What a geezer! Who could resist the appeal to let him out for his 80th birthday?
After all, he and his mates only nicked £2 million (at 1960s values!) and fatally assaulted an innocent railway employee
Sentenced to 30 years, he served 15 months and then escaped, to live for 30 years a luxurious lifestyle supported by unspecified sources of income in various countries with much better weather than the UK
When the ageing process finally caught up with him and he was in desperate need of free healthcare he returned to UK in 2001 and was sent back to jail (with the free healthcare he came for)
Now his misguided family want him released because he "poses no threat to society"
But has he paid his debt to the society for which he clearly has such cynical contempt?
Yeah let him go I reckon. I'm not interested in keeping a sick 80 year old man in prison for something which he did over 40 years ago, unless it was gassing jews.
.
and fatally assaulted
You sure about that ?
and fatally assaulted an innocent railway employee
Actually grizzlygus you are right. All they did was hit him on the head with an iron bar.
So that's all right then
However:
something which he did over 40 years ago
Thirty years of which should have been served in jail, but weren't, because he escaped, so he's still got some time to do however old he may be
All they did was hit him on the head with an iron bar.So that's all right then
Did I say that ?
Prison is just about punishment; its about rehabilitation, someone who escaped and was on the run for 30 years could hardly be rehabilitated.
We can't withdraw citizenship from people we don't like nor deny treatment to criminals.
They should have left him in Brazil to rot.
The Brazilians had no interest in returning him to the UK even knowing that he was a convicted criminal.
People like Biggs don't deserve the benefits of our welfare system when he paid nothing into it for 30 years and 'thumbed his nose' at the UK from the safety of Brazil for so long.
it must be a fairly unique situation. Don't think he should be let out though, he's had the freedom he would otherwise be having now.
[i]"Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk"[/i]
Hmmm 30 years of comfortable lifestyle, young wife, good weather can't really be counted as time served can it? So, regardless of his age, he still owes Her Majesty some time?
He should serve his time. End of story. I'm not even sure why there's any debate that he shouldn't ?
Keep him in I say - his sentence was harsh but it was still his time to do and he ain't done it. There are plenty of old men in jail. He is not unique
The bloke is a nasty piece of work - as the old adage goes: If you cant do the time, dont do the crime..
tough bits. keep him in
Leave the old bastard in there to rot. No doubt, his family will be all 'oh, but he's an old man, and should have some dignity to spend his remaining days with his loved ones'- tough shit. He's the one that has denied his family the ability to be near him, not the British Government. He broke the law. A man was seriously injured, and his life ruined, by those violent criminal thugs. Biggs should spend the rest of his days contemplating that, not living it up.
Hang 'im like they did Saddam.
He helped destroy another man's life, and the gang were prepared to do in all the railwaymen if necessary.
A free pardon, and drop him off half way to Brazil.
(From about 30,000 feet should do the trick)
Has he served his sentence? No? Sorry, stay inside for the duration.
There really is an impressive level of nonsense on this thread.
Some appear to think Biggs got 30 years for hitting someone over the head. He didn't, he got 30 years for robbing a mail train. No one gets 30 years for hitting someone over the head (some coppers would be sh1tting today if that were true). You don't even get that for murder. And anyway, there's never been any proof that it was Biggs who hit the guard.
Some appear to think that Biggs evading capture is as bad, if not worst, than his actual crime. It's perfectly normal for a criminal to avoid capture, they don't normally hand themselves in, so it's hardly something which is unique to Biggs.
TJ - Have you got some sort of evidence to back up your claim that there are plenty of 80 year old men in jail - or is it just a hunch ? And are there 'plenty' of old men in prison who like Biggs, can't talk, walk, or swallow ?
Comments like "the gang were prepared to do in all the railwaymen if necessary" are complete nonsense and there's no evidence to suggest that. In fact all the evidence is that they didn't intend to kill anyone - that's why none of them had any firearms, something which they could have easily obtained.
And comments like dropping him from 30,000 feet are totally disportionate. The guy robbed a mail train, he's not a serial killer or rapist ffs.
Could go on, but can't be ar5sed ......
So, he escaped from jail, lived the life of Riley in Brazil, got ill, came back home to Blighty, and promptly got banged up. How many years has he actually done so far?
I agree that 30 years seems disproportionate. But, once he stepped back on British soil, he had to face the penalty of Law, otherwise it would be a mockery of Justice.
Whether or not he or any of the team intended to kill anyone or not is irrelevant. They used violence to steal a load of money. They broke the Law. Some have been inside, done their time, got released. Biggs has to face the same.
30 years inside was the sentence handed down at his trial. He won't actually spend that long inside. And he's had the best part of his life, living in luxury.
No, let him rot. Seems about right, tbh.
It appears in today's society that crimes against property rate higher sentences than crimes against people. Kill someone while pissed up behind the steering wheel of a car will get you slammed up for a lot less than defrauding a company.
What has annoyed me, is betray secrets to a foreign state that has resulted in people going up against the wall and if you for whatever reason get away with it for 30 years then nothing happens to you.
lived the life of Riley in Brazil,
He was skint - that's why he had to sign autographs, have his picture taken with people, sell stories, etc etc
.
otherwise it would be a mockery of Justice.
What ? And you don't think that keeping in prison an 80 year old man who can't talk, can't walk, and dribbles because he can't swallow, [b]isn't[/b] a 'mockery of justice' ? ffs
You think if they let him go home to die it will 'send out the wrong signals' and everybody will want to go out and rob mail trains ?
ffs.
Grizzlygus, tell all that to the railwayman who got clobbered.
Grizzly your off the plot if you think Biggs should be allowed to walk. He broke the law, got nicked, then escaped - do you think anybody really gave a **** that he was broke in Brazil???
He's a nasty sort - end of story. The Master Mind of a vicious gang who were prepared to commit assault or worse to achieve their ends. Stop being so misty eyed & romantic, there are no innocent victims when it comes to crime.
Grizzly your off the plot
Yes, constantly. 🙄
do you think anybody really gave a **** that he was broke in Brazil
I get the impression that RudeBoy feels that Biggs financial status whilst he was living in Brazil is important.
So the answer to your question appears to be 'yes'.
.
The Master Mind of a vicious gang
I'm sure that I must be reading that wrong. Because if I'm reading it correctly, it is in fact complete nonsense, ie Biggs only played a minor role in the robbery, and in fact didn't even take any part in it's planning.
What do you mean ?
He was skint - that's why he had to sign autographs, have his picture taken with people, sell stories, etc etc
Yeah it was so awful that he only stayed there a couple of weeks, then surrendered didn't he ? 🙄
30 years was a very long sentence and I've no doubt that it was a statement from the establishment. However, was the sentence lawful ? If so, then Biggs had to do his time and go through the correct channels of appeal if he thought the sentence too severe.
The fact that he's an 80 year old man serving time, is due to his own decision to flee. If he'd have served his time, he'd be out by now.
Should serve his sentence.
Grizzlygus
On 30 June 2007 there were 2,221 prisoners aged over 60 in England and Wales, [b]including 405 over 70.[/b] The number of sentenced prisoners aged 60 and over rose by 169% between 1995 and 2005.
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/subsection.asp?id=273
From some stuff I have read there are plenty with serious disabilites including wheelchair users and so on. Some jails have geriatric wings staffed with nursing staff - basically nursing homes behind bars
GG the fact that you have no desire to see him remain in prison is neither here nor there, although you are entitled to your opinion.
You shouldn't dismiss the violent nature of the crime or his part in it. He was complicit in a crime that at least ruined and likely shortened an innocent mans life. The fact that he avoided punishment strikes many as unfair (hence the response on this thread) particularly as in the UK we expect justice to "be seen to be done"
I share the view that it would be inhumane to keep such a sick man in prison now but also share the view that he has abused the system by choosing only to return to the UK for treatment, this is cynical.
If he had remained in the UK he would likely be a free man now and this would be a mute point. However he made a choice and the bottom line he is likely to receive little sympathy.
30 years + whatever for breaking out of prison ...he is taking the pi55 he only came back here needed the health care to prolong his own life (at our expense) knowing this would be in jail. I feel very little compassion towards him as he showed very little remorse in Brazil and seemed to revel in his notoriety.
The thirty year sentence was purely political - no other robbery has ever received such harsh punishment. It's ironic that if he had received a sentence in keeping with the crime, it's unlikely he would have bothered fleeing to Brazil. By my reckoning, he's now served about 10 years in total in a UK prison, which is probably about right for armed robbery. Time to let him go home to die.
So he wasnt the Boss - so what? He was still part of a gang who committed a crime which in terms of size wasnt matched until the Brinks Mat job. Should we set an example here and say "Its ok, you broke the law, fled the country & avoided the sentence which was handed down to you, come home & suckle off the breast of Welfare State..We dont mind :wink:"
Or do we have a bit of spine & show Biggs & others that Justice is patient. That sooner or later it will catch up with you..
My point is he's a crook, a nasty one, one who was prepared to go to great lengths to evade capture who only gave himself up when he was sick & needed to come back to the UK. At what point does this man deserve sympathy?
"My point is he's a crook, a nasty one, one who was prepared to go to great lengths to evade capture who only gave himself up when he was sick & needed to come back to the UK. At what point does this man deserve sympathy?"
He doesn't. But arguably, he's already served a sentence commensurate with his crime. On that basis, what grounds are there for keeping him in prison? It's not as if he's going to re-offend.
Ransos - what sentence would that be?
what grounds are there for keeping him in prison?
He evaded the sentence handed down upon him, and hasn't served it.
Why should he be be rewarded for the former?
According the OP, he served 15 months back in the 60s and has been in prison in the UK since 2001, so he's been in jail for about 10 years already.
There seems to be a general tone on this thread that he should stay in prison because he hasn't served 30 years. In my view, 30 years was disproportionate to the crime committed, and was handed down for political reasons. Doesn't armed robbery normally get 10-15 years?
Were you at Myra Hindley's funeral? :0
Seriously if he gets released it could be viewed as reward for evading prison in the first place.
If his sentence were to be appealed, that would be the right way to go about it.
Al is right - appealing the sentence is the right way - asking for parole on the grounds he is old and ill and no danger isn't. Many folk in jail are ill - and their illnesses are being made worse by incarceration.
"If his sentence were to be appealed, that would be the right way to go about it."
Probably agree. I'm ambivalent to be honest, I was just trying to bring some balance to the thread - just because a 30 year sentence was handed down, it doesn't automatically follow that it would be right for him to serve it.
There is also an additional tarrif of about 6 years for escaping.So add that to his sentence. He has kind of cocked a snook at Britain until it suited him, he must have realised that he would be getting payed back by the establishment
"There is also an additional tarrif of about 6 years for escaping.So add that to his sentence. He has kind of cocked a snook at Britain until it suited him, he must have realised that he would be getting payed back by the establishment"
Yeah, that's what annoys me about the whole thing - it was outrage of the establishment that saw the ridiculous sentences passed in the first place.
I assume that the sentences of the other robbers were reduced - anyone know what to?
I don't really care about him, just being devils advocate. There was an element of trying to make sure the penalty for carrying out a robbery such as this would be so harsh, nobody else would try it....yup, that worked.
RepacK - MemberSo he wasnt the Boss - so what?
Well actually I was hoping that you would help me with that question. Because apparently you think that his role in the robbery is significant to this thread.
Well at least that's how I took it when you commented " The Master Mind of a vicious gang"
I get the impression RepacK, that you've come to an opinion before discovering he facts. Or at least trying to get the facts to fit your opinion.
I have to say that I'm not entirely sure whether it's supposed to be done that way round.
.
TandemJeremy - you still haven't told me how many prisoners there are of the same age as Biggs. Any ideas ? I know you've suggested 'plenty', but I just wondered what that meant. Biggs is 80 btw, so just the number over 80 will do.
The only thing I could find was 400+ over 70. I did not intend that to be taken literally - as "plenty over 80" but "plenty of elderly disabled and ill men". Of the 400 over 70 85% are chronically ill and / or disabled.
He is not in a unique position was my point.
"An 80-year-old confused man [in this prison] is unable to look after himself. We do not yet know whether he was known to social services but it seems likely. He has a five-year sentence for indecent exposure which is not surprising since he continually takes his clothes off."
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/standard.asp?id=1686
Perhaps more deserving of a campaign for his release?
Oh ok then ...... it's possibly just a few, and not necessarily 'plenty'.
Which means that it's not really significant to whether or not Biggs is kept banged up.
Robbery has a sentence of life, there is no such offence as armed robbery. Being armed just aggravates the offence and means you will probably get additional time added to your sentence.
I think that whether people think 30 years is a harsh sentence or not that is what the trial Judge handed down. Biggs evaded capture... he has to do the time, like everyone else.
Would people be saying this if it was a rape? murder? manslaughter? Just giving food for thought.
Conspiracies to commit an offence also hold the full offence sentence. So if you conspire to commit a robbery, even if it is a very minor part you can expect the full sentence (whether that is given or not is another matter) surely you would be fully aware of what you are conspiring to commit!
Would people be saying this if it was a rape? murder? manslaughter? Just giving food for thought.
Indeed Munqe-chick ........... I bet it would put a whole new angle on things if Biggs had raped, murdered [i]and[/i] eaten his victims.
Who knows what the right answer is in this day and age of the European Convention of Human Rights! I'm not willing to speculate!
Who knows what the right answer is ......
Well I think we ought to know the answer.
.
What about 'parking tickets' ?
What would the answer be if it was 'parking tickets' ?
Who knows what the right answer is in this day and age of the European Convention of Human Rights!
Another officer of the law criticizing the human rights convention. I mean, would you believe it.
He committed a crime, evaded doing time, and then comes back when he is ill. The sentence whether those here believe it was appropriate or not, still stands.
How about we have parole for all over 80yrs old?
I'd probably let him out, kind of feels better to be compassionate even if he wasn't/isn't, don't think it serves anything or anyone to punish him just for the sake of it or to make some kind of point because we're pissed off that he 'got away with it'.
Edit:
Blimey, he's been back 8 years now, that went fast, so has done 10 of his 30. Yep, I'd grant parole on compassionate grounds.
I haven't criticized ECHR at all thank you! I was purely mentioning that now we have HR things have changed.
Can't saying anything on this forum any more without getting torn to shreds/presuptiom of opinions.
What about 'parking tickets' ?What would the answer be if it was 'parking tickets' ?
He should serve his full sentence in that case. I mean that's a very serious crime, not like those namby pamby things you suggest like raping his victims after he's eaten and then murdered them. I suppose if it was traffic wardens he'd raped, eaten and murdered that might be a different matter - after all everybody loves a traffic warden, so in that case they should throw away the key.
I haven't criticized ECHR at all thank you!
That's quite true Munqe-chick, you didn't. I think we might have a case here of a presumption by El-bent, based on his own prejudice.
Although imo I reckon you're possibly be getting a tad sensitive about being ' torn to shreds' ....
based on his own prejudice.
A presumption in itself. Pot calling...
But not of course, if you post the [b]whole[/b] quote El-bent, ie :
"I think [u]we might have[/u] a case here of a presumption by El-bent, based on his own prejudice."
What are you El-bent ....... a journalist ?
..... or maybe a politician ?
Or simply, just someone who likes 'half-truths' ?
I don't believe this ......
I start off on this thread sticking up for Ronnie Biggs. And end up, sticking up for a copper.
How the **** did [i]that[/i] happen ? 😯
You're right, because if I post the whole quote it makes it look even more presumptuous.
What are you El-bent ....... a journalist ?
A journalist? 😆
Why is that funny ..... can't you write ?
You know what Guss if its more important for you to to pick holes in my argument then fair enough - I made a mistake, I admit it..But you still have yet to convince me why Biggs should be allowed to walk?
I start off on this thread sticking up for Ronnie Biggs. And end up, sticking up for a copper.How the **** did that happen ?
Because you, like a number of us here don't believe that if you don't like someone, something, and organisation, a belief or political system etc, then everything associated with it is wrong, Like vegetarianism being associated with a certain mustached fellow from Austria.
Munque-chick doing the job she does should know that the remark made about ECHR could draw criticism. I merely wanted to illicit a response, something that yourself and others do when you want to find out what the thinking behind the statement was.
Why is that funny ..... can't you write ?
I was hoping that it wouldn't come to petty insults like this Gus.
I was hoping that it wouldn't come to petty insults
Why would you consider it to be an insult ? An ability, or lack of ability, to write, makes very little impression on me. After all, I'm hardly an intellectual myself. I was merely intrigued why the suggestion of 'journalist' caused you to laugh.
Munque-chick doing the job she does should know that the remark made about ECHR could draw criticism
Munque-chick is a punter like everyone else on here. And when she posts on here she's 'off duty'. So she doesn't have to 'behave' in any particular way - she can behave just how she likes. She doesn't have to be 'fair' or 'reasonable' or anything else, which I would expect a copper to be. In fact, as far as I'm concerned she can be as rude, and as unreasonable, and as bigoted, and as aggressive, as any other herbert on this forum. By all means pull her up as you would anyone else, but keep the fact that she's a copper out of it - it's got **** all to do with it....... IMHO 🙄
.
EDIT : Unless of course the topic is policing, and Munque-chick [u]chooses[/u] to speak in her [i]capacity[/i] as a WPC, then for obvious reasons it's a completely different kettle of fish.
.
And btw Hitler [i]wasn't[/i] a vegetarian. That's just a myth that's been put about - he didn't eat much meat, but he did eat it.
Really? So why bring it up at all? You could have just asked why I laughed at the Journalist bit?An ability, or lack of ability, to write, makes very little impression on me
Fair enough if thats what you think with the Munque-chick bit, I would merely add that you have to be careful when commentating on an issue that can be associated with your profession. Its what you don't say that gets you into trouble around these parts. 😉
You will need to read my line on the vegetarianism bit, I didn't say he was one.
Really? So why bring it up at all?
Yes, really. Although I have to confess it did occur to me that you might not share my healthy contempt for intellectual prowess.
Fair enough if thats what you think with the Munque-chick bit
Yeah, well, it winds me up a bit, because I know that if Munque-chick were to come on here acting the 'copper' all the time, then she would undoubtedly get stick for it. Plus people really can't have it both ways, they can't on the one hand expect coppers to behave like just anyone else, but then on the other hand, refuse to treat them like anyone else. Of course Munque-chick could have refused to reveal that she was a WPC, as others might well choose to, but that would hardly help the cause of challenging preconceived prejudices.
You will need to read my line on the vegetarianism bit, I didn't say he was one.
You will need to read my post, I didn't say that you said he was one.