Sonia Poulton's documentary

Ah thanks, CF.

I must've missed that as I can't recall reading it before.

Makes perfect sense really.

It looks as though we may see something when Operation Grange is wound up.

I watched DI's  account of SP's time at The People's TV and DI is very scathing about SP. I also watched SP's redress to DI again and what struck me was that SP's argument was not reasonable, in fact I would say it was fallacious in many places. For example, SP criticises DI and insinuates there was financial irregularity at TPTV. She appears to support her argument by referencing her own remuneration as an employee. Surely, as an employee you sign a contract regarding financial renumeration, so to criticise this once you have left seems irrelevant and you can not exprapolate anything about the financial propriety of an organisation on the basis of your own dissatisfaction at your remuneration package. This strikes me as sour grapes and unprofessional. SP also refers to her then partner who she reveals (as evidence of his good character) bought lunches for staff on a regular basis. This proves nothing.

Dave Eden, whose company 'The Community Press Group' is responsible for the production of Sonia Poulton's documentary in which she promises to expose Icke: 'Unmasking the Messiah.' According to Poulton this documentary should have been, "Coming to a screen near you, Autumn 2014". So was this documentary in production at the same time as the Madeleine McCann/ Brenda Leyland documentary? According to SP, shortly after the death of BL, she revealed her frustration to ex-cop Eden, who quickly said he would finance its production. She states in her production diary they had no experience of making a documentary from scratch - but what about 'Unmasking the Messiah', surely that was made from scratch? 


SP:  "Mid month and I receive a call from Dave Eden, a former whistle-blowing cop, who has a production company and an online media outlet. He wants permission to use my YouTube in a story they are doing about Brenda and Madeleine. I tell him to feel free to share it far and wide. 

I then reveal my frustration about not being able to explore the story from a different angle. Right there and then he says "Let's make that documentary, I'll finance it." I don't need asking twice.

With hindsight I realise the naivety of that moment. The fact is none of us had a clue what a murky, obstacle-prone arena we are entering into. We set out to do it because it needed to be done. Neither Dave or I have ever made a documentary from scratch but seeing as no one else in my profession is prepared to speak up, I don't see what choice I have. I didn't come into journalism to be quiet about things that matter. "


I do not know if either documentary was made, I can find no evidence other than a lot of froth and threats. I hope I am wrong, I hope people get the documentary they have waited so patiently for. One thing is for sure - this case is riddled with charlatans and working out who they are is very tricky indeed and frankly not worth the effort. If any of the new members who have joined as a group and know SP could shed light on  the production of this documentary, that would be really helpful. I'm not going to be around for much longer - it's all getting ugly and way too political  - but an answer to that question before I go would be appreciated.

I'm sorry that you're felling dispirited W_u_d. I'm sure that we all do at times like this when there is no news on the case itself and there is inter-forum strife.

Richard D Hall has also made claims about David Icke's integrity in recent times - I only watched it in passing, but he reckons he's "gone over to the dark side", or something. Icke isn't somebody I've ever followed so I can't comment personally either way.

Regarding things being ugly and political, it's been like that all the time I've been involved - which is by no means as long as others. It's one of the things that reinforces people's belief that this case is anything but normal. It could just be individual nutters attaching themselves to a high profile event, although it feels more coordinated than that.

Hi, doc. Don't get too wound up about Sonia, she's just one small player who's involved herself over the last 3 years. 

The way I see it is this, if her documentary gets shown and it's dynamite then brilliant - we've gained a lot. If it doesn't then we're no worse off than before.

Reading her diary I have no doubt she's had huge rocks chucked at her, and let's face it, from what we know of the officialdom surrounding this case are we suprised at that or can doubt it is true? So I say good luck to her and I hope she succeeds. I also believe she's honest.

But she's one small cog in this whole geared labyrinth. You've found the case now and are making huge insightful strides into understanding it - as far as any of us can! Why throw all that away because of doubts as to the history of one commentator? The case is riddled with political influence, and I'm certain there's more than 2 sides involved with an interest. Why is important if SP alone has the correct motivations?

Do keep at it, Doc, your posts are clarifying and provoking. Don't get bogged down with one small element that may or may not come to anything.

Dee Coy wrote:

The way I see it is this, if her documentary gets shown and it's dynamite then brilliant - we've gained a lot. If it doesn't then we're no worse off than before.

That's spot on Dee Coy, well said. What does it matter in the grand scheme of things. I am sure she must have made it, we have or had a trailer and we had some stills. If it is not allowed to be shown or whatever the reason, it makes no odds. I don't think for a minute she lies, and cannot understand why the attacks on her.

We will have to wait until Op Grange concludes, then let's see what happens.

Dee Coy wrote:
But she's one small cog in this whole geared labyrinth. You've found the case now and are making huge insightful strides into understanding it - as far as any of us can! Why throw all that away because of doubts as to the history of one commentator? The case is riddled with political influence, and I'm certain there's more than 2 sides involved with an interest. Why is important if SP alone has the correct motivations?

I think for anybody who sets out to understand the case, there comes a moment where, suddenly and unexpectedly, the sheer scale of the thing reveals itself in front of you, and it can be unsettling and overwhelming. Most likely WUD has just arrived at that point.

What's_up_doc? wrote:

I do not know if either documentary was made, I can find no evidence other than a lot of froth and threats. I hope I am wrong, I hope people get the documentary they have waited so patiently for. One thing is for sure - this case is riddled with charlatans and working out who they are is very tricky indeed and frankly not worth the effort. If any of the new members who have joined as a group and know SP could shed light on  the production of this documentary, that would be really helpful. I'm not going to be around for much longer - it's all getting ugly and way too political  - but an answer to that question before I go would be appreciated.

Hey stick around,political? the muppets at Westminster have shown they haven't a clue recently,don't think there is anyone in any walk of life who can beat that lot.

Yes, been like that since the beginning WUD, shouldn't let it get to you.

unreorganised wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:
But she's one small cog in this whole geared labyrinth. You've found the case now and are making huge insightful strides into understanding it - as far as any of us can! Why throw all that away because of doubts as to the history of one commentator? The case is riddled with political influence, and I'm certain there's more than 2 sides involved with an interest. Why is important if SP alone has the correct motivations?

I think for anybody who sets out to understand the case, there comes a moment where, suddenly and unexpectedly, the sheer scale of the thing reveals itself in front of you, and it can be unsettling and overwhelming. Most likely WUD has just arrived at that point.

Yes, you're spot-on with that. Once the enormity hits you you definitely take a hit to the solar plexus.

With me, it was first reading the Gaspar statements and the CATs file stuff. All of a sudden a wormhole opened in the wall of the straight path down which I was striding. I stuck my head into it and was hauled bodily into the alternative passages which snake endlessly behind this case. Once you realise the extent to which that stuff has been deliberately concealed then it's a massive shock. And then a whole lot of other things start to make sense.

I think one of the biggest barriers we have to overcome is convincing others that what they think they know of the case are only the shiny ice-skating figures on the pristine ice that covers the murky tendrill-infested waters beneath.

Gaspars' statement and the MCs being skint ...
It's been on my mind since a long time [and late Maman's too].

ETA they couldn't survive on 1.2 salary as medics. Bad habits?


Mods remove, if too direct.

And then their alleged involvement with the Missing Child Alerts mooted program.

Dee Coy wrote:And then their alleged involvement with the Missing Child Alerts mooted program.

***
Well, the mind's boggling since a long time.
GM: she's been abducted by peadophiles.
KM: in madeleine [underscore] by KATE MCCANN: page xxx [cannot remember and don't bother to look it up - I hate that book! Imagining Madeleine's private parts being ripped ... !
Good gracious ... That's almost enough for a confession.

I don't think there's evidence to show they actually were skint.

If I remember rightly, there were quotes from relatives saying they'd had to help with paying bills but it's likely that Gerry was on full pay while he was absent from work and there was also the fund.

Yes, some people don't manage their income - no matter how much it is - but we don't know if that's the case here.

Scary Spice didn't manage hers!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/mel-b-blew-38m-extravagant-10722656

Thanks everyone for your kind words. I became interested in this case after I was talking about Madeleine with my son and I expressed concern for her parents. He looked at me with genuine shock and said "Nobody believes that anymore mum." So I went down the rabbit hole and at first it was fascinating and I have to say uplifting, because it was good to know there were genuine people who poked their heads above the parapet and are speak out. The problem is, the further down the hole you go, the murkier it gets and you start to encounter the charlatans, I've no idea who they are, I can't see them cos it's too murky down here - but I can hear them loud and clear and frankly they scare me. So it's time for me to clamber back up and get some light because I'm out of my depth and my comfort zone.  It's been an adventure. Thanks for the kind words and take care x

Once down there you will realise the answer is in the daylight.

https://www.facebook.com/sonia.poulton/posts/10156521244708976?comment_id=10156522410988976&notif_t=feed_comment_reply&notif_id=1503609575115526

I think this will be accessible to non-members. It's a debate on Sonia's page where a friend of Amy Tierney is having his say and posting comments from her.

I must say I do find all this a bit strange...what evidence do we have that Sonia is bonafide? That she was more interested in trolling at one point enrolling Cristobel in the ill fated Sun article, not to mention working for Sky tv and taking , one would presume , Murdochs shilling. I also found the trailer " teaser" quite bizzare and cannot understand why Kate would open the door to an unknown journalist unless she knew who it was approaching and what they were to discuss? As for the Amy conversation, well ,how do we know it is her. Many on here have defended the man she points to...I'm not on the fence with this,I'm on the other side and have very great reservations still as to the game plan....

I can understand what you're saying, Bampots.

As regards Amy Tierney, how do we know if anyone on the Internet is who they claim to be and what hidden agenda they may have. If we weren't paranoid before May 2007, we are now!

As for Sonia, she has said a lot of things about the case with which I certainly agree. I shan't be joining that group of cackling hags who delight in pulling her (metaphorically) to pieces - I'm not suggesting that you will.

I agree that the door-stepping of Kate incident was strange.

Anyway, time will tell if the documentary ever appears.

Bampots wrote:I must say I do find all this a bit strange...what evidence do we have that Sonia is bonafide? That she was more interested in trolling at one point enrolling Cristobel in the ill fated Sun article, not to mention working for Sky tv and taking , one would presume , Murdochs shilling. I also found the trailer " teaser" quite bizzare and cannot understand why Kate would open the door to an unknown journalist unless she knew who it was approaching and what they were to discuss? As for the Amy conversation, well ,how do we know it is her. Many on here have defended the man she points to...I'm not on the fence with this,I'm on the other side and have very great reservations still as to the game plan....

Why is working for Sky so important? She's a journalist and, like all of us, needs money coming in. As she says in the films, she's been dropped by the main broadcasters in the UK. It's not as if she is adopting Sky's views on everything - and she's keeping a channel open for when she has a really big story.

Re Kate opening the door, do you assume she was peeking out through a window every time anyone approached her front door? She maybe now that Sonia has paid that visit (!), but to suggest she was always doing it doesn't make sense to me.

Freedom wrote:I can understand what you're saying, Bampots.

As regards Amy Tierney, how do we know if anyone on the Internet is who they claim to be and what hidden agenda they may have. If we weren't paranoid before May 2007, we are now!

As for Sonia, she has said a lot of things about the case with which I certainly agree. I shan't be joining that group of cackling hags who delight in pulling her (metaphorically) to pieces - I'm not suggesting that you will.  

I agree that the door-stepping of Kate incident was strange.

Anyway, time will tell if the documentary ever appears.

Sonia at all times says things which we can agree on! Thats the way it works. When she enrolled Cristobel it was supposed to get a view from the other side.....this certainly didnt happen....and the article was a sham in which the pro Madelienes (as opposed to "anti" McCanns) most certainly got burned!! So forgive me for my paranoia ......but apart from her words....her fully fledged actions that we have before us does not fill me with any hope of a balanced view. As for the hags, they are gone are they not....do we have to toe a line on Sonia .....or are we allowed to vent genuine feelings on the subject? Lets hope she is a Joan of Arc and not simply a self publicist... but i do have my doubts. As for earning a living espeland....a journalist has many routes to putting a meal on the table, and i understand its a tough game ,  so i may have been harsh to critisize her choice of employer.....but i also place a good deal of the blame for Brenda Leyland at Sky and Martin Brunts feet!! Im nit out to have a running argument...people have their own views on her and i respect them....lets hope im wrong!

It wasn't just a journalist on her own though, she had a cameraman with her taking a recording of Sonia doorstepping Kate and then another cameraman taking a recording of Sonia and the cameraman doorstepping Kate! So at least three people were there. There's a window next to the front door where Kate could see those three people, two with cameras, before opening the door. Plus there would have been a big van outside. You can't tell me she didn't look out of that side window and see a big burly man with a big burly camera on his shoulder wearing headphones. Knowing how Kate will only answer pre-scripted questions I can't imagine she would open the door to that lot! Why did there need to be a cameraman taking a recording of another cameraman?

And how did Sonia and the two cameramen know she was even in anyway? Was it really an opportunist doorstepping? And if so, I wonder how far they would have to travel for a disappointing no-show? And if it was a no-show what would they do then? Go back to wherever it was they travelled from, or go and doorstep someone else?

If it was an opportunist doorstepping, after Kate had told the world how suicidal she'd felt in the past then it was a horrible thing to do after another doorstepping pushed a vulnerable woman to suicide not far from where Kate herself lives. It was also horrible to just turn up on a doorstep knowing there could be two young children indoors who would ask awkward questions afterwards. They may not have been at school, Kate may have been at home looking after two ill children.

Kate may be subject to scrutiny, but she will still be feeling stressful about the situation she finds herself in, but those twins most definitely are NOT subject to scrutiny and should NOT be subject to a random doorstepping! How did Sonia know one of the twins wouldn't open the door? Was that just a risk she was willing to take? Anyone who condones that sort of behaviour from Sonia is not right in the head imo.

Or was it all done by appointment with the fresh green and yellow campaign ribbons placed prominently either side of the front door?

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t262p200-sonia-poulton-s-documentary#41418

And if it was done by appointment then you have to ask yourself why, especially as Sonia didn't seem to get what she went there for. Was it just a PR stunt to show that not only Brenda can be doorstepped but Kate can be subjected to that sort of unwanted media attention too, to perhaps take the heat off Gerry for wanting trolls to be made an example of?

Bampots, just to clarify that I was referring to people elsewhere - not this forum - who vent their feelings on Sonia in childish and spiteful ways.

There's certainly no problem in discussing her here.

Good points raised, Purple Ronnie.

We don't know what happened, what was said etc.  Doorstepping does happen and did happen a lot, so nothing new really.  Mabe KM knew maybe she didn't, but we cannot judge and shout until we know the details can we?  KM may have seen the cameras and thought it was SKY or someone doing an interview, and she would maybe open the door?

As for the twins, well, they have been thrown in the spotlight originally by the parents, how many stories have there been about them?  It is not nice and not right but you cannot throw that at Sonia, for heaven's sake the forums do far worse damage by what is sometimes said.... which we try to avoid here I may add.

It all if's and maybe's with this case, why not just wait patiently?