Controversial Princess Diana film Banned in US & UK

It's funny how you conspiracy theorists work.
Nowhere in the article does it say that the movie is banned anywhere. Yet because you are so fixated on the fact that a conspiracy does exist (based on flimsy evidence and no REAL proof), you automatically think that "not shown" means the same thing as "banned".

Keep the laughs coming guys. I always know where to come for good free entertainment.

reply to post by Suspiria

She had no choice. The world needed to know what happened. It was screaming to know.

Why do you think she was so popular? She thought about other people before she thought about herself.

I find it really hard not to be cynical and think this is simply an attempt by the producers to interest North Americans in their otherwise uninteresting documentary.

There is an entire generation that doesnt know who she is and what the big deal is. Especially in the US and Canada. And there is my generation, many of whom dont care about the tragic but irrelevant death of a european Royal that happened decades ago.

Banning people from watching a documentary - people who havent shown any interest in watching it in the first place, can only be a ploy for ratings....and it will probably work. At least to a degree.

Besides, it is the 21st century for $%?& sakes. Ban it everywhere or expect it on the internet.

The whole thing smells of manipulation

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Suspiria
Mohamed Al Fayed is a friggin nutjob. His son died because he was courting a media whore.

That was a fairly simplistic answer. How about poking around some instead?
Start here:

Better things to do with my time quite frankly.

My apologies, then. Given the pithiness of your remarks, I assumed you might wish to gain some actual insight into what you were talking about. There is a very peculiar story there...but it is always easier to blame the victims, now, isn't it?

This is brilliant

That Mitchell and Webb Look - Diana Assassination

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Suspiria
Mohamed Al Fayed is a friggin nutjob. His son died because he was courting a media whore.

That was a fairly simplistic answer. How about poking around some instead?
Start here:

Better things to do with my time quite frankly.

My apologies, then. Given the pithiness of your remarks, I assumed you might wish to gain some actual insight into what you were talking about. There is a very peculiar story there...but it is always easier to blame the victims, now, isn't it?

Have to agree there, "Better things to do" we have to presume is on the last shuttle to Narnia. Okay, there can be times to be cryptic in a post, but to do that requires to be calling someone out, I don't see that done by " Better things to do"

Well, I deeply apologies for failing to be swept away by all the martyr worship, it's obviously a fault in my nature.
As is my nature of not being swept away by every conspiracy known to man.

Oh hell, maybe I am a little bitter if anything. I was heavily pregnant at the time and my son was due to be born the day she was buried. Imagine that, what should be a joyous time of your life pissed upon from a great height by weeks of people walking round with a face like a smacked arse, crying over someone they'd never even given a # about or had an opinion of whilst alive. The whole nation whipped up in mass hysterical grief. Overnight she became some saint. Families acting just as ridiculous as people here, arguments breaking out if you suddenly didn't worship the woman. Like it or lump it, I still maintain it was and still is all bollocks.

Originally posted by MysticPearl
I didn't know about the documentary until it was banned, causing this thread to be made.

It wasn't banned.

Originally posted by Unity_99
How can it be legal to censor or ban information?

Where does it say it was 'banned'?

Originally posted by Stupe
It's funny how you conspiracy theorists work.
Nowhere in the article does it say that the movie is banned anywhere. Yet because you are so fixated on the fact that a conspiracy does exist (based on flimsy evidence and no REAL proof), you automatically think that "not shown" means the same thing as "banned".

There are some on sites like this like to think they are more aware, more awake than 'the sheeple'.
The sad truth is there are conspiracy sheeple just as there are msm sheeple.
Each refuses to believe in anything that doesn't fit in with their particular dogma - as opposed to actually engaging their brain cells.
In fact I think anyone who posts false (as in 'lie') subject headings should get at least a temporary posting ban - it might just raise the standards. In the meantime the OP might care to look up the difference between 'dropped' and 'banned'.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Infi8nity

 

So how and WHY is it banned hear? We are not the U.K (EU) how can they tell us what we can watch unless.... You put the pieces together.

Rather than 'putting the pieces together' and coming up with some stupid, paranoid fantasy, you could just do a bit of googling, and find the film-maker's own account of why the film is banned in some jurisdictions.

Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see by Keith Allen in The Guardian.

The internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana...

You'll have to use your finger to read the rest.

Or it could just be a cover story.... witch their would be if the Governments really did censor it.
They could have threatened the maker of the film.
Or it could just be some marketing scheme.

Originally posted by Suspiria
Well, I deeply apologies for failing to be swept away by all the martyr worship, it's obviously a fault in my nature...
As is my nature of not being swept away by every conspiracy known to man.

I trust your son is a hale and healthy lad by now. I agree that celebrity worship is bollocks. But there is more to this circumstance than meets the eye...which was my point. And if it can happen to rich pukes, then it can sure happen to us. I'm interested in seeing how, and just which, roaches scatter in the light.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

I was compelled to comment because of your tone in the post referenced by the quote above.

I'm pleased to see my tone stimulated a compulsive response in you, as intended.

You offer a link as clarification of why the film was not being shown in the USA, as that was the question you were responding to, yet this link you provided stated absolutely NOTHING regarding the fact that the film will not be released in the US.

My apologies for assuming that the average ATS member possesses a smidgen of intelligence. As is well known, America is the world's most litigious country. A film that can't be shown in the UK without suffering 64 cuts to make it non-actionable is unlikely to enjoy release in America without being dragged through the courts. I should have thought that was obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a cave, a basement or a trailer park.

The article also offers, between the lines, an explanation as to why the film is so actionable. Basically, Allen is making accusations based his own interpretation of the character and motives of various influential figures, based on little or no evidence. He is assuming a silent conspiracy, in which the actors don't actually conspire but simply act independently, knowing the minds of their fellow-conspirators.

So apparently you should take your time to read more thoroughly.

And you should get yourself a horse you can mount without needing a stepladder.

Some of you are dense. The reason they can't get liability insurance for this film is because some higher ups don't want the film to be released publicly. Duh.

Originally posted by WWu777
The reason they can't get liability insurance for this film is because some higher ups don't want the film to be released publicly.

They can get insurance, they just do not want to pay for it.

The people are dense that think she was somehow special.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
when corrupt governments say you can't have that information.

When did a government say you could not watch this?