Sonia Poulton's documentary

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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?

You've contradicted yourself, first the 'teaser' is all about a missing 3 year old girl then it's about getting maximum publicity, care to settle on one or the other!

Publicity for the DOCUMENTARY, most would have taken that as a given, which is why I didn't feel the need to spell it out.

"You've contradicted yourself, first the 'teaser' is all about a missing 3 year old girl then it's about getting maximum publicity, care to settle on one or the other!" Quote HKP.

I don't think that's a contradiction. Maximum publicity (hopefully) to bring to people's attention the bizarre circumstances of the case.

Freedom wrote:"You've contradicted yourself, first the 'teaser' is all about a missing 3 year old girl then it's about getting maximum publicity, care to settle on one or the other!" Quote HKP.

I don't think that's a contradiction. Maximum publicity (hopefully) to bring to people's attention the bizarre circumstances of the case.

Read the whole quote "journalist having the guts" nonsense etc.

ETA the quote
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?

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..

Do those that criticise Sonia for seeking publicity for her documentary ever watch trailers for a movie that they have eagerly awaited? Or watch a tv show where someone is promoting their latest book, or watch ads for new products? The hype is there to pique our interest and entice us to buy the product. 
We here on this forum have a vested interest in seeing what Sonia has come up with but if she can gain more viewers from the general public who may still be convinced that the parents are guilty of nothing more than neglect, then surely it is a good thing.
I do agree that doorstepping Kate wasn't, on the face of it, a good thing but I am sure she did it as a comparison to what happened to Brenda after the event. 
There is no parallel between the hounding of an otherwise anonymous citizen, which led to the death of that person, and a journalist using tried and tested methods to bring attention to a question that the vast majority of right-thinking people would like an answer to.
I am quite sure Kate's face will not be appearing on a scrolling news item for a whole day, nor will she be confiding her suicidal thoughts to Sonia Poulton. So whilst it wouldn't have been my modus operandi, Sonia has her reasons I am sure.
If the full documentary is probing and well researched, then it can hopefully enlighten the apathetic public who have no idea of the alleged lies that have gone on for 8 years.
Let's not be too quick to judge.

What part of Sonia doorstepping KM was all about publicity and not about getting answers do you all not get? I wholly accept she wants to court pubicity, of course she does however, you can't make a song and dance (and dedications) highlighting the treatment of BL then conduct the exact same doorstepping operation on KM. It's completely wrong yet she is already being heralded as a hero!

Hongkong Phooey wrote:What part of Sonia doorstepping KM was all about publicity and not about getting answers do you all not get? I wholly accept she wants to court pubicity, of course she does however, you can't make a song and dance (and dedications) highlighting the treatment of BL then conduct the exact same doorstepping operation on KM. It's completely wrong yet she is already being heralded as a hero!

But it wasn't the same was it? No rolling news on Sky. No labelling as a vile troll. No hounding to death. No comparison.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:What part of Sonia doorstepping KM was all about publicity and not about getting answers do you all not get? I wholly accept she wants to court pubicity, of course she does however, you can't make a song and dance (and dedications) highlighting the treatment of BL then conduct the exact same doorstepping operation on KM. It's completely wrong yet she is already being heralded as a hero!

But it wasn't the same was it? No rolling news on Sky. No labelling as a vile troll. No hounding to death. No comparison.

I explained earlier, go look at what doorstepping actually means, it has nothing to do with the aftermath of the actual doorstepping activity. Sonia &  Martin conducted the same doorstepping excercise!

ETA definition 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’

chirpyinsect wrote:

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..

Do those that criticise Sonia for seeking publicity for her documentary ever watch trailers for a movie that they have eagerly awaited? Or watch a tv show where someone is promoting their latest book, or watch ads for new products? The hype is there to pique our interest and entice us to buy the product. 
We here on this forum have a vested interest in seeing what Sonia has come up with but if she can gain more viewers from the general public who may still be convinced that the parents are guilty of nothing more than neglect, then surely it is a good thing.
I do agree that doorstepping Kate wasn't, on the face of it, a good thing but I am sure she did it as a comparison to what happened to Brenda after the event. 
There is no parallel between the hounding of an otherwise anonymous citizen, which led to the death of that person, and a journalist using tried and tested methods to bring attention to a question that the vast majority of right-thinking people would like an answer to.
I am quite sure Kate's face will not be appearing on a scrolling news item for a whole day, nor will she be confiding her suicidal thoughts to Sonia Poulton. So whilst it wouldn't have been my modus operandi, Sonia has her reasons I am sure.
If the full documentary is probing and well researched, then it can hopefully enlighten the apathetic public who have no idea of the alleged lies that have gone on for 8 years.
Let's not be too quick to judge.

Totally agree ChirpyInsect, there is no comparison between the two whatsoever.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:What part of Sonia doorstepping KM was all about publicity and not about getting answers do you all not get? I wholly accept she wants to court pubicity, of course she does however, you can't make a song and dance (and dedications) highlighting the treatment of BL then conduct the exact same doorstepping operation on KM. It's completely wrong yet she is already being heralded as a hero!

So just to be clear, what is it exactly that you object to about Sonia's doorstepping of Kate? We've established that doorstepping newsworthy figures and those who voluntary place themselves in the public eye get this sometimes.  This is especially true if journalists think they've done something that's at odds with their public image - such as promising to leave no stone unturned in the search for their missing child and then refusing to answer some fairly basic police questions. Is it that you simply find the whole practice of doorstepping unpalateable? Is it wrong when Matt Alwright does it to dodgy tradesmen who have also - at that stage - not been convicted of any crime?

You complain that Sandra is using it for publicity, and that may be the case. I'm sure she does want publicity for her documentary. However, you could argue that Sandra is giving Kate - very publicly - a right to reply. I assume her documentary will be looking at Kate's refusal to cooperate with the police, so by asking Kate on camera why she didn't do so, Sandra is certainly giving her the opportunity to put her view across.

I do not think Sonia's questions to Kate McCann bear much resemblance to the way in which Brenda Leyland was treated by SKY News.

I'm going to leave you girls/guys to your gushing of a 90 second trailer that demonstrated that Sonia was no better than the vilified Brunt / Sky team who doorstepped BL (tired of explaining that doorstepping and what follows is two different activities and it seems that many either can't or don't want to differentiate between the two). So I'll just patiently wait for the whole documentary to be aired which we were told was commissioned for a mainstraim channel. I hope the content will be better than the trailer and it does add value to the debate.

ETA @popcorn, you sill don't get it! The treatment from Sky News FOLLOWED the doorstepping, I have not argued that, Sonia did exactly the same doorstepping process as Sky /MB what is so difficult to understand. My question at 11:36 gave you an opportunity to answer why there were no rules brken in BLs case but you didn't reply.

Bye anyways

That's fair enough, HKP. As you said earlier, it would be boring if everyone agreed.

So, what is breathing? I'll give you a definition. Breathing is the process that moves air in and out of the lungs, or oxygen through other respiratory organs such as gills.

Sonia Poulton breathes. Martin Brunt breathes. So, I'll make absolutely clear, that what Sonia Poulton did to Kate, breathing, is the same as what Martin Brunt did to Brenda Leyland. While breathing.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:I'm going to leave you girls/guys to your gushing of a 90 second trailer that demonstrated that Sonia was no better than the vilified Brunt / Sky team who doorstepped BL (tired of explaining that doorstepping and what follows is two different activities and it seems that many either can't or don't want to differentiate between the two). So I'll just patiently wait for the whole documentary to be aired which we were told was commissioned for a mainstraim channel. I hope the content will be better than the trailer and it does add value to the debate.

ETA @popcorn, you sill don't get it! The treatment from Sky News FOLLOWED the doorstepping, I have not argued that, Sonia did exactly the same doorstepping process as Sky /MB what is so difficult to understand. My question at 11:36 gave you an opportunity to answer why  there were no rules brken in BLs case but you didn't reply.

Bye anyways

But Martin Brunt would be well aware of the consequences to Brenda of his doorstepping her, even if he didn't expect the final result.He didn't turn up at her house for fun. He was carrying out instructions from his paymasters. Presumably when he became aware of her fragile state, as a human being, he thought about calling the whole thing off. News programmes are fluid and items can easily be pulled at a moment's notice. Why didn't he? Because there was a higher ( read lower) agenda at stake which was to name and shame anyone who dared to question the saintly parents. It is not the place of news corporations to make this kind of judgement, yet Sky News and Martin Brunt saw fit to use an older, law abiding woman as an example to us disbelievers.
Kate McCann has a support mechanism in place. She doesn't live alone. She has withstood the comments and questioning of her part in this for 8 years. She has been made an ambassador for missing kids. She has paid media monitors at her disposal and an army of shills attacking her detractors. She has managed to conduct her life under the glare of the ( now silenced) media without cracking. She has had the ear of prime ministers and ambassadors so why is it such a heinous crime to ask the question we all want the answer to?
No doubt the door was slammed in Sonia's face 2 seconds after and other than a wobbly moment or two, I doubt Kate was bothered. After all and only in my opinion, she is guilty of far worse than not answering some questions.

Burst wrote:So, what is breathing? I'll give you a definition. Breathing is the process that moves air in and out of the lungs, or oxygen through other respiratory organs such as gills.

Sonia Poulton breathes. Martin Brunt breathes. So, I'll make absolutely clear, that what Sonia Poulton did to Kate, breathing, is the same as what Martin Brunt did to Brenda Leyland. While breathing.

And Kate and Brunt are still breathing, while Brenda isn't.

I am against doorstepping, however, Kate McCann has never explained why she did not answer the 48 questions at such a crucial time, immediately following her child's alleged abduction.

Since the McCanns have continuously, for 7+ long years, asked for public donations to fund their high priced image teams search, this question remains crucial (imo).   It beggars belief that no journalist until now has asked Kate why she in effect stalled the investigation from moving forward almost immediately, by refusing to cooperate with standard police procedure, even though she was told directly that it could put her child in jeopardy!

All staged apparently (from the bloke I won't name).

Something yellow and something green, attached to the lights outside the house, in the clip.

All part of the prop and obvious setup that Sonia is working with the McCanns, or whatever the latest accusations are.

That bloke has got it wrong. Again!

They already had those ribbons there in July 2011, though both yellow. They probably replace them regularly as they don't last long outside.

Google earth pic from July 2011:

Andrew wrote:All staged apparently (from the bloke I won't name).

Something yellow and something green, attached to the lights outside the house, in the clip.

All part of the prop and obvious setup that Sonia is working with the McCanns, or whatever the latest accusations are.

 


Ah well, at least whilst he is investigating the 'staging' of the door knocking, he is leaving the Smiths alone

Yellow ribbons have become a symbol for missing people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29521449

Yes, the McCanns are mentioned!

seahorse wrote:

Andrew wrote:All staged apparently (from the bloke I won't name).

Something yellow and something green, attached to the lights outside the house, in the clip.

All part of the prop and obvious setup that Sonia is working with the McCanns, or whatever the latest accusations are.

That bloke has got it wrong. Again!

They already had those ribbons there in July 2011, though both yellow. They probably replace them regularly as they don't last long outside.

Google earth pic from July 2011:

No, surely he's not got it wrong, yet again. And again and....

Thanks for posting that.

Cristobell wrote:

Andrew wrote:All staged apparently (from the bloke I won't name).

Something yellow and something green, attached to the lights outside the house, in the clip.

All part of the prop and obvious setup that Sonia is working with the McCanns, or whatever the latest accusations are.

 


Ah well, at least whilst he is investigating the 'staging' of the door knocking, he is leaving the Smiths alone

Apparently not.

Don't think anyone's listening anymore Andrew.  I can't see results of the polls, but I can take an educated case at the numbers.  I think the other place have long since lost sight of the bigger picture, they have become bogged down in the minutiae and are punch drunk with banging square boxes into round holes.

I can't possibly comment, cristobell.

Didn't think many people listened in the first place, let alone now.

Anyway, let's get back to topic. Don't want to be discussing wotsit and his pathetic nonsense, again.

pennylane wrote:I am against doorstepping, however, Kate McCann has never explained why she did not answer the 48 questions at such a crucial time, immediately following her child's alleged abduction.

Since the McCanns have continuously, for 7+ long years, asked for public donations to fund their high priced image teams search, this question remains crucial (imo).   It beggars belief that no journalist until now has asked Kate why she in effect stalled the investigation from moving forward almost immediately, by refusing to cooperate with standard police procedure, even though she was told directly that it could put her child in jeopardy!

Well said pennylane, totally agree.

Regarding the door stepping issue, I think we need to get some perspective.  The only way to confront injustice head on is through door stepping and as investigative journalists traditionally go after those who are evading the law for whatever reason, it is an essential part of their role.  Stopping it doesn't protect the good guys it protects the bad guys.

Sky News were not implicated in the death of Brenda Leyland because they argued that their actions in door stepping Brenda and broadcasting the footage was in the public's interest.  Whether exposing a middle aged lady to hate and ridicule for discussing the high profile people involved a high profile criminal case, was in the public's interest is debateable.  Brenda wasn't conning the public nor was she a danger to anyone.

Kate and Gerry on the other hand are conning the public imo.  They have, since the very beginning, been appealing to everyone to 'join their search' for their daughter.  They have used every opportunity to remind us that Madeleine is still out there and still needs finding.  They have never given up and they will never give up.  As we speak they are preparing a new campaign by moving money around, in readiness for when Operation Grange give up.  They are finishers they are not going to be beaten by a group of cops (like Amaral), who they do not believe to be on the same intellectual and social level as themselves.  

If Kate and Gerry were selling a product that didn't exist, or that wasn't theirs to sell, they would quite rightly be prosecuted for obtaining money by deception. I believe and imo  They KNOW Maddie can't be found, their facial expressions give them away when, especially when asked about sightings. The McCann's are not talking a few little old ladies into having new driveways or double glazing, they are appealing to the whole world to keep looking for a child (who will never be found) and for cash donations to a fund that will never be used to find her.

The McCanns have left many victims in their wake.  I believe They haven't just covered up their child's death, they have persecuted those who have sought justice for her and they have hoodwinked hundreds, neh thousands into believing that they are searching for their lost little girl.  Their appeals for help (and cash) know no bounds, the case has never gone away and they have never returned to their 'normal' lives, because they maintain a media team and pay good, hard, cash to keep themselves in the  news!  The McCanns are seasoned veterans when it comes to the media, they know how to snatch a front page off a Kardashian and they are steered by a circle of advisors straight off the set of a political comedy by Armando Iannucci.  

This very bizarre case which began with the disappearance of a small child, may well turn out to be one of the biggest scams the world has ever seen!  Right up there with 'I've a got a bridge to sell you'.  If I were a defence lawyer arguing that the doorstepping of Kate McCann was in the public's interest, I would have to say, I rest my case.