Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

LordSutch · 06-05-2013 10:56PM

I have just changed my babies nappy, which made me think - Surely there was the most awful stink in the prison cells with all that poo smeared over the walls by Sands and his IRA mates? I mean if one babies nappy can make me gag, then what about a whole room covered in daily fresh human poo!

Serious question, I guess it stank, right?

But of all the things, why did they do that particularly disgusting thing?

riffmongous · 06-05-2013 11:05PM

LordSutch wrote: »

I have just changed my babies nappy, which made me think - Surely there was the most awful stink in the prison cells with all that poo smeared over the walls by Sands and his IRA mates? I mean if one babies nappy can make me gag, then what about a whole room covered in daily fresh human poo!

Serious question, I guess it stank, right?

But of all the things, why did they do that particularly disgusting thing?

Is it possible you get used to it if you are surrounded by it? If its constant your brain might filter it out after a while, whereas guards who come to your cell will have no tolerance for it..

I just know I have colleagues who work in a lab that deals with waste water and never complain about the smell, but every time I am near the place I want to wretch.

Chuck Stone · 06-05-2013 11:08PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Both sides were as bad as each other.

Bollocks. This conclusion can only be drawn by someone who completely refuses to consider the statistics. Trying to claim 'both sides' were equally as bad only exposes your own bias.

Loyalist death squads MO was to kill civilians. Of the hundreds of people Loyalists killed only 4% were republicans. Yes 4%. 85% were civilians and primarily innocent Catholics or Protestants mistaken for Catholics.

Of the PIRA's killings ~70% were state forces.

Btw the Army you're a member of have a pretty shameful record of murdering civilians in the north too with 50% of their killings being civilians.

Even experts in the BA would pour scorn on your appraisal.

An internal British army document examining 37 years of deployment in Northern Ireland contains the claim by one expert that it failed to defeat the IRA.

It describes the IRA as "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force", while loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are described as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

RandomName2 · 06-05-2013 11:09PM

SamHall wrote: »

No not at all. Just asserting the fact that the loyalists tended to actively target innocent civilians based on religion.

Keep looking for something that's not there though by all means.

Oh yeah, loyalists went out of their way to target innocent civilians, and went to pains to avoid Republican paramilitaries as targets. Same the other way round as well, really. But you wouldn't get that impression by the whole page of comments on the preceding page.

SamHall wrote: »

That's not a link that backs up the earlier claim that Bobby Sands was a murderer.

You require all evidence to be provided in hypertext references? Unfortunately Google search is spammed by links to bobbysands.com and a news item covering this.

LordSutch wrote: »

But of all the things, why did they do that particularly disgusting thing?

Because they weren't being treated as POWs

Banjo String · 06-05-2013 11:14PM

LordSutch wrote: »

I have just changed my babies nappy, which made me think - Surely there was the most awful stink in the prison cells with all that poo smeared over the walls by Sands and his IRA mates? I mean if one babies nappy can make me gag, then what about a whole room covered in daily fresh human poo!

Serious question, I guess it stank, right?

But of all the things, why did they do that particularly disgusting thing?

of course it stank.

They refused to wear a convicts uniform, they were prisoners of war, not criminals.
The Brits then made those who refused to put on a uniform go naked, so the men then write the only garment they had, their blankets.

The prisoners had to slop out their chamber pots on a daily basis, but the Brits then refused any prisoner from doing that unless they put on the uniform, the prisoners still refused.

At first, the chamber pots were emptied out the window of the cell, then the screws blocked the Windows up, so they then threw the contents of the pots under the cell doors, but the screws started to push the urine and faeces back under the doors, saturating the mattresses and floor of the cell.

After that, the chamber pot used to sit in a corner of the cell overflowing, the prisoners then had only one thing left to do, they were forced to tear pieces from their sponge mattresses and smear the faeces on the walls and ceilings, this made it dry out considerably quicker, and thus the smell was not as strong.

It was a hellish existence for any man to endure. This was a form of torture that went on for years.

The prisoners didn't yield an inch though.

macsauce · 06-05-2013 11:19PM

No, I don't have to remember or admire him. He was a terrorist scumbag.

Banjo String · 06-05-2013 11:27PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh yeah, loyalists went out of their way to target innocent civilians, and went to pains to avoid Republican paramilitaries as targets. Same the other way round as well, really. But you wouldn't get that impression by the whole page of comments on the preceding page.

I've already given more than enough examples of loyalist death squads murdering innocent civilians for nothing more than their religion.

What have you got to counter that?

RandomName2 wrote: »

You require all evidence to be provided in hypertext references? Unfortunately Google search is spammed by links to bobbysands.com and a news item covering this.

We're talking about one of the most famous men to come from this island, a man instantly recognisable to millions the world over.

Surely to God if there was solid evidence, or a link that confirmed that he murdered anyone, it wouldn't be that hard to find, spam or no spam.

Then again, there could be another perfectly good reason why you can't find one too. That reason being that it's simply not true.

RandomName2 · 06-05-2013 11:29PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Bollocks. This conclusion can only be drawn by someone who completely refuses to consider the statistics. Trying to claim 'both sides' were equally as bad only exposes your own bias.

Loyalist death squads MO was to kill civilians. Of the hundreds of people Loyalists killed only 4% were republicans. Yes 4%. 85% were civilians and primarily innocent Catholics or Protestants mistaken for Catholics.

Jaysus. From the statistics I have seen the number of Republican Paramilitaries killed by Loyalists was 9%, not 4%. And what percentage of Republican killings were Loyalist Paramilitaries? 9% as well. Exactly the same.

So yes, only a third of Republican killings were civilians.

However Republican paramilitaries killed twice as many people as the Loyalists did. Kind of obvious that a greater percentage were British security forces. Remember, of course, that "British security forces" included the police force of Northern Ireland, not just the British army.

SamHall wrote: »

of course it stank.

They refused to wear a convicts uniform, they were prisoners of war, not criminals.

How so? What government did they represent? Did this government have international recognition? Did it engage in political dialogue as a foreign power? Where were these soldiers' uniforms? Why did they not abide by international law governing the conduct of soldiers in war? Did any of them seek to be represented, or themselves represent the foreign power that they were fighting against? Were they a unified body with a central command? Was there a chain of command between the government that they fought for and the military? Did they themselves take prisoners, and treat such prisoners in the manner that they were themselves demanding?

Were these full time soldiers? Were they paid for their service? Were they serving, at all? Where were they trained? To whom did they bear responsibilities for their actions? Could their superiors be court-martialed? Did this government that they fought on behalf of ever seek to subpoena any of their members for their conduct?

Banjo String · 06-05-2013 11:35PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Jaysus. From the statistics I have seen the number of Republican Paramilitaries killed by Loyalists was 9%, not 4%. And what percentage of Republican killings were Loyalist Paramilitaries? 9% as well. Exactly the same.

So yes, only a third of Republican killings were civilians.

However Republican paramilitaries killed twice as many people as the Loyalists did. Kind of obvious that a greater percentage were British security forces. Remember, of course, that "British security forces" included the police force of Northern Ireland, not just the British army.

We were discussing the deliberate killing of completely innocent civilians.
Victims chosen for no other reason than their religion.

Something the loyalists excelled in.

Banjo String · 06-05-2013 11:38PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

How so? What government did they represent? Did this government have international recognition? Did it engage in political dialogue as a foreign power? Where were these soldiers' uniforms? Why did they not abide by international law governing the conduct of soldiers in war? Did any of them seek to be represented, or themselves represent the foreign power that they were fighting against?

You're aware of guerrilla warfare right?

joe swanson · 06-05-2013 11:42PM

Terrorist and his terrorist mates die. Won't spare a thought for them. Maybe we should remember their innocent victims instead.

LordSutch · 06-05-2013 11:47PM

SamHall wrote: »

of course it stank.

They refused to wear a convicts uniform, they were prisoners of war, not criminals.
The Brits then made those who refused to put on a uniform go naked, so the men then write the only garment they had, their blankets.

The prisoners had to slop out their chamber pots on a daily basis, but the Brits then refused any prisoner from doing that unless they put on the uniform, the prisoners still refused.

At first, the chamber pots were emptied out the window of the cell, then the screws blocked the Windows up, so they then threw the contents of the pots under the cell doors, but the screws started to push the urine and faeces back under the doors, saturating the mattresses and floor of the cell.

After that, the chamber pot used to sit in a corner of the cell overflowing, the prisoners then had only one thing left to do, they were forced to tear pieces from their sponge mattresses and smear the faeces on the walls and ceilings, this made it dry out considerably quicker, and thus the smell was not as strong.

It was a hellish existence for any man to endure. This was a form of torture that went on for years.

The prisoners didn't yield an inch though.

He/they were in in prison for a reason, and as such they should have abided by the prison rules. 'Rules is rules' as they say, and what those prisoners did (as you portray) was disgusting in the highest order.

God help those prison guards (screws) having to endure that kind of carry on every day, it must have been an horrendous job cleaning out those poo covered cells every bloody day, and all because Sands and Co wanted to be classed as something other than common criminals (which they were) in the eyes of the law, albeit with some cocky notion that they were freedom fighters on a political mission!

Now before you Provo supporters all get on your horses > I'm not just saying this to stir up a hornets nest in the Pro IRA camp, but what I am portraying is the other side of the story from the Prison Guards point of view, and surely that aspect is rarely told, but should be heard.

Because to the Prison Guards/authorities, these prisoners were just common criminals like all the rest I guess.

PS: I presume "the Brits" you speak of SamHall are the Prison Guards/Screws?

Nodin · 06-05-2013 11:48PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So basically Republicans weren't as bad as Loyalists because some of the civilians they killed were killed unintentionally?
.....

As stated earlier -

What is also clear from Figure A3.4 is that nationalist paramilitary violence is primarily strategic rather than simply sectarian - especially after
1972-3. More members of the security forces (862) are killed than
Protestant civilians (575), and since the former are overwhelmingly killed
by nationalist paramilitaries (834, and see Figure A3.8 below), it follows
that nationalist paramilitaries partially fulfill their objective of
fighting 'a war of national liberation', as opposed to a mere sectarian war

(my bold)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/bodbol.htm

As regards loyalist violence

The final striking feature of Figure A3.7 is that loyalist paramilitaries kill civilians almost exclusively. This feature of their activities has been consistent since their first eruption (Boulton 1973; Dillon and I,ehane 1973).

(my bold)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/bodbol.htm

Loyalism was slow to develop a political outlook of any depth, and only developed sophistication in attacks and methodology much later in the conflict.

RandomName2 · 06-05-2013 11:48PM

SamHall wrote: »

statistics

Sorry, my bad.

Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:
1080 (~52%) were members of the British security forces
728 (~35%) were civilians
187 (~9%) were members of republican paramilitaries
56 (~2.7%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
10 (~0.4%) were members of the Irish security forces

Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:
868 (~85.4%) were civilians
93 (~9%) were members of loyalist paramilitaries
41 (~4%) were members of republican paramilitaries
14 (~1.3%) were members of the British security forces

Source: Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland

SamHall wrote: »

You're aware of guerrilla warfare right?

Yes. In this case being fought by several disjointed, competing terrorist organisations that were seeking to destabilise the government through bombing campaigns, ambushes, kidnappings, arson, and intimidation.

SamHall wrote: »

We were discussing the deliberate killing of completely innocent civilians.
Victims chosen for no other reason than their religion.

Something the loyalists excelled in.

That much we can agree on.

Nodin · 06-05-2013 11:51PM

LordSutch wrote: »

He/they were in in prison for a reason, and as such they should have abided by the prison rules. 'Rules is rules' as they say, and what those prisoners did (as you portray) was disgusting in the highest order. ?

"lie down, croppy, lie down" is the song you're thinking of.

LordSutch wrote: »

God help those prison guards (screws) having to endure that kind of carry on every day.......

The poor dears.

This isn't "to stir up a hornets nest "?

gallag · 06-05-2013 11:52PM

The same people pretending that the IRA had a higher moral code because they had a lower percentage of civilians killed, of course they did, they were the only group that targeted non civilians, the uvf, uda etc did not target the army, police etc so they naturally had a higher ratio of civilian totals. The ira still killed more civilians than any other group, just so happens that they also murdered a lot of non civilian police/army/prision guards etc.

Banjo String · 06-05-2013 11:55PM

LordSutch wrote: »

He/they were in in prison for a reason, and as such they should have abided by the prison rules. 'Rules is rules' as they say, and what those prisoners did (as you portray) was disgusting in the highest order.

Many were sentenced without a trial or jury in a diplock court, so this bit is complete tripe tbh.

How many of the prisoners would ever have seen the inside of a prison has it not have been four the troubles?

Also, thankfully the Brits didn't share your view when they gave in to the prisoners demands.

LordSutch wrote: »

God help those prison guards (screws) having to endure that kind of carry on every day, it must have been an horrendous job cleaning out those poo covered cells every bloody day, and all because Sands and Co wanted to be classed as something other than common criminals (which they were) in the eyes of the law, albeit with some cocky notion that they were freedom fighters on a political mission!

The screws got to go home everyday. Unlike the prisoners, as already said, some imprisoned without trial.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that the cells were cleaned daily?

I can't help but feel that you know all about the protests.

LordSutch wrote: »

Now before you Provo supporters all get on your horses > I'm not just saying this to stir up a hornets nest in the Pro IRA camp, but what I am portraying is the other side of the story from the Prison Guards point of view, and surely that aspect is rarely told, but should be heard.

PS: I presume "the Brits" you speak of SamHall are the Prison Guards/Screws?

No. Many of the screws were Irishmen.

RandomName2 · 06-05-2013 11:56PM

Nodin wrote: »

Loyalism was slow to develop a political outlook of any depth, and only developed sophistication in attacks and methodology much later in the conflict.

There was method in the madness. It stemmed from an ingrained philosophy that Nationalists could be driven out altogether through terror. Luckily their apparent disinterest in politics (directly) had the effect of making the main Unionist parties of the north less tainted by association. The unionist parties were criticised for not curbing the violence, not for having members who were actually guilty of it.

Banjo String · 07-05-2013 12:01AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

There was method in the madness. It stemmed from an ingrained philosophy that Nationalists could be driven out altogether through terror. Luckily their apparent disinterest in politics (directly) had the effect of making the main Unionist parties of the north less tainted by association. The unionist parties were criticised for not curbing the violence, not for having members who were actually guilty of it.

Billy Hutchinson.
David Ervine.

We'll start with these fine pair of gentlemen shall we.

RandomName2 · 07-05-2013 12:01AM

SamHall wrote: »

Many were sentenced without a trial or jury in a diplock court, so this bit is complete tripe tbh.

But not so the person whom this thread is about.

SamHall wrote: »

Also, are you seriously suggesting that the cells were cleaned daily?

The prisoners were fed, clothed and provided basic sanitation. The prisoners forsook the food, the clothes, and the sanitation as they believed that accepting such would make them appear criminal prisoners rather than prisoners of war.

Chuck Stone · 07-05-2013 12:04AM

gallag wrote: »

the uvf, uda etc did not target the army, police etc

No they got intelligence from them as well as weapons and despite this they still could only manage to kill 4 Republicans for every hundred people they killed; that's little but sectarian bloodlust.

The ira still killed more civilians than any other group

Wrong. Loyalists killed more civilians.

RandomName2 · 07-05-2013 12:05AM

SamHall wrote: »

Billy Hutchinson.
David Ervine.

We'll start with these fine pair of gentlemen shall we.

Oh, forgot the PUP. That was the only unionist party associated with paramilitary organisations afaict. Bit of a dismal failure of a party though, with currently 0 people in Stormont, 0 in the EU parliament, 0 in Westminster and 2 (out of 582 seats) in local government.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Wrong. Loyalists killed more civilians.

Think he was talking about the "IRA" as a single organisation, compared to any other paramilitary organisation in the Troubles. In absolute numbers he's pretty much guaranteed to be correct, because the IRA killed so many people. Not particularly relevant, mind.

LordSutch · 07-05-2013 12:06AM

SamHall wrote: »

No. Many of the screws were Irishmen.

That blasted term "Brits" still has me confused. So when you say many of the screws were Irishmen, where would that leave Irishmen with British passports, would you call them "The Brits" or what?

God I hate that term Brits, Why? because its can mean so many things depending on the context, and maybe in this case you are refering to the London authorities? or some of the prison guards, or both? Who are the Brits you speak of SamHall? Please clarify.

Goodnight.

Chuck Stone · 07-05-2013 12:09AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

The unionist parties were criticised for not curbing the violence, not for having members who were actually guilty of it.

Paisley and his ilk liked nothing more than to wind fundamentalist loyalists up and then melt into the background when things kicked off. To say that Unionist politicians hands were clean is rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMpV5jnZhq8

junder · 07-05-2013 12:12AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh, forgot the PUP. That was the only unionist party associated with paramilitary organisations afaict. Bit of a dismal failure of a party though, with currently 0 people in Stormont, 0 in the EU parliament, 0 in Westminster and 2 (out of 582 seats) in local government.

Still has the longest serving city councillor of any political party, Hugh smith, having first been elected to Belfast city hall in 1972 and a stint as Lord mayor. As for the pup itself, could be its about to make a come back

Banjo String · 07-05-2013 12:14AM

LordSutch wrote: »

That blasted term "Brits" still has me confused. So when you say many of the screws were Irishmen, where would that leave Irishmen with British passports, would you call them "The Brits" or what?

God I hate that term Brits, Why? because its can mean so many things depending on the context, and maybe in this case you are refering to the London authorities? or some of the prison guards, or both? Who are the Brits you speak of SamHall? Please clarify.

Goodnight.

The screws didn't make the decisions in the prison.

They carried them out.

Some of the screws were Catholics from the north that held Irish passports. (I know of two at least)

I was referring to the British govt obviously.

Brit isn't used by me as a derogatory term btw, merely shortened version of British.

There was no hidden meaning in my post.

RandomName2 · 07-05-2013 12:15AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Paisley and his ilk liked nothing more than to wind fundamentalist loyalists up and then melt into the background when things kicked off. To say that Unionist politicians hands were clean is rubbish.

Hmmm... this is a tricky one. Stirring up trouble as bad as the one causing the trouble? If your words lead someone to murder are you as bad as the murderer? Well, no, but you are hardly covering yourself in glory by doing so.

LordSutch · 07-05-2013 12:18AM

SamHall wrote: »

I was referring to the British govt obviously.

Certainly not obvious to me, but I get your drift now - thanks.

I still say "the Brits" can be a very misleading term though.

Banjo String · 07-05-2013 12:18AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

But not so the person whom this thread is about.

still entirely relevant to the thread though.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The prisoners were fed, clothed and provided basic sanitation. The prisoners forsook the food, the clothes, and the sanitation as they believed that accepting such would make them appear criminal prisoners rather than prisoners of war.

Partially correct only.

They refused to don the uniform of a criminal. (And rightly so) the rest was a progression from that.

Chuck Stone · 07-05-2013 12:22AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hmmm... this is a tricky one. Stirring up trouble as bad as the one causing the trouble? If your words lead someone to murder are you as bad as the murderer? Well, no, but you are hardly covering yourself in glory by doing so.

In my opinion it's worse because the stirrer does everything to not put himself at risk while inciting others to commit acts of violence.

'Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners'.

Ian Paisley

Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

Comments