Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should we protest against the pope's visit?

1…4849515354…79

Comments

  • #1502
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    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.


  • #1503
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • #1504
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,015 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    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.....


  • #1505
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,015 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    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


  • #1506
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    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 ?


  • Advertisement
  • #1507
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #1508
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    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 ?


  • #1509
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1510
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #1511
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1512
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    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.


  • #1513
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    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.


  • #1514
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #1515
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,015 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    Irish Kings wrote: »
    I'm also free to ask whatever questions I like here, whether you like it or not.

    Watch the film instead.


  • #1516
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1517
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    tylercheribini wrote: »
    Watch the film instead.

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


  • #1518
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    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.


  • #1519
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    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.


  • #1520
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,015 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


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


  • #1521
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1522
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    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.


  • #1523
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #1524
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    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.


  • #1525
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    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.


  • #1526
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,925 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • #1527
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Irish 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.

    I don’t see anyone panicked here. What I see is you being aggressive with almost everyone in the thread for no reason. If you aren’t happy with the answers you are getting from random strangers here then look for answers elsewhere. Everyone has limited knowledge and it is being shared with you. Research yourself if not satisfied.


  • #1528
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    I don’t see anyone panicked here. What I see is you being aggressive with almost everyone in the thread for no reason. If you aren’t happy with the answers you are getting from random strangers here then look for answers elsewhere. Everyone has limited knowledge and it is being shared with you. Research yourself if not satisfied.

    Instead of a simple don't know, I got name calling, panic and diversion. Interesting responses that only raise my interest.
    Sine when did you designate yourself as the representative and manger of "Everyone" ? The good old days for that type of shenanigans are over. I'll ask whatever questions I like, where I like, when I like, and I won't be forced away from doing so.


  • #1529
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,514 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    tylercheribini wrote: »
    For the unitiated a fantastic documentary depicting a different Ireland, which was banned for decades due to its anti-church stance, "Tge Rocky Road To Dublin"

    https://youtu.be/7kaAQHj9Efk

    thank you for posting that. it was an interesting watch.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1530
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,254 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    We genuinely hadn't even thought of that to be honest, but it's a valid point. If an already overfilled infants classroom has a teacher spending an inordinate amount of time trying to communicate with a significant portion of that class, then everyone else's education will suffer.. which may go to your point above.

    Yet people are happy to send kids with no understanding of Irish to Gaelscoils where they do total immersion in Irish for a year.

    Ah but... that's different... :rolleyes:

    Irish Kings wrote: »
    I'm also free to ask whatever questions I like here, whether you like it or not.

    Sure. And people are free to point and laugh at utterly stupid questions.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Advertisement
  • #1531
    Hannibal_Smith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    Irish Kings wrote: »
    Instead of a simple don't know, I got name calling, panic and diversion. Interesting responses that only raise my interest.
    Sine when did you designate yourself as the representative and manger of "Everyone" ? The good old days for that type of shenanigans are over. I'll ask whatever questions I like, where I like, when I like, and I won't be forced away from doing so.

    You're not being forced away? It's been made clear that people here don't have the name of the person who banned the film and they have given you suggestions on how you might trace them.

    Have you made any progress?


Advertisement