SONIA POULTON EXPOSED PART 3

Sonia, after speaking to her team of McCann researchers IE Paul Rees multi hatted troll, who's speciality is photoshopping images of a grieving family, Mad Mavis etc, has swallowed the whole conspiracy yarn, hook, line and sinker. What possible, credible questions regarding the case can she have? The McCanns don't answer to screeching wannabe journalists. As you correctly say, they're victims of a crime. It's can't be difficult even for her to understand the McCanns are not suspects in the ongoing investigation into Madeleines abduction. It's been stated categorically by the 2 police forces involved. There's no case against them, simple. And listening to the samhe old recycled garbage the trolls churn out daily isn't going to change that.

So how is she justifying her alleged door stepping of Kate McCann? By saying it's in the public interest, what is? First of all the public won't see her YouTube train wreck, it's only going to be viewed by people from this corner of the internet. It's not going to be aired to the nation with her as the "anchor" on skynews is it?

She's behaving in exactly the way she WRONGLY accused professional journalist Martin Brunt, when he legitimately door stepped BL to ask her about her vicious online abuse of the McCanns.
She's visibly excited about the idea that those of us who support the McCanns should now be "sweating" at the prospect of having that screeching wannabe knocking on our doors. JFTR I am NOT,
She'll be treated with the contempt she deserves and the police will called if she steps foot anywhere near me. She's issued her threats across the twittersphere just like professional journalists do. What's she expecting to discuss if she does indeed door step a pro? Their alleged bullying of BL, which she's so fond of talking about, backed up once again by her team of balanced "researchers" who are in dire need of incontinence knickers at this stage, at the prospect of Sonia (trying) to humiliate a McCann supporter. Again JFTR I won't be humiliated, I feel no shame whatsoever in supporting the McCann family and raising awareness for Madeleine, in the hope that one day soon that family are reunited.
And the bullying of BL Sonia has openly accused me of on twitter is utter BS. BL got back exactly what she gave out, but only occasionally. I more frequently would ignore her cruel snipes about my ability as mother and her accusations I neglected my children the same way she accused Kate of neglecting Madeleine. But there comes a point when remarks like that can't go ignored. Of course if Sonia had done (any) research at all she would know all of this already. As for my now infamous tweet sent to BL on the 29th Sept.

I'm more than happy to discuss this in greater detail with Sonia not on my door step I hasten to add, to put that tweet in it's correct context, I've no problem at all doing that. Just so long as Sonia isn't afraid of further exposing the dreadful trolling BL had been involved in that day.

https://twitter.com/soniapoulton/status ... 5297265666

She's busy revealing the "truth" that IHO is being covered up. She doesn't offer a credible argument to back up that claim except that MSM haven't done their job properly (like she's a good judge of that) and just acted as PR?! nor explain what the "truth" (or her idea) of it actually is and is making a complete laughing stock of herself in the process. A common problem with all the "truth seekers". They can't or won't explain what that truth is, just continue to knit their conspiracies to suit the agenda which is very clear and simple. McCann guilt, despite not one shred of evidence to suggest that. Instead of just accepting the very simple, tragic, reality that Madeleine McCann was abducted on the 3rd May 2007 from Praia Da Luz, and ever since then, despite everything that's been thrown at them by the press, trolls, stalkers and assorted internet nutjobs. The McCanns have tirelessly kept Madeleines case in the public, achieved the review and re opening of the case. They'll never give up on Madeleine and the newly self appointed one woman (+ unsavory boyfriend/cameraman) truth seeking crusader numpty general, is not going to make a blind bit of difference to that.

Which begs the real question, just exactly why has Sonia Poulton jumped (like so many before her all with dire outcomes) onto the McCann case?

And also why, do Sonia and her team of reliable researchers (lol) believe the Met, MSM, 2 governments the royal family M15 etc etc would cover anything for 2 ordinary doctors from Rothley? I've never heard a credible explanation for that repeated claim yet!

Jim Gamble ‏@JimGamble_INEQE 2h2 hours ago
@SoniaPoulton @PetsyLz your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Why verbally attack the mother of a missing child?

DR Laverty BA Hons retweeted
ChrisCross @ChrisCr999 · 4h 4 hours ago
@just_standing3 Sonia Poulton is a washed up hack taking her bitterness out about loosing her job on the vulnerable #troll

tigerloaf » Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:41 pm

   https://twitter.com/jimgamble_ineqe/status/560116900655808512

   https://twitter.com/soniapoulton/status ... 8964554753

Thanks for those tweets.

Poulton is seriously delusional. Her response to Gamble is that "McCann is public interest".

But she has deluded herself into believing that Brunt was not responding to equally valid matters of "public interest". Is she completely blind to the fact that the public is interested in the online activities of disgusting trolls? Is she completely unaware of the fact that the question of trolling was at the forefront of news around the time Brunt spoke to Leyland? Is she completely ignorant of the fact that Brunt was not just dealing with the subject of trolling but also the subject of the McCanns which she herself admits is of public interest? Yes to them all. On so many counts this stupid, shrieking harpy has shown herself to be either delusional, ignorant or simply blind to reality?

No unbiased person reading the full timeline of Leyland could ignore the fact that she was an online troll who took great pleasure from her disgusting and abusive tweeting. The evidence of her behaviour is her legacy and remains available online for all to see in its raw, undiluted and unchanged form. On what planet must Poulton be to have missed the fact that Leyland was a nasty troll as evidenced by the actual words she posted?

Not only is this so-called 'journalist' delusional, she compounds that failing with a heavy dose of hypocrisy. She has now been pressured into admitting that one of her actions to promote the home video that she is making with her lover and another rather unsavoury looking person has been the doorstepping of the parents and possibly primary-school-age siblings of a missing child. Perfectly willing to undertake the most ridiculous doorsteppings (I've seen her running round looking for cops to screech at regarding security around London buildings, for cops to get their opinions on what the prime minister's views on issues, are and so on) and perfectly willing to doorstep the wholly innocent parents of a missing child, she has the flaming gall to have been shrieking for months online that a real and professional reporter should not have doorstepped a person he knew to be posting vile, online abuse. She is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Having received numerous tweets from this abusive old woman challenging him to contact her, Brunt did so. She was offering herself as a troll willing to explain herself and declaring how proud she was of her online activities. Given that Leyland had for some time in the past used her full real name alongside her troll ID and that he was able to discover her address from public online records as the only Brenda Leyland in the general area where she claimed to live. I don't blame him at all for attempting to speak to her directly. Given the fact that BOTH trolling and the McCanns are public interest stories, Sky clearly and very reasonably wanted a visual report for their viewers. That is after all their remit.

Clearly, Leyland was reluctant at first to discuss what she immediately claimed was her right to post abusively. Not having ever challenged a reporter to contact me so openly I am not in the same position as Leyland but I am inclined to think that if I was doorstepped by a genuine reporter I recognised as such I would also be reluctant to give a full interview without at least time to reflect on the matter the journalist wished to discuss. A random approach for a brief comment on a subject is a different matter and I have appeared both on television and radio answering such questions.

Having reflected however I might well be willing to go ahead with a fuller interview with a genuine reporter if it related directly to me, my actions or something I knew a fair bit about and was clearly a matter which the public had real interest in. If the person doorstepping me could not (as Poulton with her home movie cannot) give me the name of the company she was working for and a contact in that organisation for me to speak to then I would politely decline to comment. If they were persistent and refused to go away, I would immediately call the police and ask for advice and potentially my solicitor and ask them as well.

If I had been in the public domain for some time, I would expect, if I gave the reporter (genuine or otherwise) my PR team's number then they would have the professionalism and decency to contact me through them. I know for certain that a police officer attending a situation where a person was being harassed or intimidated by a reporter and film crew would see a request to make an appointment or to discuss the matter with a PR as being sufficient and that officer would then ask the reporter to move away and refrain from direct contact. How do I know? I just asked a serving police officer of Inspector rank. The reporter could stand to one side and shriek and gobble as much as they liked, the movie maker could carry on making his home movie but any direct approach could be seen as harassment.

Brunt never harassed Leyland. He politely approached her and asked for an interview. He explained the subject and whilst declining his request Leyland told us of her entitlement to post whatever she liked. Later, a further approach did not elicit a call to the police. She wasn't intimidated or threatened by Brunt as people like Poulton claim. It resulted in Brenda Leyland inviting Martin Brunt into her home for an off-camera conversation in which we are told that she hoped she would not be prosecuted for what she clearly then understood might well be potentially illegal online activities.

We all remember the doorstepping of the McCanns back in 2007 and 2008 both at the villa in PDL and at their home in Rothley. As genuine reporters the media were tolerated by the police because (at least here in the UK) they did not harass the family by repeatedly approaching the house and demanding comments. They were restricted to a location away from the home from where they could take photos. Quite reasonably the McCanns (against whom there is no evidence of any crime whatsoever) and who, considering the intensity of media interest, were responding to the media through the perfectly legitimate means of a PR man were not approached in their house by the gawping cameramen and reporters.

Now we have the so-called 'journalist' whose credentials amount almost exclusively to fluff pieces in the Mail and a few ancient reviews of music and/or reports of tagging along at 'meejah' events screeching about her entitlement to demand that the innocent parents of a missing child respond to her shrieked questions. This shrieky woman who I am certain the McCanns (or their advisers) have known for some considerable time as a soul mate of some of the most disgusting hate abusers and trolls on the Internet. This shrieky woman who tried to find an outlet for her screeches on blog TV with one of the most idiotic conspiracy theorists of all time, the lizard-loving David Icke. This shrieky woman whose knowledge of the McCann case comes from her online contacts such as Birch whose sanity is disputed even by most anti-McCanns; RothleyPillow whose sanity is questioned by everyone; Bennett and his 'researchers' who cannot get their own names right half the time, Morais and McFadden whose online spats have been hilarious; Hutton, whose drugs and pity-me posts match those of Hutton herself and the woman who defrauded her own very elderly parents and has been trolling and stalking the McCanns for years, Deborah Butler.

Why would any sane person, knowing about this woman and her online (and offline) criminal and abusive friends, want to so much as nod at her in the street let alone give her an interview?

Poulton has already shown her absolute bias in the McCann case by allying herself to the anti-McCanns. Such an unprofessional action accompanied by her almost libellous shrieks about the family have demonstrated how lacking in understanding of the role of the investigative journalist she really is. Just because a home movie maker whose main output seems to be via Youtube and somebody claiming to be an "investigative journalist" when she patently is no such thing rocks up at your door does not mean you have to entertain them. Only a fool would do so in reality.

The fact is that the McCann case is going to be Poulton's undoing. Her attachment to the online freaks who abuse the McCanns daily has not gone unnoticed by the MSM. How do I know that? I have personally informed them of her antics. And I have seen the fact that she has been slowly dropped from previous roles. She is nothing but a harridan who is now making a home movie based on flawed research.

I look forward to the day when she runs out of excuses and has to post it somewhere. I know I will enjoy that day and that she will rue the day she ever latched onto the haters and abusers on the #McCann tag. She has naively been led down the garden path right into the cess pit which they have dug for themselves. The McCanns live in the house (with all the mod cons) where the likes of Poulton and her criminal entourage are not welcome and will not be tolerated. Only the scum of the earth inhabit the cess pit from whence their heads occasionally appear and we hear their hateful wailing and shrieking. Enjoy yourself Sonia, the stench is beginning to be evident in your own posts and activities.

ps I've been practising with my phone and the video it produces is actually very good indeed. Just the job if I choose to confront Poulton and ask her the question she is pointedly avoiding.

Sonia Poulton@SoniaPoulton
@martin_liz @B_balou @1matthewwright1 BTW Balou, appreciate all your work today. You revealed some people. All captured on film now. TY

Interesting to see how many forkers think Poulton has done something totally reprehensible; some are even wondering if she's done it on purpose to make them look bad.

Especially as she's pulled this stunt right in the middle of the Lisbon court case, the Yard investigation, and the coroner's investigation into Leyland's death. All important matters, that she seems to be trying to sabotage.

Easy to see why the more cynical might wonder just which 'side' she is actually on. It's the work of minutes to find many victims of abuse who detest Poulton and her thuggish crew, for making use of them when it suits her ends, then turning on them and smearing them all over the internet.

And then there was her very public of the Ickes.

She may, of course, be just an unpleasant, manipulative egotist, or she may be something far worse. Time will tell, as ever.

I think she's going to shaft her fan club. Just about everything she says has more than one meaning. And there is NO profit in slagging off the McCanns on YouTube, it's career suicide.

I read that Sonia Poulton appeared on Sky News this morning. I don't know what she was talking about as I didn't watch it. I believe it was something to do with mothers who smoke but can't confirm that.

This is a journalist who has taken to defending Brenda Leyland whilst openly opposing Sky News/Martin Brunt's treatment of her. Today she apparently took the Sky shilling and appeared on Sky News.

Hey, everyone has to earn a few quid.

Check out soniapoulton.com - go to the bottom of the homepage and check it out - the 'contact us', 'faq's', 'advertising' and 'copyright' sections. They are quite enlightening.

xxxxxhttp://soniapoulton.com.websitebuilder.prositehosting.co.uk/
(remove xxxxx to access link)

Lorraine ‏@PickieHolden 50m50 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton @collywobbles54 @TeddyShepherd if the #McCann's were truly innocent people like @JimGamble_INEQE wouldn't be interested in ya

Sonia Poulton@SoniaPoulton
@PickieHolden @collywobbles54 @TeddyShepherd @JimGamble_INEQE that's how our team perceive it too.

Judith Fullerton@JudithF_qubni
@JimGamble_INEQE @TweetsbyGill timelines of some McCann activists reveal disturbing psychology dressed up as motivation for justice #oxygen

Judith Fullerton ‏@JudithF_qubni 4h4 hours ago
@JimGamble_INEQE @TweetsbyGill no attention infuriates them so best policy is to ignore #oxygen

Jim Gamble
‏@JimGamble_INEQE
@JudithF_qubni @TweetsbyGill I agree however sometimes things r so wrong. A frenzied rant 2the mother of a missing child needs 2bchallenged

4:17 AM - 28 Jan 2015
Judith Fullerton ‏@JudithF_qubni 3h3 hours ago
@JimGamble_INEQE @TweetsbyGill unprofessional work practice will isolate her further. Driven by biases & misinformation

Re: Sonia Poulton Update
Post Maggs Shaw Today at 5:49 pm

Sonia flits from one story to another. If her research and accuracy is to be the on the same scale as other cases/causes she has 'all of a sudden appeared to champion' then I am very sceptical at the attention to detail she will adopt.

She has worked for Sky for many years now, so it has to be asked 'why has she not brought the MM case to the MSM before?' IMO it is because she likes the 'enemy troops' softened up a bit before she rides in on her white horse shouting 'look how brave I am'! I am more inclined to interpret her 'bravery' as stupidity. Especially if you note some of the 'guests' she has given air space to and the topics they were permitted to sit there and spout, all without hard evidence.

I may be incorrect, but, surely a true journalist would 'rip an arm off' to be given the opportunity to 'get both sides of a story' She doesn't, when she decided to take on the Hollie Greig Case and support Robert Green, she was furnished with masses of evidence showing that the case was untrue. She even had chance to meet the 'oppo', but announced on her 'show' that the oppo were hiding, which was totally untrue. She decided however, to give a convicted criminal a platform, in order that he could spread his lies even further, him getting arrested in the process.

It was quite obvious that she did not bother to read anything, she just believed what she was told and broadcasted it.

I sincerely hope, for all the ardent supporters on this forum, for all the hard work put in by everyone in unraveling the lies of the McCanns that Sonia does not ruin anything. I also hope that her ridiculous 'doorstepping' or whatever she wishes to name it, does not give the McCanns any more ammunition to use so they could secure and bolt down more law suits. Even worse, manage to push themselves further up the ladder of protection. I am sure the McCanns would welcome any morsel at this moment in time to gain sympathy.

A case of cognitive dissonance, because Sonia can 'troll on twitter' and 'doorstep' and call it out as 'all in the public interest' but if anyone dares to ask her questions or challenge her views they are TROLLS! The documentary has to remain as a wonder in waiting, but I for one, will not be holding my breath for too long.

An open letter from Sonia Poulton to Jim Gamble

Post  Mo Today at 7:49 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

xxxxhttp://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10928-an-open-letter-from-sonia-poulton-to-jim-gamble
(remove xxxx to access link)

Brietta:  I think that may be quite an unprecedented epistle.

In my opinion she has given a classic account of harassment when she states she repeatedly asked Dr McCann for an interview over the period of a year then presented herself uninvited on the doorstep demanding one.

After that little diatribe aimed at Jim Gamble I think hell will freeze before he will acquiesce to be in the same room with her as would anyone with any sense.

Quite extraordinary behaviour.

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.

Jim Gamble
‏@JimGamble_INEQE
@ad_mills @SoniaPoulton problem is I see no balance or professionalism here. Done #hardtalk #newsnight & many, many professional interviews

Sonia Poulton has made out to us all that she is in the midst of producing a sensational documentary about the doorstepping of Brenda Leyland, coupled with 'The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann'.

Now, who is the main target of us all who condemn the over-the-top, sensationalised public 'outing' of a lonely, troubled divorcee?

Why, Martin Brunt, and his bosses, the Editor and Producer of SKY News.

If she is really going to attack SKY News for hounding Brenda Leyland to death, why is it that of all the possible hundreds of commentators SKY News should choose to comment thios morning on women and smoking, Sonia Poulton is the one to be chosen?

I am more troubled every time I read about Sonia Poulton.

Could she yet end up back-stabbing the very people she now professes to support?

It has happened before.

There are people out there - people abused in childhood - who trusted Sonia Poulton with their stories - only for Sonia Poulton to turn right against them when she wrote about them.

Along with all our other concerns, her previous track record of back-stabbing, coupled with her still being a SKY News favourite, are red flags for me - even if for hardly anybody else.

ETA: 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:

"SONIA POULTON: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. I agree that the subject of the article is a lightweight that does not meet any of our notability guidelines. None of the 24 sources listed represents substantial coverage; they are either routine, tangential, trivial or do not meet the requirements of our sourcing policies. Even taken together, and together with the similar sources I found in my own web searches, they don't add up to much, at all. She is simply too minor a figure in the British journalistic world to merit a stand-alone article, and even less significant on a global scale. Nothing worth merging or saving. Can be deleted in its entirety"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonia_Poulton

Comment: I have just removed a couple of blatant errors/exaggerations from the intro claiming she is a broadcaster and she has worked for international organizations. Quite honestly, once you strip away the hype she is quite a marginal journalist, occasionally writing columns as a freelancer for UK national newspapers and occasionally making guest appearances on UK TV and radio shows. Just deleted another unsupported statement "contributed to The Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 for THREE years" - Poulton does not even claim this on her own website. --Penbat (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Jim Gamble ‏@JimGamble_INEQE 58m58 minutes ago
@ad_mills I suppose so. Coping with loss of a child is hard enough without this. It seems opinion of a few is used 2 justify vilification

tigerloaf » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:35 pm
Why is it I wonder that all the anti McCanns whose names begin with the letter 'B' seem to be either as thick as the proverbial p** s*** or as ignorant and incompetent as the buffoon, Bennett, whose ludicrous research earned him nothing more than the right to hand over a small fortune each month in reparation for his incompetence and stupidity?

Babaloo (sic) is the latest variant on the theme.

I have no intention of doing this idiot's research for her or him save to say - start at 28 September and open your eyes.

As for Poulton's antics today.

How much more evidence does one need to see that this is a lunatic as opposed to a genuine journalist at work?

No response to the perfectly reasonable question as to why she has spent weeks chasing the author of the dossier? That is because there can only be one reason and it has nothing to do with journalism. Poulton is the best example of a troll on the #McCann tag though she almost certainly does not recognise the fact. When you are as biased as this woman is, when you have as closed a mind as this woman has then you simply cannot see the reality which is staring you in the face and you certainly cannot profess to be an investigative journalist.

Poulton is not attempting to find Madeleine McCann. That was a lie she told in her letter today. Not one single action in her entire history of posting and shrieking about this case has ever shown her to be interested in finding the missing little girl at the heart of the case. Not a single one.

Poulton is only interested in pursuing the lunatic delusions which she has been gathering from some of the sickest trolls to inhabit Twitter, from drug addled old liars like Hutton, from barking mad conspiracy crackpots like Birch, from the self-styled 'researchers' like Bennett and his entourage, and from disgusting criminal fraudsters like Butler. She is pursuing these lunatic delusions because that is the only way she can be heard in this world. She is a rent-a-mouth who, given the chance to make a fast buck and get her face on the television or her name in the paper, would take poisoned shillings from the worst crooks, crazies and even her avowed enemy the MSM.

Today, she replied to me with a laughable claim about her new-found role as a MSM lackey. I laugh in your face Ms Poulton. You may dream of such a role, you may be willing to sell out your oft-shrieked principles for such a role, you may be desperate to be seen to be holding such a role but the truth is that you are a jobbing fluff writer and rent-a-gob and nothing more. Anyone who tells you differently is winding you up.

Instead of such self-aggrandising and silly claims why not just answer the question posed on the other thread or is actually getting to the nitty gritty of your actions a shade too close to the truth about your true intentions? You have no answer other than the one I proposed on your behalf - that your intention was and still is to hound the compilers of the dossier - have you? And why is that? Because there is no other logical reason why you would be so desperate to know those names? Unfortunately for you, the information isn't coming your way.

The police know, they are a step ahead of you. Of course, they should know because the compilers were working with the police not against them as you so frequently do. There is so much that you patently do not (and probably never will) understand about what is going on that each time you open your mouth to shriek you demonstrate yet more ignorance as opposed to understanding. And you profess to be about to produce a little movie to explain it all. It is most amusing to watch. Even you might close that mouth of yours one day soon just long enough to listen or open your eyes to look and see what is going on around you. I think you've been very naive indeed and one day soon you may well realise that. Till then, I shall continue to enjoy the spectacle you are providing as a diversion to the actual work being undertaken by the police. Even though your antics are shedding no light on the matter at all, at least they provide me and those I converse with on the subject with a few laughs now and then.

We all hope Madeleine will be found and in the meantime we try to support her parents (who you might have forgotten have been investigated by the police and against whom no evidence of any crime at all has been found) in their endeavours. A shame that you could not put your energies into such actions rather than in following in the footsteps of that guru of the lunatics, Icke, and finding a conspiracy around every corner for you to play at investigative journalist with.

And one final thing for the moment, Ms Poulton, till I see that you have replied to my challenge and answered the very short and simple question posed to you, then you really are in no position to go around demanding that others answer questions are you? That would be yet another demonstration of how hypocritical you appear to be would it not?

* attack on me

* your vitriolic outburst

* you speak without full knowledge of the situation

* speak without understanding

* not to your taste

* your use of emotive words

* you chose to use social media in a futile attempt to undermine me professionally with childish insults

* encouraging your followers to behave in a mob-like fashion towards me

* your somewhat blinkered approach to this case

* the way you have behaved over the last 24 hours towards myself and others

* continuing to behave in a deeply unprofessional...

*evasive and...

*questionable manner

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/crime-court/danny_o_shea_trial_suspected_mob_organiser_not_violent_court_hears_1_2023543

Danny O’Shea trial: Suspected mob organiser ‘not violent’, court hears

Kevin Richards, 33, of North Circular Road, Willesden allegedly recruited a 10-strong gang of armed thugs to track down the culprits after Paul Boadi, 35, of Hertsmere Road, Poplar, was robbed of his BlackBerry mobile.

But 18-year-old Danny O’Shea, who was not connected to the phone theft, was stabbed to death yards from his front door in Butchers Road, Custom House a week later on December 2, 2011.

Christopher Nathaniel, 40, a sports agent, allegedly instigated the attack through Richards after Boadi, his business partner and flatmate, was mugged.

But character witness Sonia Poulton, a Daily Mail columnist who dated Richards’ father for four years, said she did not believe he was guilty because he was a ‘grounding influence’ to his peers.

She told the court: ‘It was horrific, I thought there had been a mistake because it didn’t make any sense to me and wasn’t in his character’, she told the court.

Ms Poulton said Richards was stabbed at the age of 15 which had a ‘profound effect’ on his attitude to life.

She said Richards did not fit the negative stereotype of young black men in London.

Doubtless he was turning his life around.

It's a fine example of the sort of circles she mixes in. Her last boyfriend's son was charged with murder - he eventually got off, but......

Her current boyfriend is an ex-jailbird that blew his lottery millions on guns and shiny toys, before he lost the lot in some dubious scheme in Kyrghistan.

She was mwah-mwahing at Butler until Butler was convicted of defrauding her own parents. She may still be for all anyone knows. Certainly, few of the haters condemned Butler for her sickening crime, and some even sunk so low as to support her.

Long story short - is there anything at all about Poulton that would leave a sane, intelligent person to believe she's a good judge of either situations or people?

I would've posted Brenda's actual posts as evidence of non-trolling and set it out as a set of questions for him to answer

It seems Ms.Screech was put on this earth to ask questions...........never answer them. Odd that.

But... if she has even a part functioning "investigative" brain....where is the evidence of this?

This is a woman who....on the say so of known trolls, who we all know, twist the PJ Case Files....who alter and edit videos to suit......who deliberately feed rumours against the McCanns and pass them round as fact knowing full well they aren't....It's hard to believe that Poulton has had more than a cursory glance at the Files and definitely she cannot have read the Portuguese Attorney Generals Final Report or the FSS Final Analysis....or she wouldn't be talking such sh#te that she does.

Maybe the person who suggested that Screech might be playing a double bluff against the trolls...might just be correct. It maybe explains why she hasn't actually involved herself in finding out the facts about the case..... only getting herself involved and seemingly taking the word of longterm trolls.

We all hope Madeleine will be found and in the meantime we try to support her parents (who you might have forgotten have been investigated by the police and against whom no evidence of any crime at all has been found) in their endeavours.

Cristobell Author retweeted
Ian Spence @IanSpence6 · 3 hrs 3 hours ago
@JimGamble_INEQE of course not. I'm saying that no one from SY that I know of has made the statement that the McCanns are in no way suspects

Weiss ‏@w_nicht 2h2 hours ago
@missypuddleduck @SoniaPoulton I'm not supporter of door stepping...at all. Call/email and asking for a interview is the right way, imo.

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton
@w_nicht @missypuddleduck done many times. Have paper trail to prove it.

I have just realised - Poulton's tried to smear Jim Gamble in exactly the same way she did David Icke, and others. It's all innuendos and blackmail about 'what people will think', and never a scrap of evidence, never mind proof, of anything.

It may be time for Operation Grange to step in and have a word with her, as she is actively meddling in an ongoing Yard investigation.

And a libel trial and a coroner's inquest.

This is Hutton:

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 edge.  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.  

Post  aquila Today at 1:50 pm
I see Sonia Poulton didn't 'doorstep' Jim Gamble after inviting him for interview and yet there's a bit of a mini spectacular spat on Twitter between the two of them.

It's all...silly...that's the only word I can find to describe it - oh and pointless would be a second choice.

What I see at the moment is a pile of tweets, a lot of forum comment with the focus on Sonia Poulton and Jim Gamble. Cristobell is doing a very nice line in slagging off Tony Bennett with yet another of her rants and invoking 'sisters are doing it for themselves. It's bonkers.

What I see at the moment is the empty promise of a broadcast that may or may not be aired. The pre-amble, the announcement, the 'I'm going to make a bloody difference and get to the bottom of all of this'.

It's pathetic really. Investigative journalists don't let the public know about their investigation do they? Surely they don't if they're passionate and professional about getting to the truth. Do you announce that you might have something to say but you'll wait until after the inquest of the deceased person (whose cause you are passionate about) who was doorstepped by Sky which is likely to have lead to her death and then doorstep the McCanns and announce it? No, you don't. It's bonkers. It's more than bonkers, it's destructive.

Investigative journalism...mmmm....send the McCanns a few emails/letters requesting an interview, tell everyone you've been doing it for a year with either no reply (most likely) or a polite decline, turn up at their house and knock their door. Nothing meaningful to report.

Send Jim Gamble a load of tweets, invite him for interview, receive a 'dear John' decline, go doorstep the McCanns and continue to gob off on Twitter to Jim Gamble (and Lord knows I can't stand Jim Gamble as I've made clear on this forum), send him a long open letter which is mostly about yourself being attacked by his response to just about anything you've said.

I really am fed up to the back teeth with attention seeking women.

In the meantime, there is a Lisbon trial verdict to be given and the Brenda Leyland inquest. I sincerely hope Sonia Poulton doesn't turn up at the inquest with a camera crew to ask people outside the court about their opinion. I'm not sure that's beneath her.

Sorry, I know I'll get battered for this post but I needed to get it off my chest.

It is not OK to doorstep anyone.