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

Republican prisoners

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,253 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Those armed criminals don't go to war with anybody. They murder civilians.


  • Options
    #63
    Poccington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    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

    The "normal" prisoners are still scared of Republican prisoners. In Portlaoise, the Republican prisoners are left alone by other prisoners. They know not to mess with them and in turn, the Republicans keep to themselves.

    If you integrated the landings in Portlaoise and a Republican got shanked, especially a high ranking member... The place would kick off big time

    [QUOTE=Liam Byrne;64172820[/QUOTE]

    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.[/QUOTE]

    It shouldn't be a factor, unfortunately it is though.

    I know of one Prison Officer that had to move house twice as a result of crossing Republican prisoners. It shouldn't be that way but PO's working in Portlaoise have families and their own safety to think of. As it is now, the Republicans keep to themselves and don't cause any trouble. When they're crossed, the above is an example of what it can result in.

    It's all well and good saying the state should run the prison as they see fit etc. but you're not a Prison Officer working in the prison. You don't have to worry about your own safety or your families safety if somethin happens.

    As it is, the way Portlaoise is run works. If they decide to start rocking the boat just for the sake of sticking it to the prisoners, PO's will suffer because they're dealing with prisoners all day.

    At the end of the day, the prisoners aren't going anywhere in a hurry.


  • Options
    #64
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    FTA69 wrote: »
    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.


    It seems that they do. Bizarre if true.
    Republican prisoners in Portlaoise maximum security jail enjoy a relaxed regime in which they hold military-style parades, have murals on the walls and can order in steak dinners, it has emerged.

    The Prison Officers’ Association (POA) said it is “alarmed” the parades are permitted and said prison officers even had to withdraw from landings when the dissident subversive groups were parading.

    POA deputy general secretary Eugene Dennehy said there were “huge murals” on the walls of landings similar to “something you’d see on the gable end of a house in west Belfast”.

    He also said flaps had been put on the CCTV cameras on the landings to limit the area the cameras can cover in the jails. He called on Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern to intervene.

    I came across this while looking for the story behind the OP's claim that segregation was to end. I can't find any report of any such move.


  • Options
    #65
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    It funny because if a Brit soldier had shot them you wouldn't consider them murderers. Typical.


  • Options
    #66
    Poccington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    dvpower wrote: »
    It seems that they do. Bizarre if true.



    I came across this while looking for the story behind the OP's claim that segregation was to end. I can't find any report of any such move.

    There is parades and there is murals.

    Couldn't tell you about the camera flaps though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    PomBear wrote: »
    It funny because if a Brit soldier had shot them you wouldn't consider them murderers. Typical.

    Right on.
    The prison service are just a big gang of kidnappers.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #68
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    dvpower wrote: »
    Right on.
    The prison service are just a big gang of kidnappers.:rolleyes:


    no, they are political prisoners, US and UK soldiers kill civilians every day but i don't see them being imprisoned


  • Options
    #69
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    PomBear wrote: »
    no, they are political prisoners, US and UK soldiers kill civilians every day but i don't see them being imprisoned

    You think they shouldn't be imprisoned?:eek:


  • Options
    #70
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    PomBear wrote: »
    no, they are political prisoners, US and UK soldiers kill civilians every day but i don't see them being imprisoned

    It's a topic for a separate thread, but what makes you think people wouldn't want to see them imprisoned ?

    Anyway, the criminals we are discussing have not only been arrested, but convicted and imprisoned, and even their supporters here agree that they would resort to non-political violence and intimidation if they didn't get their own way, so the above is a red herring, tbh.


  • Options
    #71
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    dvpower wrote: »
    You think they shouldn't be imprisoned?:eek:

    I believe dissidents fight is as legitimate and probably more legitimate than the US and UK force but yet one is imprisoned and one isn't. Its not sensical


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    It's a topic for a separate thread, but what makes you think people wouldn't want to see them imprisoned ?

    Anyway, the criminals we are discussing have not only been arrested, but convicted and imprisoned, and even their supporters here agree that they would resort to non-political violence and intimidation if they didn't get their own way, so the above is a red herring, tbh.


    I don't understand what point you're trying to make? Because dissidents resort to 'non-political' violence my point is irrelevant??


  • Options
    #73
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    PomBear wrote: »
    I believe dissidents fight is as legitimate and probably more legitimate than the US and UK force but yet one is imprisoned and one isn't. Its not sensical

    UK and US forces when captured by their enemies (e.g. the Taliban in Afghanistan) are imprisoned (or, more likely, executed).

    Who else would you expect to imprison UK or US troops? Their own governments?


  • Options
    #74
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    PomBear wrote: »
    I don't understand what point you're trying to make? Because dissidents resort to 'non-political' violence my point is irrelevant??

    No, it's not irrelevant in general, but the thread is about "republican prisoners".

    And so debating what should be done with other people who aren't (a) republican or (b) prisoners is irrelevant.

    I mean, if I said "Bertie Ahern should be in jail", that would be off-topic too.

    My additional reference to their "non-political" violence and intimidation tendencies was purely to show that the "political" angle is purely a red herring, as they are in prison because they are violent thugs.

    If I was in prison for beating someone who'd - god forbid - attacked my niece, for example, I wouldn't go intimidating or beating anyone else who simply didn't let me have my own way while in prison.


  • Options
    #75
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,436 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    PomBear wrote: »
    I believe dissidents fight is as legitimate and probably more legitimate than the US and UK force but yet one is imprisoned and one isn't. Its not sensical
    So, getting about 5%* of the poll in the referendum on the Belfast Agreement creates some sort of legitimacy? At least Bush and Blair got elected and re-elected.



    * Note that given the extremeness of the poll result, a material percentage may have been from people who intended voting Yes, but actually voted No, whereas in a normal result such errors would balance each other.


  • Options
    #76
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    dvpower wrote: »
    UK and US forces when captured by their enemies (e.g. the Taliban in Afghanistan) are imprisoned (or, more likely, executed).

    Who else would you expect to imprison UK or US troops? Their own governments?

    They aren't imprisoned, they are kidnapped, they aren't tried and convicted and help in a prison which is what they deserve in terms of justice when they kill civilians, and yes I would imprison politicians, they are the most responsible. They don't call George Bush and Tony Blair war criminals for nothing


  • Options
    #77
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    No, it's not irrelevant in general, but the thread is about "republican prisoners".

    And so debating what should be done with other people who aren't (a) republican or (b) prisoners is irrelevant.

    I mean, if I said "Bertie Ahern should be in jail", that would be off-topic too.

    My additional reference to their "non-political" violence and intimidation tendencies was purely to show that the "political" angle is purely a red herring, as they are in prison because they are violent thugs.

    If I was in prison for beating someone who'd - god forbid - attacked my niece, for example, I wouldn't go intimidating or beating anyone else who simply didn't let me have my own way while in prison.

    True enough, I was slightly off topic with the point I was trying to make

    They are in prison because they are fighting a war. You might not see it as legitimate, I don't either. But I see alot more wars and more widespread wars out there and they are alot less legitimate in my opinion.


  • Options
    #78
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Victor wrote: »
    So, getting about 5%* of the poll in the referendum on the Belfast Agreement creates some sort of legitimacy? At least Bush and Blair got elected and re-elected.



    * Note that given the extremeness of the poll result, a material percentage may have been from people who intended voting Yes, but actually voted No, whereas in a normal result such errors would balance each other.


    but the Belfast Agreement's terms have been fulfilled and that is a arge reason as to why they are fighting


  • Options
    #79
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    PomBear wrote: »
    They are in prison because they are fighting a war.

    They are in prison because they committed violent crimes.
    PomBear wrote: »
    You might not see it as legitimate, I don't either.

    If everyone committed violent crimes based on their own personal view of what was "legitimate", we would be in serious trouble.

    I mean, as far as I've read, child abusers don't see anything wrong with their actions. That doesn't make it right.
    PomBear wrote: »
    But I see alot more wars and more widespread wars out there and they are alot less legitimate in my opinion.

    We agree on that point. It doesn't take or impact from the crimes that these prisoners are convicted of.


  • Options
    #80
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    They are in prison because they committed violent crimes.



    If everyone committed violent crimes based on their own personal view of what was "legitimate", we would be in serious trouble.



    We agree on that point. It doesn't take or impact from the crimes that these prisoners are convicted of.

    Going back to the US and UK forces, would you like to see all soldiers there be convicted if they kill people?


  • Options
    #81
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    PomBear wrote: »
    True enough, I was slightly off topic with the point I was trying to make

    They are in prison because they are fighting a war. You might not see it as legitimate, I don't either. But I see alot more wars and more widespread wars out there and they are alot less legitimate in my opinion.

    What war?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    PomBear wrote: »
    Going back to the US and UK forces, would you like to see all soldiers there be convicted if they kill people?

    The war in Iraq is illegal, if that's what you mean.

    But I'm not on here defending that or making claims that if convicted they should still get their own way through intimidation and violence while serving time for their crimes.

    Now can we get back on-topic ?


  • Options
    #83
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,436 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    PomBear wrote: »
    but the Belfast Agreement's terms have been fulfilled and that is a arge reason as to why they are fighting
    Genuine question: are there words missing from this sentence?


  • Options
    #84
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The war in Iraq is illegal, if that's what you mean.

    But I'm not on here defending that or making claims that if convicted they should still get their own way through intimidation and violence while serving time for their crimes.

    Now can we get back on-topic ?


    Sorry but it's a good example, the term terrorist is thrown around too easy on some and not on others, that's my point


  • Options
    #85
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Victor wrote: »
    Genuine question: are there words missing from this sentence?

    Sorry, typo


    but the Belfast Agreement's terms haven't been fulfilled and that is a large reason as to why they are fighting


  • Options
    #86
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    junder wrote: »
    What war?

    trying to remove a foreign occupation. A war which has been fought for the last 800 years in Ireland


  • Options
    #87
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    PomBear wrote: »
    Sorry but it's a good example, the term terrorist is thrown around too easy on some and not on others, that's my point

    There's a massive difference between fighting against someone invading and bombing an entire country for its oil or other resources, with most of the country objecting and fighting against it, compared to a small minority blowing the crap out of people indiscriminately.

    Iraq didn't get a chance to vote to stop the madness. We did.

    I will also add that - even within Iraq - there's a massive difference between people engaging in a battle with the invading troops versus anyone who indiscriminately leaves a bomb where it will blow the crap out of innocent people - those who do so are still terrorists.


  • Options
    #88
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    PomBear wrote: »
    trying to remove a foreign occupation. A war which has been fought for the last 800 years in Ireland
    there is no foreign occupation were i live and last time i heard the RoI has not been invaded so again what war?


  • Options
    #89
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    junder wrote: »
    there is no foreign occupation were i live and last time i heard the RoI has not been invaded so again what war?

    ROI has been invaded and we gained independance in nation's terms, fairly recently. The six counties are yet to gain that independance, the war is to insure this happens in their eyes.


  • Options
    #90
    PomBear
    Registered Users Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    There's a massive difference between fighting against someone invading and bombing an entire country for its oil or other resources, with most of the country objecting and fighting against it, compared to a small minority blowing the crap out of people indiscriminately.

    Iraq didn't get a chance to vote to stop the madness. We did.

    I will also add that - even within Iraq - there's a massive difference between people engaging in a battle with the invading troops versus anyone who indiscriminately leaves a bomb where it will blow the crap out of innocent people - those who do so are still terrorists.


    but the Good Friday agreement as it stand is a failure, very few terms have been carried out to their entirity. So the effect of voting and the Provisional IRA's ceasefire was not worthwhile if what was agreed on is not happening


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    PomBear wrote: »
    but the Good Friday agreement as it stand is a failure, very few terms have been carried out to their entirity. So the effect of voting and the Provisional IRA's ceasefire was not worthwhile if what was agreed on is not happening

    The effect of voting WAS the Provisional IRA's ceasefire; that's why most people voted the way that they did - to stop the crime, murders and violence.

    Anything else is a political matter and should be dealt with as such; a return to violence is not acceptable, and the GFA cannot be used as an excuse.


Advertisement