Should we protest against the pope's visit?

Kings wrote: »

Attempt as many cover ups and diversions and name calling as you like, but the victims and their families are not going to let this go. Interesting the panic a few very basic questions has caused.

no cover up or diversion. You are looking for a named individual to blame. such an individual does not and did not exist. Any "ban" was due to societal pressure, nothing more.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but not actually banned. RTE decided not to show it. That is not banned. Private enterprises decided not to show it. that is not banned either. I cant imagine documentaries were massive money spinners for cinemas anyway.

Yep but you have to consider, Ulysses wasn't ever banned here either. But it was very difficult to purchase because they made it pretty much impossible to ship into country. There's a fair few instances that operated in such a way. So while not a ban, I'm guessing there's was warning of some kind sent to RTE. I think other poster is getting overly riled up in relation to it since whatever happened isn't fully known.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are flailing your arms at a ghost that does not exist.

Attempt as many cover ups and diversions and name calling as you like, but the victims and their families are not going to let this go. Interesting the panic a few very basic questions has caused.

Irish Kings wrote: »

so victims of abuse and their families have no right to know who did this because they are dead. Hmmm this panic and deflection here is getting even more interesting.

you are flailing your arms at a ghost that does not exist.

tylercheribini wrote: »

Feeding trolls is my pastime..i hope you find peace in your life brother.

Calling people names for asking legitimate questions seems to be your actual pastime, and I am not your brother.

There will be peace when there is justice and the record has been set straight.

batgoat wrote: »

Yep, it was effectively banned from national broadcaster to be fair and a handful of art film festivals aired it basically. The latter was because clergy objected to it, former was because RTE privately agreed not to air.

but not actually banned. RTE decided not to show it. That is not banned. Private enterprises decided not to show it. that is not banned either. I cant imagine documentaries were massive money spinners for cinemas anyway.

Feeding trolls is my pastime..i hope you find peace in your life brother.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It’s already been said. Whoever banned it is most likely dead. Banning weren’t done by 21 year old interns. Most likely done by a person or group of people in their 50’s+ who had rank and seniority. That would make them 100+ now. Maybe you could track down people who got the presidents cheque in the last few years and cross reference them with where they worked and what position they held.

so victims of abuse and their families have no right to know who did this because they are dead. Hmmm this panic and deflection here is getting even more interesting.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So it was never actually banned.

Yep, it was effectively banned from national broadcaster to be fair and a handful of art film festivals aired it basically. The latter was because clergy objected to it, former was because RTE privately agreed not to air.

tylercheribini wrote: »

Watch the film instead.

I've already watched it, and I also ask any questions I like as well

Fighting Tao

Irish Kings wrote: »

you may not care, but there are plenty victims of church abuse and their families that do care who in the state collaborated with them.

It’s already been said. Whoever banned it is most likely dead. Banning weren’t done by 21 year old interns. Most likely done by a person or group of people in their 50’s+ who had rank and seniority. That would make them 100+ now. Maybe you could track down people who got the presidents cheque in the last few years and cross reference them with where they worked and what position they held.

Irish Kings wrote: »

I'm also free to ask whatever questions I like here, whether you like it or not.

Watch the film instead.

batgoat wrote: »

No specific names are named but there's no disputing that it was effectively banned.. The maker points out in this piece that airing in cinemas didn't go through because of local clergy as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/oct/11/1

I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive but the question is a bit like asking who banned Ulysses, it wasn't banned but for the most part, it was impossible to obtain in but I'd have to go to the national archives to pinpoint the public servant who authorised the custom's loophole to be enforced.

Kings wrote: »

why do the victims not have a right to know who it was ?

I just read the guardian article. Clearly you haven't.

I entered what was the first Irish feature-length film of any significance for the Cork film festival in 1967. How could they reject it? By disqualifying it on the grounds that it had had showings in Dublin - one screening for about 18 people. But, to the amazement of the Irish authorities, the film was selected to represent Ireland at the Cannes festival of 1968. The idea that an Irish feature film that was good enough for Cannes could not be screened at Ireland's only film festival was just too much.

So Cork gave us a screening. It was at lunchtime, on the day they had invited all the media out of town to a free oyster-and-Guinness lunch in Kenmore, 70 miles away. So we hired a hall the next day, causing more scandal. With the financial potential a scandal offers, one Dublin cinema took the film and ran it for seven weeks to gleeful audiences.

So it was never actually banned.

batgoat wrote: »

You are perfectly free to go to the National Archives to find the relevant records.

I'm also free to ask whatever questions I like here, whether you like it or not.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I personally don’t care who banned any film.

you may not care, but there are plenty victims of church abuse and their families that do care who in the state collaborated with them.

Irish Kings wrote: »

why do the victims not have a right to know who it was ?

You are perfectly free to go to the National Archives to find the relevant records. But overall, there's very little sense in finding the civil servant who rubber stamped it or whatever.

Irish Kings wrote: »

why do the victims not have a right to know who it was ?

there might not even be a single person responsible. There might not even be a record of the decision and that is assuming there even was an official decision. It could have been done on a nod and wink. In the scheme of things that have happened this is something very minor to get worked up over.

Fighting Tao

Irish Kings wrote: »

so you don't think it's important to name and shame who, you think 'de gubberment' is a satisfactory answer to the church and states victims ?

I personally don’t care who banned any film. Even a clockwork orange. Yes it was stupid and there were possibly outside pressures. The films aren’t banned now though. The IFCO tend not to ban films these days either.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Considering it was 50 years ago they are most likely dead.

why do the victims not have a right to know who it was ?

Irish Kings wrote: »

so you don't think it's important to name and shame who, you think 'de gubberment' is a satisfactory answer to the church and states victims ?

Considering it was 50 years ago they are most likely dead.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what do you expect to do with this information if you get it?

so you don't think it's important to name and shame who, you think 'de gubberment' is a satisfactory answer to the church and states victims ?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what do you expect to do with this information if you get it?

He ll be sent back through time to terminate with extreme prejudice

Irish Kings wrote: »

who in "the government", what was their name and position ?

Imagine if you will a world before the internet, satellite tv and home video,where the only mediums to consume the moving pictures were bog one and the cinema...i know its difficult.....

Kings wrote: »

who in "the government", what was their name and position ?

what do you expect to do with this information if you get it?

Irish Kings wrote: »

who in "the government", what was their name and position ?

No specific names are named but there's no disputing that it was effectively banned.. The maker points out in this piece that airing in cinemas didn't go through because of local clergy as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/oct/11/1

I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive but the question is a bit like asking who banned Ulysses, it wasn't banned but for the most part, it was impossible to obtain in Ireland but I'd have to go to the national archives to pinpoint the public servant who authorised the custom's loophole to be enforced.

batgoat wrote: »

The Irish government didn't officially ban it but prevented the national broadcaster from airing it alongside cinemas. So effectively a ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Road_to_Dublin_(film)#Response_in_Ireland

who in "the government", what was their name and position ?

Irish Kings wrote: »

Banned by who in the state exactly ?

Name some actual names and shame.

The Irish government didn't officially ban it but prevented the national broadcaster from airing it alongside cinemas. So effectively a ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Road_to_Dublin_(film)#Response_in_Ireland

Fighting Tao

Irish Kings wrote: »

Banned by who in the state exactly ?

Name some actual names and shame.

Most likely the film classification office. Not sure where you’d get names of past individuals working there from.

Irish Kings wrote: »

Banned by who in the state exactly ?

Name some actual names and shame.

Your ma