Member of not-Bennett's site reports Icke TV to Ofcom

It all seems to be over the Holly Grieg Hoax business. Apparently Poulton swallowed down the rubbish from Greene without bothering to check.

That she also swallowed down the rubbish from Mutton without checking seems to have passed them by, but hey ho,
they always were hypocrites.

The spat so far:

Re: Another serious blunder for Sonia Poulton and 'The People's Voice' - They interview Robert Green, but refuse to interview the Hollie Greig Hoax Team
Post Pyrite Today at 1:09

aiyoyo wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Seems to me that the OP and the title are a misrepresentation of the facts.

Reading through the link to the 'Hollie Greig Hoax Team', it seems that somebody reported TPV to Ofcom, resulting in that they couldn't cover it any further for the time being. The hoax team requested to interview Sonia Poulton so they could put in on *their* website. This is not Sonia Poulton refusing to interview the hoax team on TPV. According to the blog, Sonia Poulton "finds our approach hostile and aggressive". If that's the case, then I'm not surprised that she refuses to be interviewed by them.

So, to summarise: not a refusal to interview the hoax team on TPV, but a refusal to *be interviewed by* the hoax team - at least that is my reading of the hoax team blog.

Many thanks.

Who reported TPV to Ofcom? Is it member of this forum?

I did - and i reported them to Advot - but Ofcom have received further complaints from others also.

But lets bring you guys some facts.

1. We contacted SP before her interview with Robert Green and gave her a short synopsis of the story containing facts and evidence as well as the link to our website. We sent this information using her website contact form (which is also where her phone number can be found). I contacted Sonia via twitter to ask if she had received it. She claimed she had not because she was "locked out" of her website.

2. Sonia gave us another email address at TPV so we used that one and sent her the same email.

3. At no point did Sonia say we could have a right of reply until we asked for it - again on twitter to which she agreed.

4. Then we received an email from her stating that "some sore loser" reported the Hollie Greig coverage to Ofcom so blah blah balh see it here for yourselves here

5. The we sent a couple of emails and a number of pertinent questions and facts via twitter to Sonia, including a request to interview her so she could keep her word and give us a right of reply.

Initially we heard nothing and Sonia blocked the HGH twitter account. I used my twitter account to send further questions and facts of the case and i called her mobile number and asked her for an interview. She was very upset and said she found my approach "hostile and aggressive" and that all she wanted was people to be interviewed and slammed the phone down - a fact that she is blissfully unaware off.

Our emails were extremely cordial and i am of course willing to make them public. The twitter questions and facts were strong and questioning, and why not after we had been blocked and ignored.

I believe that is the real problem.

Sonia was called out - publicly - and she didn't like it. Her integrity was questioned and it remains so - as is the integrity of the station itself.

Most individuals perform one action when put on the spot and have have to answer difficult questions and perhaps admit they were wrong - they attack - and that is what Sonia has done.

Although i have to say that whilst i do not believe Sonia performed anywhere enough research on this story (she even got the CICA payment wrong fgs) i think she has been used by David Icke and i genuinely feel sorry for her. She seems to have her heart in the right place but this aint mainstream - its a lot harder than that!

We never believed we would have a right of reply because David Icke is complicit - how is he going to let one of his own give us that when for years he has been ignoring us and refusing to engage in a dialogue let alone promoting the story of Hollie Greig himself?

If TPV is a station that will allow anyone on without checking the veracity of information being broadcast, and simply taking peoples word at face value - that what is it worth?

In my view it's simply another alternative media station exploiting the people for donations, using sensationalised stories to provoke and emotional response in doing so.

Exploitation financially and emotionally.

When these guys are supposed to be on our side - i think that's worse than all the corrupt politicians, bankers and corporations put together.

Peace.

Jon.

If TPV is a station that will allow anyone on without checking the veracity of information being broadcast, and simply taking peoples word at face value - that what is it worth?

Absolutely feck all - but what else did they expect?      

No-one here thought it was going to be anything except garbage, nutters preaching to other nutters. Very revealing that the McCann-haters took it seriously.

Someone shrieks and points at another hounder - could it be Bennett?

As for people who might report TPV to Ofcom, I would suggest that if it was anybody from this forum, it might be someone who appears to treat this as some kind of personal crusade. I have no idea who this might be, nor am I saying that someone from this forum has reported TPV to Ofcom.

And Mutton bleats:

Cristobell wrote:
I am at a loss as to why members of this forum would want to shut down a new news channel, especially one that is willing to give us a platform to put forward our side of this case.

What exactly do those members want from TPV? We here on this forum are a separate entity, that is, we really don't have any right to dictate what TPV broadcasts, nor do we have the right to pick and choose who they interview, we can put forward our opinions and complaints, but we cannot select their guests and demand that they stick to a one party line.

Although I am happy to be a member of this forum, I want no part whatsoever in preventing news (all news) from being transmitted from a small news station brave enough to stand up to the mainstream media.

Quite the Pasionaria of the Pitchforkers.   

So, Mutton quotes Bennett and replies to him - in exactly the same type and blue as he uses so it's unreadable. Densa!         

According to Mutton:


REPLY TO TONY: I am sure they are doing the best they can, but it simply isn't practical for a small news station to research story or any other story to the depth that we have.

Oh, don't be so stupid! The information is all over the internet, it would have taken whatever clowns are running Lizard TV a matter of minutes to fact-check. Or were they all too busy accusing the US of blowing up its own skyscrapers, or accusing the Boston victims of being 'amputee actors'?

Or trying to make people believe a police helicopter didn't crash on the Clutha and all those deaths were faked?

Re: Another serious blunder for Sonia Poulton and 'The People's Voice' - They interview Robert Green, but refuse to interview the Hollie Greig Hoax Team
Post  No Fate Worse Than De'Ath Today

Well said WLBTS at 12.31.

I'm not feeling brave enough to access David Icke's ramblings - I take it that he believes Anne Greig's story?

That one doesn't even bother to read Icke.   

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/index.php

It doesn't bite. It's just infested with stupid, nasty conspiraloons obsessed with child abuse, so she should feel right at home. A little Birdie says Head Hounder is a member.  

Sez Mutton:

So much to debate - so little time. I find the way in which a small, struggling, news station is described pedantic and do not wish to engage in word games that are intended to show TPV in a derogatory way.

As to the question of respect, in my opinion, some members of this forum have been disrespectful to Sonia and TPV. They are trying to create something new and innovative and being pilloried for it!

As to how I became a guest, I assume it because I am familiar with Sonia on twitter, she has read much of my work and she invited me.


And what, pray tell, have either Lizard TV or Poulton done to be worthy of respect? Respect is earned, not freely handed out to attention-seeking nutters on blogTV.

Bennett, of TV Icke:

Woofer’s suggestion amounts to allowing a proliferation of nutcases to air their views.

Oh, the irony.

         

http://www.theholliegreigcoverup.net/blog/index.php?id=89i63oej



'Sore loser'? Poulton's a moron for not doing any basic fact-checking before letting the 'Hollie's Army' circus broadcast yet another load of nonsense.

It all seems to be getting too much for the hounders. Socks are posting ancient, discredited, leaks from PJ Sauces as if they are current, and not six years old.   

Frankly, I think you're getting off on repeating the words 'Deviant Art.' And you've been pulled on this before. If you were anything of any kind of graphic artist, you would know the Deviant Art website, why it exists, and what its MO and community characteristics are. You wouldn't be getting churlish giggles repeating its name if you had any sort of a clue.

Many people have noticed that Bennett appears to be indulging in one-handed typing when repeating those words. The site name, DeviantArt, appears to appeal to his fascination with the purient. Not that the site is, particularly, it's just an art site.

Clearly, Bennett knows nothing about Art, but a great deal about Deviancy.   

Can't fault what that poster says.   

Fascinating to observe that the hounders don't seem to know what to do with someone who writes with great literacy, logic and wit.


Let me check that I understand this correctly... You want me to commit to never again responding to smugness by identifying it as being smug, and you want me never to identify foolishness as being foolish? Any other words that I need to erase from the dictionary

Positively Shakespearean.

Indeed, Bonny. Indeed.   

It is rather funny.

  

Sez Bennett of the person who has so very clearly got the better of him, and got under his skin:


The second thing to say is that, as ‘candyfloss’ has already pointed out, there is a fair degree of abuse in your post, a clear breach of forum rules, as it happens. Well, let Admin deal with that as they see fit. My only other comment on that is that, as has been noted by many wise observers, personal abuse is almost invariable the signature of someone losing an argument

Doesn't stop Bennett falling back on that old faithful  when he's losing - which is ALWAYS.  

I loved seeing Bennett being torn a new ass by his obvious superior.

As always, he has reverted to his hypocritical self. Oh, and hiding behind a female's skirts.           

bb1 wrote:Sez Bennett of the person who has so very clearly got the better of him, and got under his skin:


The second thing to say is that, as ‘candyfloss’ has already pointed out, there is a fair degree of abuse in your post, a clear breach of forum rules, as it happens. Well, let Admin deal with that as they see fit. My only other comment on that is that, as has been noted by many wise observers, personal abuse is almost invariable the signature of someone losing an argument

Doesn't stop Bennett falling back on that old faithful  when he's losing - which is ALWAYS.  

Bennett really is a pathetic individual. It must be quite embarrasing to have another anti, "veritas" running so many rings around you.

and it seems the best arguments TB and his supporters can muster in refutation amount to:

1: Veritas' posts are too long

2: They have too many big words.

            

Too funny - now some of the thickos have decided Veritas is doing it to 'distract them'.      

All the while in a frenzy of outraged, one-handed typing.   

Oh, and I find the spectacle of that shower of stalkers, hounders, libellers, fantasists, bigots, conspiraloons, nutjobs, homophobes, religious fundamentalists, fakes and general hypocrites professing outrage about other people's imagined 'sins' beyond funny.  

Especially when their leader is someone who imagines J K Rowling is a witch.

Hounder:

Whilst not exactly defending Rickwood I will say that what he's admitting to makes it unlikely he's hiding anything worse. Whereas a "respectable" acquaintance might remain just that until the day he attacks you with a chainsaw for no good reason.


Know what really worries me? People like disgraced ex-solicitors and supposed ex-police officers indulging in frenzies of one-handed typing about other people's foibles.

When they were previously beside themselves with excitement when 'discussing' clothing and positions with regard to photos of a missing child.

Set off a lot of warning bells, that did. As well as making a lot of people vomit.

Feel free to not read, or respond to any of my posts if they are too lengthy for you.

It's been fascinating to see how many Hounders are incapable of reading well-written, well-argued, posts.

They're thinking of the darkest and most insidious possibilities to befall a child, and not only imagining that it happened, but psychologically transferring themselves into the experience, and then manifesting their outrage in the wildest exaggerations and fantastical narratives imaginable. The 'morbid fascination' has them obsessed, and some of them cross lines of behaviour in nurturing their obsession.

Quite. Most people find obsessives constantly debating child abuse, and speculating about ways for missing children to die, deeply disturbing.

And ten times worse than rather silly Damsel in Distress artwork, especially when the same obsessives enjoy exchanging views on clothing and positions.