Doctor DooM wrote: » It was probably caused by a fake DMCA take down notice from someone upset by the content. This kind of crap happens often on youtube from both sides of the fence.
Rev Hellfire wrote: » Funny thing is it just serves to get more people to view the channel in the long run. I'd never bothered with it until I heard it was blocked for example.
A spokeswoman for Google told TheJournal.ie that it had “nothing to do with censorship” as had been earlier speculated on by the director of the conservative think tank, David Quinn. The spokeswoman said the account’s temporary removal was a “verification issue”. Quinn said on Twitter this evening: “Seemingly we hadn’t responded to an email from them verifying our account.”
The Black Oil wrote: » I think we've all probably let an online verification thing slip by one time or another, wouldn't really fault him there, but he jumped on the censorship assumption pretty quickly - a bit desperate. Happy for their videos to stay up so we can see the subsequent parodies.
kylith wrote: » The Iona Institute is NOT a religious institute, says Patricia Casey, patron.http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/01/21/is-the-iona-catholic/ So... if they're getting charitable status based on their 'promotion of religion', but their patron has said, live on air, that they're NOT a religious institute, doesn't that mean that their charitable status is based on a fraudulent claim, and should be revoked? Who can I write to about this?
13 Charitable Activity - (a) Please indicate under which of the charitable headings - Relief of Poverty, Advancement of Education, Advancement of Religion, Other purpose of Benefit to the Community, the application is being made. (b) Give a brief summary of the activities which are or will be carried on by the body to further the main object as set out in its governing instrument.
Michael Nugent wrote: » The message on the channel's page says: "This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Service."
recedite wrote: » According to document CHY1 here (from the Revenue website) they would have to submit their reason for being considered a charity, based on the following choices;If they are now denying that their main purpose is "the advancement of religion" then presumably they now have to show that they have some "Other Purpose of Benefit to the Community." I'd love to know what they wrote on that application form, as regards their purposes and activities, but I'd be pretty sure if you wrote to Revenue now and asked them, the reply would be "we don't disclose info on individual cases." Two people have already done this and posted those kind of replies, as received back from Revenue, earlier in this thread.
The Black Oil wrote: » Can you put in FoI requests about orgs like this, or what's the story there?
Peregrinus wrote: » I don't see them generating large profits, to be honest.
mambo wrote: » According to duedil.com (which it's free to sign up for), Lolek Ltd (trading as Iona Institute) had profits: 2011 €46,502 2010 €2,829 2009 €41,686
mambo wrote: » One director is... "Maeve Kelleher is married with six children. She is a stay-at-home mother."http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=99 Maeve is or was a director of 28 companies according to duedil.com - so she's more than a stay-at-home mother.
lazygal wrote: » Maeve Kelleher is a WORKING mother of six children, even if she directs all those companies from home. Working mothers, I bet David has something to say about that! I must tweet him for a comment.
Dades wrote: » Speaking of Tweets - the Pope's been at it again. I love trolling the Pope. Amazed they even show the replies he gets.
krudler wrote: » Note to self, troll Pope
Sarky wrote: » Wee Davey Quinn has already pretty much said that if you ignore everything except Chapter 8 in today's Magdalene Laundries report, it's not too bad. What a wonderful human being.
