Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
+14
Freedom
Helenmeg
AndyB
chirpyinsect
Thetruth
Cristobell
Poppy
Ignored
anny
dogs don't lie
candyfloss
Châtelaine
Andrew
Dee Coy
18 posters
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3 
Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Dee Coy Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:06 pm
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1skbahu
Open letter to Jim Gamble #mccann
Following your Twitter attack on me yesterday - and continued today - I reiterate my request to invite you for an interview with regard the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
I was shocked by your vitriolic outburst regarding doorstepping the McCanns. Given that you were not there when it occurred I find you speak without full knowledge of the situation. For a former policeman to speak without understanding of what I have or have not done, is worrying given your high media profile around this case.
For the record, I approached the McCanns at their Leicester home. This is a practice you have publicly applauded when it applied to a single, older woman expressing an opinion e.g. Brenda Leyland also from Leicester. And yet, apparently, it is not to your taste when it comes to those who are at the heart of a story of enormous public investment.
Doorstepping, in matters of public interest, is a valid journalistic tool and I stand-by my decision to do it in this case.
This approach followed interview requests to the McCanns and I made it clear that there were unanswered questions - even more than the 48 police questions that Kate refused to answer when it came to searching for her child - and I sought to help by using whatever appropriate tools I have at my disposable. It is the McCanns who use the expression 'No Stone Unturned' and I believe what I set out to do then, and continue to do, assists rather than obstructs that.
When I received no response to an interview, after several requests over the period of a year, I realised that I had a public duty to pursue this. Thus, myself and a small camera crew went to the McCanns house and asked to talk with them.
Kate, I should point out, didn't find my approach at all 'attacking' as you insist on shrieking all over Twitter, until I told her why I was there and what questions the public - the very public who have been funding the search both through private donations and the current Operation Grange investigation - want answering.
I am not dissuaded from this action even by your use of emotive words in an apparent attempt to create a negative narrative about this documentary and what we are setting out to do. I am relieved that the wider discerning public are finally getting a glimpse of the machinations of those claiming to seek justice for Madeleine McCann.
I have previously asked you for an interview for the documentary I am making called 'The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann'. This is for a number of reasons.
There is your involvement in calling for legal punishment of those you regard as 'trolls' when, in fact, they are mostly just the people who dispute the official version of events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
Also, I wish to address the fact that you were involved in the Sky report by Martin Brunt - which featured the doorstepping of Brenda Leyland several days before her death - coupled with your euphoric public congratulations of this action on the day the report was repeatedly aired.
The Sky report, as you know, was based on a so-called dossier of those who oppose the official abduction story. I am given to understand that I feature in that dossier, as did Brenda Leyland. It is no secret that people involved in said dossier were in contact with you prior to Martin Brunt doorstepping Brenda Leyland. People, I have evidence of, who were involved in continually bullying and provoking Brenda Leyland.
Given that experts and commentators have now had a chance to examine Brenda Leyland's social network output regarding the case, and have concluded that she was not a 'troll', I believe - along with many others - that you have questions to answer regarding your role in her public hounding.
I am making this an open letter because I am aware of the deep public interest surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine, not least the millions of pounds that hard-pressed British taxpayers are funding for this, but also because you chose to be public in your condemnation of me and this documentary.
It is also, unquestionably, a unique-ly 'online case' in some regards in that many, many people globally have flocked to the Internet to express their horror at the case receiving such biased reporting in mainstream media.
It is an open secret that the McCann's version of events is widely disputed. Due, in part, to the inability of the couple and their friends to present a consistent account of events. This is out there in the public domain thanks to the work of the Portuguese Police. So it is that people have taken, en masse, to the Internet to express anger, dismay and frustration at the coverage which frequently fails to match reality.
I know you are aware that there are significant rumours surrounding your involvement with the McCanns during the time you were in public office at CEOP. I have seen the tweets that people send to you and the Facebook comments made about you.
I understand what it means to be smeared and I believe that I have a responsibility, as a journalist (of almost three decades), to put those accusations to you. I am not interfering with any on-going police investigation just doing what journalists are supposed to do.
I find it alarming, as do many Twitter observers, that you chose to use social media in a futile attempt to undermine me professionally with childish insults. All the while encouraging your followers to behave in a mob-like fashion towards me. Is this not contrary to what you claim to represent?
However, as many have pointed out, your public attacks have merely served to reinforce what people already believe regarding your somewhat blinkered approach to this case. Certainly, the way you have behaved over the last 24 hours towards myself and others has presented us with the perfect way to illustrate this in the documentary.
As a former policeman, I cannot fathom why you continue to insist that an abduction is the only reasonable conclusion to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
For those who have taken time to truly look at the case - those same people you block on Twitter and refer to as ranters and trolls - and away from the PR-led version of the media coverage, it is clear that there is so much more to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann than we are frequently led to believe.
I wonder, have the facts become immaterial in your quest to defend the McCanns at any cost? I am happy to be proved wrong.
So, Mr. Gamble, what is it to be? I offer you a full recorded interview (and a final mutual agreement of your contribution to the documentary) so you can be assured that your message will not be taken out of context.
I hope, rather than continuing to behave in a deeply unprofessional, evasive and questionable manner, that you take up this invitation.
If you choose not to, then people will make up their own mind why this might be. Your call.
Sonia Poulton
January 28, 2015
Over to you Jim.
Will he respond?
Open letter to Jim Gamble #mccann
Following your Twitter attack on me yesterday - and continued today - I reiterate my request to invite you for an interview with regard the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
I was shocked by your vitriolic outburst regarding doorstepping the McCanns. Given that you were not there when it occurred I find you speak without full knowledge of the situation. For a former policeman to speak without understanding of what I have or have not done, is worrying given your high media profile around this case.
For the record, I approached the McCanns at their Leicester home. This is a practice you have publicly applauded when it applied to a single, older woman expressing an opinion e.g. Brenda Leyland also from Leicester. And yet, apparently, it is not to your taste when it comes to those who are at the heart of a story of enormous public investment.
Doorstepping, in matters of public interest, is a valid journalistic tool and I stand-by my decision to do it in this case.
This approach followed interview requests to the McCanns and I made it clear that there were unanswered questions - even more than the 48 police questions that Kate refused to answer when it came to searching for her child - and I sought to help by using whatever appropriate tools I have at my disposable. It is the McCanns who use the expression 'No Stone Unturned' and I believe what I set out to do then, and continue to do, assists rather than obstructs that.
When I received no response to an interview, after several requests over the period of a year, I realised that I had a public duty to pursue this. Thus, myself and a small camera crew went to the McCanns house and asked to talk with them.
Kate, I should point out, didn't find my approach at all 'attacking' as you insist on shrieking all over Twitter, until I told her why I was there and what questions the public - the very public who have been funding the search both through private donations and the current Operation Grange investigation - want answering.
I am not dissuaded from this action even by your use of emotive words in an apparent attempt to create a negative narrative about this documentary and what we are setting out to do. I am relieved that the wider discerning public are finally getting a glimpse of the machinations of those claiming to seek justice for Madeleine McCann.
I have previously asked you for an interview for the documentary I am making called 'The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann'. This is for a number of reasons.
There is your involvement in calling for legal punishment of those you regard as 'trolls' when, in fact, they are mostly just the people who dispute the official version of events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
Also, I wish to address the fact that you were involved in the Sky report by Martin Brunt - which featured the doorstepping of Brenda Leyland several days before her death - coupled with your euphoric public congratulations of this action on the day the report was repeatedly aired.
The Sky report, as you know, was based on a so-called dossier of those who oppose the official abduction story. I am given to understand that I feature in that dossier, as did Brenda Leyland. It is no secret that people involved in said dossier were in contact with you prior to Martin Brunt doorstepping Brenda Leyland. People, I have evidence of, who were involved in continually bullying and provoking Brenda Leyland.
Given that experts and commentators have now had a chance to examine Brenda Leyland's social network output regarding the case, and have concluded that she was not a 'troll', I believe - along with many others - that you have questions to answer regarding your role in her public hounding.
I am making this an open letter because I am aware of the deep public interest surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine, not least the millions of pounds that hard-pressed British taxpayers are funding for this, but also because you chose to be public in your condemnation of me and this documentary.
It is also, unquestionably, a unique-ly 'online case' in some regards in that many, many people globally have flocked to the Internet to express their horror at the case receiving such biased reporting in mainstream media.
It is an open secret that the McCann's version of events is widely disputed. Due, in part, to the inability of the couple and their friends to present a consistent account of events. This is out there in the public domain thanks to the work of the Portuguese Police. So it is that people have taken, en masse, to the Internet to express anger, dismay and frustration at the coverage which frequently fails to match reality.
I know you are aware that there are significant rumours surrounding your involvement with the McCanns during the time you were in public office at CEOP. I have seen the tweets that people send to you and the Facebook comments made about you.
I understand what it means to be smeared and I believe that I have a responsibility, as a journalist (of almost three decades), to put those accusations to you. I am not interfering with any on-going police investigation just doing what journalists are supposed to do.
I find it alarming, as do many Twitter observers, that you chose to use social media in a futile attempt to undermine me professionally with childish insults. All the while encouraging your followers to behave in a mob-like fashion towards me. Is this not contrary to what you claim to represent?
However, as many have pointed out, your public attacks have merely served to reinforce what people already believe regarding your somewhat blinkered approach to this case. Certainly, the way you have behaved over the last 24 hours towards myself and others has presented us with the perfect way to illustrate this in the documentary.
As a former policeman, I cannot fathom why you continue to insist that an abduction is the only reasonable conclusion to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
For those who have taken time to truly look at the case - those same people you block on Twitter and refer to as ranters and trolls - and away from the PR-led version of the media coverage, it is clear that there is so much more to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann than we are frequently led to believe.
I wonder, have the facts become immaterial in your quest to defend the McCanns at any cost? I am happy to be proved wrong.
So, Mr. Gamble, what is it to be? I offer you a full recorded interview (and a final mutual agreement of your contribution to the documentary) so you can be assured that your message will not be taken out of context.
I hope, rather than continuing to behave in a deeply unprofessional, evasive and questionable manner, that you take up this invitation.
If you choose not to, then people will make up their own mind why this might be. Your call.
Sonia Poulton
January 28, 2015
Over to you Jim.
Will he respond?
_________________
Philip Larkin wrote:It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know, Have always known, know that we can't escape, Yet can't accept.
Dee Coy- Posts : 2317
Join date : 2014-08-29
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Andrew Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:11 pm
A very well presented letter.
I reckon JG might just get himself a one way ticket somewhere rather than responding.
He's in a mess and he knows it.
I reckon JG might just get himself a one way ticket somewhere rather than responding.
He's in a mess and he knows it.
Andrew- Posts : 13074
Join date : 2014-08-29
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Andrew Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:24 pm
The Gamble has just responded back with a tweet the twit.
Can't paste it over as on my phone.
Something about letting his reputation speak on behalf of him.
His reputation is in tatters the clown.
Can't paste it over as on my phone.
Something about letting his reputation speak on behalf of him.
His reputation is in tatters the clown.
Andrew- Posts : 13074
Join date : 2014-08-29
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Châtelaine Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:24 pm
@ Sonia: Very well phrased ;-)
Last edited by Châtelaine on Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Châtelaine- Posts : 2496
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : France
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Châtelaine Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:28 pm
***Andrew wrote:The Gamble has just responded back with a tweet the twit.
Can't paste it over as on my phone.
Something about letting his reputation speak on behalf of him.
His reputation is in tatters the clown.
Until recently, I have been a Gamble "believer", thinking he was extracting the "pee" of McCs with his own hidden agenda.
I'm in tatters now, seeing his tweeting and twitting recently :-(
Last edited by Châtelaine on Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Châtelaine- Posts : 2496
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : France
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
candyfloss Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:29 pm
Open letter to Jim Gamble #mccann
Following your Twitter attack on me yesterday - and continued today - I reiterate my request to invite you for an interview with regard the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
I was shocked by your vitriolic outburst regarding doorstepping the McCanns. Given that you were not there when it occurred I find you speak without full knowledge of the situation. For a former policeman to speak without understanding of what I have or have not done, is worrying given your high media profile around this case.
For the record, I approached the McCanns at their Leicester home. This is a practice you have publicly applauded when it applied to a single, older woman expressing an opinion e.g. Brenda Leyland also from Leicester. And yet, apparently, it is not to your taste when it comes to those who are at the heart of a story of enormous public investment.
Doorstepping, in matters of public interest, is a valid journalistic tool and I stand-by my decision to do it in this case.
This approach followed interview requests to the McCanns and I made it clear that there were unanswered questions - even more than the 48 police questions that Kate refused to answer when it came to searching for her child - and I sought to help by using whatever appropriate tools I have at my disposable. It is the McCanns who use the expression 'No Stone Unturned' and I believe what I set out to do then, and continue to do, assists rather than obstructs that.
When I received no response to an interview, after several requests over the period of a year, I realised that I had a public duty to pursue this. Thus, myself and a small camera crew went to the McCanns house and asked to talk with them.
Kate, I should point out, didn't find my approach at all 'attacking' as you insist on shrieking all over Twitter, until I told her why I was there and what questions the public - the very public who have been funding the search both through private donations and the current Operation Grange investigation - want answering.
I am not dissuaded from this action even by your use of emotive words in an apparent attempt to create a negative narrative about this documentary and what we are setting out to do. I am relieved that the wider discerning public are finally getting a glimpse of the machinations of those claiming to seek justice for Madeleine McCann.
I have previously asked you for an interview for the documentary I am making called 'The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann'. This is for a number of reasons.
There is your involvement in calling for legal punishment of those you regard as 'trolls' when, in fact, they are mostly just the people who dispute the official version of events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
Also, I wish to address the fact that you were involved in the Sky report by Martin Brunt - which featured the doorstepping of Brenda Leyland several days before her death - coupled with your euphoric public congratulations of this action on the day the report was repeatedly aired.
The Sky report, as you know, was based on a so-called dossier of those who oppose the official abduction story. I am given to understand that I feature in that dossier, as did Brenda Leyland. It is no secret that people involved in said dossier were in contact with you prior to Martin Brunt doorstepping Brenda Leyland. People, I have evidence of, who were involved in continually bullying and provoking Brenda Leyland.
Given that experts and commentators have now had a chance to examine Brenda Leyland's social network output regarding the case, and have concluded that she was not a 'troll', I believe - along with many others - that you have questions to answer regarding your role in her public hounding.
I am making this an open letter because I am aware of the deep public interest surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine, not least the millions of pounds that hard-pressed British taxpayers are funding for this, but also because you chose to be public in your condemnation of me and this documentary.
It is also, unquestionably, a unique-ly 'online case' in some regards in that many, many people globally have flocked to the Internet to express their horror at the case receiving such biased reporting in mainstream media.
It is an open secret that the McCann's version of events is widely disputed. Due, in part, to the inability of the couple and their friends to present a consistent account of events. This is out there in the public domain thanks to the work of the Portuguese Police. So it is that people have taken, en masse, to the Internet to express anger, dismay and frustration at the coverage which frequently fails to match reality.
I know you are aware that there are significant rumours surrounding your involvement with the McCanns during the time you were in public office at CEOP. I have seen the tweets that people send to you and the Facebook comments made about you.
I understand what it means to be smeared and I believe that I have a responsibility, as a journalist (of almost three decades), to put those accusations to you. I am not interfering with any on-going police investigation just doing what journalists are supposed to do.
I find it alarming, as do many Twitter observers, that you chose to use social media in a futile attempt to undermine me professionally with childish insults. All the while encouraging your followers to behave in a mob-like fashion towards me. Is this not contrary to what you claim to represent?
However, as many have pointed out, your public attacks have merely served to reinforce what people already believe regarding your somewhat blinkered approach to this case. Certainly, the way you have behaved over the last 24 hours towards myself and others has presented us with the perfect way to illustrate this in the documentary.
As a former policeman, I cannot fathom why you continue to insist that an abduction is the only reasonable conclusion to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
For those who have taken time to truly look at the case - those same people you block on Twitter and refer to as ranters and trolls - and away from the PR-led version of the media coverage, it is clear that there is so much more to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann than we are frequently led to believe.
I wonder, have the facts become immaterial in your quest to defend the McCanns at any cost? I am happy to be proved wrong.
So, Mr. Gamble, what is it to be? I offer you a full recorded interview (and a final mutual agreement of your contribution to the documentary) so you can be assured that your message will not be taken out of context.
I hope, rather than continuing to behave in a deeply unprofessional, evasive and questionable manner, that you take up this invitation.
If you choose not to, then people will make up their own mind why this might be. Your call.
Sonia Poulton
January 28, 2015
Following your Twitter attack on me yesterday - and continued today - I reiterate my request to invite you for an interview with regard the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
I was shocked by your vitriolic outburst regarding doorstepping the McCanns. Given that you were not there when it occurred I find you speak without full knowledge of the situation. For a former policeman to speak without understanding of what I have or have not done, is worrying given your high media profile around this case.
For the record, I approached the McCanns at their Leicester home. This is a practice you have publicly applauded when it applied to a single, older woman expressing an opinion e.g. Brenda Leyland also from Leicester. And yet, apparently, it is not to your taste when it comes to those who are at the heart of a story of enormous public investment.
Doorstepping, in matters of public interest, is a valid journalistic tool and I stand-by my decision to do it in this case.
This approach followed interview requests to the McCanns and I made it clear that there were unanswered questions - even more than the 48 police questions that Kate refused to answer when it came to searching for her child - and I sought to help by using whatever appropriate tools I have at my disposable. It is the McCanns who use the expression 'No Stone Unturned' and I believe what I set out to do then, and continue to do, assists rather than obstructs that.
When I received no response to an interview, after several requests over the period of a year, I realised that I had a public duty to pursue this. Thus, myself and a small camera crew went to the McCanns house and asked to talk with them.
Kate, I should point out, didn't find my approach at all 'attacking' as you insist on shrieking all over Twitter, until I told her why I was there and what questions the public - the very public who have been funding the search both through private donations and the current Operation Grange investigation - want answering.
I am not dissuaded from this action even by your use of emotive words in an apparent attempt to create a negative narrative about this documentary and what we are setting out to do. I am relieved that the wider discerning public are finally getting a glimpse of the machinations of those claiming to seek justice for Madeleine McCann.
I have previously asked you for an interview for the documentary I am making called 'The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann'. This is for a number of reasons.
There is your involvement in calling for legal punishment of those you regard as 'trolls' when, in fact, they are mostly just the people who dispute the official version of events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
Also, I wish to address the fact that you were involved in the Sky report by Martin Brunt - which featured the doorstepping of Brenda Leyland several days before her death - coupled with your euphoric public congratulations of this action on the day the report was repeatedly aired.
The Sky report, as you know, was based on a so-called dossier of those who oppose the official abduction story. I am given to understand that I feature in that dossier, as did Brenda Leyland. It is no secret that people involved in said dossier were in contact with you prior to Martin Brunt doorstepping Brenda Leyland. People, I have evidence of, who were involved in continually bullying and provoking Brenda Leyland.
Given that experts and commentators have now had a chance to examine Brenda Leyland's social network output regarding the case, and have concluded that she was not a 'troll', I believe - along with many others - that you have questions to answer regarding your role in her public hounding.
I am making this an open letter because I am aware of the deep public interest surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine, not least the millions of pounds that hard-pressed British taxpayers are funding for this, but also because you chose to be public in your condemnation of me and this documentary.
It is also, unquestionably, a unique-ly 'online case' in some regards in that many, many people globally have flocked to the Internet to express their horror at the case receiving such biased reporting in mainstream media.
It is an open secret that the McCann's version of events is widely disputed. Due, in part, to the inability of the couple and their friends to present a consistent account of events. This is out there in the public domain thanks to the work of the Portuguese Police. So it is that people have taken, en masse, to the Internet to express anger, dismay and frustration at the coverage which frequently fails to match reality.
I know you are aware that there are significant rumours surrounding your involvement with the McCanns during the time you were in public office at CEOP. I have seen the tweets that people send to you and the Facebook comments made about you.
I understand what it means to be smeared and I believe that I have a responsibility, as a journalist (of almost three decades), to put those accusations to you. I am not interfering with any on-going police investigation just doing what journalists are supposed to do.
I find it alarming, as do many Twitter observers, that you chose to use social media in a futile attempt to undermine me professionally with childish insults. All the while encouraging your followers to behave in a mob-like fashion towards me. Is this not contrary to what you claim to represent?
However, as many have pointed out, your public attacks have merely served to reinforce what people already believe regarding your somewhat blinkered approach to this case. Certainly, the way you have behaved over the last 24 hours towards myself and others has presented us with the perfect way to illustrate this in the documentary.
As a former policeman, I cannot fathom why you continue to insist that an abduction is the only reasonable conclusion to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
For those who have taken time to truly look at the case - those same people you block on Twitter and refer to as ranters and trolls - and away from the PR-led version of the media coverage, it is clear that there is so much more to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann than we are frequently led to believe.
I wonder, have the facts become immaterial in your quest to defend the McCanns at any cost? I am happy to be proved wrong.
So, Mr. Gamble, what is it to be? I offer you a full recorded interview (and a final mutual agreement of your contribution to the documentary) so you can be assured that your message will not be taken out of context.
I hope, rather than continuing to behave in a deeply unprofessional, evasive and questionable manner, that you take up this invitation.
If you choose not to, then people will make up their own mind why this might be. Your call.
Sonia Poulton
January 28, 2015
_________________
Sometimes you will never know the true value of a moment until it becomes a memory.......... Dr Seuss
candyfloss- Admin
- Posts : 12561
Join date : 2014-08-18
Age : 72
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
dogs don't lie Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:34 pm
he says it confirms SP does irony really well?!
_________________
Fight for Madeleine x
dogs don't lie- Posts : 2876
Join date : 2014-11-24
Age : 49
Location : Ireland
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
candyfloss Wed 28 Jan 2015, 8:37 pm
Jim Gamble
@JimGamble_INEQE @SoniaPoulton thank you for this note. It confirms that you do irony well. I will let my reputation speak for me & yours for you.
Sonia Poulton@SoniaPoulton 28m28 minutes ago
I think that's a no then@JimGamble_INEQE pic.twitter.com/tmagz6hz7d
0 replies . 0 retweets 3 favourites
@JimGamble_INEQE @SoniaPoulton thank you for this note. It confirms that you do irony well. I will let my reputation speak for me & yours for you.
Sonia Poulton
I think that's a no then
0 replies . 0 retweets 3 favourites
_________________
Sometimes you will never know the true value of a moment until it becomes a memory.......... Dr Seuss
candyfloss- Admin
- Posts : 12561
Join date : 2014-08-18
Age : 72
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Dee Coy Wed 28 Jan 2015, 9:07 pm
On some other places people have been insinuating that Sonia has jumped on the bandwagon following Brenda's tragedy. Here she confirms she's been trying to secure an interview with the McCanns for a year, indicating she is far better versed with the case than some have given her credit for.
So far so good, for me. Keep going, Sonia, how many more rotten apples will reveal themselves if you keep shaking those branches. Does Gamble realise the irony when he states his reputation speaks for him? What an eejit.
P.S., thanks to the kind Mod who added the whole of her letter to my OP, I couldn't bring it over on my tablet.
So far so good, for me. Keep going, Sonia, how many more rotten apples will reveal themselves if you keep shaking those branches. Does Gamble realise the irony when he states his reputation speaks for him? What an eejit.
P.S., thanks to the kind Mod who added the whole of her letter to my OP, I couldn't bring it over on my tablet.
_________________
Philip Larkin wrote:It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know, Have always known, know that we can't escape, Yet can't accept.
Dee Coy- Posts : 2317
Join date : 2014-08-29
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
anny Wed 28 Jan 2015, 9:23 pm
This is very interesting. I hope SP is looking after herself, she is a brave woman.
anny- Posts : 37
Join date : 2014-10-02
Location : London
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
candyfloss Wed 28 Jan 2015, 9:24 pm
Dee Coy wrote:On some other places people have been insinuating that Sonia has jumped on the bandwagon following Brenda's tragedy. Here she confirms she's been trying to secure an interview with the McCanns for a year, indicating she is far better versed with the case than some have given her credit for.
So far so good, for me. Keep going, Sonia, how many more rotten apples will reveal themselves if you keep shaking those branches. Does Gamble realise the irony when he states his reputation speaks for him? What an eejit.
P.S., thanks to the kind Mod who added the whole of her letter to my OP, I couldn't bring it over on my tablet.
_________________
Sometimes you will never know the true value of a moment until it becomes a memory.......... Dr Seuss
candyfloss- Admin
- Posts : 12561
Join date : 2014-08-18
Age : 72
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Ignored Thu 29 Jan 2015, 12:12 am
Nice one Sonia.
Ooh, this is all getting very interesting!
Ignored- Posts : 23
Join date : 2014-12-26
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Poppy Thu 29 Jan 2015, 12:25 am
Sonia, has gone him running scared hasn't she? I wasn't sure about Sonia but after tonight I take my hat off to her.She is making Gamble respond and he doesn't like it' she has got him riled which makes me wonder if Gamble hasn't been up to his eyeballs in this affair from the get go.Wonder if she has her eye on Murat.
Poppy- Posts : 275
Join date : 2014-08-30
Age : 65
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Guest Thu 29 Jan 2015, 6:14 am
From the other planet
Quote
I looked up the Wikipedia article about Sonia Poulton. It seems that the powers-that-be over at Wikiepdia are proposing to delete her entry which appears to be nothing more than a self-penned article quoting from her blog. The latest comment made by the committee who recommend that the article about her is deleted says:
Unquote
Could not resist commenting since his Wiki entry must hold a record of most changes in a given time and another member there corrected his statement that a committee is in charge of WiKi entries, which he must know, having an entry that rivals that of Churchill (in length only I hasten to add)
There are people who think that if it's in WiKi it must be true but we know better. Anybody can add an entry in WiKi, perhaps an ardent admirer entered TB but then who makes all those changes and deletions?
Just read the letter to Gamble and the reaction to SP getting on Sky - jealousy? Would TB refuse if he was invited on Sky?
Quote
I looked up the Wikipedia article about Sonia Poulton. It seems that the powers-that-be over at Wikiepdia are proposing to delete her entry which appears to be nothing more than a self-penned article quoting from her blog. The latest comment made by the committee who recommend that the article about her is deleted says:
Unquote
Could not resist commenting since his Wiki entry must hold a record of most changes in a given time and another member there corrected his statement that a committee is in charge of WiKi entries, which he must know, having an entry that rivals that of Churchill (in length only I hasten to add)
There are people who think that if it's in WiKi it must be true but we know better. Anybody can add an entry in WiKi, perhaps an ardent admirer entered TB but then who makes all those changes and deletions?
Just read the letter to Gamble and the reaction to SP getting on Sky - jealousy? Would TB refuse if he was invited on Sky?
Guest- Guest
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Cristobell Thu 29 Jan 2015, 8:04 am
Well Sonia has definitely upped the ante by several notches, in fact, another turn of the screw and several heads might explode.
I see the other place have once again responded with shock, horror and outrage at the proactive steps Sonia is taking to bring the truth about this case to the public's attention. Chief Chinless Wonder and his entourage would prefer to spend another 7+ years discussing one theory within the moderated confines of a right wing forum that drives anyone away who doesn't agree with the lunacy of its leader.
Not only is it all going horribly wrong for the McCanns, it is also going horribly wrong for Mr. Bennett. He wanted to be the Christian Soldier leading the search for (his) truth, he is the one who has suffered the most at the hands of the McCanns (even though he brought it all on himself) and he's the one who deserves the accolades. That he is being overtaken by a strong, attractive, woman in make up and heels with, God forbid, painted nails, must be driving him insane, and the amount of new characters appearing on his forum to back him up, confirms it.
I'm completely baffled as to what CCW and his gang are hoping to achieve and how exactly they are hoping to achieve it. They have written off Sky News forever more on principle. Err, OK, but does that include the entire Murdoch news empire? In which case, Bennett or indeed any of them, can never speak to Sky, The Times, The Sun etc. Not really conducive to a group seeking to get the truth out there because if they choose to stand by their principles, there isn't a single news agency they can talk to, they can only talk to each other if their consciences are to remain clear.
But the frenzy Bennett finds himself in, isn't just confined to the lovely Sonia, there is also an attractive strong woman now leading Operation Grange and it looks as though an ASW is about to deny the McCanns their next Million pound payout. For Tony, it all started to go wrong when they let women out of the kitchen.
Can there be any doubts now as to which side Tony is on? Lets look at the evidence:
1. Bennett has completely written off the eye witness evidence of the Smith family for reasons listed in blue on 75% of the pages of Jill Havern's forum.
2. Bennett MUST convince the world first arguido, Robert Murat is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance because he had some dodgy porn on his computer. Ergo, RM is linked to an international paedophile ring that leads right to the heart of the British establishment, pop stars, writers, journos and indeed every other household as the world is full of sexual deviants. His thinking in that runs pretty much along the same lines as chief McCann supporter Jim Gamble.
3. His hijacking of the Richard T. Hall's videos, to purport his own theory of Robert Murat's involvement, and loony reasons why the Smith family made up their sighting on the night of 3rd May.
4. His vigorous opposition to anyone attempting to get the truth out into the public domain. His attacks on Sonia Poulton are no different to the attacks on Stop the Myths (the rabid McCann supporters site) and it is difficult to tell which pages are from CMoMM and which are from STM's - they sing in harmony and their goal is to destroy Sonia whatever the cost. They won't succeed, the truth is coming out whether they like it or not.
5. In the aftermath of the 'McCanns will lose Libel trial' headlines, Bennett opens up a discussion about Portugal's legal system and corruption.
6. In view of the revelations of the past year or so (death in the apartment, digging for a body etc) why is Bennett still paying the McCanns £100+ per month and allowing their 'gagging' of him to stand? His Freedom of Speech is at present severely curtailed, he is in 'prison' yet he doesn't protest?
I am still saying to myself, no, its not possible, he couldn't have turned, but I met him once several years ago and came away with the memory of him saying he wasn't 100% sure the McCanns were involved. I was alarmed by this because for myself, I couldn't and wouldn't criticise the parents of a missing child unless I was 100% convinced of their involvement.
In retrospect, he may have been with the McCanns from the start. He has certainly helped to keep them in the news with his ill timed outrageous publicity stunts.
In the meanwhile, to Sonia, I would say 'You Go Girlfriend', finally this case is going from being discussed behind closed doors to causing media waves on twitter. The MSM are not only taking notice of 'anti' groups, they are actually publishing stories that are unfavourable to the McCanns. And there is good reason for this. They are getting their information from a credible source! Tony Bennett caused untold damage to the 'anti' cause, his extremist views and behaviour antagonised every media outlet he approached, and worse he was portrayed as representing all of us. He was playing right into the hands of the McCann media monitors, or he was dancing to their tune? Which was it?
In any event, in all these years, unfortunately for the McCanns they have never been able to produce a 'villain' - that is a leader of the anti's in the same vein as nasty BNP leader Nick Griffin, an extremist they could name and shame and put on talk shows to stir the populace up into a frenzy. They must refer to their enemies as obscure, faceless, nobody's hiding away in their bedrooms and pitchforking among themselves. The best they could come up with was a harmless, middle aged lady with 353 followers on twitter, and once they took her out all that was left was the remnants of the Madeleine Foundation.
Of course, Bennett has never cut the mustard as the villain of piece, as he instantly comes across as one of those barmy prophets of doom who used to wear bowler hats and stand on orange boxes in Hyde Park. He was never going to face Paxman, or attract an audience bigger than 100 pigeons and a bemused office worker eating his sarnies.
Sonia Poulton on the other hand has a big audience, and quite rightly. She is attractive, intelligent, erudite and has her finger on the pulse of current and popular culture - and she presents the news and information in a format that is instantly accessible to EVERY viewer. And that is what gives her the eXtra factor. She is able to read and digest the news then pick out the key points so the viewer and reader doesn't have to. We are grateful for this, most of don't have the time or inclination to wade through reams of documents underlined in blue and we don't want them dictated to us from a pulpit.
But most of all Mr. Bennett, and I know you will read this. Sonia is real. She has a past, she is human, that doesn't make her a worse person, it makes her a better one, because she can empathise with the people she is reporting the news to, and they can empathise with her. Very few can empathise with those up there on the moral high ground Mr. Bennett, and whilst you may have secured your place on the right hand side of the Good Lord, the rest of us prefer to party on the living side of life's journey with as many sins of the flesh as we can along the way. I hasten to add, I have no idea what you are accusing Sonia of, I stopped reading your nonsense a long time ago.
I see the other place have once again responded with shock, horror and outrage at the proactive steps Sonia is taking to bring the truth about this case to the public's attention. Chief Chinless Wonder and his entourage would prefer to spend another 7+ years discussing one theory within the moderated confines of a right wing forum that drives anyone away who doesn't agree with the lunacy of its leader.
Not only is it all going horribly wrong for the McCanns, it is also going horribly wrong for Mr. Bennett. He wanted to be the Christian Soldier leading the search for (his) truth, he is the one who has suffered the most at the hands of the McCanns (even though he brought it all on himself) and he's the one who deserves the accolades. That he is being overtaken by a strong, attractive, woman in make up and heels with, God forbid, painted nails, must be driving him insane, and the amount of new characters appearing on his forum to back him up, confirms it.
I'm completely baffled as to what CCW and his gang are hoping to achieve and how exactly they are hoping to achieve it. They have written off Sky News forever more on principle. Err, OK, but does that include the entire Murdoch news empire? In which case, Bennett or indeed any of them, can never speak to Sky, The Times, The Sun etc. Not really conducive to a group seeking to get the truth out there because if they choose to stand by their principles, there isn't a single news agency they can talk to, they can only talk to each other if their consciences are to remain clear.
But the frenzy Bennett finds himself in, isn't just confined to the lovely Sonia, there is also an attractive strong woman now leading Operation Grange and it looks as though an ASW is about to deny the McCanns their next Million pound payout. For Tony, it all started to go wrong when they let women out of the kitchen.
Can there be any doubts now as to which side Tony is on? Lets look at the evidence:
1. Bennett has completely written off the eye witness evidence of the Smith family for reasons listed in blue on 75% of the pages of Jill Havern's forum.
2. Bennett MUST convince the world first arguido, Robert Murat is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance because he had some dodgy porn on his computer. Ergo, RM is linked to an international paedophile ring that leads right to the heart of the British establishment, pop stars, writers, journos and indeed every other household as the world is full of sexual deviants. His thinking in that runs pretty much along the same lines as chief McCann supporter Jim Gamble.
3. His hijacking of the Richard T. Hall's videos, to purport his own theory of Robert Murat's involvement, and loony reasons why the Smith family made up their sighting on the night of 3rd May.
4. His vigorous opposition to anyone attempting to get the truth out into the public domain. His attacks on Sonia Poulton are no different to the attacks on Stop the Myths (the rabid McCann supporters site) and it is difficult to tell which pages are from CMoMM and which are from STM's - they sing in harmony and their goal is to destroy Sonia whatever the cost. They won't succeed, the truth is coming out whether they like it or not.
5. In the aftermath of the 'McCanns will lose Libel trial' headlines, Bennett opens up a discussion about Portugal's legal system and corruption.
6. In view of the revelations of the past year or so (death in the apartment, digging for a body etc) why is Bennett still paying the McCanns £100+ per month and allowing their 'gagging' of him to stand? His Freedom of Speech is at present severely curtailed, he is in 'prison' yet he doesn't protest?
I am still saying to myself, no, its not possible, he couldn't have turned, but I met him once several years ago and came away with the memory of him saying he wasn't 100% sure the McCanns were involved. I was alarmed by this because for myself, I couldn't and wouldn't criticise the parents of a missing child unless I was 100% convinced of their involvement.
In retrospect, he may have been with the McCanns from the start. He has certainly helped to keep them in the news with his ill timed outrageous publicity stunts.
In the meanwhile, to Sonia, I would say 'You Go Girlfriend', finally this case is going from being discussed behind closed doors to causing media waves on twitter. The MSM are not only taking notice of 'anti' groups, they are actually publishing stories that are unfavourable to the McCanns. And there is good reason for this. They are getting their information from a credible source! Tony Bennett caused untold damage to the 'anti' cause, his extremist views and behaviour antagonised every media outlet he approached, and worse he was portrayed as representing all of us. He was playing right into the hands of the McCann media monitors, or he was dancing to their tune? Which was it?
In any event, in all these years, unfortunately for the McCanns they have never been able to produce a 'villain' - that is a leader of the anti's in the same vein as nasty BNP leader Nick Griffin, an extremist they could name and shame and put on talk shows to stir the populace up into a frenzy. They must refer to their enemies as obscure, faceless, nobody's hiding away in their bedrooms and pitchforking among themselves. The best they could come up with was a harmless, middle aged lady with 353 followers on twitter, and once they took her out all that was left was the remnants of the Madeleine Foundation.
Of course, Bennett has never cut the mustard as the villain of piece, as he instantly comes across as one of those barmy prophets of doom who used to wear bowler hats and stand on orange boxes in Hyde Park. He was never going to face Paxman, or attract an audience bigger than 100 pigeons and a bemused office worker eating his sarnies.
Sonia Poulton on the other hand has a big audience, and quite rightly. She is attractive, intelligent, erudite and has her finger on the pulse of current and popular culture - and she presents the news and information in a format that is instantly accessible to EVERY viewer. And that is what gives her the eXtra factor. She is able to read and digest the news then pick out the key points so the viewer and reader doesn't have to. We are grateful for this, most of don't have the time or inclination to wade through reams of documents underlined in blue and we don't want them dictated to us from a pulpit.
But most of all Mr. Bennett, and I know you will read this. Sonia is real. She has a past, she is human, that doesn't make her a worse person, it makes her a better one, because she can empathise with the people she is reporting the news to, and they can empathise with her. Very few can empathise with those up there on the moral high ground Mr. Bennett, and whilst you may have secured your place on the right hand side of the Good Lord, the rest of us prefer to party on the living side of life's journey with as many sins of the flesh as we can along the way. I hasten to add, I have no idea what you are accusing Sonia of, I stopped reading your nonsense a long time ago.
Cristobell- Posts : 672
Join date : 2014-08-26
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Guest Thu 29 Jan 2015, 8:24 am
Poppy wrote:Sonia, has gone him running scared hasn't she? I wasn't sure about Sonia but after tonight I take my hat off to her.She is making Gamble respond and he doesn't like it' she has got him riled which makes me wonder if Gamble hasn't been up to his eyeballs in this affair from the get go.Wonder if she has her eye on Murat.
Hardback CEOP manuals in Gerry's possession since 2007?! Gamble explained that away as "anyone could download them from the Internet". Well I would LOVE to see Gerry's computer, from a professional and technical point of view, if it can download a hardback book.
Guest- Guest
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Thetruth Thu 29 Jan 2015, 8:50 am
I am very sorry to say that you are right, Cristobell.
What a comprehensive broadside.
An investigative journalist who, it seems, researches,investigates, interviews and reports. I have no experience of Poulson, nor of Sky News which I would avoid like the plague. But if Sonia Poulson is the only reporter on this story, then good. Let her do her job, fingernails and all.
What a comprehensive broadside.
An investigative journalist who, it seems, researches,investigates, interviews and reports. I have no experience of Poulson, nor of Sky News which I would avoid like the plague. But if Sonia Poulson is the only reporter on this story, then good. Let her do her job, fingernails and all.
Last edited by Thetruth on Thu 29 Jan 2015, 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Grammar)
Thetruth- Posts : 272
Join date : 2014-11-16
Location : Sleepy Hollow
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Cristobell Thu 29 Jan 2015, 8:54 am
Resistor wrote:Poppy wrote:Sonia, has gone him running scared hasn't she? I wasn't sure about Sonia but after tonight I take my hat off to her.She is making Gamble respond and he doesn't like it' she has got him riled which makes me wonder if Gamble hasn't been up to his eyeballs in this affair from the get go.Wonder if she has her eye on Murat.
Hardback CEOP manuals in Gerry's possession since 2007?! Gamble explained that away as "anyone could download them from the Internet". Well I would LOVE to see Gerry's computer, from a professional and technical point of view, if it can download a hardback book.
Representatives of CEOP flew out to PDL almost immediately after the 'alarm' was raised. CEOP stands for Child Exploitation and Online Protection - what did it have to do with a missing 3/4 year old going missing in Portugal? Gamble said himself, there was indecent haste in the number of agencies who rushed out to PDL to support the parents. When the McCanns were made arguidoes, Gamble appeared on the breakfast TV sofas with them promoting one of their campaigns. He was completely disregarding the Portuguese suspect status, and treating them as victims. He led the campaign to out Brenda Leyland appearing in the same news item as the voice of thunder and retribution, are there really any doubts as to his involvement?
Cristobell- Posts : 672
Join date : 2014-08-26
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Dee Coy Thu 29 Jan 2015, 9:06 am
Cristobell wrote:Well Sonia has definitely upped the ante by several notches, in fact, another turn of the screw and several heads might explode.
I see the other place have once again responded with shock, horror and outrage at the proactive steps Sonia is taking to bring the truth about this case to the public's attention. Chief Chinless Wonder and his entourage would prefer to spend another 7+ years discussing one theory within the moderated confines of a right wing forum that drives anyone away who doesn't agree with the lunacy of its leader.
Not only is it all going horribly wrong for the McCanns, it is also going horribly wrong for Mr. Bennett. He wanted to be the Christian Soldier leading the search for (his) truth, he is the one who has suffered the most at the hands of the McCanns (even though he brought it all on himself) and he's the one who deserves the accolades. That he is being overtaken by a strong, attractive, woman in make up and heels with, God forbid, painted nails, must be driving him insane, and the amount of new characters appearing on his forum to back him up, confirms it.
I'm completely baffled as to what CCW and his gang are hoping to achieve and how exactly they are hoping to achieve it. They have written off Sky News forever more on principle. Err, OK, but does that include the entire Murdoch news empire? In which case, Bennett or indeed any of them, can never speak to Sky, The Times, The Sun etc. Not really conducive to a group seeking to get the truth out there because if they choose to stand by their principles, there isn't a single news agency they can talk to, they can only talk to each other if their consciences are to remain clear.
But the frenzy Bennett finds himself in, isn't just confined to the lovely Sonia, there is also an attractive strong woman now leading Operation Grange and it looks as though an ASW is about to deny the McCanns their next Million pound payout. For Tony, it all started to go wrong when they let women out of the kitchen.
Can there be any doubts now as to which side Tony is on? Lets look at the evidence:
1. Bennett has completely written off the eye witness evidence of the Smith family for reasons listed in blue on 75% of the pages of Jill Havern's forum.
2. Bennett MUST convince the world first arguido, Robert Murat is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance because he had some dodgy porn on his computer. Ergo, RM is linked to an international paedophile ring that leads right to the heart of the British establishment, pop stars, writers, journos and indeed every other household as the world is full of sexual deviants. His thinking in that runs pretty much along the same lines as chief McCann supporter Jim Gamble.
3. His hijacking of the Richard T. Hall's videos, to purport his own theory of Robert Murat's involvement, and loony reasons why the Smith family made up their sighting on the night of 3rd May.
4. His vigorous opposition to anyone attempting to get the truth out into the public domain. His attacks on Sonia Poulton are no different to the attacks on Stop the Myths (the rabid McCann supporters site) and it is difficult to tell which pages are from CMoMM and which are from STM's - they sing in harmony and their goal is to destroy Sonia whatever the cost. They won't succeed, the truth is coming out whether they like it or not.
5. In the aftermath of the 'McCanns will lose Libel trial' headlines, Bennett opens up a discussion about Portugal's legal system and corruption.
6. In view of the revelations of the past year or so (death in the apartment, digging for a body etc) why is Bennett still paying the McCanns £100+ per month and allowing their 'gagging' of him to stand? His Freedom of Speech is at present severely curtailed, he is in 'prison' yet he doesn't protest?
I am still saying to myself, no, its not possible, he couldn't have turned, but I met him once several years ago and came away with the memory of him saying he wasn't 100% sure the McCanns were involved. I was alarmed by this because for myself, I couldn't and wouldn't criticise the parents of a missing child unless I was 100% convinced of their involvement.
In retrospect, he may have been with the McCanns from the start. He has certainly helped to keep them in the news with his ill timed outrageous publicity stunts.
In the meanwhile, to Sonia, I would say 'You Go Girlfriend', finally this case is going from being discussed behind closed doors to causing media waves on twitter. The MSM are not only taking notice of 'anti' groups, they are actually publishing stories that are unfavourable to the McCanns. And there is good reason for this. They are getting their information from a credible source! Tony Bennett caused untold damage to the 'anti' cause, his extremist views and behaviour antagonised every media outlet he approached, and worse he was portrayed as representing all of us. He was playing right into the hands of the McCann media monitors, or he was dancing to their tune? Which was it?
In any event, in all these years, unfortunately for the McCanns they have never been able to produce a 'villain' - that is a leader of the anti's in the same vein as nasty BNP leader Nick Griffin, an extremist they could name and shame and put on talk shows to stir the populace up into a frenzy. They must refer to their enemies as obscure, faceless, nobody's hiding away in their bedrooms and pitchforking among themselves. The best they could come up with was a harmless, middle aged lady with 353 followers on twitter, and once they took her out all that was left was the remnants of the Madeleine Foundation.
Of course, Bennett has never cut the mustard as the villain of piece, as he instantly comes across as one of those barmy prophets of doom who used to wear bowler hats and stand on orange boxes in Hyde Park. He was never going to face Paxman, or attract an audience bigger than 100 pigeons and a bemused office worker eating his sarnies.
Sonia Poulton on the other hand has a big audience, and quite rightly. She is attractive, intelligent, erudite and has her finger on the pulse of current and popular culture - and she presents the news and information in a format that is instantly accessible to EVERY viewer. And that is what gives her the eXtra factor. She is able to read and digest the news then pick out the key points so the viewer and reader doesn't have to. We are grateful for this, most of don't have the time or inclination to wade through reams of documents underlined in blue and we don't want them dictated to us from a pulpit.
But most of all Mr. Bennett, and I know you will read this. Sonia is real. She has a past, she is human, that doesn't make her a worse person, it makes her a better one, because she can empathise with the people she is reporting the news to, and they can empathise with her. Very few can empathise with those up there on the moral high ground Mr. Bennett, and whilst you may have secured your place on the right hand side of the Good Lord, the rest of us prefer to party on the living side of life's journey with as many sins of the flesh as we can along the way. I hasten to add, I have no idea what you are accusing Sonia of, I stopped reading your nonsense a long time ago.
Cristobell, I am quoting in full so your wonderful post appears on this page too. A brilliant bit of writing.
I am utterly dismayed by the baseless predictions offered by posters on CMOMM (who, until the last few weeks or even days have been conspicuous by their absence, who are they all?) regarding Sonia's now much-anticipated documentary. I simply cannot underdtand why such pre-emptive and unsubstantiated negativity should abound there, unless for less-than-honest motivations. It just doesn't make sense. Why not, as the more rational posters there protest, just wait and see?
ETA. And they are (deliberately? ) misinformed. For example, claims that Sonia has a conflict of interest and is a hypocrite as she is employed by Sky. Wtf? She was a guest commenting on smoking issues. Of course, an invitation to appear on such a popular platform is one that other representatives of opinion would give their eye teeth for...
Last edited by Dee Coy on Thu 29 Jan 2015, 9:15 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Philip Larkin wrote:It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know, Have always known, know that we can't escape, Yet can't accept.
Dee Coy- Posts : 2317
Join date : 2014-08-29
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
chirpyinsect Thu 29 Jan 2015, 9:14 am
Fantastic post Cristobell. Makes me wonder if TB`s reason to discredit Sonia is because he knows what she may be about to reveal. Remember her saying we would be "shocked" by the person who is the most prolific pro?
Maybe Pam Gurney is wearing blue socks. Just a guess.
Maybe Pam Gurney is wearing blue socks. Just a guess.
chirpyinsect- Posts : 4836
Join date : 2014-10-18
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
AndyB Thu 29 Jan 2015, 9:14 am
The question is "why?".Cristobell wrote:Resistor wrote:Poppy wrote:Sonia, has gone him running scared hasn't she? I wasn't sure about Sonia but after tonight I take my hat off to her.She is making Gamble respond and he doesn't like it' she has got him riled which makes me wonder if Gamble hasn't been up to his eyeballs in this affair from the get go.Wonder if she has her eye on Murat.
Hardback CEOP manuals in Gerry's possession since 2007?! Gamble explained that away as "anyone could download them from the Internet". Well I would LOVE to see Gerry's computer, from a professional and technical point of view, if it can download a hardback book.
Representatives of CEOP flew out to PDL almost immediately after the 'alarm' was raised. CEOP stands for Child Exploitation and Online Protection - what did it have to do with a missing 3/4 year old going missing in Portugal? Gamble said himself, there was indecent haste in the number of agencies who rushed out to PDL to support the parents. When the McCanns were made arguidoes, Gamble appeared on the breakfast TV sofas with them promoting one of their campaigns. He was completely disregarding the Portuguese suspect status, and treating them as victims. He led the campaign to out Brenda Leyland appearing in the same news item as the voice of thunder and retribution, are there really any doubts as to his involvement?
AndyB- Posts : 675
Join date : 2014-09-20
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
AndyB Thu 29 Jan 2015, 9:18 am
Because people are people. Have a look at the doorstepped Kate thread - there's plenty of people on this forum having a go at her but I don't believe for a minute they have ulterior motivesDee Coy wrote:
I am utterly dismayed by the baseless predictions offered by posters on CMOMM (who, until the last few weeks or even days have been conspicuous by their absence, who are they all?) regarding Sonia's now much-anticipated documentary. I simply cannot underdtand why such pre-emptive and unsubstantiated negativity should abound there, unless for less-than-honest motivations. It just doesn't make sense. Why not, as the more rational posters there protest, just wait and see?
AndyB- Posts : 675
Join date : 2014-09-20
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
chirpyinsect Thu 29 Jan 2015, 9:32 am
AndyB wrote:Because people are people. Have a look at the doorstepped Kate thread - there's plenty of people on this forum having a go at her but I don't believe for a minute they have ulterior motivesDee Coy wrote:
I am utterly dismayed by the baseless predictions offered by posters on CMOMM (who, until the last few weeks or even days have been conspicuous by their absence, who are they all?) regarding Sonia's now much-anticipated documentary. I simply cannot underdtand why such pre-emptive and unsubstantiated negativity should abound there, unless for less-than-honest motivations. It just doesn't make sense. Why not, as the more rational posters there protest, just wait and see?
I don't think anyone here is "having a go" at Sonia really. I think most people here respect her tenacity and courage. I certainly do. But we also have opinions on her actions as I am sure she would respect in turn.
My feeling was that I think doorstepping Kate COULD be counter-productive, however I concede that she knows what she is doing and has thought through the consequences so as a grown woman, and a brave one at that, she has made her own decision. Kudos to her for that.
Now that it is done I hope the risk was worth the reward.
chirpyinsect- Posts : 4836
Join date : 2014-10-18
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
AndyB Thu 29 Jan 2015, 9:43 am
Ok, poor choice of phrase. I was thinking of similar pre-emptive and unsubstantiated negativity in the form of the extrapolation of potential consequences that clearly haven't happened: Giving TM a PR gift and undermining the possibility of prosecutions for example
AndyB- Posts : 675
Join date : 2014-09-20
Re: Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble
Helenmeg Thu 29 Jan 2015, 9:45 am
chirpyinsect wrote:AndyB wrote:Because people are people. Have a look at the doorstepped Kate thread - there's plenty of people on this forum having a go at her but I don't believe for a minute they have ulterior motivesDee Coy wrote:
I am utterly dismayed by the baseless predictions offered by posters on CMOMM (who, until the last few weeks or even days have been conspicuous by their absence, who are they all?) regarding Sonia's now much-anticipated documentary. I simply cannot underdtand why such pre-emptive and unsubstantiated negativity should abound there, unless for less-than-honest motivations. It just doesn't make sense. Why not, as the more rational posters there protest, just wait and see?
I don't think anyone here is "having a go" at Sonia really. I think most people here respect her tenacity and courage. I certainly do. But we also have opinions on her actions as I am sure she would respect in turn.
My feeling was that I think doorstepping Kate COULD be counter-productive, however I concede that she knows what she is doing and has thought through the consequences so as a grown woman, and a brave one at that, she has made her own decision. Kudos to her for that.
Now that it is done I hope the risk was worth the reward.
I agree - certainly respect someone who is prepared to try and challenge some of the rubbish erupting from this case - but hope that it can in no way jeopardise the investigation. There are live investigations in process by SY and PJ - whilst there are those of us who suspect a possible whitewash, these investigations may be perfectly valid and should be given the chance to conclude. But as you say, Sonia is not stupid and she is prepared to follow her instincts. The frustrations that we all feel are enough to understand why she is doing what she does.
Helenmeg- Posts : 693
Join date : 2014-11-11
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Similar topics» Sonia Poulton's documentary
» Sonia Poulton interviews
» Sonia Poulton doorsteps Kate for new documentary
» SONIA POULTON at Parliament asks MP's questions
» **IT'S HERE NOW**......"The McCanns and the police" - new documentary from Sonia Poulton
» Sonia Poulton interviews
» Sonia Poulton doorsteps Kate for new documentary
» SONIA POULTON at Parliament asks MP's questions
» **IT'S HERE NOW**......"The McCanns and the police" - new documentary from Sonia Poulton
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum