Release Brendan Lillis [See Mod Warning Post 415]

Wolfe Tone

getzls wrote: »

Sounds like a good case for letting him out. What i am saying is why are they keeping him in prison. They sent D Price back to jail for more than just reading out from a piece of paper. THEY know things we don't.

The only reason I can come up with is that they are being vindictive for the sake of it.

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

To be fair, not being a threat any more is a fairly shallow argument for releasing somebody. Prevention of crime by detention is only one service that a prison provides.

I'm sure the majority of those in Britain who are in prison on terrorism charges can no longer be considered a threat. Their phones and computers will be bugged like there is no tomorrow and they will be constantly tracked by the police and security services. They shouldn't be released on their merry way as soon as a surveillance network is established though.

But he was in jail for 16 years already, and was released nearly 20 years ago! He served his time for the act he is imprisoned for now.

round tower huntsman

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

To be fair, not being a threat any more is a fairly shallow argument for releasing somebody. Prevention of crime by detention is only one service that a prison provides.

I'm sure the majority of those in Britain who are in prison on terrorism charges can no longer be considered a threat. Their phones and computers will be bugged like there is no tomorrow and they will be constantly tracked by the police and security services. They shouldn't be released on their merry way as soon as a surveillance network is established though.

the mans dying,its not a case of he cant use an i phone!

The IRgAy

Why on earth should he be released? I presume if he hadn't been caught with the explosives he would have deployed them to cause maximum harm?

Unless wrongly convicted, he can rot in hosptial prison for all I care.:mad:

Sunnyisland

The gAy wrote: »

Why on earth should he be released? I presume if he hadn't been caught with the explosives he would have deployed them to cause maximum harm?

Unless wrongly convicted, he can rot in hospital prison for all I care.:mad:

He already served his time for said offences and was released under the GFA which means under certain conditions or licence,He was then charged with robbery offences but charges were withdrawn so he was deemed innocent,he is now back in prison even though charges were withdrawn,

Fratton Fred

realies wrote: »

He already served his time for said offences and was released under the GFA which means under certain conditions or licence,He was then charged with robbery offences but charges were withdrawn so he was deemed innocent,he is now back in prison even though charges were withdrawn,

He wasn't deemed innocent, he was deemed unfit to stand trial.

I haven't read anything that claims he is innocent, only that he is unwell.

Do we know who else was involved? Was this tiger raid to raise funds for dissidents or for personal gain?

sensibleken

starviewadams wrote: »

I'd imagine he's getting better medical care in prison then he would be getting if he was in a crowded public hospital ward,which is no knock on our overworked frontline doctors and nurses btw.

Judging by the symptoms described he might be suffering from AS. My OH has the same disease and couldnt get the treatment on the NHS because it costs too much. She had to move to Ireland to get the treatment when all she had to do was the attempted murder of innocent people. 20/20 hindsight and all that

Zubeneschamali

19 October 2009: Five in court over tiger kidnap attempt

4 April 2011: Gang members jailed for conspiring to imprison women

Some more details and discussion here:
http://www.irishrepublican.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-57298.html

From all this, Lillis was arrested with two of the men who were subsequently convicted and jailed, he was in a field behind the home of the kidnap targets, the three had an imitation firearm.

The others seem to have said he was the ringleader in their own defences: Judge Grant said he accepted that the three defendants were not the ringleaders of the sophisticated criminal operation.

Sunnyisland

For me This above post in my opinion puts a different light on him, Only on humanitarian grounds would/should he be released.

Liam Byrne

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

19 October 2009: Five in court over tiger kidnap attempt

4 April 2011: Gang members jailed for conspiring to imprison women

Some more details and discussion here:
http://www.irishrepublican.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-57298.html

From all this, Lillis was arrested with two of the men who were subsequently convicted and jailed, he was in a field behind the home of the kidnap targets, the three had an imitation firearm.

The others seem to have said he was the ringleader in their own defences: Judge Grant said he accepted that the three defendants were not the ringleaders of the sophisticated criminal operation.

Are the apologists trying to suggest that "not being the ringleader" implies that he's innocent?

Where did this claim that he was innocent come from? Is it just more lies and propaganda?

He got out on licence with a condition that he wouldn't commit crimes, much like a condition of bail for an arrested person.

Having biased pathos towards certain criminals is one thing, but if people are going to post blatant lies then it's a completely different story.

Zubeneschamali

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are the apologists trying to suggest that "not being the ringleader" implies that he's innocent?

No, that quote says that the judge accepted that none of the men actually convicted was the ringleader. The clear implication is that Lillis was the ringleader. He is 20-30 years older than the other gang members.

Silvio.Dante

The Colombia three were Bird watching aswell...:D

He was caught inflagranté in 2009. He's responsible for being back behind bars. Sadly, for him and his loved ones he's probably going to die there soon...

Zubeneschamali

The claim that he's innocent is just a statement that he was not convicted, so he's innocent until proven guilty.

It's also possible that the ringleader thing is a dodge: the gang members who had to stand trial point the finger at the gang member who can't be tried, just to get a shorter sentence.

Liam Byrne

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, that quote says that the judge accepted that none of the men actually convicted was the ringleader. The clear implication is that Lillis was the ringleader. He is 20-30 years older than the other gang members.

OK - it's badly written so

Lillis was arrested with two of the men who were subsequently convicted and jailed....

I read that 2+1=3 and then read

Judge Grant said he accepted that the three defendants were not the ringleaders of the sophisticated criminal operation.

Zubeneschamali

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I read that 2+1=3 and then read

Lillis was never a defendant, though, he was unfit, remember?

Wolfe Tone

Innocent until proven guilty, as everyone is.

Are people comfortable with skipping the whole trial bit and just sticking a man in jail?

The IRgAy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty, as everyone is.

Are people comfortable with skipping the whole trial bit and just sticking a man in jail?

Yes, because he was only released initially due to the 'GFA'; he really should still be serving out his time for that sentence.

You have nothing to complain about and are simply an IRA apologist.

Wolfe Tone

The IRgAy wrote: »

Yes, because he was only released initially due to the 'GFA'; he really should still be serving out his time for that sentence.

You have nothing to complain about and are simply an IRA apologist.

You should really educate yourself.


He was released in 1992 I believe, years before the GFA even existed.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty, as everyone is.

Are people comfortable with skipping the whole trial bit and just sticking a man in jail?

If he is out under licence which he then blatantly breaks, yes, no problem at all.

You aren't a family man WT, but think how you would feel if it was your daughter he planned to kidnap.

You then have to consider what would have happened if they hadn't been caught, where would the money have ended up. Real IRA to build more bombs perhaps?

I have no doubt that the fact there is a guy who killed hundreds of people walking around Libya at the moment who apparently had only weeks to live two years ago might have something to do with this as well.

Wolfe Tone

The IRgAy wrote: »

Another IRA lackey seems to think otherwise?

Well he would be wrong, as I said in the OP he was jailed in 1976 and served 16 years or so before he was released.

KeithAFC

How long has he got left? The propaganda coup being used again in this thread is beyond laughable. As if the majority of people on this island actually listen to people like this or care about them.

Sunnyisland

The IRgAy wrote: »

Another IRA lackey seems to think otherwise?

I am no IRA lackey

who the fug

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty, as everyone is.

Are people comfortable with skipping the whole trial bit and just sticking a man in jail?

Sorry he broke the terms of his license, there is no need for a trial .

He is in jail on the original charge

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If he is out under licence which he then blatantly breaks, yes, no problem at all.

You aren't a family man WT, but think how you would feel if it was your daughter he planned to kidnap.

You then have to consider what would have happened if they hadn't been caught, where would the money have ended up. Real IRA to build more bombs perhaps?

I have no doubt that the fact there is a guy who killed hundreds of people walking around Libya at the moment who apparently had only weeks to live two years ago might have something to do with this as well.

If he is released and does a Lazarus then of course he should face trial for what he is accused of, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

AFAIK the man hasn't been involved in republicanism for quite some time, so there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the cash was destined for them. Where the other men accused of membership or anything? AFAIK no.

I want him to be released on humanitarian grounds, he is accused of a terrible thing, but he has not been found guilty of anything.

The IRgAy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well he would be wrong, as I said in the OP he was jailed in 1976 and served 16 years or so before he was released.

Seemingly he was not wrong -- explain this:

Mr Lillis' partner Roisin Allsopp has now been joined by former Blanketmen and other supporters at a protest at the site of the old Andersonstown Barracks in west Belfast.
They're going on hunger strike for three days over Mr Lillis still being held in jail, despite having been ruled too ill to stand trial over an alleged tiger kidnapping in 2009.
When Mr Lillis was arrested as a suspect in the case, he broke the terms of his early release licence and was returned to jail - he had served 17 years of his sentence for explosives charges, but was released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.


http://www.u.tv/News/Blanketmen-join-call-for-prisoners-release/e781f523-690e-4ff6-b080-a436525ad8f9

Time for you to give up the ghost I reckon. :pac:

KeithAFC

Can some one tell me why he is in jail in the first place? And if he is about to die and still has to serve a sentence, then he can die in prison. Doesn't matter if he ill or not.

Sunnyisland

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well he would be wrong, as I said in the OP he was jailed in 1976 and served 16 years or so before he was released.

My apologies he was released on licence and I assumed it was Gfa.

Wolfe Tone

The IRgAy wrote: »

Seemingly he was not wrong -- explain this:

Mr Lillis' partner Roisin Allsopp has now been joined by former Blanketmen and other supporters at a protest at the site of the old Andersonstown Barracks in west Belfast.
They're going on hunger strike for three days over Mr Lillis still being held in jail, despite having been ruled too ill to stand trial over an alleged tiger kidnapping in 2009.
When Mr Lillis was arrested as a suspect in the case, he broke the terms of his early release licence and was returned to jail - he had served 17 years of his sentence for explosives charges, but was released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.


http://www.u.tv/News/Blanketmen-join-call-for-prisoners-release/e781f523-690e-4ff6-b080-a436525ad8f9

Time for you to give up the ghost I reckon. :pac:

As I said, he was released in 1992.

That was before the ceasefires. Maybe it was a gesture of goodwill like when a couple of prisoners were released before the negotiations began over the GFA, but AFAIK it wasnt.

He was not released under the terms of the GFA.

The IRgAy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

As I said, he was released in 1992.

That was before the ceasefires. Maybe it was a gesture of goodwill like when a couple of prisoners were released before the negotiations began over the GFA, but AFAIK it wasnt.

He was not released under the terms of the GFA.

A question for you:

If this was a British soldier who'd been involved in the Bloody Sunday incident, would you be campaigning for his release?

Lapin

Is he not dead yet ?

Corsendonk

Ernest Saunders comes to mind.

Lapin

Corsendonk wrote: »

Ernest Saunders comes to mind.

A pint of Gunness comes to mind.

KeithAFC

The Republican propaganda must be bad because this is the first time iv heard of this guy.

blahfckingblah

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Republican propaganda must be bad because this is the first time iv heard of this guy.

well christ thats a sign it isnt propaganda haha.

seriously though is his illness a terminal one or is it the conditions hes under?
i dont know much about him and its unclear from some of these posts what the situation is. until i find out more i'l not pass judgement. unlike others i wont condemn or support until i know more, you know who you are

Sunnyisland

The IRgAy wrote: »

A question for you:

If this was a British soldier who'd been involved in the Bloody Sunday incident, would you be campaigning for his release?

Would you ?

Liam Byrne

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Maybe it was a gesture of goodwill....

Maybe it was. However that gesture was correctly revoked because of his involvement in subsequent crimes.

Liam Byrne

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If he is released and does a Lazarus then of course he should face trial for what he is accused of, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

AFAIK the man hasn't been involved in republicanism for quite some time, so there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the cash was destined for them. Where the other men accused of membership or anything? AFAIK no.

He was committing a crime. Who the funds were due to go to was irrelevant.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I want him to be released on humanitarian grounds, he is accused of a terrible thing, but he has not been found guilty of anything.

Incorrect. He was guilty of the original crime and was released subject to some conditions, which he broke.

By all means campaign for the humanitarian grounds (I'll disagree, just as I would with any other criminal) but please stop making false claims in relation to the facts.

He made his choice when - despite having already been given substantial leeway which led to his original term being shortened/suspended - he decided to get involved in crime again.

Why do you want him to get a second favour, since he gave the authorities the two-fingers when they were nice enough to give him a first favour ?

junder

What if this person was guiltty of child abuse, would there still be calls for his realease, still has the same illness, still apparently not a threat to anyone, just different crime?

KeithAFC

junder wrote: »

What if this person was guiltty of child abuse, would there still be calls for his realease, still has the same illness, still apparently not a threat to anyone, just different crime?

Its double standards. He was in the IRA, so he is special. Let him out, just ignore his prison sentence. Gosh. :rolleyes:

Sunnyisland

under wrote: »

What if this person was guilty of child abuse, would there still be calls for his release, still has the same illness, still apparently not a threat to anyone, just different crime?

Good question,


My opinion this particular case is that if he was committing a crime for self gain and because of that his previous licence is/was revoked, well he can blame no one but him self.

The IRgAy

realies wrote: »

Would you ?

Obviously not! :rolleyes:

I don't differentiate between murderers and criminals like Wolfetone!

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its double standards. He was in the IRA, so he is special. Let him out, just ignore his prison sentence. Gosh. :rolleyes:

You would know all about double standards keithAFC/ulsterAFC .

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

You would know all about double standards keithAFC/ulsterAFC .

Ulster Patriot etc.

junder

Did you know there is one person in the world who has been cured of altzimhers, can't remember his name but he was connected to guinness scandal and was imprisoned over it. While in prison he apparently developed altzimhers was released on licence and suddenly made a full recovery. Heard this on BBC radio 2 yesterday

Sunnyisland

junder wrote: »

Did you know there is one person in the world who has been cured of altzimhers, can't remember his name but he was connected to guinness scandal and was imprisoned over it. While in prison he apparently developed altzimhers was released on licence and suddenly made a full recovery. Heard this on BBC radio 2 yesterday

Ernest saunders.

junder

realies wrote: »

Ernest saunders.

That's the man

Liam Byrne

junder wrote: »

That's the man

Nothing new. Sure didn't Haughey pull a similar stunt in relation to being called before the tribunals ? Supposedly too sick to attend and face the music and yet swanning around Spain the following week.

Wolfe Tone

I hope no one here is suggesting he is faking it, because thats not the case.

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect. He was guilty of the original crime and was released subject to some conditions, which he broke.

By all means campaign for the humanitarian grounds (I'll disagree, just as I would with any other criminal) but please stop making false claims in relation to the facts.

He made his choice when - despite having already been given substantial leeway which led to his original term being shortened/suspended - he decided to get involved in crime again.

Why do you want him to get a second favour, since he gave the authorities the two-fingers when they were nice enough to give him a first favour ?

This is where we fundamentally disagree, I would not regard what he did in the seventies as any form of crime whatsoever. The man was a political prisoner in hellish conditions. Now, you clearly disagree with that, which is fine. There is little point having an argument over it, thats just the way it is.

The IRgAy

The IRgAy wrote: »

A question for you:

If this was a British soldier who'd been involved in the Bloody Sunday incident, would you be campaigning for his release?

The silence is deafening.

Wolfe Tone

The IRgAy wrote: »

The silence is deafening.

I didn't answer it, because its a stupid question, I've made my position clear umpteen times on how I feel acts before the GFA should be dealt with, a general amnesty and a truth commission so the families can have the truth rather than cover-ups. The 2 years imprisonment which people will face for pre GFA acts is a deterrent stopping people coming forward with the truth. It is also a motivating factor for the recent loyalist violence.