Sonia Poulton's documentary

Resistor 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.

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 wrote:

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?

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Popcorn wrote:

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?

Ok let's take your journalists should be allowed to ask questions (by knocking on your door and springing a controversial question on you) a bit further. They are only doing their job, yes?

What if a stranger knocks on your door, you answer, the stranger claims to be a doctor and his profession 'allows' him to examine you (cause that's what doctors do). Do you get your kit off? ( ok, maybe a bit extreme but being a journalist doesn't mean you have the right to demand answers and some suffer from violence for their intrusive behaviours).

Popcorn wrote: Did you read my earlier post?
Knocking on doors and asking newsworthy/public figures questions - often about tragic events - is established practice in journalism. It is not against the law. People do not have to answer the questions and they also have the right to ask the journalist to leave if (in the case of doorstepping) the journalist is on private property. If it's on a public street (as in the case of Brenda Leyland), there's nothing the subject can do except run inside their house or escape in a vehicle. They can always refuse to answer the questions, though. If a journalist (or member of the public) persists in pursuing someone, that person can take legal action if they wish.
Nobody said Kate was obliged to answer Sonia's questions, any more than she answered those of the Portuguese police. But she is not exempt from being asked questions. None of us is.
If a freelance 'doctor' arrives on your doorstep offering you a free examination you're at liberty to accept or decline his offer as you see fit. I'd probably decline, myself.

Freedom wrote:No chance then for a certain Dr McCann, Resistor!

Cristobell wrote:

Popcorn wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Popcorn wrote:

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?

Ok let's take your journalists should be allowed to ask questions (by knocking on your door and springing a controversial question on you) a bit further. They are only doing their job, yes?

What if a stranger knocks on your door, you answer, the stranger claims to be a doctor and his profession 'allows' him to examine you (cause that's what doctors do). Do you get your kit off? ( ok, maybe a bit extreme but being a journalist doesn't mean you have the right to demand answers and some suffer from violence for their intrusive behaviours).

Did you read my earlier post?
Knocking on doors and asking newsworthy/public figures questions - often about tragic events - is established practice in journalism. It is not against the law. People do not have to answer the questions and they also have the right to ask the journalist to leave if (in the case of doorstepping) the journalist is on private property. If it's on a public street (as in the case of Brenda Leyland), there's nothing the subject can do except run inside their house or escape in a vehicle. They can always refuse to answer the questions, though. If a journalist (or member of the public) persists in pursuing someone, that person can take legal action if they wish.
Nobody said Kate was obliged to answer Sonia's questions, any more than she answered those of the Portuguese police. But she is not exempt from being asked questions. None of us is.
If a freelance 'doctor' arrives on your doorstep offering you a free examination you're at liberty to accept or decline his offer as you see fit. I'd probably decline, myself.

Well said!

Freedom wrote:No chance then for a certain Dr McCann, Resistor!

Resistor wrote:

Freedom wrote:No chance then for a certain Dr McCann, Resistor!

Nope, neither of 'em!

Hongkong Phooey wrote:@popcorn
Your now on about people's rights, I agree no laws were broken etc. etc. If you go back you will see that I have claimed it's hypocritical of Sonia to make a deal out of doorstepping BL then follow the exact same process with KM. IMO both are wrong (Sonia & Martin) however neither  did anything illegal and in Sonia's case she had nothing to gain other than publicity (I'm not going into the gains for Martin / Sky).I somewhat doubt that Sonia turning up at the door (a hardly known 'journalist') had the same effect (on the victim) as Martin & the Sky team did with BL therefore the taste of their own medicine is hardly a credible thought. This doorstepping was all about Sonia

Popcorn wrote:

Did you read my earlier post?
Knocking on doors and asking newsworthy/public figures questions - often about tragic events - is established practice in journalism. It is not against the law. People do not have to answer the questions and they also have the right to ask the journalist to leave if (in the case of doorstepping) the journalist is on private property. If it's on a public street (as in the case of Brenda Leyland), there's nothing the subject can do except run inside their house or escape in a vehicle. They can always refuse to answer the questions, though. If a journalist (or member of the public) persists in pursuing someone, that person can take legal action if they wish.
Nobody said Kate was obliged to answer Sonia's questions, any more than she answered those of the Portuguese police. But she is not exempt from being asked questions. None of us is.
If a freelance 'doctor' arrives on your doorstep offering you a free examination you're at liberty to accept or decline his offer as you see fit. I'd probably decline, myself.

Cristobell wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:@popcorn
Your now on about people's rights, I agree no laws were broken etc. etc. If you go back you will see that I have claimed it's hypocritical of Sonia to make a deal out of doorstepping BL then follow the exact same process with KM. IMO both are wrong (Sonia & Martin) however neither  did anything illegal and in Sonia's case she had nothing to gain other than publicity (I'm not going into the gains for Martin / Sky).I somewhat doubt that Sonia turning up at the door (a hardly known 'journalist') had the same effect (on the victim) as Martin & the Sky team did with BL therefore the taste of their own medicine is hardly a credible thought. This doorstepping was all about Sonia

 


Cannot agree.  Anyone watching that teaser will see it is all about a missing 3 year old child and a journalist having the guts to confront a mother who has dodged questions about her daughter's disappearance for the past 8 years.  Where are you getting 'its all about Sonia' from?

Mimi wrote:@ HKP - I think you`re getting Sonia`s extrovert and confident personality as somehow being selfish and `all about her`.  Yes, they do enjoy the limelight but it doesn`t mean they don`t have honourable motivations behind it.  What would the world be like if we didn`t have people with the confidence and energy to probe and expose corruption?  Sonia has great empathy for people - it is not ALL about her.

Mimi wrote:@ HKP - I think you`re getting Sonia`s extrovert and confident personality as somehow being selfish and `all about her`.  Yes, they do enjoy the limelight but it doesn`t mean they don`t have honourable motivations behind it.  What would the world be like if we didn`t have people with the confidence and energy to probe and expose corruption?  Sonia has great empathy for people - it is not ALL about her.

Freedom wrote:Has she gained any publicity other than on the Internet though? It's good to have that (well, not sure about some of the personal insults) but there hasn't been a peep in the mainstream media, not even criticism about Kate being hounded.

Cristobell wrote:

Mimi wrote:@ HKP - I think you`re getting Sonia`s extrovert and confident personality as somehow being selfish and `all about her`.  Yes, they do enjoy the limelight but it doesn`t mean they don`t have honourable motivations behind it.  What would the world be like if we didn`t have people with the confidence and energy to probe and expose corruption?  Sonia has great empathy for people - it is not ALL about her.

 

You are of course absolutely right Mimi, journalism is no place for shrinking violets.  It is also no longer a place for preachy BBC World at One men in grey suits from the last century.  The public demand that their presenters and documentary makers be bright, interesting and loaded with personality.  Sonia has the charisma and the personality to appeal to mainstream audiences, that is probably why she is seen as such a threat.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:@popcorn
Your now on about people's rights, I agree no laws were broken etc. etc. If you go back you will see that I have claimed it's hypocritical of Sonia to make a deal out of doorstepping BL then follow the exact same process with KM. IMO both are wrong (Sonia & Martin) however neither  did anything illegal and in Sonia's case she had nothing to gain other than publicity (I'm not going into the gains for Martin / Sky).I somewhat doubt that Sonia turning up at the door (a hardly known 'journalist') had the same effect (on the victim) as Martin & the Sky team did with BL therefore the taste of their own medicine is hardly a credible thought. This doorstepping was all about Sonia

 


Cannot agree.  Anyone watching that teaser will see it is all about a missing 3 year old child and a journalist having the guts to confront a mother who has dodged questions about her daughter's disappearance for the past 8 years.  Where are you getting 'its all about Sonia' from?

The trailer content was all about doorstepping KM and getting maximum publicity for it. Sonia knew she would gain nothing other than publicity when she did the deed. That's why this particular 'scene' was chosen for the trailer, it was not about questioning KM.

Cristobell wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:@popcorn
Your now on about people's rights, I agree no laws were broken etc. etc. If you go back you will see that I have claimed it's hypocritical of Sonia to make a deal out of doorstepping BL then follow the exact same process with KM. IMO both are wrong (Sonia & Martin) however neither  did anything illegal and in Sonia's case she had nothing to gain other than publicity (I'm not going into the gains for Martin / Sky).I somewhat doubt that Sonia turning up at the door (a hardly known 'journalist') had the same effect (on the victim) as Martin & the Sky team did with BL therefore the taste of their own medicine is hardly a credible thought. This doorstepping was all about Sonia

 


Cannot agree.  Anyone watching that teaser will see it is all about a missing 3 year old child and a journalist having the guts to confront a mother who has dodged questions about her daughter's disappearance for the past 8 years.  Where are you getting 'its all about Sonia' from?

The trailer content was all about doorstepping KM and getting maximum publicity for it. Sonia knew she would gain nothing other than publicity when she did the deed. That's why this particular 'scene' was chosen for the trailer, it was not about questioning KM.

 


Of course Sonia is going for maximum publicity!  What else do you expect her to do?  Aren't we here to get the truth about Madeleine's disappearance into the public domain?

candyfloss wrote:Of course she is, why wouldn't she want maximum publicity that is what teaser trailers are about.  Something to make you take notice.  Sometimes the teasers are not even in the finished article it is the way film makers work.  Surely we want as many as possible to watch this docu.

Anyhow, The thing is people are scoffing and saying 'if Sonia produces something we don't already know or something knew' - that is totally missing the point, Sonia is the only journalist not too frightened to ask the questions and even if the documentary contains things we all know, there will be thousands out there that don't know much about the case.  She has a huge following and is popular, despite what some would like you to believe. 
I am willing to wait and see what she produces and if informative and full of fact then I for one won't be disappointed..