulton's documentary

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I saw it mentioned elsewhere that this  by UFOTV and lots of mockery, well it seems Sonia knows nothing about it, someone got the wrong end of the stick again....



Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton  · 4 mins4 minutes ago  
@nikki_plummer no idea what UFOTV thing is, @ChallengeGovUK mentioned it too. Pls reassure Rebecca only msm is right platform for her tricks

I can vouch for the ufotv logo being on the video link from this thread this morning, it was right at the end I saw it there myself along with a #4 sign, its changed now.
ETA. I posted about it at 10:48 this morning.

Yes it does look like a few frames up to one second has been trimmed off the end of the video. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=The+Untold+Story+of+Madeleine+McCann%3A+A+War+of+Information&oq=The+Untold+Story+of+Madeleine+McCann%3A+A+War+of+Information&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l2&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

In the link above you'll see that it says 1:31 for duration but when played only 1:30. Also no copyright [insert production company name] at the end.

It's a bit odd since Sonia is saying she knows nothing about it however it's not in itself that relevant (ufotv or not)

Please think before you write such comments HKP - we don`t want the thread locked again.

I've removed the comment now. Thanks Mimi.

We can argue whether the doorstepping was right or wrong however what was Sonia trying to achieve, did she really think KM would answer her questions (obviously not as she's not that stupid). So what was really gained, it will be good to see more of the footage to see the result. The cynic in me says Sonia knew what reception she would get so in essence this is all about the publicity that she (Sonia) will receive.

dogs don't lie wrote:I'm popping in before sleep time but I actually thought the trailer looked really good. I think it was the macs house, I think it was KM who opened the door and also think she looked unaware of what was happening. That very first question alone, IMO, shows Sonia wants the same questions asked as, well, I'd love to know the answers to them 48 questions.
Just my opinion, really looking forward to the rest.

My exact first impressions too, DDL! Glad I'm not alone.

(Hope Emma and you continue to do well x.)

Hongkong Phooey wrote:We can argue whether the doorstepping was right or wrong however what was Sonia trying to achieve, did she really think KM would answer her questions (obviously not as she's not that stupid). So what was really gained, it will be good to see more of the footage to see the result. The cynic in me says Sonia knew what reception she would get so in essence this is all about the publicity that she (Sonia) will receive.

Maybe - she is a Leo after all. But her enjoying publicity doesn`t bother me - it takes a confident type of person to do what she has done - I certainly wouldn`t have the courage.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:We can argue whether the doorstepping was right or wrong however what was Sonia trying to achieve, did she really think KM would answer her questions (obviously not as she's not that stupid). So what was really gained, it will be good to see more of the footage to see the result. The cynic in me says Sonia knew what reception she would get so in essence this is all about the publicity that she (Sonia) will receive.

I don't think Sonia expected Kate to answer - of course she didn't.

What I do wonder if she was aiming for was a comparison between her doorstepping of Kate and that of Brenda Leyland by Sky.

Sonia knocking on the door of a self-made public figure with a relevant question which thousands would like answering in contrast to the unheralded hounding of a person similar to all of us - a person who asked similar questions anonymously and privately, but who never sought publicity nor sought direct contact with the McCanns.

I think that was the point she was making - but we'll wait to see the full programme before we can be certain, of course.

Dee Coy wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:We can argue whether the doorstepping was right or wrong however what was Sonia trying to achieve, did she really think KM would answer her questions (obviously not as she's not that stupid). So what was really gained, it will be good to see more of the footage to see the result. The cynic in me says Sonia knew what reception she would get so in essence this is all about the publicity that she (Sonia) will receive.

I don't think Sonia expected Kate to answer - of course she didn't.

What I do wonder if she was aiming for was a comparison between her doorstepping of Kate and that of Brenda Leyland by Sky.

Sonia knocking on the door of a self-made public figure with a relevant question which thousands would like answering in contrast to the unheralded hounding of a person similar to all of us - a person who asked similar questions anomynously and privately, but who never sought publicity nor sought direct contact with the McCanns.

I think that was the point she was making - but we'll wait to see the full programme before we can be certain, of course.

Let's strip it back to what's actually happened. Is it right for a member of the public to knock on the door of a victim of a crime (that's the official angle, I don't like it anymore than everyone else) and put forward a question which if answered could impact the ongoing investigation, oh and by the way it's being filmed as evidence. It's a stupid idea which could potentially backfire.

ETA. This public figure malarkey, does that mean that all public figures are potentially up for doorstepping with any burning questions people have?

Those are interesting questions. Firstly, as you say unpalatably, the McCanns are victims of crime. But they are also, by their own hands, projected as a result of this crime and for the purposes of promoting this crime into the public domain. They have paid for this limelight, promoted it and revelled in it. However, many questions remain unanswered. So, because of their own actions, I believe their status as self-promoted media-whores supersedes that of merely being victims of crime. By their own hands they have left that status well behind. Under other circumstances, no - it is not acceptable for a victim of crime to be doorstepped. My opinion, of course.

I don't think Sonia expected an answer anyway but the question per se was unlikely to affect the investigation. Sonia wasn't asking for answers to the 48 questions, she was asking why Kate declined to answer them. A completely different kettle of sea bass.

I wrote a long post earlier as the thread was locked ,it;s now lost in the ether. The jist was bravo to Sonia . You can in no way compare what happened to Brenda with the relentless onslaught from SKY just for having an opinion to Sonia talking to Kate, I'm guessing her door was only knocked the once? I can not wait to see the documentary let's hope it gets a lot of publicity.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:We can argue whether the doorstepping was right or wrong however what was Sonia trying to achieve, did she really think KM would answer her questions (obviously not as she's not that stupid). So what was really gained, it will be good to see more of the footage to see the result. The cynic in me says Sonia knew what reception she would get so in essence this is all about the publicity that she (Sonia) will receive.

I don't think Sonia expected Kate to answer - of course she didn't.

What I do wonder if she was aiming for was a comparison between her doorstepping of Kate and that of Brenda Leyland by Sky.

Sonia knocking on the door of a self-made public figure with a relevant question which thousands would like answering in contrast to the unheralded hounding of a person similar to all of us - a person who asked similar questions anomynously and privately, but who never sought publicity nor sought direct contact with the McCanns.

I think that was the point she was making - but we'll wait to see the full programme before we can be certain, of course.

Let's strip it back to what's actually happened. Is it right for a member of the public to knock on the door of a victim of a crime (that's the official angle, I don't like it anymore than everyone else) and put forward a question which if answered could impact the ongoing investigation, oh and by the way it's being filmed as evidence. It's a stupid idea which could potentially backfire.

ETA. This public figure malarkey, does that mean that all public figures are potentially up for doorstepping with any burning questions people have?

My opinion is that doorstepping/confronting anyone with questions is largely pointless, but in the face of a public interest issue going nowhere it has to be tried.

A couple of different examples off the top of my head: Matt Allwright on Watchdog/Rouge Traders or the BBC documentary earlier this year about illegal dog breeding. At one point the doc maker/presenter illegally entered and filmed on the breeders property.

ETA: Just to add that this 'doorstepping' happened a year ago and AFAIK there has been no complaint/uproar/headlines. If it makes a difference at all.

Dee Coy wrote: Those are interesting questions. Firstly, as you say unpalatably, the McCanns are victims of crime. But they are also, by their own hands, projected as a result of this crime and for the purposes of promoting this crime into the public domain. They have paid for this limelight, promoted it and revelled in it. However, many questions remain unanswered. So, because of their own actions, I believe their status as self-promoted media-whores supersedes that of merely being victims of crime. By their own hands they have left that status well behind. Under other circumstances, no - it is not acceptable for a victim of crime to be doorstepped. My opinion, of course.

I don't think Sonia expected an answer anyway but the question per se was unlikely to affect the investigation. Sonia wasn't asking for answers to the 48 questions, she was asking why Kate declined to answer them. A completely different kettle of sea bass.

And a truthful answer to why she didn't answer the 48 questions may very well affect the investigation therefore you can't do this. Besides for the actual doorstepping (not the media scrum thereafter) Sonia is no better than Martin Brunt, she should be 'better' than that. I think she should have chosen another scene for the trailer, this one just courts the controversy she obviously desires.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
And a truthful answer to why she didn't answer the 48 questions may very well affect the investigation therefore you can't do this. Besides for the actual doorstepping (not the media scrum thereafter) Sonia is no better than Martin Brunt, she should be 'better' than that. I think she should have chosen another scene for the trailer, this one just courts the controversy she obviously desires.

The thing is, the investigation remit is into the disappearance of Madeleine and OG are officially on record as saying the Mcs are not under suspicion. So on the surface there is nothing wrong with asking why Kate wouldn't answer the 48 questions - as far as OG are officially concerned the answer is unconnected to their interest in the case as the McCanns are not on their radar as persons of interest. Essentially, under this premise, the answer to the question is a personal one which shoudn't affect the case as the McCanns aren't suspects.

As for why Sonia chose to do the doorstepping, I think it may be to draw comparison to the doorstepping of Brenda Leyland, and how unequal the two scenarios are - as I have tried to describe in my other posts today.

Dee Coy wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
And a truthful answer to why she didn't answer the 48 questions may very well affect the investigation therefore you can't do this. Besides for the actual doorstepping (not the media scrum thereafter) Sonia is no better than Martin Brunt, she should be 'better' than that. I think she should have chosen another scene for the trailer, this one just courts the controversy she obviously desires.

The thing is, the investigation remit is into the disappearance of Madeleine and OG are officially on record as saying the Mcs are not under suspicion. So on the surface there is nothing wrong with asking why Kate wouldn't answer the 48 questions - as far as OG are officially concerned the answer is unconnected to their interest in the case as the McCanns are not on their radar as persons of interest. Essentially, under this premise, the answer to the question is a personal one which shoudn't affect the case as the McCanns aren't suspects.

As for why Sonia chose to do the doorstepping, I think it may be to draw comparison to the doorstepping of Brenda Leyland, and how unequal the two scenarios are - as I have tried to describe in my other posts today.

The two scenarios are equal in the respect of the actual doorstepping, Martin Brunt asked Brenda why (insert question) and Sonia asked KM why (insert question). The difference is in what happened after the doorstepping not the doorstepping itself which in both cases was wrong IMO.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
And a truthful answer to why she didn't answer the 48 questions may very well affect the investigation therefore you can't do this. Besides for the actual doorstepping (not the media scrum thereafter) Sonia is no better than Martin Brunt, she should be 'better' than that. I think she should have chosen another scene for the trailer, this one just courts the controversy she obviously desires.

The thing is, the investigation remit is into the disappearance of Madeleine and OG are officially on record as saying the Mcs are not under suspicion. So on the surface there is nothing wrong with asking why Kate wouldn't answer the 48 questions - as far as OG are officially concerned the answer is unconnected to their interest in the case as the McCanns are not on their radar as persons of interest. Essentially, under this premise, the answer to the question is a personal one which shoudn't affect the case as the McCanns aren't suspects.

As for why Sonia chose to do the doorstepping, I think it may be to draw comparison to the do orstepping of Brenda Leyland, and how unequal the two scenarios are - as I have tried to describe in my other posts today.

The two scenarios are equal in the respect of the actual doorstepping, Martin Brunt asked Brenda why (insert question) and Sonia asked KM why (insert question). The difference is in what happened after the doorstepping not the doorstepping itself which in both cases was wrong IMO.

There is another - massive - difference. The motives of the Sky team and the impact and consequences they intended and those of Sonia. Were they equal?

Well Deecoy, we don't know yet, do we, but as I am very cynical, I won't be holding my breath.

If the documentary turns out to be really good, based on fact, giving us information that we didn't already know (and has in no way interfered in the ongoing police investigations in the UK and Portugal) then I will be more than happy to admit that it is..

Sorry but cynical me is just not buying it...and I apologise Candy for my posts earlier on, but this is not the first time that this has happened where those of us who have objections, questions and doubt have been made to feel that we are somehow in the wrong for asking questions..lets face it, the other strand of the teaser was asking Kate McCann about the 48 questions she didn't answer..when most of us have only 2, where will this documentary be screened and when? Oh and what is it really about? Sorry that's 3

Still none the wiser

@ Dee Coy
I agree there is a massive difference in motives and I’ll address that, however too many people on this thread cannot distinguish from the act of doorstepping and what happens with the result of said doorstepping.
My argument is that Sonia is no better than Martin Brunt because she did exactly the same doorstepping as him (I’ve not once claimed the aftermath was even remotely the same). Lets look at the definition of doorstepping according to the Collins dictionary:-
‘talking to someone at the door of their home for political canvassing or to gather information’ and ‘ to wait outside the house of someone to obtain an interview, photograph etc. when he or she emerges’
Breaking both events down further; Martin arrives on the scene of BL’s house with cameraman in tow, Sonia arrives at KM’s house with cameraman in tow. Martin waits until BL exits and accosts her as she is making towards a car; Sonia knock’s on KM’s door. Martin asks BL why she is hounding the McC’s (not verbatim questions); Sonia asks why KM didn’t answer the 48 questions; BL gives a reply (I have a right to) and then gets in car and is driven off; KM does or doesn’t say anything and closes the door. That is the ‘doorstepping’, in my book Martin & Sonia have both conducted the exact same process and both are wrong to have done it.
What happened next is not doorstepping (media witch hunt) but something completely different which then leads to your ‘motive’ of why and to achieve what.

We can only guess at both Martins (Sky) and Sonia’s motives and here’s my take:- The Sky team (the wider ‘team’ which may even have included G & K) wanted to embarrass and humiliate Brenda to send a message to the non believers and ‘bring them into line’ and hopefully stop some people posting by putting up the frighteners. This was a planned activity.
Sonia’s’ motive is probably not so clear cut, she knew that Kate wouldn’t answer her question(s) so what was there to be gained, was it to try to turn the tables and humiliate KM? I don’t think that would be the case, you can’t do that if the person just slams the door in your face. So, imo. Sonia doorstepped KM for purely selfish reasons which is either ‘look at me’ or the publicity that it could attract. This was a planned activity.
My guess is the the McC’s will not even acknowledge that this event happened in a similar way that nothing has been said about certain events throughout the case.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:We can argue whether the doorstepping was right or wrong however what was Sonia trying to achieve, did she really think KM would answer her questions (obviously not as she's not that stupid). So what was really gained, it will be good to see more of the footage to see the result. The cynic in me says Sonia knew what reception she would get so in essence this is all about the publicity that she (Sonia) will receive.

I don't think Sonia expected Kate to answer - of course she didn't.

What I do wonder if she was aiming for was a comparison between her doorstepping of Kate and that of Brenda Leyland by Sky.

Sonia knocking on the door of a self-made public figure with a relevant question which thousands would like answering in contrast to the unheralded hounding of a person similar to all of us - a person who asked similar questions anomynously and privately, but who never sought publicity nor sought direct contact with the McCanns.

I think that was the point she was making - but we'll wait to see the full programme before we can be certain, of course.

Let's strip it back to what's actually happened. Is it right for a member of the public to knock on the door of a victim of a crime (that's the official angle, I don't like it anymore than everyone else) and put forward a question which if answered could impact the ongoing investigation, oh and by the way it's being filmed as evidence. It's a stupid idea which could potentially backfire.

ETA. This public figure malarkey, does that mean that all public figures are potentially up for doorstepping with any burning questions people have?

Sonia is not simply a member of the public: she is an investigative journalist recording her findings for release to the general public at a later date. There is a long tradition of the press asking people questions and on the whole this is regarded as being part of a free and healthy society.
Your post raises an interesting question about Kate's status: you describe her as a victim of crime, and as you will know, there is also a long tradition of press knocking at the doors of victims of crime and asking them upsetting questions about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of their deceased loved ones and how they feel about it. You may feel this is horribly intrusive - it is - but it happens all the time.
However, while describing Kate as a victim of crime, you also claim her reply (to the question of why she didn't answer the investigating police's questions) might have an impact in an ongoing investigation. How so? If Kate is simply the victim of the crime against Madeleine, what impact on the investigation can her answer possibly have? If she is a suspect, on the other hand, an answer to this question could have some relevance, and I'd hope that if a subject provided any potentially useful information as part of a journalist's interview, the journalist would pass this on to the relevant authorities.
But we both know that Kate would be unlikely to provide Sonia with an answer to this question, which brings us to its purpose. I don't know Sonia or her intentions, but as she has mentioned Brenda Leyland several times with regard to this programme, I suspect she wants to draw a comparison. A comparison between A: a mother whose child disappeared in mysterious circumstances and who then refused to answer basic police questions while writing books and appearing on chat shows designed to promote her victim status; and B: an ordinary member of the public who took exception to this behaviour, shared her opinions on the matter with a handful of people on Twitter, and found herself doorstepped by SKY and denounced on 24-hour rolling news as a hateful "troll" until she killed herself a few hours later. I believe that what's at the heart of Sonia's doorstepping decision - to compare the very different treatment of these two women and ask why one is unendingly to be given the benefit of the doubt when a child's life is at forfeit, while the other is rapidly condemned for her opinions while her explanations are left - to this day - unaired by the press that hounded her.

Even with my gammy yocks I can see that is Kate behind the door, lol. All this staging marlarky is hilarious, what would be the point? Walking up someone's driveway and knocking on their front door is an everyday occurrence. Even 'A' listers have front doors! The idea that Kate and Gerry have 24/7 protection is ludicrous, they are ordinary people, just like the rest of us. They pretend they are important, it is all part of their act.

What were Sonia's motives for knocking at Kate's door. Every good journalist takes chances, occasionally, their daring pays off. Maybe 99 times out of a 100, they will get the door slammed in their face, does they mean they should stop trying?

Are you able to tell us if Kate slammed the door in her face or if they had a conversation? If the latter, I'm not asking you to say what it was.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:We can argue whether the doorstepping was right or wrong however what was Sonia trying to achieve, did she really think KM would answer her questions (obviously not as she's not that stupid). So what was really gained, it will be good to see more of the footage to see the result. The cynic in me says Sonia knew what reception she would get so in essence this is all about the publicity that she (Sonia) will receive.

That's it exactly, it was done to get publicity, not answers.

And maybe a small element of "OK Kate, now you know what it bloody well feels like."

@popcorn
Did you read my post at 9:36? I explained there why the doorstepping by both Martin & Sonia are exactly the same. Can't you see that? What you are commenting on is the aftermath, can you see that?

At no point have I claimed that BL and KM will be or have been subjected to the same witch hunt. The facts are Sonia conducted the exact same doorstepping routine as Martin both of them were wrong to do so.

As for Sonia is not a member of the public, really? she has no more authority to demand answers than you or I, do you disagree?

Freedom wrote:Are you able to tell us if Kate slammed the door in her face or if they had a conversation? If the latter, I'm not asking you to say what it was.

Even, if I knew, I wouldn't tell you! No spoilers from me, I'm afraid

Hongkong Phooey wrote:@popcorn
Did you read my post at 9:36? I explained there why the doorstepping by both Martin & Sonia are exactly the same. Can't you see that? What you are commenting on is the aftermath, can you see that?

At no point have I claimed that BL and KM will be or have been subjected to the same witch hunt. The facts are Sonia conducted the exact same doorstepping routine as Martin both of them were wrong to do so.

I didn't say you did claim BL and KM were subjected to the same witch hunt. Nobody would say that as that is clearly not the case. I was explaining why I believed Sonia decided to doorstep Kate McCann.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:As for Sonia is not a member of the public, really? she has no more authority to demand answers than you or I, do you disagree?

All journalists are also members of the public when they're not working. Do you think journalists should not be allowed ask questions?