Prison officer killed in suspect dissident ambush

COYW

the_syco wrote: »

I doubt that SF will want to be seen as representing the new IRA, as they've been trying to look like politicians and not terrorists for the past 13 years.

As you said SF have spent the last decade or so trying to look like politicians, so they will not want this new movement of terrorists, using the name of the old movement with which they are inextricably linked in the minds of most voters on the island, particularly in the republic. SF needs to conquer the middle classes in the republic to progress politically down here and having another bunch of filthy tugs walking around using the name of their associate organisation will do them absolutely no good, in the eyes of law abiding voters.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

the IRA hasnt existed as a military force since 2005. "sinn fein/IRA" has never existed.

Really, are you sure about that? Take a look at the SF shop online and tell me they have no links whatsoever. Also, SF "brought" the IRA towards peace, iirc. They hardly achieved that without having solid bonds with the hierarchy of such a movement.

GRMA

lads all the dissident groups call themselves oglaigh NA heireann or the IRA. and wanting SF to sort things out is hilarious. What do you want them to do? Condemn them etc? Done that. Tell people to go to the PSNI? done that too.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't buy into the bizarrely naive idea that if you give the terrorists what they're asking for today, they will magically decide not to murder people in order to get what they want tomorrow?

I don't know what naive world you live in, but armed insurrection has achieved and will continue to achieve goals all around the world. The Republic we reside in was achieved by armed insurrection. It's nasty, deadly but real, nonetheless. When goals are achieved the violence invariably stops. We have ample proof of that here, and a demolition of the argument from the moral high grounders, that these are physcotic, blood thirsty killers.
You have taken a moral position (a fairly useless one, in terms of doing anything about it) and have ignored reality.
Despite all the useless condemnation, the PROBLEM still exists. Sooner or later the British and Irish governments will be faced with the dilemma; do we negotiate or do we let the lid come off. We know what the progressive decision was in the 90's. They need to step up to the plate again.

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

If the jail was run as was agreed Black wouldn't be dead. that's the bottom line...

The actual bottom line is that if murderers hadn't decided that their political agenda is more important than a human life, David Black wouldn't be dead.

There's a very clear answer to the question "who is responsible for the death of David Black", and that answer is "the psychos who murdered him". As soon as you start to try to apportion that blame around, you're making excuses for his murder.

it was obvious that this would happen .

Yes: when psychos run around with guns claiming to have a legitimate mandate for their murder, it's obvious that people are going to get murdered.

Blaming conditions in prison for the murder of David Black is a copout. Are the dissidents going to pack up and go home if their demands in relation to republican prisoners are met? No: they're going to revel in the success of forcing victory through murder, and continue to threaten murder in order to achieve whatever's next on their list.

And how dare you oscarbravo say that I support these people or the horrible murder of Black.

I didn't say you supported them; I said that qualifying your condemnation of their actions by claiming that they are someone else's fault amounts to the sort of tacit support that allows them to continue to function.

The only people to blame for the murder of David Black are the murderers of David Black. Stop with the "it could have been prevented" rhetoric; it smacks of telling women they can prevent rape by dressing less provocatively.

So yeah, I don't like to be accused of supporting dissident Republicans or the murders they carry out so kindly cease falsely labeling me so, ok?

Again: I'm not accusing you of supporting them. I'm pointing out that your condemnation of their acts rings hollow when you're laying the blame for them at someone else's door.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Republic we reside in was achieved by armed insurrection.

The Republic I live in was achieved by an act of the Oireachtas in 1948 and a corresponding act of Parliament in 1949. Nobody died.

The Free State that preceded it was, unfortunately, achieved through a great deal of bloodshed. I refuse to subscribe the mythology - so crucially important for the preservation of violent Republicanism - that it could never have been achieved in any other way.

When goals are achieved the violence invariably stops.

So in a hypothetical future united Ireland, if loyalists kick off a terror campaign to aim to reunite with the UK, you would fully support acceding to their demands in order to stop the violence?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

So in a hypothetical future united Ireland, if loyalists kick off a terror campaign to aim to reunite with the UK, you would fully support acceding to their demands in order to stop the violence?

I certainly wouldn't be uselessly condemming them and doing nothing else.

junder

At the beginning of this thread I pointed out that a major factor in this prison officers death was his relgion, the usual suspects tried to Deny this and yet this week we have had a another bomb placed under a car and considering the area the bomb fell of in the likely target was a 'prod in a uniform'. The prisons issue is a side issue from the main effort, in prison they just want to return to the days of the maze where they had free run of thier wing. The main effort is to bring the army on to the street period. They want to undermine normalisation and destroy Sinn Fein at the same time, so far killing catholic police officers has failed to escalate things sufficiently to bring the army back on to the streets, that's unlikely to happen unless dissidents can provoke a major backlash from loyalists paramiltarys, to do that they need to target people living in loyalist areas. Of course to kill random Protestants will undermine thier contrived 'freedom fighter' image (that only themselves and thier apologists actually believe) that they have tried to create. Shooting a 'prod in a uniform' maintains the lie of only fighting the British state while putting pressure on loyalists for a reaction. They will of course continue to target catholic police officers to undermine catholic police officers into the PSNI and also gathering intel on somebody living in the same areas as you is a hell of alot easier. I am a prod in uniform ( although only part time, as I am a reservist ) and I have had a threat warning (which means daily checks under my car)

GRMA

So you're backing down now, fair enough. If the likes of you were listened to there would be no peace process so you'll forgive us if we ignore you now and carry on doing things, like I've done and continue to do which bring about actual progress and change. Your way failed in the past and is failing now.

Crooked Jack

COYW wrote: »

Really, are you sure about that? Take a look at the SF shop online and tell me they have no links whatsoever. Also, SF "brought" the IRA towards peace, iirc. They hardly achieved that without having solid bonds with the hierarchy of such a movement.

The Sinn Fein shop? i wasn't aware that all one needed to be a military force was a few t-shirts. In that case you can consider my friend's stag do a military force.
I also saw a Che Guevara T-shirt on it, I had no idea the Shinners organised the Cuban revolution.
And I never said they had no links, they're both part of the republican movement but anyone with even a cursory interest in history can tell that they are not and have never been the one organisation, in fact at certain points a lot of animosity existed between the two groups.
It may suit other people's agendas to use outdated terms like "SF/IRA" but it's simply not true.

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The Sinn Fein shop? i wasn't aware that all one needed to be a military force was a few t-shirts. In that case you can consider my friend's stag do a military force.
I also saw a Che Guevara T-shirt on it, I had no idea the Shinners organised the Cuban revolution.
And I never said they had no links, they're both part of the republican movement but anyone with even a cursory interest in history can tell that they are not and have never been the one organisation, in fact at certain points a lot of animosity existed between the two groups.
It may suit other people's agendas to use outdated terms like "SF/IRA" but it's simply not true.

You are on the defensive to hard, I said sf/IRA so you would know who I was talking about, as far as I am concerned the sf/IRA are staying true to the gfa and are helping democracy. Now that there are so many IRA groups it could get confusing. Also why are you trying to disassociate sf with the IRA? Sf gladly admits it's links with the IRA, they were the first to say the new IRA was not the real IRA, oh wait real IRA are a different group, can we call them the original IRA?

And I was not wanting the IRA (original) to "sort out" this new IRA we have a fine all inclusive police service to deal with it, I was just wondering if they could I.e are they now toothless? I don't think true republicans would fancy the idea that the hoods made the IRA their bitch?

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

You are on the defensive to hard, I said sf/IRA so you would know who I was talking about, as far as I am concerned the sf/IRA are staying true to the gfa and are helping democracy. Now that there are so many IRA groups it could get confusing. Also why are you trying to disassociate sf with the IRA? Sf gladly admits it's links with the IRA, they were the first to say the new IRA was not the real IRA, oh wait real IRA are a different group, can we call them the original IRA?

And I was not wanting the IRA (original) to "sort out" this new IRA we have a fine all inclusive police service to deal with it, I was just wondering if they could I.e are they now toothless? I don't think true republicans would fancy the idea that the hoods made the IRA their bitch?

I'm not distancing them, I'm saying that they were not one and the same.
There are no IRA groups. These clowns can call themselves what they like but they are not the IRA.
"hoods made the IRA their bitch," again, your language is laughably childish. I'm surprised your posts don't end with FGAU or FTP.

the_syco

GRMA wrote: »

If the jail was run as was agreed

Who agreed to how it should be ran, and what were the main bits?

GRMA

the_syco wrote: »

Who agreed to how it should be ran, and what were the main bits?

August agreement
Text of Agreement ending Roe House protest

The following has been published on the NI prison service website

Maghaberry, 12 August 2010

A. Agreement Reached on Dispute at Roe House in Maghaberry Prison
Following a protest by Republican prisoners in Roe House, the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) and the prisoners agreed to engage in a facilitation process. A Joint Facilitation Group (Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Creggan Enterprises and Dialogue Advisory Group) met both parties on a number of occasions over the past several weeks. The discussions were underpinned at all times by the following principles:

B. Fundamental Principles
1. Arrangements are predicated on mutual respect;
2. Prisoner and staff safety must not be put at risk;
3. Arrangements should comply with human rights and equality requirements;
4. Revised arrangements and procedures should be achievable and sustainable;
5. Staff should be able to carry out their work professionally, free from harm, intimidation or threat;
6. The security of the establishment should not be diluted; and
7. The arrangements must strengthen public confidence in NIPS.

C. Prisoner Forum
An effective Prisoners’ Forum will be established, in addition to existing processes for complaints and requests. This should provide a meaningful mechanism to address issues of mutual concern and is designed to build trust.

D. Full body searching
1. No random full body searching will take place on the way to domestic and legal visits and the videolink or from the SSU.

2. No “rubdown” searching internally, within Roe 3 and 4.

3. NIPS will introduce a new search facility and revised search policy for separated prisoners. The new facility will be located within the Bush and Roe complex and subject to CCTV and audio coverage. It will incorporate a combination of the latest technologies which will remove the requirement for routine full-body searching of separated prisoners within the prison. The search process for all separated prisoners entering the separated complex will be:
• outer clothing, metal objects, belts and shoes removed and passed through scanner;
• all prisoners undergo scanning by hand held metal detector;
• all prisoners undergo thorough rub-down search; and
• prisoners required to sit on BOSS chair (where outer clothing contains metal, prisoners may be required to remove this).
4. NIPS reserves the right, in exceptional cases, to require any prisoner to undergo a full-body search – under existing arrangements – if:
• there is a positive indication by the technology and the cause cannot be identified; or
• there is reason through intelligence or suspicion that a prisoner may be concealing prohibited items on their person.

5. In such cases the full-body search must be authorised and observed by a supervisor and carried out in a manner which is both sensitive and dignified. The process of searching will be audited and monitored to ensure it complies with human rights standards.

E. Movement / association
1. The Prisoner Ombudsman’s report of June 11 2010 recommended that a review of the separated regime should be included in the current independent Prison Review and that the review team should examine the evidence considered by the CJINI/HMCIP when it concluded in 2006 and 2009 that the arrangements for the movement of separated prisoners “were unnecessarily restrictive”. (The HMCIP finding states that “there was severely restricted prisoner movement… this was particularly noticeable on the separated units where, even within the unit itself, the system of controlled movement meant that only three prisoners were allowed out an any one time, with no less than five staff present”). NIPS has fully accepted the Prisoner Ombudsman’s recommendation.

2. Subject to the fundamental principles set out at section B above, NIPS’s aim is to move from the existing arrangements towards a more progressive, supervised free-flow movement system within Roe House, on a phased basis, as follows:

Phase 1 - commencing August 2010
NIPS will take steps to implement as quickly as possible from the date of this agreement:
• Association within the recreation room, yard and - when it is completed - the astro-turf pitch from 0830 until fifteen minutes before lock-up; and
• Considering the wing – for the purposes of movement –as one unit, rather than two landings. This will permit a maximum of 6 prisoners on the landing at any one time, while other prisoners will have access to kitchen, laundry room, classrooms, showers, ironing and haircutting room.

Phase 2 – commencing December 2010
The independent Prison Review Team is expected to report on the Maghaberry regime by December 2010 and, in the light of paragraph E1 above, it is expected that their report will include recommendations on less restrictive movement arrangements within Roe House. In addition to implementing the recommendations of the Prisoner Ombudsman’s report and this agreement, NIPS will take steps to implement agreed recommendations from the independent Review as quickly as possible.

Phase 3
Beyond Phase 2 NIPS will continue to review and assess ways to further progress supervised free flow movement of prisoners. This will include implementing agreed recommendations – if any – contained in the final independent Prison Review Report of early 2011.

3. NIPS’s ability to progress, implement and maintain phased changes to movement procedures towards a lasting solution will be determined by adherence to the fundamental principles set out in section B above. Throughout this entire phased process independent assessments will be conducted by NIPS, JFG and the Minister’s representatives.

F. Next Steps
1. The protest in Roe House will cease immediately;
2. The prisoners commit to refrain from intimidating, threatening, or harming prison staff in carrying out their duties.
3. Continuous monitoring and evidencing of this agreement commences.
4. NIPS will begin infrastructural change linking the exercise yard with the astro-turf pitch.
5. NIPS will commence work to design and build an enhanced search facility for separated prisoners, in line with the proposals at section D.
6. An initial prisoners’ forum will be convened to address areas of mutual concern and to resolve grievances through dialogue within this Forum..
7. The “Separated Compact” will be revised to reflect changes from this agreement and the Prisoner Ombudsman’s report and also, in due course, to reflect changes arising from the recommendations in the independent Prison Review’s report.
8. Review of “full body searching” will report by end of September 2010 and agreed recommendations implemented as soon as possible.
9. Independent Prison Review’s report on the Maghaberry regime by December 2010.
10. Full compliance of all parties with this agreement is imperative to building confidence and achieving a lasting solution – one that delivers a safe, secure and humane prison regime.

There is is... the agreement was between the prisoners, prison and the Northern Ireland Office. The justice minister warmly welcomed this too, thought it was great as a dangerous situation had seemingly been defused to the satisfaction of all sides... obviously that wasnt the case as they reneged on the agreement.

junder

Loyalist prison officers association? Why are they loyalist exactly?

GRMA

junder wrote: »

Loyalist prison officers association? Why are they loyalist exactly?

I didnt write that, it's a copy and paste from elsewhere, didn't mean to include that bit.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

I didnt write that, it's a copy and paste from elsewhere, didn't mean to include that bit.

But it's inclusion says a lot about the article and who wrote

GRMA

junder wrote: »

But it's inclusion says a lot about the article and who wrote

It doesnt say anything about the agreement as it was not part of the agreement, but rather it was an extra bit I copied by mistake... remember both sides signed up to it!

I've removed it.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

It doesnt say anything about the agreement as it was not part of the agreement, but rather it was an extra bit I copied by mistake... remember both sides signed up to it!

I've removed it.

It's speaks volumes

K-9

GRMA wrote: »

It doesnt say anything about the agreement as it was not part of the agreement, but rather it was an extra bit I copied by mistake... remember both sides signed up to it!

I've removed it.

Could you provide a link to the original piece please.

GRMA

K-9 wrote: »

Could you provide a link to the original piece please.

Was accessible at this address originally:

http://www.niprisonservice.gov.uk/module.cfm/opt/10/area/Press%20release/page/pressrel/pid/542

Seems to have been taken down on the new site.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0812/breaking58.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10958260
Articles on it there.

http://www.politicalworld.org/showpost.php?p=288908&postcount=14
That's where I got the text from - which is genuine. I have the original PDF downloaded from the NIPS site on a computer in my brothers house... can upload that next week if you want.

GRMA

junder wrote: »

It's speaks volumes

How does it? Stop fixating on an irrelevance in order to disregard the substantive text.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

How does it? Stop fixating on an irrelevance in order to disregard the substantive text.

By using language like loyalist POA it calls into question the neutrality of the document.

GRMA

junder wrote: »

By using language like loyalist POA it calls into question the neutrality of the document.

I think we have a misunderstanding here, that bit wasnt in the original document but was added in. I've now removed it. Hopefully we can move past this now, remember all sides were happy when they signed yp, including the nips.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

I think we have a misunderstanding here, that bit wasnt in the original document but was added in. I've now removed it. Hopefully we can move past this now, remember all sides were happy when they signed yp, including the nips.

If the conditions are so bad, why are there no loyalist protests, why aren't the ODC's protesting?

RMD

junder wrote: »

If the conditions are so bad, why are there no loyalist protests, why aren't the ODC's protesting?

They're not of the mindset they're "political" prisoners I'd assume.

GRMA

Junder is a loyalist so I dare say he'll be able to regale us with tales of what loyalist groups like the LVF got up to in jail.

junder

GRMA wrote: »

Junder is a loyalist so I dare say he'll be able to regale us with tales of what loyalist groups like the LVF got up to in jail.

That's a very offensive comment, care to explain why just because I hold certain political beliefs I would have any knowledge of the mindset of the LVF?

junder

RMD wrote: »

They're not of the mindset they're "political" prisoners I'd assume.

Or maybe dissidents just what the searchs relaxed so they can try smuggling moblie phones, bomb parts, weapons and drugs as they tried in the past. This 'prison protest' is just a bad copy of the prison protest that built such momentum for Sinn Fein, dissidents are really clutching at straws here trying to kick start any support for thier cause

GRMA

junder wrote: »

That's a very offensive comment, care to explain why just because I hold certain political beliefs I would have any knowledge of the mindset of the LVF?

Junder as a loyalist you well know what went on in the jail, and what brought about segregation,and the loyalist role in that, so don't pretend loyalists are in there being good little boys.

GRMA

Republican prisoners end dirty protest

Statement from POWs, Roe 4, announcing the end of their current protest action.

Following the signing of the August 2010 agreement with the prison service, Republican POWs continually attempted to resolve all outstanding issues. Despite the continued use of the brutal forced strip searches we regularly engaged with political parties and groups who showed an interest in bringing a resolution to the impasse.
This process of dialogue lasted nine months. The amount of time and effort put into this process cannot be over stated, unfortunately despite this lengthy engagement all we had to show were the injuries inflicted during these searches and beatings. The resumption of protest action became inevitable. On May 6th 2011 we commenced our current phase of protest action.
We are now into our 19th month of this phase of protest. Our resolve and commitment are unquestionable. As Republican POWs we are prepared to meet head on any attempt to reintroduce failed policies of the past. This should never have to be the case.
Following intense and detailed discussion and analysis, we, the Republican POWs on Roe 4 have decided on a unilateral initiative which we believe will provide the space required for a resolution of the current impasse.
As from Wednesday 21st November 2012 all Republican POWs on Roe 4 landing will cease our current protest action.
This initiative should be viewed as a genuine and sincere attempt to create the conditions in which a conflict free environment can flourish whereby all are treated with respect and dignity is guaranteed.
A dialectical process of engagement to resolve all issues should be the order of the day. Confrontation need not be part of the environment that we all have to live and work in.
Upon launching this initiative we call upon all those political parties and groups who profess to share our stated aim of a conflict free environment to immediately seize upon this initiative. We call upon you to use your political influence and position to bring about the progressive change that is required.
We call upon the prison service management at all levels to jettison the failed policies of the past and to move forward progressively.
Finally, to all who have campaigned on our behalf, we applaud your commitment and steadfastness and ask that you continue to highlight our plight.
For our part, we will not be found wanting in the task that lies ahead.
Republican POWs, Roe 4, Maghaberry.

I think it's good that one side has taken the initiative to try and defuse this situation. Mad that they call themselves "POWS" but anyway this is to be welcomed.