Republican prisoners

Poccington

junder wrote: »

you would proberly find that it would be the republican prisoners who would be at risk from the ODC's rather then the other way round, which is more likely the reason that republican prisoners are sepprated.

Definitely not.

FTA69

you would proberly find that it would be the republican prisoners who would be at risk from the ODC's rather then the other way round, which is more likely the reason that republican prisoners are sepprated.

Yeah. I'm sure the likes of Micky McKevitt is sh*tting himself.

No criminal in his right mind would contemplate attacking a prisoner affiliated to the likes of the Real IRA because he'd be banged the minute he came out of jail. Republican prisoners insist on being segregated because it's a key element in their declaration to be distinct from criminal prisoners, not because they're afraid.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

They will refuse to share their landings with criminals, and they're well able to engineer a situation where criminals will be expelled from those landings.

As I said (and this applies to ALL criminals) they should not be able to refuse anything; having committed serious crimes, they shouldn't have a say in where they're housed.

FTA69 wrote: »

No criminal in his right mind would contemplate attacking a prisoner affiliated to the likes of the Real IRA because he'd be banged the minute he came out of jail.

Says a lot for them, really.....I mean, I thought they were locked up because of their political beliefs, and not because they are violent thugs.

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the language of criminals and violent thugs, can you explain what "banged" means ? Does it mean kneecapped ? Or murdered ? Or - in prison parlance - "banged" ?

FTA69 wrote: »

Republican prisoners insist on being segregated because it's a key element in their declaration to be distinct from criminal prisoners, not because they're afraid.

They can make that distinction all they like, but the rest of us don't. And they - like all criminals - don't follow society's democratically-decided rules, and we definitely shouldn't have to follow their made-up arbitrary ones.

FTA69

As I said (and this applies to ALL criminals) they should not be able to refuse anything; having committed serious crimes, they shouldn't have a say in where they're housed.

Again you're missing the point. Prison authorities actually facilitate segregation because it's easier for all concerned. It isn't as if Republicans are holding the gaff to hostage against everyone's will. Republicans aren't going to share their landings with criminals, simple as. You seem to be in favour of somehow forcing prison authorities into creating havoc within a maximum security prison because you don't like the idea of Republican prisoners sharing a landing. Generally Republican prisoners don't get any special treatment within the prison system, the likes of civilian clothes, education instead of work, visits, letters, remission etc were conceeded to all prisoners years ago.

Segregation in itself isn't even a unique privilage for Republicans, it's even done in St Pats.

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the language of criminals and violent thugs, can you explain what "banged" means ? Does it mean kneecapped ? Or murdered ? Or - in prison parlance - "banged" ?

I imagine those respective organisations would be of the position that any criminal who attacks their prisoners will meet a sticky end. The prisoner issue is often a sensitive one within these groups.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

I imagine those respective organisations would be of the position that any criminal who attacks their prisoners will meet a sticky end. The prisoner issue is often a sensitive one within these groups.

So they are a bunch of violent thugs, then. And their actions and views on violence have nothing to do with politics, just on generally getting their own way and annihilating anyone who disagrees with them or gets in their way.

Thanks for the clarification.

dvpower

FTA69 wrote: »

Prison authorities actually facilitate segregation because it's easier for all concerned. It isn't as if Republicans are holding the gaff to hostage against everyone's will. Republicans aren't going to share their landings with criminals, simple as.

The blog post that the OP linked to suggests that segregation is no longer going to be facilitated. What, apart from a protest outside the prison, can the prisoners do?

Surely it is up to the prison authorities and the Deptartment of Justice to decide how prisoners are to be housed. They may not see themselves as criminals, but the state, who is imprisoning them, do.

IRISH REPUBLICAN PRISONERS ARE NOT CRIMINALS

and Irish Republicans will not stand by while the Free State administration attempts to treat them as such.

Portlaoise Prison protest: the Free State regime are attempting to place Irish Republican POW's on the same prison landing where criminals are presently incarcerated in Portlaoise Prison..

OS119

dvpower wrote: »

The blog post that the OP linked to suggests that segregation is no longer going to be facilitated. What, apart from a protest outside the prison, can the prisoners do?

possibly the most idiotic question ever asked on the internet.

'how can armed Republican groups influence the running and policies of the state prison services?'

i counted the deaths of 28 NI Prison Officers in 19 years - including two Govenors and one assistant Govenor - and the wife of one them.

were i a prison officer whose name was known to RIRA/CIRA/INLA, i'm not sure i'd be awfully keen on taking an overly hardline on segregation issues for a measly €40k a year - the odds don't look that attractive...

FTA69

What, apart from a protest outside the prison, can the prisoners do?

Riot. Attack criminal prisoners put on their landing. The latter would result in a case of criminals refusing to go on the upper landings. As I said, it would create pandemonium within the jail, even if they do remove it (like the Brits did after the Hunger Strikes) chances are it will go back to de facto segregation anyway due to the prison authorities finding it easier. De facto segregation already exists in most other prisons anyway, out of conveniance alone.

Liam,

So they are a bunch of violent thugs,

I personally wouldn't view them as thugs, and I can see why they wouldn't put up with criminals attacking their incarcerated members.

dvpower

FTA69 wrote: »

Riot. Attack criminal prisoners put on their landing. The latter would result in a case of criminals refusing to go on the upper landings. As I said, it would create pandemonium within the jail, even if they do remove it (like the Brits did after the Hunger Strikes) chances are it will go back to de facto segregation anyway due to the prison authorities finding it easier. De facto segregation already exists in most other prisons anyway, out of conveniance alone.

Liam,



I personally wouldn't view them as thugs, and I can see why they wouldn't put up with criminals attacking their incarcerated members.

They're not a bunch of thugs, but they would riot and attack other prisoners?

What would one need to do before you would call him a thug?

dvpower

OS119 wrote: »

possibly the most idiotic question ever asked on the internet.

That would have to be really idiotic. I'll take that as a bit of hyperbole on your part

OS119 wrote: »

were i a prison officer whose name was known to RIRA/CIRA/INLA, i'm not sure i'd be awfully keen on taking an overly hardline on segregation issues for a measly €40k a year - the odds don't look that attractive...

Sounds to me like the segregation is there because the prisoners have the upper hand, not the state. Its a sad state of affairs, I'm sure you'd agree, where the lawful authorities in the country cower in the face of their prisoners.

FTA69

That would have to be really idiotic. I'll take that as a bit of hyperbole on your part

He's right though. You're labouring under the delusion that an organised body of paramilitary prisoners with a command structure couldn't create havoc within a prison. They can. And if you try and put criminals onto their landings, they will. They mightn't be as large or homogenous or capable as the Provisional IRA structure pre-1998, but they do have the ability to make a lot of unnecessary trouble within Portlaoise.

Sounds to me like the segregation is there because the prisoners have the upper hand, not the state.

The fact they're in jail would indicate to me it's the state that has the upper hand in that particular arrangement.

To reiterate my above point, who do people give a sh*t over who's on a landing with who?

Why is it so important to ye that people from a particular group aren't housed together anyway?

dvpower

FTA69 wrote: »

He's right though. You're labouring under the delusion that an organised body of paramilitary prisoners with a command structure couldn't create havoc within a prison.

Don't know where you get that idea from. I asked a question about what they could do? I fully expected the answer would involve violence or the threat of violence; it is their stock in trade.

FTA69 wrote: »

To reiterate my above point, who do people give a sh*t over who's on a landing with who?

Why is it so important to ye that people from a particular group aren't housed together anyway?

I'm not too bothered where they are housed; I'd leave that up to the prison authorities to sort out.
But it seems that the prison authorities (or their superiors) want to end segregation (I'd be interested in knowing why), hence this tread.

But, as I said, its a sad situation for the state to be in if it can't impose its will on prisoners.

OS119

dvpower wrote: »

Sounds to me like the segregation is there because the prisoners have the upper hand, not the state. Its a sad state of affairs, I'm sure you'd agree, where the lawful authorities in the country cower in the face of their prisoners.

prison officers, assuming their names are known to prisoners and they and their families aren't going to live in some 'Green Zone' type fortress, have always been one of the weakest links in the security of the CJ system. either protect them from the possibility of intimidation or live with the fact that that getting sent a picture of your daughter walking to school is going to influence you more than public and political opinion.

the other practical reason that terrorist prisoners are held together is that they represent both the most dangerous, and most likely to attempt to escape inmates - ergo they go to maximum security units, of which there are few, and given that only a madman would attempt to put members of differing groups in the same area (they eventually kill each other), you end up - by defualt as much as policy - with segregated political wings.

we accept that sex-offenders can't exist within the mainstream prison system - they'd be beaten to death by the ODC's - we may not like it for the reasons you alluded to, but we accept it. i see no real difference for the politicals, as long as the 'deal' goes no further than segregation.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Riot. Attack criminal prisoners put on their landing.

FTA69 wrote: »

I personally wouldn't view them as thugs, and I can see why they wouldn't put up with criminals attacking their incarcerated members.

I'm confused. Which criminals are attacking which, again ?

Your first statement said that the so-called "republican" criminals would be pre-emptively attacking the others in order to "engineer" a riot, and then you're trying to imply that any attack by the "republicans" would be some sort of retaliation ?

Which is it ?

* With due apologies to all true republicans who don't support criminal activity, violence and murder

Victor

Sleepy wrote: »

[pedant] They're not 'prisoners'. They're 'convicts'.[/pedant]

Whatever about the people being discussed, not everyone in prison is a convict, some are on remand awaiting trial.

Stabshauptmann

FTA69 wrote: »

Dessie O'Hare was actually in Castelrea before he was released.

Portlaoise contains a number of Republican prisoners, people from the CIRA, RIRA, a number of prisoners who split off from the Real IRA and are associated with Michael McKevitt, a couple of Provos and a swollen group of INLA prisoners, many of whom are there as a result of Declan Duffy's antics in Dublin.

I understand that dissidents are still there because they didnt sign up to the GFA. But why are there any provos left?

junder

Poccington wrote: »

Definitely not.

The crimanals are no longer scared of the paramiltrays, intergrate the prisons and you will some the so called top republicans shanked in the showers. Just because you join the paramiltarys does not make you hard

junder

FTA69 wrote: »

Yeah. I'm sure the likes of Micky McKevitt is sh*tting himself.

No criminal in his right mind would contemplate attacking a prisoner affiliated to the likes of the Real IRA because he'd be banged the minute he came out of jail. Republican prisoners insist on being segregated because it's a key element in their declaration to be distinct from criminal prisoners, not because they're afraid.

i would not be suprized if some of those dublin gangs are better armed then mickys lot

OS119

junder wrote: »

i would not be suprized if some of those dublin gangs are better armed then mickys lot

sorry mate, you're talking out of your arse.

armed republicanism - any and all the groups - are not going to accept republican prisoners even from other, rival groups being firstly placed, and then assulted by 'ODC's' within the prison system. its their big, red line, the 'holy grail' of how to offend them. they will react violently both to those who do attack their prisoners, and to the state which manufactures the situation in which that occurs.

if you are aware of a criminal gang - outwith Republicanism, that has access to and the capability to use effectively - such weapons as RPG18's and RPG22's, mortars and bombs of upto 1100lb, as well as the normal individual weapons of choice - perhaps you should contact AGS, 'coz they certainly aren't.

FTA69

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

I understand that dissidents are still there because they didnt sign up to the GFA. But why are there any provos left?

They were members of the Provisional IRA who were charged with offenses committed after the signing of the GFA.

FTA69

junder wrote: »

The crimanals are no longer scared of the paramiltrays, intergrate the prisons and you will some the so called top republicans shanked in the showers. Just because you join the paramiltarys does not make you hard

"Shanked"? Been watching Oz have we?

I never said joining a paramilitary group made you hard, "hardness" isn't necessarily what these particular groups look for anyway. Criminal prisoners know full well that if they attacked a Republican in jail they alone would be targeted by that entire organisation both inside and outside the jail. In other words they wouldn't bother.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

"Shanked"? Been watching Oz have we?

I reckon he was just looking for an alternative to "banged".

Non-Republican Criminal prisoners know full well that if they attacked a criminal Republican in jail they alone would be targeted by that entire organisation both inside and outside the jail.

Two comments on this.

Firstly, stop trying to making it appear like the "Republican" prisoners are non-criminals.

Secondly, you're proving again that they don't engage in violence because of any political beliefs; they do it to get their own way, with no regard for the law of the land or the rights of others.

FTA69

Firstly, stop trying to making it appear like the "Republican" prisoners are non-criminals.

Firstly, stop telling me what terminology to use.

Secondly, despite the fact you're having kittens over certain words being used in this discussion, Republican prisoners (and political prisoners in general, e.g ETA in Spanish jails) are generally a different breed to the likes of drug-dealers and those who commit crime for personal gain.

Now in your eyes there might not be any element of moral superiority between the two, and that's fair enough. But they are different.

Secondly, you're proving again that they don't engage in violence because of any political beliefs; they do it to get their own way, with no regard for the law of the land or the rights of others.

The fact an organisation will prevent criminals from attacking its members, or prevent criminals from entering landings occupied by political prisoners does not mean that organisation is inherently apolitical.

junder

FTA69 wrote: »

"Shanked"? Been watching Oz have we?

I never said joining a paramilitary group made you hard, "hardness" isn't necessarily what these particular groups look for anyway. Criminal prisoners know full well that if they attacked a Republican in jail they alone would be targeted by that entire organisation both inside and outside the jail. In other words they wouldn't bother.

14yr old joy riders are not afriad of them so why would hardnened crimanls many of whom belong to far larger groups then your average disserdent

Sleepy

FTA69 wrote: »

You're labouring under the delusion that an organised body of paramilitary prisoners with a command structure couldn't create havoc within a prison. They can. And if you try and put criminals onto their landings, they will.

I don't get it, are you now demanding that every criminal associated with armed republicanism should get their own landing rather than just a cell?

OS119 wrote:

only a madman would attempt to put members of differing groups in the same area (they eventually kill each other)

Call me a madman if you like but if two groups of vicious criminals want to kill each other and no civilians are going to get hurt in the meantime, I'm all for it.

Liam Byrne

The fact an illegal and criminal organisation will prevent other criminals from attacking its members, or prevent other criminals from entering state-owned institutional landings occupied by "political" prisoners jailed for committing crimes does not mean that organisation is inherently apolitical.

1) It proves that they will use violence to get their own way, in a manner unacceptable to the majority of this country, and are therefore no better than other thugs

2) The "landing" is not owned by the "political prisoners"; it is a state-owned institution, and it's up to the state to decide, not the criminals.

If the state decides that the state and prison officers' best interests are served by keeping them separate, then fair enough; if the state decides that they are to be combined, then fair enough.

The criminals themselves should have no say. They could have avoided being locked up if they bothered to obey the law.

Threatening prison officers or other criminals should not be a factor and should be stamped out; the state should run the prisons as it sees fit, not the criminals.

FTA69

Liam Byrne wrote: »

1) It proves that they will use violence to get their own way, in a manner unacceptable to the majority of this country, and are therefore no better than other thugs

2) The "landing" is not owned by the "political prisoners"; it is a state-owned institution, and it's up to the state to decide, not the criminals.

If the state decides that the state and prison officers' best interests are served by keeping them separate, then fair enough; if the state decides that they are to be combined, then fair enough.

The criminals themselves should have no say. They could have avoided being locked up if they bothered to obey the law.

Threatening prison officers or other criminals should not be a factor and should be stamped out; the state should run the prisons as it sees fit, not the criminals.

Again, why do you give a sh*t about who shares a landing with who?

Sleepy

For a start, allowing members of the same pseudo military organisation to share cells away from other prisoners fosters an environment where it's easier for them to organise subvertive action and/or escape attempts within the prison system.

For a second point, it allows them to promote the notion that they're somehow in a different category than the other prisoners they're sharing our governments hospitality with and worthy of special treatment.

I'd have a similar problem with members of the McCarthy-Dundon or Keane-Collopy organisations being facilitated in the same manner.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Again, why do you give a sh*t about who shares a landing with who?

Who said I did ?

What I give a **** about is ensuring that the criminals and their external buddies can't and don't dictate to the state. They made their choices.

OS119

Liam Byrne wrote: »

....What I give a **** about is ensuring that the criminals and their external buddies can't and don't dictate to the state. They made their choices.

thats a perfectly valid view, i know that because its what i think should happen - Primacy of the Law and all that...

however, it doesn't survive contact with reality given that a) the practicalities of securing very high risk prisoners means they all get lumped together in one very expensive, well guarded facility instead of lots of different hyper-expensive, well guarded facilities, and b) like it or not (not in my case) Armed Republican groups have shown a willingness to go to war with the state over the treatment of prisoners - if you are prepared to have that war, fine - but don't expect that it won't involve lots of Prison Officers ending up dead and seriously injured, as well as your tax bills going through the roof.

hence we put up with it, its cheaper, its less hassle, and it keeps them all in one place - and we'd probably do it anyway.