Backlash for RTE for Gilligan invite.

infogiver

Noddyholder wrote: »

simples is you lad, there are lots of people on TV who i don't agree with and might even despise, but yes I will listen to them & here what they have to say.

So you don't think Gilligan has already had his say? And you think it's appropriate that a cowardly woman beater and murderer be presented as entertainment when family, including the son he left motherless, and friends of the woman he murdered and beat up are still trying to deal with the loss of her?

infogiver

James Bond Junior wrote: »

Goodfellas was based in the true story of mobster Henry hill.

So you don't think there's any difference between a fictional representation of historic criminal activities and bringing John Gilligan on the LLS?

Harry Palmr

Inviting criminals on to normalise their actions is the risk - there are plenty of gullible fools slumped in front of the LLS every week.

Yamanoto

infogiver wrote: »

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are democratically elected public representatives.

Adams wasn't an elected public representative in this jurisdiction when he first appeared on the LLS. He too would have been considered an absolute pariah by a great many viewers at the time.

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

Anyone who sits down to watch him, and doesn't change channels and make a complaint to RTE is a toe rag themselves IMO.

Anyone who makes a complaint to RTE is a loon.

Noddyholder

infogiver wrote: »

Goodfellas is a fictional film omackeral. When your watching Goodfellas you know (or at least you should know) that these are characters who don't exist.

It is a film adaptation of the 1986 non-fiction book Wiseguy by Nicholas Pileggi, who co-wrote the screenplay with Scorsese. The film narrates the rise and fall of mob associate Henry Hill (the first-person narrator in the film) and his friends over a period from 1955 to 1980.

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

Goodfellas is a fictional film omackeral. When your watching Goodfellas you know (or at least you should know) that these are characters who don't exist.

James Bond Junior wrote: »

Goodfellas was based in the true story of mobster Henry hill.

My favourite bit is the bolded portion. Your username is a misnomer.

Noddyholder

infogiver wrote: »

So you don't think Gilligan has already had his say? And you think it's appropriate that a cowardly woman beater and murderer be presented as entertainment when family, including the son he left motherless, and friends of the woman he murdered and beat up are still trying to deal with the loss of her?

What are you trying to twist words for ? Your the one calling anyone who would look at it a towrag, And yet you think goodfellas is fiction, suppose you think casino is fiction to ?

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

So you don't think there's any difference between a fictional representation of historic criminal activities and bringing John Gilligan on the LLS?

Actual serial killers have been interviewed too. It gives an insight into how their mind works. Why be so close minded? Yes he's a scum bag, but there's a chance it could be interesting. True crime is a massive genre is motion picture and literature. Not everyone who consumes it or is interested in it is a slack jawed yokel or a scum bag.

Noddyholder

Yamanoto wrote: »

Adams wasn't an elected public representative in this jurisdiction when he first appeared on the LLS. He too would have been considered an absolute pariah by a great many viewers at the time.

Well I not sure about the viewers, but certainly by the main stream media and even the host Gay byrne who would not shake his hand before or after the show, and it all backfired badly as it made GA look like the good person & the rest like ignorant gob****es.

infogiver

Noddyholder wrote: »

It is a film adaptation of the 1986 non-fiction book Wiseguy by Nicholas Pileggi, who co-wrote the screenplay with Scorsese. The film narrates the rise and fall of mob associate Henry Hill (the first-person narrator in the film) and his friends over a period from 1955 to 1980.

Gilligan murdered Guerin in 1996. Her close immediate family colleagues and friends and the many thousands of people affected by his drug dealing are alive and well and living in Ireland.
So what is your point?

Harry Palmr

Yamanoto wrote: »

Adams wasn't an elected public representative in this jurisdiction when he first appeared on the LLS. He too would have been considered an absolute pariah by a great many viewers at the time.

Adams was on the LLS (Oct 1994) in the context of the Hume-Adams talks being made public in 1993, the Downing Street Declaration December 1993 and the developments towards the Belfast Agreement so there was a current affairs logic to having him on - Gilligan on the other hand is nothing more than a preening, self absorbed ex con.

mikeoneilly

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Inviting criminals on to normalise their actions is the risk - there are plenty of gullible fools slumped in front of the LLS every week.

I agree

I can barely recall but didn't Michael Stone do quite well on the LLS?

Part of his slot was spent discussing his talent as an artist.

Noddyholder

infogiver wrote: »

Gilligan murdered Guerin in 1996. Her close immediate family colleagues and friends and the many thousands of people affected by his drug dealing are alive and well and living in Ireland.
So what is your point?

My point is you calling everyone that would look at some one on TV that they despise a tow rag is a nonsense, trying to back track on that now.


"Anyone who sits down to watch him, and doesn't change channels and make a complaint to RTE is a toe rag themselves IMO".

Noddyholder

mikeoneilly wrote: »

I agree

I can barely recall but didn't Michael Stone do quite well on the LLS?

Part of his slot was spent discussing his talent as an artist.

His artist job didn't work out very well as he now locked back up doing life for attempted murder of GA & MmcG, Still there & now forgotten about.

James Bond Junior

infogiver wrote: »

So you don't think there's any difference between a fictional representation of historic criminal activities and bringing John Gilligan on the LLS?

I simply gave you the info that that movie is based on a true story. Back off.

CalamariFritti

To see someone who ordered someone else's murder or murdered themselves, to see someone out and living a normal life just feels wrong. Feels sick really.

I know he 'did his time', but really? He ended someone else's life. That person will not have the opportunity to come back after being murdered for 10 years or 15 or whatever. That person is gone. Forever. Dead. No more. Because of him.

I know the world isn't black and white and sometimes people get killed and there was an element of accident to it. Not in this case tho. Should a person like that be allowed to walk amongst us again when his victims will not ever have that chance?

I don't know the answer to that, but I know how I feel in my heart about it.

Should he be getting an audience? Hell no, he definitely shouldn't.

Yamanoto

Noddyholder wrote: »

Well I not sure about the viewers, but certainly by the main stream media and even the host Gay byrne who would not shake his hand before or after the show, and it all backfired badly as it made GA look like the good person & the rest like ignorant gob****es.

I did say he would have been considered a pariah by a great many viewers (as opposed to all viewers) & I think that's a fair assessment of the public perception of the man at that point in time. Gaybo's decision not to shake his hand was ill judged and self indulgent. If you invite someone on as a guest, they should be met with the same courtesy as anyone else.

Noddyholder

CalamariFritti wrote: »

To see someone who ordered someone else's murder or murdered themselves, to see someone out and living a normal life just feels wrong. Feels sick really.

I know he 'did his time', but really? He ended someone else's life. That person will not have the opportunity to come back after being murdered for 10 years or 15 or whatever. That person is gone. Forever. Dead. No more. Because of him.

I know the world isn't black and white and sometimes people get killed and there was an element of accident to it. Not in this case tho. Should a person like that be allowed to walk amongst us again when his victims will not ever have that chance?

I don't know the answer to that, but I know how I feel in my heart about it.

Should he be getting an audience? Hell no, he definitely shouldn't.

Going against the grain here, You do know he was found not guilty of VG murder and was convicted of solely importing Cannabis, A drug which nowadays is being called to be legalised.

He is a **** of a man & I wouldent think he get a good time on Tv at all.
Wonder who be in the green room with him ?

lightspeed

People saying they are right to invite him as its something people would be interested to watch are just as disgusting the low lifes that associate with such scum.

Why not have other criminal low lifes that have caught headlines in recent years?

How bout the serial rapist Larry Murphy?

People with be all over facebook and the like and ratings would go through the roof.

After all, we pay our tv license to fund RTE programming.

We pay taxes to pay gardai, judges, prison services etc to fund criminals, of course i want to pay my tv license so we can celebrate the murderers and drug dealers responsible for the above.

Such entertainment, Its really value for money isnt it? FFS :mad:

Noddyholder

lightspeed wrote: »

People saying they are right to invite him as its something people would be interested to watch are just as disgusting the low lifes that associate with such scum.

Why not have other criminal low lifes that have caught headlines in recent years?

How bout the serial rapist Larry Murphy?

People with be all over facebook and the like and ratings would go through the roof.

After all, we pay our tv license to fund RTE programming.

We pay taxes to pay gardai, judges, prison services etc to fund criminals, of course i want to pay my tv license so we can celebrate the murderers and drug dealers responsible for the above.

Such entertainment, Its really value for money isnt it? FFS :mad:

I am no lowlife nor a scum either lad,

let's all pretend he doesn't exist and we can all look forward to next year valentines show , you happy now.

CalamariFritti

Noddyholder wrote: »

Going against the grain here, You do know he was found not guilty of VG murder and was convicted of solely importing Cannabis, A drug which nowadays is being called to be legalised.

He is a **** of a man & I wouldent think he get a good time on Tv at all.
Wonder who be in the green room with him ?

Actually I didn't know that. Feel quite bad about that, tbh. And yes, fair enough, thats different.

lightspeed

lightspeed wrote: »

People saying they are right to invite him as its something people would be interested to watch are just as disgusting the low lifes that associate with such scum.

Absolute nonsense or hyperbole, can't decide which. People bought OJ Simpson's book in droves and he was found "not guilty" of a murder. Look, people are interested in the macabre and always will be. It's why Charles Manson and Charles Bronson have had movies, books and interviews done about them. People are curious as to how these anamolies think and function, doesn't make you a scumbag and certainly doesn't put you on a bloody par with them.

weldoninhio

infogiver wrote: »

Gilligan murdered Guerin in 1996. Her close immediate family colleagues and friends and the many thousands of people affected by his drug dealing are alive and well and living in Ireland.
So what is your point?

Henry Hill was alive when Goodfellas came out. Many of his victims families, collleagues and friends affected by his crimes and the crimes of his gang were alive and well when Goodfellas came out. What point are you trying to make??

infogiver

Noddyholder wrote: »

I am no lowlife nor a scum either lad,

let's all pretend he doesn't exist and we can all look forward to next year valentines show , you happy now.

Nobody is pretending he doesn't exist.
The many people who's lives he destroyed know all too well he exists.
We just don't think that our licence fee should be used to have scum shoved down our throats on a Friday night.
You don't agree.
That's all.

weldoninhio

lightspeed wrote: »

People saying they are right to invite him as its something people would be interested to watch are just as disgusting the low lifes that associate with such scum.

Why not have other criminal low lifes that have caught headlines in recent years?

How bout the serial rapist Larry Murphy?

People with be all over facebook and the like and ratings would go through the roof.

After all, we pay our tv license to fund RTE programming.

We pay taxes to pay gardai, judges, prison services etc to fund criminals, of course i want to pay my tv license so we can celebrate the murderers and drug dealers responsible for the above.

Such entertainment, Its really value for money isnt it? FFS :mad:

Don't you have to be convicted of something more than once to be "serial"?

There's always the option to just not watch it.

infogiver

weldoninhio wrote: »

Henry Hill was alive when Goodfellas came out. Many of his victims families, collleagues and friends affected by his crimes and the crimes of his gang were alive and well when Goodfellas came out. What point are you trying to make??

Was Henry Hill brought on to the national broadcaster at cost to the taxpayers to be given an opportunity to say that he wasn't a murderer and a drug dealer and that the state had framed him?
No he wasn't. Now what is your point?

weldoninhio

infogiver wrote: »

Nobody is pretending he doesn't exist.
The many people who's lives he destroyed know all too well he exists.
We just don't think that our licence fee should be used to have scum shoved down our throats on a Friday night.
You don't agree.
That's all.

You do realise that paying your license does not mean you have to have the entire content of RTÉ "shoved down our throats". There are other channels.

infogiver

Omackeral wrote: »

There's always the option to just not watch it.

Taxpayers shouldn't have to change channels from the broadcaster they pay for to avoid someone who is an affront to every decent citizen

infogiver

weldoninhio wrote: »

You do realise that paying your license does not mean you have to have the entire content of RTÉ "shoved down our throats". There are other channels.

My licence fee funds RTE. Some standards of decency need to be met. Inviting a psycho on to one of the flagship programmes when he has had such a detrimental effect on our society is not meeting the standard.
What is to be gained by having him on?
What will he bring to the party?

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

Was Henry Hill brought on to the national broadcaster at cost to the taxpayers to be given an opportunity to say that he wasn't a murderer and a drug dealer and that the state had framed him?
No he wasn't. Now what is your point?

At cost to the taxpayer... You're such a martyr! The majority of people will have an interest one way or the other I'd say. Some will watch out of curious, some will watch to see see him lie through his teeth and some will watch so they can get nice and outraged but rest assured, they will watch.

weldoninhio

infogiver wrote: »

Was Henry Hill brought on to the national broadcaster at cost to the taxpayers to be given an opportunity to say that he wasn't a murderer and a drug dealer and that the state had framed him?
No he wasn't. Now what is your point?

I'm sure the movie that was based on his version of his life has been played, advertised and lauded on all networks in the US. HBO did a series of interviews with Michael Kuklinski too. Also why would JG claim that the state framed him for murder when he's never been convicted of it??

weldoninhio

infogiver wrote: »

My licence fee funds RTE. Some standards of decency need to be met. Inviting a psycho on to one of the flagship programmes when he has had such a detrimental effect on our society is not meeting the standard.
What is to be gained by having him on?
What will he bring to the party?

Ming Flanagan uses cannabis, as does a huge proportion of the country. Would you find it such an affront if the parents of the child who is allowed use cannabis oil were invited on?? You must have had a sh1tfit when Ozzy Osbourne was on a few years ago considering all the drugs he's done.

lightspeed

Omackeral wrote: »

Absolute nonsense or hyperbole, can't decide which. People bought OJ Simpson's book in droves and he was found "not guilty" of a murder. Look, people are interested in the macabre and always will be. It's why Charles Manson and Charles Bronson have had movies, books and interviews done about them. People are curious as to how these anamolies think and function, doesn't make you a scumbag and certainly doesn't put you on a bloody par with them.

Yes and people who bought OJs book knowing he was guilty were disgusting for doing so.

Lots of people still send around videos around of people getting beheaded and are entertained by it.

By the same logic, we should be welcoming ISIS members on the show and showing full length videos of beheadings, rapes etc. Throw it all in,

Are you not entertained?

weldoninhio

infogiver wrote: »

My licence fee funds RTE. Some standards of decency need to be met. Inviting a psycho on to one of the flagship programmes when he has had such a detrimental effect on our society is not meeting the standard.
What is to be gained by having him on?
What will he bring to the party?

Your license fee also funds an orchestra, listen to them for the half an hour if you feel you'd be too outraged watching an interview.

infogiver

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'm sure the movie that was based on his version of his life has been played, advertised and lauded on all networks in the US. HBO did a series of interviews with Michael Kuklinski too. Also why would JG claim that the state framed him for murder when he's never been convicted of it??

He says the State framed him for drugs crimes that he was convicted of.
HBO is not the State broadcaster in the US.
There is a difference.

Free-2-Flow

Could you imagine that the last thing Veronica Guerin thought about as her life was taken would be "my killer will be on the Late Late show for this"

Mind boggling.

Noddyholder

lightspeed wrote: »

Yes and people who bought OJs book knowing he was guilty were disgusting for doing so.

Lots of people still send around videos around of people getting beheaded and are entertained by it.

By the same logic, we should be welcoming ISIS members on the show and showing full length videos of beheadings, rapes etc. Throw it all in,

Are you not entertained?

Like or not John Gilligan is one of Irelands most infamous criminals & involved according to everyone including me in the unprecedented murder of a journalist, He claims he was framed & stitched up for the crime and was found not guilty of the murder itself.

So yes I would watch him on Tv to hear what he has to say once it was conducted by a very apt interviewer. IMO it be great seeing him make a complete twat of himself on tv.

You have some cheek calling folks scumbag and pond life like the other lad just because you disagree with others. What does that remind me of ?

infogiver

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ming Flanagan uses cannabis, as does a huge proportion of the country. Would you find it such an affront if the parents of the child who is allowed use cannabis oil were invited on?? You must have had a sh1tfit when Ozzy Osbourne was on a few years ago considering all the drugs he's done.

If you want to sit in front of the TV and cheer for a woman beating murdering scumbag who tortured anyone who got in his way and imported class A drugs that put children in the graveyard while he lived it up in his holiday home in Spain, then go right ahead.
That says far more about your character then anything else you've ever posted.

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

My licence fee funds RTE.

Mine does too. I have the option to watch or not watch, same way you do. Free choice is a great thing. Switch to RTE2 or RTE News while he's on, your tax dollars pay for those too, be a shame not to get use of them.

Noddyholder

infogiver wrote: »

If you want to sit in front of the TV and cheer for a woman beating murdering scumbag who tortured anyone who got in his way and imported class A drugs that put children in the graveyard while he lived it up in his holiday home in Spain, then go right ahead.
That says far more about your character then anything else you've ever posted.

What class A drug & what children in the graveyards ? At least try and know the background in what your writing about.

thecretinhop

Utter scumbag typical rte. This sociopathic reptile would more than likely get a fee which we would pay turgity would make it a soft interview he would lie through his teeth more than likely upset guerins family and hey it all ok the jokeshop latelate gets ratings. After valentines day just call it what is becoming the jermy kyle show.
Instead of hard work researching guests etc its much easier to go down the lazy sensational route.. ffs well worth our license fee

infogiver

Noddyholder wrote: »

What class A drug & what children in the graveyards ? At least try and know the background in what your writing about.

Ok noddy. Either you don't believe that he was convicted of drugs offences or you don't believe that any young people have died as a result of taking drugs.
Either of these is easily proven, incidentally.
Which is your issue or is it both?
You clearly think this man should be given a platform to put forth his case on the national broadcaster, despite him spending years putting forward his case in a public court of law, and having been found by that court to be a liar, so why do you think he should be given another chance to plead his innocence?

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

If you want to sit in front of the TV and cheer for a woman beating murdering scumbag

Show one instance in this thread where anyone said they would cheer him. Go on, I'll wait.

infogiver

Omackeral wrote: »

Mine does too. I have the option to watch or not watch, same way you do. Free choice is a great thing. Switch to RTE2 or RTE News while he's on, your tax dollars pay for those too, be a shame not to get use of them.

I'm sure if RTE advertised that the LLS was going to include a live bestiality show that a lot of people would tune in too, but does that make it alright? I suppose you'd still be telling me to change the channel if I don't like it?

weldoninhio

infogiver wrote: »

If you want to sit in front of the TV and cheer for a woman beating murdering scumbag who tortured anyone who got in his way and imported class A drugs that put children in the graveyard while he lived it up in his holiday home in Spain, then go right ahead.
That says far more about your character then anything else you've ever posted.

Who said anything about cheering?? I must have missed his murder, and Class A drug trafficking convictions, got a link??

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

Ok noddy. Either you don't believe that he was convicted of drugs offences or you don't believe that any young people have died as a result of taking drugs.
Either of these is easily proven, incidentally.
Which is your issue or is it both?
You clearly think this man should be given a platform to put forth his case on the national broadcaster, despite him spending years putting forward his case in a public court of law, and having been found by that court to be a liar, so why do you think he should be given another chance to plead his innocence?

I don't know if you deal in facts or not but he was convicted of importing hash. Don't think that puts the children of Ireland on graveyards. Actually, it's a popular train of thought to legalise it. You continue on in your outraged hyperbole though.

weldoninhio

infogiver wrote: »

Ok noddy. Either you don't believe that he was convicted of drugs offences or you don't believe that any young people have died as a result of taking drugs.
Either of these is easily proven, incidentally.
Which is your issue or is it both?
You clearly think this man should be given a platform to put forth his case on the national broadcaster, despite him spending years putting forward his case in a public court of law, and having been found by that court to be a liar, so why do you think he should be given another chance to plead his innocence?

No one has ever died from taking cannabis!! I'd love you to "easily prove" that they have.

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

I'm sure if RTE advertised that the LLS was going to include a live bestiality show that a lot of people would tune in too, but does that make it alright? I suppose you'd still be telling me to change the channel if I don't like it?

Cracking whataboutery and some leap. Like it or not, Gilligan is the most infamous figure of the last 25 years probably. There's an interest there for sure. Didn't think I'd hear the word bestaility before dinner today, where's your decency?