Mr Bairn Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Yes, to ensure the safety and security of everyone in the prison. To be fair I think they should be locked in individual cells with no access to the Qu'Ran and only allowed out to piss accompanied by guards. I've never been inside a prison so I'm not entirely sure how it usually works, but do prisoner-on-prisoner attacks typically happen at meal times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Moron alert for saying they should be treated like any other prisoner? explain.If they were in general population they would be at great risk. Something which would be a problem for the prison officers and the tax payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Not being a dick about it i just think they shouldn't be treated any different than other prisoners. Put them in general population and if they get attacked oh well. They are being treated the same as any other prisoner. If someone is at high risk, they're taken out of general population. You're the one suggesting they're treated differently because you have a paeticular problem with their crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 They should be isolated to protect them and others who may take the law in to their own hands. Anarchy in prison like you suggest is not that good an idea. What if a prison officer was killed in part of any attack and disturbance? What if an attack led to other Muslims attacking other prisoners or officers? Isn't prison supposed to be a tough place full of the most violent of scum? Anyone there is at risk of violence. If the crime they are in for is so vile that even the other inmates think of them as inhuman scum, chances are they didn't get a big enough sentence from the judge anyway. Personally, I'd send all violent offenders to Africa. Somalia could do with the jobs and it would be much cheaper to run a prison there than in the UK. Everyone wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Isn't prison supposed to be a tough place full of the most violent of scum? Anyone there is at risk of violence. If the crime they are in for is so vile that even the other inmates think of them as inhuman scum, chances are they didn't get a big enough sentence from the judge anyway. Personally, I'd send all violent offenders to Africa. Somalia could do with the jobs and it would be much cheaper to run a prison there than in the UK. Everyone wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 They are being treated the same as any other prisoner. If someone is at high risk, they're taken out of general population. You're the one suggesting they're treated differently because you have a paeticular problem with their crime. Precisely. THEY SHOULDN'T BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY COS THEY'RE MUZZIES. Removing prisoners from certain attack and highly probable death is treating them the same as everyone else. The prevention of people being mashed to a pulp is a general aim across anyone being detained by the state. ERM, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THEN. I ENJOY THE IDEA OF PEOPLE BEING PUNITIVELY RAPED. As disturbing as this case is, it's always enjoyable to see Britain's overly emotional nutters get their forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Can one of the reactionaries clarify whether Ian Watkins bumming a terrorist would be a good or a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Can one of the reactionaries clarify whether Ian Watkins bumming a terrorist would be a good or a bad thing? Only if they both don't like it. Which seems unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 What would happen to the guys that do it? They'd get additions to their sentence. More fool them, we aren't forcing them to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Only if they both don't like it. Which seems unlikely. Eh? Why does anyone care whether Watkins likes it or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Eh? Why does anyone care whether Watkins likes it or not? Because criminals should only be able to rape if they don't enjoy it. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 So, stick them in the general population and let them get attacked/murdered. Because, obviously, the way to punish and prevent crime is by encouraging, erm, more crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Because criminals should only be able to rape if they don't enjoy it. Duh. Bit of a difference between a paedophile and a jihadist though. There are hundreds of Ian Watkins in there, just so happens that he's in the public eye. The two Mikey's are actual islamic terrorists and thus have committed the absolute worst crime that exists in the UK, so having a wee gouged out after dinner or something is fine by me. So, stick them in the general population and let them get attacked/murdered. Because, obviously, the way to punish and prevent crime is by encouraging, erm, more crime? Does it count as a crime when the victim is a jihadist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Does it count as a crime when the victim is a jihadist?I'm going to do you a favour and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 You suggesting they get special treatment in jail. The only treatments these jihadists deserve is a daily visit from Mr Tobin. They will get special treatment. They'll be stuck in solitary for decades. Not for protection BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowdenbeathLoyal Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 So, stick them in the general population and let them get attacked/murdered. Because, obviously, the way to punish and prevent crime is by encouraging, erm, more crime? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Bit of a difference between a paedophile and a jihadist though. There are hundreds of Ian Watkins in there, just so happens that he's in the public eye. The two Mikey's are actual islamic terrorists and thus have committed the absolute worst crime that exists in the UK, so having a wee gouged out after dinner or something is fine by me. Does it count as a crime when the victim is a jihadist? Oh, you're trolling again. Never mind. Yes. Oh, you're as thick as f**k. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowdenbeathLoyal Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Oh, you're trolling again. Never mind. Oh, you're as thick as f**k. Never mind. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Not being a dick about it i just think they shouldn't be treated any different than other prisoners. Put them in general population and if they get attacked oh well.Yes you are. Why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to treat them like normal prisoners when they are ,quite clearly,not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.