POULTON SENDS AN OPEN LETTER TO JIM GAMBLE

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.

 scoobydoo » Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:40 pm

Compare and contrast brunt and poulton

First of all paltry poulton admits she doorstepped Kate McCann. This is when you knock on someone's door or stand on their doorstep to surprise them. Brunt however was several feet away from Leyland's door and did not physically approach her. Watch the video, he asked her a question about being interviewed and she walked over to him smiling.

Poulton requested an interview with Kate McCann for a year according to her, which would put the date of her initial request as February 2014. Poulton had been refused several times so was aware when she went to her home that she was not wanted. Brunt, on the other hand, had been contacted ( harassed even) on numerous occasions by Leyland with requests that he listen to her. As she made no attempt to hide her identity he had every reason to believe his poresecence would be welcomed.

Poulton turned up as an individual claiming to be a journalist but with no credibility as her career has consisted of writing a few music pieces nearly two decades ago, a few woe is me pieces for people to make snide comments on in the daily mail, and most recently as an interviewer for David ickes internet TV site the main aim of which is to expose the queen as a lizard wearing an elderly lady suit. I am serious here people, that was her last job as a journalist. Katie hopkins has more journalistic credibility. Martin brunt however has several decades of experience, and interviewed Leyland as a sky representative.

Whereas brunt is a well known journalist, poulton turned up to Kate's house as a random unemployed woman with a press card with I believe two men, one a convicted criminal who regularly threatens people and has claimed he cannot be defeated due to lack of firearm ammunition, the other I believe has had mental health issues that led to his removal from the forces. That's a good way to intimidate a woman at home with her children isn't it?

Brunts result was that Leyland felt happy and safe enough to invite him into her home without a camera. Poultons result was that she got the door slammed in her face.

Now look at the two situations. Cyberbulling is an ever growing concern and is a matter of public interest. When it involves the cyberbulling and real life intimidation of victims and witnesses as Brenda Leyland had done by contacting a witnesses work place to claim the person was a prostitute, it is a matter of public interest simply because the public need to have the police pressured into dealing with cyberbulling and witness intimidation.

However the mccanns are according to the Portuguese police, the Portuguese attorney general and the UK police victims of a crime and patents of a very young victim of a crime. Not only that but the crime is subject to two ongoing investigations and so poulton had no right to turn up and try to interview a victim and witness as if this person was a suspect especially when she knew the interview had been refused since February 2014. It was meddling in the police investigation, something she admits to in her open letter to gamble when she tells him she thought she was helping!
Poulton has lied and said there are unanswered questions from kate McCann, yet the police have said they have interviewed the McCann's and both police forces had enough answers to discount the McCann's. Neither we nor poulton know what the police asked, but we do know they were able to discount them. So according to the police the McCanns don't have any questions left to answer.

Poulton also needs to understand that there is a difference between public interest and something that the public are interested in. Bothering parents of children that have been abducted is not in the public interest, but ensuring press cards are not abused to harass people is in the public interest.

tigerloaf » Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:59 am
Agree - Scoobydoo - excellent and accurate summary of the doorstepping, showing the hypocrisy of the amateurish Poulton.

As for independent confirmation of her doorstepping Kate McCann, there are I think only the photos that have been posted which were presumably taken by her thuggish partner as the zit-picking cameraman and Poulton are shown in them outside what we are led to believe is the closed McCann door.

I think it is interesting to compare the year-long attempt to contact Kate McCann (it does seem to be her in particular that Poulton wanted to contact over the unanswered questions) and the lengthy public campaign to contact Jim Gamble. Clearly Poulton was hiding her attempts to contact Kate. She would have known just how bad such an attempt would make her look.

As for Gamble though, who she is clearly desperate to talk to - why is Poulton not doorstepping him? Very simple for her to just turn up and poke her microphone in his face as she does with others so frequently. Is she afraid of doing that to Jim Gamble? Did she deliberately target Kate when she would be alone at home? If there is no attempt to doorstep Jim Gamble then we can be sure that Poulton was just using the technique to bully someone she thought might be weaker than actually was the case. When will we see her doorstepping Mitchell, Gamble, senior Scotland Yard officers, etc,?

Did she turn up with an ex policeman and a man with 90 convictions, who likes to intimidate with photos of himself holding guns, when Kate was on her own?

Did they wait somewhere and make sure GM had left before the 3 of them intimidated her on her own doorstep?