Sonia Poulton. Open letter to Jim Gamble

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 motives

I'm not a fan of this inter forum bashing stuff myself. I actually found myself agreeing with Aquila over there though when she described the doorstepping of Kate as "not cricket" - I think I used, or was going to use, the similar "bad form" when discussing it over here. But it's not really Sonia Poulton's fault. It's just the natural filling of an investigative vacuum with regards to the many, many unanswered questions in this case and if it hadn't been her then sooner or later it would have been somebody else. At some point, somebody is going to be the boy that points out that the emperor is and always has been naked.

Regarding Tony Bennett, recent comments about him put me in mind of the "glue man" character in the seminal English film A Canterbury Tale. And as the other characters in that film find, whatever his alleged misdeeds, well-intentioned or not, I find myself liking him anyway. If I'm subsequently shown to be a gullible idiot then that's the price you occasionally have to pay for thinking the best of people.

chirpyinsect wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Dee 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?  

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 motives

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 Chirpy (gosh that's 2 days in a row we've agreed) If it wasn't for Operation Grange being in full swing, and hopefully producing criminal charges, I would be all for Sonia's documentary etc as at least it gets the message out for a change. I'm just worried that bad publicity for the McCanns at this point could be detrimental to the investigation. We've had really good news from Portugal in terms of Snr Amaral's libel trial and I really think it is fast unraveling for the McCanns right now, so I just don't want to risk the potential for a fair trial to be jeopardised, and we all know that the Mc's will use any trick in the book to wiggle out of the accusations, if the documentary is widely viewed and the public declare the McCanns guilty before they step into a court room..that would be a tragedy IMO

AndyB wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Dee 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?  

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 motives

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.

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

Brilliantly put, AndyB!

I think there's a marked difference, though, at people expressing a) concern at the tactic of doorstepping and b) that it may have a negative effect if the MSM get hold of it to use to empathise with the Mcs (I can understand both these concerns, but don't hold them myself, in this case) compared with the apparent and persistent campaign over there to undermine Sonia in a personal and aggressive manner.

Quite simply,  they are protesting too much, imo. And that obviously raises questions about motives.

I must add, I have concerns about some posters over there but overall have much respect for and have taken much knowledge from Jill's forum, and for that I will always be grateful.

susible wrote:if the documentary is widely viewed and the public declare the McCanns guilty before they step into a court room..that would be a tragedy IMO

But it's OK for the public to widely declare the McCanns innocent on the back of the MSM pushing the abduction myth? That doesn't jeopardise a fair trial? (That's the status quo but its thankfully starting to change thanks to people like Sonia doing what you object to)

You've now gone from objecting to Kate being doorstepped to objecting to Sonia's entire enterprise: Presenting the public with some facts that the MSM won't and I'm at a loss as to your reasoning

I must add, I have concerns about some posters over there but overall have much respect for and have taken much knowledge from Jill's forum, and for that I will always be grateful.

Quote from Dee Coy.

That goes for me too.

I disagree that this documentary is ill timed or could in any way interfere with a future trial.

We have all been pussy footing around the McCanns for way too long, and who knows how long the investigation will go on, or how much more will be contributed to the imo fraudulent fund.  

Whether we like it or even approve of it, we are fighting a media war, and the McCanns have always had the upper hand.  They have been able to strike down anyone who opposes them with little opposition because the majority of the public simply do not know about the machinations behind the scenes.  

Brenda Leyland bless her heart, lost her life as a result of criticising the McCanns online.  That must not be allowed to become yesterday's news and with the Inquest approaching, the timing is spot on.  Carpe Diem (my motto for this year) - Seize the Day, in a year or so's time, poor Brenda's fate will have been overtaken by hundreds of other news stories, and that would be wrong on every level, she was not a criminal.  

If and when the McCanns are ever charged, they will use the full force of their own Media Machine to distort and mislead the public, just as they did in the summer of 2007.  They have got away with what they have because they had the full support of the public and they achieved this through a very successful media campaign.  The only way to counter this is with the truth and whatever means that are available to get the truth in the public domain.

Can someone remind me what Jim Gamble's day job is these days. How does he earn his salary and who pays it.

I mean he says he does the below:

"Child protection, social media & criminal justice advisor & commentator. Interests :Things that make a difference.
Views are my opinion & RT's r RT's "

He sure loves Social Media and Commentating. It seems he spends all day and night faffing about on Twitter.

Sonia mentioned ages ago about some prolific Twit and everyone would be shocked when the identity was revealed (or words similar).

My guess - Jim Gamble then.

AndyB wrote:

susible wrote:if the documentary is widely viewed and the public declare the McCanns guilty before they step into a court room..that would be a tragedy IMO

But it's OK for the public to widely declare the McCanns innocent on the back of the MSM pushing the abduction myth? That doesn't jeopardise a fair trial? (That's the status quo but its thankfully starting to change thanks to people like Sonia doing what you object to)

You've now gone from objecting to Kate being doorstepped to objecting to Sonia's entire enterprise: Presenting the public with some facts that the MSM won't and I'm at a loss as to your reasoning

What? Erm I think you'll find that innocent until proven guilty is the norm...who cares what the MSM say. And I have not gone from anything to anything...I personally don't think it was a good idea to go to the McCanns door to ask questions, anymore than it was to go to Brenda's door and asking her questions and as I have said repeatedly, it is the investigation being compromised that I am concerned about, because I would far rather see the McCanns in court, answering the accusations, than watching a documentary that proves nothing IMO

AndyB wrote:

You've now gone from objecting to Kate being doorstepped to objecting to Sonia's entire enterprise: Presenting the public with some facts that the MSM won't and I'm at a loss as to your reasoning

Getting to the nitty gritty here I think Andy. For some seven years now the media have, in a coordinated fashion, done all in their collective power to keep the case current and in the public arena whilst simultaneously failing to question some salient points that most of us here are aware of. Despite this, public doubts about the innocence of the McCanns have, I would say, grown during that time, inexorably at first but slowly building momentum as more people become aware of available material. It looks to me like somebody is trying to ratchet this up in a controlled fashion in order to time the moment when it reaches critical mass and the dam of public opinion finally breaks. Sonia Poulton's biggest crime might be that she is unwittingly trying to advance this schedule.

What will transpire as a result of that is what interests and worries me most.

Andrew wrote:Can someone remind me what Jim Gamble's day job is these days. How does he earn his salary and who pays it.

I mean he says he does the below:

"Child protection, social media & criminal justice advisor & commentator. Interests :Things that make a difference.
Views are my opinion & RT's r RT's "

He sure loves Social Media and Commentating. It seems he spends all day and night faffing about on Twitter.

Sonia mentioned ages ago about some prolific Twit and everyone would be shocked when the identity was revealed (or words similar).

My guess - Jim Gamble then.

Yeah, I've wondered since he quit CEOP in such an apparently timely manner how he actually earns his crust.

Paid by the tweet off Team McCann by the looks of it.

Jim Gamble @JimGamble_INEQE  ·  22h 22 hours ago
How I did on Twitter this week: 25 New Followers, 158 Mentions, 383K Mention Reach. How'd your week go?

What a complete arse.

Andrew wrote:Can someone remind me what Jim Gamble's day job is these days. How does he earn his salary and who pays it.

I mean he says he does the below:

"Child protection, social media & criminal justice advisor & commentator. Interests :Things that make a difference.
Views are my opinion & RT's r RT's "

He sure loves Social Media and Commentating. It seems he spends all day and night faffing about on Twitter.

Sonia mentioned ages ago about some prolific Twit and everyone would be shocked when the identity was revealed (or words similar).

My guess - Jim Gamble then.

Jim's job seems to revolve mainly around commentating in the media - rather like Sonia's. I find it odd that he belittles her right to ask questions and pass comments on major news stories when he spends so much of his time doing the very same thing.

Do you know what is different over here AndyB? People who are expressing an opinion on the wisdom, or otherwise, of Sonia`s actions, are doing so in a constructive manner. We are wishing her well but expressing our reservations as is our right.
Over there they are rubbishing her career choices, her abilities and the contents of a documentary that is yet to see the light of day. There is very little support for her. Those that do speak up for her will be shown the door soon or drowned out by the acerbic bitchings of those who have sat on their backsides for 7 years, whilst doing nothing more useful for the cause of Madeleine than crowing over their own witty rejoinders whilst braying like a pack of donkeys. Sorry if this offends any donkeys.

susible wrote:

AndyB wrote:

susible wrote:if the documentary is widely viewed and the public declare the McCanns guilty before they step into a court room..that would be a tragedy IMO

But it's OK for the public to widely declare the McCanns innocent on the back of the MSM pushing the abduction myth? That doesn't jeopardise a fair trial? (That's the status quo but its thankfully starting to change thanks to people like Sonia doing what you object to)

You've now gone from objecting to Kate being doorstepped to objecting to Sonia's entire enterprise: Presenting the public with some facts that the MSM won't and I'm at a loss as to your reasoning

What?  Erm I think you'll find that innocent until proven guilty is the norm...who cares what the MSM say.  And I have not gone from anything to anything...I personally don't think it was a good idea to go to the McCanns door to ask questions, anymore than it was to go to Brenda's door and asking her questions and as I have said repeatedly, it is the investigation being compromised that I am concerned about, because I would far rather see the McCanns in court, answering the accusations, than watching a documentary that proves nothing IMO

What on earth does innocent until proven guilty have to do with anything? We all want to see the McCanns in court but sooner or later you're going to have to accept that it isn't going to happen, especially if you believe GA's theory. There's a small matter of jurisdiction for a start but also a profound lack of tangible evidence. As to who cares what MSM day, the vast majority of the public do and thats why they believe that Madeleine was abducted and that we are all vile trolls. Yes it's starting to change because of people like Sonia doing what you still appear to objecting to - getting the real facts out there.
You said that "if the documentary is widely viewed and the public declare the McCanns guilty before they step into a court room..that would be a tragedy IMO." Do you object to Sonia producing her documentary or not? Or is it OK for her to produce it as long as it isn't widely viewed?

chirpyinsect wrote:Do you know what is different over here AndyB? People who are expressing an opinion on the wisdom, or otherwise, of Sonia`s actions, are doing so in a constructive manner. We are wishing her well but expressing our reservations as is our right.

And I'm expressing my opinion, as is my right,no?

BTW I disagree that entirely false allegations of " jumping in, all guns blazing" (not you) are particularly constructive

Of course that is your right. Just because we don't agree on the method doesn't mean we disagree on our hope for a successful outcome.

Seicento wrote:It looks to me like somebody is trying to ratchet this up in a controlled fashion in order to time the moment when it reaches critical mass and the dam of public opinion finally breaks

I wish I shared your faith

AndyB wrote:
I wish I shared your faith

I have anticipated the outcome, and am working backwards!

AndyB wrote:

susible wrote:

AndyB wrote:

susible wrote:if the documentary is widely viewed and the public declare the McCanns guilty before they step into a court room..that would be a tragedy IMO

But it's OK for the public to widely declare the McCanns innocent on the back of the MSM pushing the abduction myth? That doesn't jeopardise a fair trial? (That's the status quo but its thankfully starting to change thanks to people like Sonia doing what you object to)

You've now gone from objecting to Kate being doorstepped to objecting to Sonia's entire enterprise: Presenting the public with some facts that the MSM won't and I'm at a loss as to your reasoning

What?  Erm I think you'll find that innocent until proven guilty is the norm...who cares what the MSM say.  And I have not gone from anything to anything...I personally don't think it was a good idea to go to the McCanns door to ask questions, anymore than it was to go to Brenda's door and asking her questions and as I have said repeatedly, it is the investigation being compromised that I am concerned about, because I would far rather see the McCanns in court, answering the accusations, than watching a documentary that proves nothing IMO

What on earth does innocent until proven guilty have to do with anything? We all want to see the McCanns in court but sooner or later you're going to have to accept that it isn't going to happen, especially if you believe GA's theory. There's a small matter of jurisdiction for a start but also a profound lack of tangible evidence. As to who cares what MSM day, the vast majority of the public do and thats why they believe that Madeleine was abducted and that we are all vile trolls. Yes it's starting to change because of people like Sonia doing what you still appear to objecting to - getting the real facts out there.
You said that "if the documentary is widely viewed and the public declare the McCanns guilty before they step into a court room..that would be a tragedy IMO." Do you object to Sonia producing her documentary or not? Or is it OK for her to produce it as long as it isn't widely viewed?

Well as I don't believe the investigation is a whitewash, then we'll have to agree to disagree on any potential outcome...and please stop with the aggressive questioning, I have said nothing derogatory about Sonia whatsoever and have made my position very clear...sheesh it's like being back on CMoMM..just awaiting a screed of blue text with 50,0000,0000 million reasons why I am wrong...

Freedom wrote:Let's all chill out please - easy to do if you're in the U K at the moment, it's freezing.

I've confiscated all the blue ink for myself!

Sorry Freedom, I just object to being questioned as though I am a suspicious character and being accused of something I have not done. I've made my opinion on the doorstepping of Kate and Sonia's documentary quite clear and I am in no way having a go at her, I'm just concerned that her good intentions may have a negative impact.

So I will rest my case and won't comment further on this subject

I certainly agree with you there Susible.

It is so difficult for anyone questioning the McCanns to be dealt with by the mainstream media as anything other than vile trolls or lunatic conspiracy theorists.

We can but wait and see if Sonia has more luck in that respect.

Susible wrote:
Well as I don't believe the investigation is a whitewash, then we'll have to agree to disagree on any potential outcome...and please stop with the aggressive questioning, I have said nothing derogatory about Sonia whatsoever and have made my position very clear...sheesh it's like being back on CMoMM..just awaiting a screed of blue text with 50,0000,0000 million reasons why I am wrong...

It doesn't matter whether you believe it's a whitewash or not. The simple fact is that there isn't a shred of evidence that would lead to the McCanns being tried for an offence in the UK.

Although you've made it clear you don't think Kate should have been door stepped your other opinions are very opaque and I've been trying to give them some clarity so I can better understand your point of view. I'm sorry if this came across as being aggressive but, even if it did, I don't think it warranted the cheap jibe about blue ink.

You appear to think it's OK for the press to peddle the abduction myth because "who cares what the press say" but also appear to believe that Sonia's documentary could be damaging to potential legal action (although it's not clear what this action may be for) because people may form a different conclusion based on the documentary. Put simply your thought process seems to be something like this:
MSM - no one cares what they say and it's Ok for people to conclude McCanns innocent as this won't jeopardise a fair trial
Sonia Poulton - people could conclude the McCanns guilty, which would jeopardise a fair trial

Do you see the inconsistency that I'm trying to understand? Can you explain why media lies that portray the  McCanns are innocent victims is harmless but Sonia telling the truth is dangerous? Alternatively, if you believe MSM lies are harmful, why would Sonia's documentary not provide a helpful counterpoint to that (helpful in the sense of balancing public perceptions back to neutral ahead of legal action)

susible wrote:

Freedom wrote:Let's all chill out please - easy to do if you're in the U K at the moment, it's freezing.

I've confiscated all the blue ink for myself!

Sorry Freedom, I just object to being questioned as though I am a suspicious character and being accused of something I have not done.  I've made my opinion on the doorstepping of Kate and Sonia's documentary quite clear and I am in no way having a go at her, I'm just concerned that her good intentions may have a negative impact.

So I will rest my case and won't comment further on this subject

I think you could be right there ,and negative in more than one direction imo the way things have panned out recently. Time will tell and you have to hope but you also have to question who is who in this whole case, nothing to do with having a suspicious nature, just logic.