Ronnie Biggs Dies aged 84

Hugh Jarse said:
Read the Daily Mail forums and you will find comments like 'hang them" for a wide range of lawbreakers. There is a growing expectation that justice can be made up on the fly...

...The irrationality comes in the expectation that current sentencing by the courts is soft and does not protect the public. Judges are bound by guidelines that direct a range of time for given offences. They can ignore it and only find their decision overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...

....Exactly! And furthermore, Judges are bound by guidelines some of which are set by the EU and complicate matters even further.

I was once involved in a case where in spite of a week long hearing and the jury returning a unanimous verdict of guilty in less than one hour, the Judge's hands were tied with respect to the length of sentence and she voiced her displeasure with that. So, a proven paedophile (he also filmed himself!) who had been preying on his stepdaughter for a period of 3 years, only got a 13 year sentence and was out in 7.

Perhaps, you can perhaps understand why I don't think Ronnie Biggs really deserved a 30-year sentence. However, that is merely my opinion and means diddlysquat.

The UK legal system does all it can to act fairly but there are a great many factors and final judgements can seem both irrational and unpopular to the public.

It's very easy to judge others but you also have to try and understand their point of view and their life's circumstances which got them into trouble.

I say again: It's a thin line, people!
 
Last edited:
mickledore said:
I tend to agree with you on that, but it's not politically correct to say so!!!
Click to expand...
Ah, I`m making a one man stand (hope Charlotte does not read that) against Political correctness..............:)
 
fracster said:
Ah, I`m making a one man stand (hope Charlotte does not read that) against Political correctness..............:)
Click to expand...

....And I would like to stand alongside you against all the PC rubbish!! :D
 
fracster said:
Ah, I`m making a one man stand (hope Charlotte does not read that) against Political correctness..............:)
Click to expand...


You need to be a man for that and having met you I can confirm you are not!!
 
30 years did seem a bit harsh.

Have you seen the price of stamps !
 
fracster said:
Harris was not responsible for the death of innocents, we were at war with Germany, they bombed us, we bombed them. That is how war works.

Yes ,Mandela was a convicted terrorist, though the judicial system in RSA at the time was, shall we say, interesting.
Click to expand...

it was rather "interesting", (read that as if you are black you are guilty), however I don't think NM was ever directly responsible for deaths of people whilst he was heading up Umkhonto we Sizwe. Yes they committed many atroctities further down the line, but can someone in prison on an island in the south atlantic where all communication was monitored and censored, be responsible for organising "campaigns" further down the road (e.g. Church st)
 
Lynton said:
however I don't think NM was ever directly responsible for deaths of people whilst he was heading up Umkhonto we Sizwe. Yes they committed many atroctities further down the line, but can someone in prison on an island in the south atlantic where all communication was monitored and censored, be responsible for organising "campaigns" further down the road (e.g. Church st)
Click to expand...

....Well, according to the legal principle of Common Purpose or Joint Enterprise, then like Ronnie Biggs perhaps Nelson Mandela could be held responsible :D
 
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - where as one mans thieving scumbag is another mans thieving scum bag.

I don't think theres much comparison between someone fighting for freedom from oppression and someone who goes robbing .

(and if we're going to get technical about how many innocent people NM is responsible for the deaths of, I'd bet it was less than the RAF over Dresden , or the USAF over Hiroshima - does common purpose mean Churchill and FDR shouldn't be respected or honoured as well ? )
 
boyfalldown said:
I thought it was around 1 in 7. So far less then 25%.
Click to expand...
Depends on age & gender. I researched this a few years back for a paper. Males between the ages of 35-50 had the greatest incidence of criminal convictions at over 30% that has fallen drastically a fall that has been widely attributed to the use of cautions. Figures area bit vague sorry links are even vaguer. Recent statistics seem to show that 9 million are on the offender database.

Steve
 
can always trust the nice folks of TP to stir up a poop in a coffee cup..
 
big soft moose said:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - where as one mans thieving scumbag is another mans thieving scum bag.

I don't think theres much comparison between someone fighting for freedom from oppression and someone who goes robbing .

(and if we're going to get technical about how many innocent people NM is responsible for the deaths of, I'd bet it was less than the RAF over Dresden , or the USAF over Hiroshima - does common purpose mean Churchill and FDR shouldn't be respected or honoured as well ? )
Click to expand...

....I don't entirely disagree with you, Pete, but I think you missed reading my ':D' with my post.

Life is never simple, eh? Everyone believes that their god is on their side. < Lyrics from a great song by The Neville Brothers from New Orleans and I think written originally by Bob Dylan (whom I don't much like).
 
Noted the comments further back that Bomber Harris was not responsible for the deaths of innocents because we were at war with the germans ( I don't disagree per se) but if the other sides civilian population are fair game in war , and NM (and the ANC generally) saw themselves as being at war with the apartheid regime , how is that different ?

By todays standard we don't see the civilian populace , or even unarmed combatants, as legitimate targets , so if carried out today events like Dresden, Hiroshima etc would be war crimes. Of course judging past events by todays standards is a dodgy premise ... but then so is applying our standards to judging the actions of someone who is living under apartheid conditions in RSA

None of which is relevant to Biggs
 
looking on the Brightside theres a biopic on the life of Tony Blair in production ;)
 
don't be daft ade, you have to be interesting to get a biopic :lol:
 
fracster said:
Harris was not responsible for the death of innocents, we were at war with Germany, they bombed us, we bombed them. That is how war works.

Yes ,Mandela was a convicted terrorist, though the judicial system in RSA at the time was, shall we say, interesting.
Click to expand...


Thread creep - precious little to do with that piece of garbage Briggs.
 
Brendan Mulachy said:
mandela died just when a film was released about his life...if i was famous and having a film released about me id be bricking it
Click to expand...


I shall soon be making a film about Frac and Rich (might include a few other muppets too).

Back on track tho. Biggs was a no good waster who lived off the back of infamy and the suffering of others. He contributed nothing to our society and ran away from it because he couldn't stand up to his responsibilities (the severity of the sentence is a moot point). Am I happy he's dead?? No, I don't really give a f*** either way!!!
 
gramps said:
The key surely is 'what is justice'?
Click to expand...

A thin veil between revenge and "paying" for wrong doing.

So the lead singer of the Lostprophets gets 35 years for sexual offences against children which is 29 years in prison with 6 years freed on licence. Eligible for parole after 2/3rds of time served. The Bristol Thug gets minimum 18 years for battering a disabled man to death.

Both absolutely horrific in nature but one being sexual assault and rape of children/infants one for the murder of an innocent grown man..... some value issues here?

So "Justice" is both contextual and temporal in delivery?

In the cases exemplified whilst the offences are both horrific - values are a bit twisted and so Justice - where lies your sword and scales here?

As a parent the assaults on the children will test any of us to be fair.

Where does Justice sit for you?

Steve
 
both of them want a bullet in the face - although in Watkins case I might be tempted to put the first one in his b*****ks
 
big soft moose said:
both of them want a bullet in the face - although in Watkins case I might be tempted to put the first one in his lovespuds
Click to expand...

Understandable but where do you then stand "legally" if you did so. (Don't get me wrong, if it was open season on such people you and I may well be racing along the same road side by side).

That we have a legal system that has taken centuries to get where we are now is testament to the ideal thst we are protected from a free for all that blind retribution offers.

Steve
 
I was thinking more that they need a bullet in the face from the justice system... It was only 50 or so years ago that that (well some good bridport hemp) would have been the preffered solution.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
Where does Justice sit for you?
Click to expand...

'An eye for an eye ...', which doesn't imply revenge but a punishment that fits the crime - 18 yrs for murder doesn't do that IMO and I'm sure Bijam's relatives would share that view.
 
gramps said:
'An eye for an eye ...', which doesn't imply revenge but a punishment that fits the crime - 18 yrs for murder doesn't do that IMO and I'm sure Bijam's relatives would share that view.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't disagree with you but as I exampled with the 2 recent sentences

Noyth sets of victim(s) were innocent
Both were attavked in a vile manner
NO deaths occurred in one case - 35 year sentrnce, urder 18 year sentence!

Hence there is a dostortion IMHO of the scales of justice

I want parity across the board not revenge

Steve
 
probably to do with the number of victims in Watkins' case he didn't just nonce up one kid , it was a serial - hence he gets a higher penalty as its combined for each offence (personally I'd have made him serve the whole lot consecutively , but I'm not a soft touch like some)

So his sentence is broadly similar to that of a serial murderer, and higher than someone who commited a single murder
 
big soft moose said:
probably to do with the number of victims in Watkins' case he didn't just nonce up one kid , it was a serial - hence he gets a higher penalty as its combined for each offence (personally I'd have made him serve the whole lot consecutively , but I'm not a soft touch like some)

So his sentence is broadly similar to that of a serial murderer, and higher than someone who commited a single murder
Click to expand...

Whilst disgusting, Watkins did not kill but barbaric in.nature. The law can be blind to numbers of victims and years ago I attended a case where the intent for killing the victim played a big part in the sentence handed down. (a guy had killed a couple one of ehom was his ex girlfriend he had not sedn for a number of years.

These days an early guilty plea and 'genuine' remorse can reduce the tsriff.

Sentencing has always had checks snd some remorse elements. Slightly off bean was Alan Turing's sentence for havinv sex with another man. In order to escape a prison sentence in 1952 he was offered and accepted chemical castration! He committed suicide 2 years later. His work t Bletchley Park in cracking codes counted for nothing when it cam to dealing with his homosexulity.

So in living history mutilation was on offer instead of a prison sentence. The choice being the 'remit' of the guilty party.

I think that there must be a netter way of deling with the vildst of offenders but some people would want more cspital punishment and sadly thats a slippery slope.
 
There are worse things than murder imo - what watkins did to those kids was closer to torture , and he's damaged their whole lives ... 35 years is lenient in his case , I would happily see him executed (Imo not punishing nonces appropriately is a far slipperier slope - one that leads to "we must understand them" and "its not their fault, lets all have a group hug and knit some tofu" )

the guy who got 18 years for murder is also far to lenient - that should have been life without chance of parole at least.

In Turings case , homosexuality should not have been an offence in the first place - what consenting adults do in private is no ones business but their own - paedophilia is not comparable.
 
big soft moose said:
There are worse things than murder imo - what watkins did to those kids was closer to torture , and he's damaged their whole lives ... 35 years is lenient in his case , I would happily see him executed (Imo not punishing nonces appropriately is a far slipperier slope - one that leads to "we must understand them" and "its not their fault, lets all have a group hug and knit some tofu" )

the guy who got 18 years for murder is also far to lenient - that should have been life without chance of parole at least.

In Turings case , homosexuality should not have been an offence in the first place - what consenting adults do in private is no ones business but their own - paedophilia is not comparable.
Click to expand...

Difficult one. Deciding what is worse is in itself fraught. Both casds disgusting.

The Turing example was purely an illustration thst the course of law is never static and must be dynamic. It does not deal in absolutes as every case is different whilst case law depends on levelling the playing field and instructs and guides future determination of how to deal with those found guilty. In any case Chemical Castration has not been proved to work in the USA as the drive is mental not physical.

We will never know what long term damage Watkins has done but the sentence was lenient when balanced against the train robbers sentencing even allowing for the differing norms of 1963 and today.

We may not like some of the outcomes we se in the courts (I certainly did not in the case of the animal that nearly blinded my son) but without the system we have in place we would have chaos.
 
mickledore said:
I tend to agree with you on that, but it's not politically correct to say so!!!
Click to expand...


I think political correctness should never outweigh the truth, even if it is un-pallatable to the namby pambies in office
 
gramps said:
He was a low grade thief who got involved with a robbery with violence.
He fled the country and gloried in his notoriety whilst never once showing any remorse.
He cocked his nose at the UK until he needed it for free healthcare and then came back to use the system he abused.
Not one of life's positives.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
having grown up in the east end of london in the 50's and 60's the train robbers were our local heroes ,it was a TOTALLY different world then ,the rules and morals were still being re-drawn after the war ,people who haven't lived through those times have no right to criticise the ones that did ,all they wanted was a way to a better lifestyle that was starting to exist .
and who at the end of the day are the real criminals ,i as a teenager worked at george munros in covent garden market next door to the royal opera house and a couple of hundred yards away from bow street police station and magistrates court .
under one of the other warehouses in covent garden was a large basement ,in this basement nearly everything that that was stolen,shoplifted or whatever in london could be found for sale ,the best and most frequent customers were (and i have seen this with my own eyes) policemen in uniform of all ranks ,and solicitors ,barristers and even judges some on lunch break in all there apparel .and this happened on a daily basis .great train robbers villains don't make me laugh .
 
in he black fox said:
having grown up in the east end of london in the 50's and 60's the train robbers were our local heroes ,it was a TOTALLY different world then ,the rules and morals were still being re-drawn after the war ,people who haven't lived through those times have no right to criticise the ones that did ,all they wanted was a way to a better lifestyle that was starting to exist .
and who at the end of the day are the real criminals ,i as a teenager worked at george munros in covent garden market next door to the royal opera house and a couple of hundred yards away from bow street police station and magistrates court .
under one of the other warehouses in covent garden was a large basement ,in this basement nearly everything that that was stolen,shoplifted or whatever in london could be found for sale ,the best and most frequent customers were (and i have seen this with my own eyes) policemen in uniform of all ranks ,and solicitors ,barristers and even judges some on lunch break in all there apparel .and this happened on a daily basis .great train robbers villains don't make me laugh .
Click to expand...
Yes but in the end they seriously assaulted an innocent train driver
No excuse for that you have to be punished for that
 
the black fox said:
having grown up in the east end of london in the 50's and 60's the train robbers were our local heroes ,it was a TOTALLY different world then ,the rules and morals were still being re-drawn after the war ,people who haven't lived through those times have no right to criticise the ones that did ,all they wanted was a way to a better lifestyle that was starting to exist .
Click to expand...
Most people get a job to improve their lifestyle. That's what my parents did anyway. Very much doubt they'd have looked on the train robbers as heroes.
 
A few myths here.
The train driver died, in all probability as a result of injuries received during the robbery. He died more than a year and a day after the incident, therefore no prosecution for murder could be considered. All involved were, and would be now considered to be involved in joint enterprise and equally liable. As they would be for any other offence where there was a clear common purpose.

In terms of sentence, it was not out of proportion for the time, so there is no comparison to be made, in any case you cannot compare sentences for different offences using a subjective and personal scale of 'seriousness', it simply does not work.

But staying with the length of sentence, it's more a case of that one not being too harsh, more those for theft of an equivalent amount now being too lenient. There's very little deterrent effect in probation and community whatever orders.

The real point here is Biggs turned himself into a folk hero as a way of making a living while in Brazil, he was in fact a nasty peace of work, just like all the others involved. Good radiance!

As regards to MRAF Harris, what a load of tripe! The second world war was total war, not an Iraq or Afghanistan. All populations of both sides were involved in support and production and therefore legitimate as targets. In exactly the same way as they would be if the same thing happened now. To use him as a comparison isn't in the least bit valid.

Same with Madela. He was a terrorist, like it or not, and I accept that he did a great deal after his release to unite SA. However, terrorism has never achieved anything apart from prolong everyone's suffering and entrench positions. Did his acts lead to other peoples deaths. I understand they did yes. But again, it's an invalid comparison, what he did only has one mitigation, and that was it wasn't for his personal gain and profit. Biggs and co's actions was.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
....Bring back capital punishment?
Click to expand...

I'm all in favour of that for murder & treason, in fact I'd happily push the lever myself or train someone else too.

There is no excuse for thieving or assault, there wasn't then and there isn't now.

They just wanted to get money fast and didn't care that it belonged to somebody else, if they wanted a better life they should have gotten a job and worked hard for it as the rest of society had too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top