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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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 ?
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.
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.
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??
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.
Omackeral wrote: » There's always the option to just not watch it.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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??
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?
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.