Ronnie Biggs

In a day when the two most famous crimes of 1960s Britain are in the news, the first being the Moors Murders where police have declared they have stopped looking for final missing victimn Keith Bennett and have put a put up or shut up policy to Ian Brady, that is a decision that hasn't surprised me in the slightest (though they may aswell have given Brady a put up or shut up policy as he's too evil to help and even if he wanted to, he isn't in the right mental state to do so, so I strongly disagree with the idea Brady knows where the body is. I live near Saddleworth Moor and it has changed dramatically since the 1960s.)

Anyway, the news that really surprised me today is that Ronnie Biggs has been denied parole. Here is a dying man who was shockingly over sentenced anyway and is being denied parole because he refuses to apologise and because he got celebrity status. He got a thirty years sentence, you could be drink driving and kill two children on the road and get a third of that sentance. But because he stole 'the Queen's money', he should get thirty years. For goodness sake, use your head and release this man. He is an old man in shocking health, so release him instead of keeping him locked up in an uncivilised way just to prove a point. A silly decision by Jack Straw, though how much it was his decision's another matter, yet it is another reason why I may this time decide to vote against Labour in the next election, though they are still the most likely to get my vote.

Quote: Jack Massey @ July 1 2009, 7:08 PM BST

it is another reason why I may this time decide to vote against Labour in the next election, though they are still the most likely to get my vote.

View original

Ummm...?

Anyway. I'm in two minds. On one hand, he did commit a pretty big crime and did go on the run for a hell of a long time.

On the other hand, he probably was sentenced overly harshly, and it seems like a waste of time, taxpayers' cash, and everyone's effort to keep him inside. From the factors of his health I heard on the news (admittedly via his lawyer, but not disputed), I wouldn't bet on his seeing 2010. I don't really see what keeping him inside achieves.

No more Biggs related crime...

Quote: Aaron @ July 1 2009, 7:14 PM BST

Ummm...?

Anyway. I'm in two minds. On one hand, he did commit a pretty big crime and did go on the run for a hell of a long time.

On the other hand, he probably was sentenced overly harshly, and it seems like a waste of time, taxpayers' cash, and everyone's effort to keep him inside. From the factors of his health I heard on the news (admittedly via his lawyer, but not disputed), I wouldn't bet on his seeing 2010. I don't really see what keeping him inside achieves.

View original

Christ...you and me could be twins

My problem is that he did swan off to Brazil what, 18 months ? into his sentence and lived the life of riley for years, and only returned to get on the NHS system for treatment.

That really annoys me and I really have no sympathy for him.

A big crime it may have been, but it was a crime that a lot of working class people, myself being one of them, greatly admires. And I didn't approve of the fact that the train driver got hit over the head, but I don't see how it contributed to his death. I mean, he died of leukemia. Though the violence should not have been used, it seems to me that the fact he soon died of an illness not related to the death, as a form of justification to let the train drivers rot.

Quote: Richard Wells @ July 1 2009, 7:23 PM BST

My problem is that he did swan off to Brazil what, 18 months ? into his sentence and lived the life of riley for years, and only returned to get on the NHS system for treatment.

That really annoys me and I really have no sympathy for him.

View original

Git. (Too Biggs; not you)

35 years on the run deserves 30 years in prison. I'm not a fan of releasing unrepentant prisoners when they have served their full sentence, so releasing someone early seems a slap in the face of justice.

Quote: DaButt @ July 1 2009, 7:26 PM BST

35 years on the run deserves 30 years in prison. I'm not a fan of releasing unrepentant prisoners when they have served their full sentence, so releasing someone early seems a slap in the face of justice.

View original

In my view, keeping him in is just making a mockery of justice, especially when you consider that Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper Luke McCormick who despite being able to afford a taxi, drove home drunk and killed two children (siblings so a big blow for the parents) and he will serve seven years in prison, which is less than what Ronnie has got. Surely, this makes British justice a laughing stock. It needs changing.

Quote: Jack Massey @ July 1 2009, 7:35 PM BST

In my view, keeping him in is just making a mockery of justice, especially when you consider that Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper Luke McCormick who despite being able to afford a taxi, drove home drunk and killed two children (siblings so a big blow for the parents) and he will serve seven years in prison, which is less than what Ronnie has got. Surely, this makes British justice a laughing stock. It needs changing.

View original

Definitely agree.

I don't think he should be released. There has been a concerted effort to portray him as a loveable rogue and a cheeky cockney spiv; like Frank Butcher or someone. He wasn't harmless rogue - he was a greedy thief and no cosy deals with The Sun make it better.

Well he broke the law. It isn't a simple matter of comparing his sentence to that of a 21st century rapist. I just saw his son on the news saying his sentence had been too long in the first place - it wasn't. It was a very serious offence, the largest haul ever, and was theft from the State. 30+ years was absolutely right. Such was the impact of the crime that Harold Wilson briefly considered scrapping the £5 note in a bid to thwart the robbers!

The sentence was the right one and as Straw said, he would have been out years ago enjoying his retirement and book deals by now if he'd had the good grace to accept his punishment. His initial sentence was right, is unspent and is still valid - its not the Governments fault that it looks harsh now - he delayed it himself.

Also, you do NOT live the high life in the sun and then deign to come back because you've run out of money and you don't think the Government are serious anymore. The authorities do not like being treated like that - nobody has a longer memory than The System.

Quote: Maurice Minor @ July 1 2009, 8:17 PM BST

Also, you do NOT live the high life in the sun and then deign to come back because you've run out of money and you don't think the Government are serious anymore. The authorities do not like being treated like that - nobody has a longer memory than The System.

View original

He actually came back because he couldn't get the treatment for his cancer in Brazil.
And it is an interesting concept you have of it there Maurice. Every newspaper in the country apart from the Express at the time of the robbery congratulated the robbers on the Robin Hood style robbery. I do have a lot of admiration for Biggs.

And talking of robbing the state, what about these MPs. No doubt they won't be sentenced. They do show remorse (BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT) so they don't really anyway, but because Biggs won't show any and play their fake game, he is being left in prison to rot.

I work in the law. Maybe I have become indoctrinated.....

BUT one of my hates is the way Government bend to 'popular opinion'; like anything can be decided on what the press say or what they can spin well. It's nice to know that there are some standards remaining and that some sentences actually mean what they actually said.

I don't think any papers actually congratulated them, but I think they all got caught up in the size of money taken like many people did. Don't lose sight of the fact that it's a crime and it's not impressive ("it's not big or clever!!"). Crime needs punishment, not just rehabilitation.

To come home because of a lack of money or serious illness is a bit of a slap in the face...

Yes, but what the MPs did is also crime and they haven't been sentenced. I think Ronnie has served his sentence now (a sensible sentance, not the silly sentence he was given in the 1960s).

Quote: Jack Massey @ July 1 2009, 8:24 PM BST

And talking of robbing the state, what about these MPs. No doubt they won't be sentsnced. They do show remorse (BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT) so they don't really anyway, but because Biggs won't show any and play their fake game, he is being left in prison to rot.

View original

It's a tempting comparison of course, and I'd like to see them kicked out, but it's not the same. There aren't any actual laws broken, as much as it pains to type it. Also there is the matter of criminal intent - very few of them actually attempted to conceal or dupe; they were entitled to it so they were 'honest', believe it or not. They just knew the press wouldn't like it.

Biggs wasn't honest. I do think a large part of this current situation is revenge, and that's understandable. To steal from the state, piss it up the wall, then expect the state to treat your ailments is galling and I would imagine that he is being made to pay the price.

And like I say, his sentence wasn't silly - it was steep and it was a message. People should not steal from the State.