General Chat

~Lynda~ Today at 23:22 Request review
My family had some personal dealings with the train robbery, so I think I'll bow out of this discussion, maybe it's too personal for me to comment too much.

Add
YEP, same here............

sorry, fingers belong to someone else tonight I think. just had to edit my post cos I left out the 'not' in the first paragraph.

I see Igor posted at the same time as me explaining the sentence. I wonder if sentences for those crimes are still proportionally higher compared to murder/rape etc these days?

Maz. XX

now Ugs, don't start on me!! I didn't mean that at all, just wondered at the severity of the sentence, even at the time it must have been quite unusual for a non-murderer to get 30 years. as far as I know he was not convicted of murder.

I was just comparing with the stupidly light sentences of today - murderers who get 'life' and are out in less than 10 years, quite often to re-offend. I think the only way for prison to be a deterrent (if that even is possible at all) is for the sentence to always be served in full, no concurrent sentences, no frills inside, no telly/gym/parties/mobiles/computers etc, and for life to mean life.

tbh if he is in as bad shape as Teresa says, then the whole thing is probably academic anyway as he wouldn't get a chance to enjoy his 'freedom' anyway - I doubt he could be moved, so what difference would it make either to him or his family?

Maz. XX

Well I have to thank Igor for a very interesting thread.

Until I read this I hadn't taken a huge amount of notice of the debate.

As a result of this thread I've been doing some reading up and have found it very enlightening.

Thanks Igor xx

I don't think that we are going to agree on what is right or wrong, for the most I agree with Ed.

Whatever laws were passed in the sixties have to be upheld in this instance.

My gut feeling is .....if you let him go.......you set a very dodgy precident.

He has cocked a snoot at the authorities for the last 40 yrs........no one made him come back he did that all by himself.........

Whoever you are ...the same rules should apply.....he was sentenced in the 60s and that should stand now.

Imagine if letting him go free gives animals like Huntley airtime to have the same parity?

Rules is rules xx

I can see two sides to this. On one side, he knew that whenever he was caught, he would have to serve his sentence - so it's his own fault that it has been delayed and he should accept the consequences and serve it out to the fullest.

On the other side - as a person who is no danger to the public, why spend taxpayer's money keeping him?

Couldn't have put it better myself Ed.

Good on you.

Aileen xxx

Lynda, you know me - I am generally all wishy washy compassion but the problem with this case is that it's getting attention because it resonates with the public. how many more people must there be who didn't bugger off abroad instead of serving their time and who are ill in jail with loved ones unable to visit?

I honestly think a lot of people are making assumptions that old and frail and working class = all right bloke really

My views/beliefs are as follows:

1. Ronnie Biggs was sentenced in the early 60s, when sentencing was much harsher. He chose to abscond and when he eventually returned to Britain his original sentence still stood. His original sentencing was carried out under an older legal system and therefore the original rules under which he was sentenced apply to his conviction. I believe therefore he has to complete the original sentence to satisfy English Law. (I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps anyone here who is can verify my understanding of this point)

2. Whilst his actions and that of his associates may/may not have contributed to the death of the train driver, he has not repented his crime and therefore he cannot be considered for parole, as this is one overriding criteria for granting parole in the first place. Giving him parole without his declaration of repentance would set a legal precedent and could be used as a flood of challenges to denial of parole in the future. Remember, this case is not just about one man, but has ramifications for the legal system as a whole. Personally, I do not feel the fact he cannot speak now and therefore show repentance cuts the mustard here - he has had many years show remorse and has never done so; in fact he has spent 35 years sticking his fingers up at our society and not contributing one bit to it. I would have stuck two fingers up at him and refused him entry into the UK when he decided he wanted to come back and get freebie medical treatment.

3. I do not believe personally in the parole system. If you are sentenced to 20 years then I believe you should serve 20 years, regardless of your behaviour inside.

4. We as a nation need to decide the role of the penal system in this country - is it to rehabilitate or punish? It needs to be one or the other, as these two functions contradict one another in my eyes. Trying to combine both creates a wishy-washy system that fails to satisfy either function.

There, I've got my opinions off of my chest and hope I have opened up the discussion a bit.

Ed

If he hadn't absconded he would've been a free man long before now.......he CHOSE to go to Brazil.......imho if he wanted to stay a free man he shouldn't have come back......I'm sure his son could've seen him as often as he liked there. xx

Lets be practical. He's no longer a threat to society, so which is cheaper, keeping him in a prison hospital or keeping him in a nursing home/NHS hospital?
I've no idea - but we should go for the one that costs the tax payer least.

I've just watched this debated on Question Time and I've decided that I think he should be left where he is.

I question whether he should've been allowed back anyhow ......though I'm not sure we could've stopped him.

But he took the pee in Brazil livng the high life for 35 years paying not one penny of tax to this country.

If he hadn't beggared off he'd have been a free man long long ago.

He made his bed he should lie in it.

If Ian Brady or Ian Huntley were terminally ill.........do we release them? Do we hell !!!!!!

You get a sentence.......you serve it. ** edit** even if those men (huntley and brady)were proven to be no danger to children I still wouldn't want them to walk free as they deserve to be where they are.....no one MADE him come back here......he came back for his own MERCENARY reasons.....

If he goes free the whole justice system becomes more of a joke than it is already xx

Mazzy, shall we let everyone go who was sentenced more than 30 years ago then?:))))

I'm with lovely Jean Joy on this one.

"When I think of some of the sick crimes people commit today and the short sentences they get."

just no comparison is there? for this crime today he would probably get 5 years, unless it was absolutely proved that he had intentionally murdered someone.

I understand they shouldn't set a precedent, so probably he shouldn't be freed, but he's not exactly a danger, as has been said.

it's tricky innit?!

xxxxx

way to go uggers nice one
igor

We have a frail old man that is on deaths bed and people are all for letting him go, or not, because he is a burden to the taxpayer.

What happened to justice for all?

Did he or did he not commit a crime?

Was someone killed as a direct action of said crime or not?

He shat all over the judicial system and then rubbed their faces in it.

Please don't all shoot me down at the same time as it is too hot to dodge the flak.

On the flipside!

Compassion, is what life is all about, after all we are human beings and know how to forgive.

Lindy ;))

Much as I hate to be one ........I'm a *don't know* on this one.

Probably as much of a *don't care* tbh lol xx

Why should he be released just because he's high profile and his son's done a lot of blubbing in the tabloids? Do people want him released because he's old or because he's ill or because he's no danger to society or because there was a nice film about the train robbers?

Who else are we going to let out? Shall we just let every one out when they get to 75 regardless of what crime they committed or at what age they committed it? Or when it's estimated they have a year left to live or 6 months?

Or is he an exception because he was a cheerful cockney geezer who never koshed no-one and was a bit of a Robin Hood figure and scarpered abroad and did the government out of a bit of money?

Let's let him out, in fact why not just abolish judges and courts or we could just have a public phone in on who we jail and how long for. Cos we are all obviously experts:)))

Lynda I am somewhat tempted to do an A to Z ;) of crimes we could hang people for........... lol

xx