Great Train Robber to die inside

[Delscottio]

Apologies if there is a thread already but I didn't see one. Anyway Jack Straw has decided that Ronnie Biggs is to die on the inside.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8129146.stm

"It was Mr Biggs's own choice to offend and he now appears to want to avoid the consequences of his decision. I do not think this is acceptable.

"Mr Biggs is wholly unrepentant and the Parole Board found his propensity to breach trust a very significant factor. He has not undertaken risk-related work and does not regret his offending."

The Great Train Robbery is afforded a bit too much romanticism for my liking and thankfully justice is to be served imo. Thoughts?

[learner]

Apologies if there is a thread already but I didn't see one. Anyway Jack Straw has decided that Ronnie Biggs is to die on the inside.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8129146.stm



The Great Train Robbery is afforded a bit too much romanticism for my liking and thankfully justice is to be served imo. Thoughts?

I agree.
I bet he doesnt even know the name of the driver that took a severe beating during that robbery. :mad:

[geni]

He is being represented by Giovanni Di Stefano. That in itself doesn't help his case.

[shemp]

He deserves to die in prison just for this offense (wait for interview to finish):

HXkLn-Ap9hQ

[funk de fino]

He is a pawn in politics now and was then. They embarrassed the govt of the day and got ridiculous sentences for a robbery.

[richardm]

He is a pawn in politics now and was then. They embarrassed the govt of the day and got ridiculous sentences for a robbery.

Even if they'd given him 5 years instead of 30 he'd probably still be in jail now because they'd have added on extra time to the sentence for escaping from prison - and he has shown no remorse for any of it, so no time off there either.

[funk de fino]

If he got five years he may have served it. The govt caused them to want to get out by giving them ridiculous terms.

Is it better to have a thief lie to get out or admit he does not regret it? Many people who were later found innocent would not admit their guilt and have suffered due to this. You do the crime you get punished. Admitting it or showing remorse should make no difference in how long you spend in jail once you are already there.

This could lead to some uncomfortable situations with sex crimes etc, but then there should be treatment and monitoring to cope with this.

Is a man who kills his wifes lover, in a fit of emotion and anger, who shows no remorse, a worse man than a racist serial killer who will stand up and tell a parole panel he regrets it now?

[Darat]

Don't see any reason for him to be released via the parole system, however if people want to argue for his release on humanitarian grounds then I don't have any great objections and it would probably be cheaper for the country.

[funk de fino]

I object to the political cases in this country where people serve extra time because the govt decide, based on public opinion or other factors.

It is even worse when you see the lite sentences dished out to people who carried out far worse crimes nowadays who can go tell barefaced lies to the parole board and get those lite sentences reduced.

[richardm]

If he got five years he may have served it. The govt caused them to want to get out by giving them ridiculous terms.

You can argue that the original sentences were ridiculously large and I wouldn't disagree with you, and yes perhaps they would have sat out a five year sentence, but we'll never know will we? And probably the sentence could and should have been reduced upon his return.


Is it better to have a thief lie to get out or admit he does not regret it?
Many people who were later found innocent would not admit their guilt and have suffered due to this. You do the crime you get punished. Admitting it or showing remorse should make no difference in how long you spend in jail once you are already there.


This suggests that you agree with the government position that Biggs should stay in prison for the whole sentence. Do you not agree with parole?

For me prison has two purposes: to punish and to rehabilitate. If you can convince a parole board that you've made progress in the latter, you can get released early. If you stand in front of them and tell them you did it and you're not at all sorry, what should be their motivation for giving you time off? If you stand in front of them and repeatedly deny that you did it in the first place, what should be their motivation for giving you time off? Because they feel sorry for you?

Well, I think there is a place for saying "The fellow has suffered enough for his crimes" where appropriate to do so, and it appears that the parole board agree in Biggs' case, since they recommended he be released on the 4th of July.

However the government appears to take the view that Biggs has spent 35 years living the high life around the world on the proceeds of his crime, then wandered back to Britain when he fell seriously ill and they're damned if they're going to let such a high-profile criminal off the hook. Probably because they'd be murdered by the right-wing press.


Is a man who kills his wifes lover, in a fit of emotion and anger, who shows no remorse, a worse man than a racist serial killer who will stand up and tell a parole panel he regrets it now?

I don't think you can make any hard and fast rules about this sort of thing.

[Aitch]

...Do you not agree with parole?...


Parole for some dumb twerp who realises how stupid he was, has worked at rehabilitation and, with pastoral help from the Probation Service, stands a chance of becoming a decent member of society? Yes.

Probation for a professional petty criminal who is being let out because they need the cell for another PPC? No.

Probation for a creep who took part in a crime that resulted in a man being rendered unable to work, who raised two fingers to the legal system and who would get lots of money slipped to him by the media for his life story (even though they are not supposed to)? No.

[Darat]

...snip...

Probation for a creep who took part in a crime that resulted in a man being rendered unable to work, who raised two fingers to the legal system and who would get lots of money slipped to him by the media for his life story (even though they are not supposed to)? No.

And who has already made money from his crime: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/501468.stm

[Lothian]

....however if people want to argue for his release on humanitarian grounds then I don't have any great objections I disagree. He made his choice when he committed the crime. Prisons are not inhumane. He should serve his sentence.

The fact that he is ill does not change anything in my book. If he is that ill liberty is no use to him. If he is not or recovers why should he be let out?

Many people suffer the punishment of illness but that can’t be offset against a penalty for crime.
..and it would probably be cheaper for the country.
Neither do I think expense is an issue. A firing squad would be cheaper as would no prisons. What we need is consistent sentencing.

[funk de fino]

What we need is consistent sentencing.

What he said. Also sentencing not tainted by politics.

If Ronnie Biggs (who did not live the high life for 35 years) was sentenced to 5 years he would have sat it out. He was sentenced to far more than that for a robbery of a train where they assaulted the driver who died later. I am not condoning the crime or saying that parole is Ok for some but not others or even diminishing what affect it had on the drivers life or his families lives. I am saying that the sentence caused this problem and it is politicised.

If you commit a crime you should get sentenced with a term that is relevant to that crime and you serve the full term. The terms have to be applied correctly and consistently and then you do not have cases like this.

An innocent man in some cases spends years extra behind bars because he will not admit to something he did not do and cannot show regret for that while a rapist child killer gets out earlier by convincing evryone he is remorseful and cured. Guess what the rapist child killer will most likely do on release?

What govt will release the Yorkshire Ripper if he is deemed safe to be let out?

or Ian Brady?

[chillzero]

funk,
you have no idea if he would have served a shorter sentence or not. He only came back to take advantage of the nhs, so now he can have the benefit of free health care just as he wished.

[monoman]

One of the requirements of a parole board is that the prisoner admits guilt and shows remorse. Simple as that.
I wish just one journalist would ask Ronnie or his son why he refuses to do this.

[Delscottio]

What he said. Also sentencing not tainted by politics.

If Ronnie Biggs (who did not live the high life for 35 years) was sentenced to 5 years he would have sat it out. He was sentenced to far more than that for a robbery of a train where they assaulted the driver who died later. I am not condoning the crime or saying that parole is Ok for some but not others or even diminishing what affect it had on the drivers life or his families lives. I am saying that the sentence caused this problem and it is politicised.

You know what really caused the problem?

A group of blokes tried to nick £40million quid (todays value) and in doing so coshed an innocent bloke around the head. Said blokes didn't want to face the consequences (the sentences were / are legal - IIRC the dome robbers recently got life so not hugely unusual) and did a runner. If you can't to the time don't do the crime. End of story.

If you commit a crime you should get sentenced with a term that is relevant to that crime and you serve the full term. The terms have to be applied correctly and consistently and then you do not have cases like this.

Interesting that you take the position of the GTR's sentences were too harsh not the others are too lenient. Again though for the amount stolen and the violence used the terms aren't that out of proportion.

An innocent man in some cases spends years extra behind bars because he will not admit to something he did not do and cannot show regret for that while a rapist child killer gets out earlier by convincing evryone he is remorseful and cured. Guess what the rapist child killer will most likely do on release?

Its not a great situation but innocent people tend to use the appeals system for release, but the general assumption of those in prison are guilty therefore must show remorse is generally a "good idea"

Child rapists shouldn't ever be released imo, but I am sure they have quite a low re-offending rate (may be wrong to be fair). May be better if you check your claim out....

What govt will release the Yorkshire Ripper if he is deemed safe to be let out?

or Ian Brady?

I doubt any Government would, then again I doubt anyone who has committed thse crimes could be rehabilitated so its a bit of a non story.


He has got away with 35 years a freedom I don't see what he or his family could possibly whine about.

[funk de fino]

You know what really caused the problem?

A group of blokes tried to nick £40million quid (todays value) and in doing so coshed an innocent bloke around the head. Said blokes didn't want to face the consequences (the sentences were / are legal - IIRC the dome robbers recently got life so not hugely unusual) and did a runner. If you can't to the time don't do the crime. End of story.

Overstae something much?? Some blokes robbed a train and got away with a load of money. One driver was hit on the heed with a cosh. What kind of sentences do guys get for that now?? It was a politicaal setence and only encouraged them to escape. If you do the crime you should get a fair sentence and a consistent one, not a politically influenced one. I think you also need to look up the Dome robbery also. Larger sums and armed gang foiled and none got more than 15 years. Ronnie Biggs got 30 years.

Interesting that you take the position of the GTR's sentences were too harsh not the others are too lenient. Again though for the amount stolen and the violence used the terms aren't that out of proportion.

Poppycock. There setences were extreme for that type of crime. The violence was nothing compared to some crimes these days.


Its not a great situation but innocent people tend to use the appeals system for release, but the general assumption of those in prison are guilty therefore must show remorse is generally a "good idea"

Not in my book. No-one has given me straight answer to my questions.

Child rapists shouldn't ever be released imo, but I am sure they have quite a low re-offending rate (may be wrong to be fair). May be better if you check your claim out....

So padeophiles do not reoffend and are magically cured cause they admit their guilt and can lie to a parole board about remorse?? get real. Guess you need to look at reoffending rates in general in the UK?

I doubt any Government would, then again I doubt anyone who has committed thse crimes could be rehabilitated so its a bit of a non story.

Why should Jack Straw make that decision?

He has got away with 35 years a freedom I don't see what he or his family could possibly whine about.

Irrelevant.

[funk de fino]

funk,
you have no idea if he would have served a shorter sentence or not. He only came back to take advantage of the nhs, so now he can have the benefit of free health care just as he wished.

Incorrect I have an idea or an opinion. I know how I would have acted if it had been me. 5 years was nothing for guys like that.

What he came back for is of no consequence to my arguments.

[Darat]

I disagree. He made his choice when he committed the crime. Prisons are not inhumane. He should serve his sentence.

The fact that he is ill does not change anything in my book. If he is that ill liberty is no use to him. If he is not or recovers why should he be let out?

Many people suffer the punishment of illness but that can’t be offset against a penalty for crime.

Neither do I think expense is an issue. A firing squad would be cheaper as would no prisons. What we need is consistent sentencing.

Apparently (and this is from newspaper reports) he is completely incapacitated and requires constant medical treatment and is not going to make a recovery.

If this is the case then the reason I don't have any great objections to him being released is that he won't in fact be in prison anyway - he'll be being treated in a NHS hospital. And then I do think the expense becomes a consideration - if he is in hospital as a prisoner he will have to be guarded 24 hours a day, and there is no more sort after duty by a prison officer then hospital "guarding" because of how much it pays.

[Darat]

Overstae something much?? Some blokes robbed a train and got away with a load of money. One driver was hit on the heed with a cosh. What kind of sentences do guys get for that now??

...snip...

On the whole, longer sentences then they did in the sixties..

[funk de fino]

On the whole, longer sentences then they did in the sixties..

That'll be why the Dome robbers (who had more weapons) got huge sentences of 15 years max for two of them then eh? For around a £200 mil robbery attempt.

[funk de fino]

Child rapists shouldn't ever be released imo, but I am sure they have quite a low re-offending rate (may be wrong to be fair). May be better if you check your claim out....

I have checked this and international studies have shown anywhere between 14% and 43% reoffend. Not as high as I thought. But high enough for this sort of crime.

[Darat]

That'll be why the Dome robbers (who had more weapons) got huge sentences of 15 years max for two of them then eh? For around a £200 mil robbery attempt.

No idea why you think that would contradict what I said. You also don't seem to be that familiar with the "Great Train Robbery" and the sentences the people involved in it actually served, for instance the "mastermind" behind the robbery, Bruce Reynolds, despite going on the run served a 10 year sentence.

[funk de fino]

Brinks Mat - two of them got 25 years. One got 14 years and served 8.

Heres another.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7705688.stm

17 years max for multiple robberies. Now the money is not the same but that should make no difference. An armed robbery is an armed robbery IMO

[funk de fino]

No idea why you think that would contradict what I said. You also don't seem to be that familiar with the "Great Train Robbery" and the sentences the people involved in it actually served, for instance the "mastermind" behind the robbery, Bruce Reynolds, despite going on the run served a 10 year sentence.

I know what they actually were sentenced (which is what I am talking about)

http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1964-04-17-14-001&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1964-04-17-14

Seven of them sentenced to 30 years. No guns were used on this robbery and the guy who hit the train driver was never identified.

[Darat]

I know what they actually were sentenced (which is what I am talking about)

http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1964-04-17-14-001&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1964-04-17-14

Seven of them sentenced to 30 years. No guns were used on this robbery and the guy who hit the train driver was never identified.

And what did they serve?

[Darat]

Brinks Mat - two of them got 25 years. One got 14 years and served 8.

Heres another.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7705688.stm

17 years max for multiple robberies. Now the money is not the same but that should make no difference. An armed robbery is an armed robbery IMO

Do you really mean to say that as far as you are concerned judges should just have a table that says "Armed robbery - 20 years" and that is it? That there shouldn't be a spread and type of sentences so they can choose the punishment and justice to each case? You are also implying that we should stick to the sentencing policy of the 1960s and that is it!

What you are arguing got for would not be a justice system.

[funk de fino]

And what did they serve?

That has nothing to do with my original point and is a goalpost shift. Denied.

[Darat]

That has nothing to do with my original point and is a goalpost shift. Denied.

Well then your argument was facile since it amounts to:

"I want a system where the sentence passed is the same but it doesn't matter what they actually serve".

ETA: Also I've just noted that you yourself quote time served when you are putting forward your argument i.e.:

Brinks Mat - two of them got 25 years. One got 14 years and served 8.

...snip...

So what is it? Is time served a "goalpost shift" or not?

[funk de fino]

Do you really mean to say that as far as you are concerned judges should just have a table that says "Armed robbery - 20 years" and that is it? That there shouldn't be a spread and type of sentences so they can choose the punishment and justice to each case? You are also implying that we should stick to the sentencing policy of the 1960s and that is it!

What you are arguing got for would not be a justice system.

Judges do have guidelines. I have yet to see a recent case where robbers got 30 years for a robbery which did not involve firearms. It was a politicised sentence.

I am implying that all armed robbers should be treated the same and not given huge sentences just because they embarrassed the govt. There are factors to take into account but if you apply them to the GTR then those factors would give a smaller sentence nowadays.

I am not saying we should use 60's policies, nice strawman. I am looking at the politicising of sentences. This case is not the first and wont be the last.

[funk de fino]

Well then your argument was facile since it amounts to:

"I want a system where the sentence passed is the same but it doesn't matter what they actually serve".

My comments about parole are in earlier posts in this very thread.

[scratchy]

So how many years has he served anyway. Its just a few, right? Has he even served what would be a reasonable time, if 30 years was a bit harsh?

[Darat]

Judges do have guidelines. I have yet to see a recent case where robbers got 30 years for a robbery which did not involve firearms. It was a politicised sentence.

...snip...

"a recent case" - so as I said you are saying that the sentences today should be the same as we used in the sixties else it is evidence that the sentence was "political" (never mind that it ignores the world has changed since the 60s).

That is simply a non-sequitur - the one does not follow from the other. You need to show some evidence that the sentences were politically decided or influenced - simply quoting the length of some of the original sentences does not do this.



I am implying that all armed robbers should be treated the same and not given huge sentences just because they embarrassed the govt. There are factors to take into account but if you apply them to the GTR then those factors would give a smaller sentence nowadays.

I am not saying we should use 60's policies, nice strawman. I am looking at the politicising of sentences. This case is not the first and wont be the last.

Then you need to show some evidence that demonstrates that the sentences were either influenced by a politician or decided by a politician.

Otherwise all you are doing is speculating, which of course is fine, but in my opinion we should try to distinguish our speculations from assertions.

[Darat]

So how many years has he served anyway. Its just a few, right? Has he even served what would be a reasonable time, if 30 years was a bit harsh?

Well the issue of sentence is more complicated than that since he is not just in prison for the robbery but his other crimes.

[Aitch]

IIRC if you escape, when you get put back inside, you serve the rest of the whole tariff. Can't find a link to confirm this, so it may have changed in recent years.

Another thing to consider is the case of Ernest Saunders. Released because he supposedly had pre-senile dementia. His recovery on release was nothing short of miraculous.

[Lothian]

Well the issue of sentence is more complicated than that since he is not just in prison for the robbery but his other crimes.The Great Rock and Roll Swindle?

[Darat]

The Great Rock and Roll Swindle?

If he was guilty of that I would be calling for his sentence to be execution.

[chillzero]

Incorrect I have an idea or an opinion. I know how I would have acted if it had been me. 5 years was nothing for guys like that.

What he came back for is of no consequence to my arguments.

I think you understand that what I meant was that you can never know. You can only guess. So no, you don't know if he would have served his sentence and I have very good reason to believe that he would not.
ETA: You have no evidence at all to support that he ever intended to stay in prison if given a shorter sentence. I think you romanticise this issue.

In his youth Ronnie Briggs was discharged from the RAF dishonorably for desertion after only two years.
The train robbery was 1963, he was imprisoned in 1964, and he escaped in 1965 after less than a year and a half.

Had he waited at least 5 years before his escape, your assertion may have some merit.

He profited from his celebrity while in exile and laughed at the inability of the law to force his return. Then, when he returned he was reportedly paid plenty to do so, and since his return he has made money from his story. He has also had other failed attempts to get out of his sentence based on claims that his death was practically guaranteed in the short term. He's still here. You'll forgive me if I find his word on this a little less than reliable.

You claim he would have served a shorter sentence. I disagree with this based on his rather pathetic history. He didn't fulfill a military term he voluntarily signed up for, and to escape from prison within a year and a half he must have been plotting to leave very soon after going in. He has no apparent consideration as to the terms of his commitments, whether enforced or otherwise.

[Darat]

Incorrect I have an idea or an opinion. I know how I would have acted if it had been me. 5 years was nothing for guys like that.

...snip...

According to one of them it was: http://idler.co.uk/uncategorized/conversations-bruce-reynolds/

...snip...

REYNOLDS: You never get used to it. When you’re first nicked, you literally want to cry. Because it’s all gone, you’ve lost everything, the women generally, and just a bare cell.

...snip...

[Ian Osborne]

He only came back to take advantage of the nhs, so now he can have the benefit of free health care just as he wished.

The dull thud you heard in the background there was a nail being hit firmly on the head. His money is spent, and he couldn't afford decent healthcare in Brazil, so he came back home to die on the NHS. He should never have been allowed back in the country, and only made it here because Tony Blair didn't want to fall out with UK newspaper The Sun, which made a big show of bringing him back.

Letting him out even now would be another two fingers raised at our legal system. Compassion? When did he ever show any?

[Southwind17]

I think he should be given leniency for helping motivate two darned good movies: Robbery (1967, starring Stanley Baker) and Buster (Phil Collins).

As for allegedly romanticising it, I found it pretty nostalgic standing on Bridego Bridge where the robbers unloaded the loot after taking the train half-a-mile up the line at Sears Crossing by hot-wiring a red light and bagging the green. Genius!

[Lothian]

If he was guilty of that I would be calling for his sentence to be execution.If not guilty of the whole album. Singing on two tracks counts as aiding and abetting.

[Drudgewire]

So I'm the only one who likes Great Rock and Roll Swindle? :o

[Ian Osborne]

I found it pretty nostalgic standing on Bridego Bridge where the robbers unloaded the loot after taking the train half-a-mile up the line at Sears Crossing by hot-wiring a red light and bagging the green.

That's because no one coshed you over the head and left you for dead.

[Southwind17]

That's because no one coshed you over the head and left you for dead.

Hey, **** happens. Shouldn't be allowed to preclude a good plot line though!

Edited, Rule 10 breach. Please do not swear in your posts.

[funk de fino]

"a recent case" - so as I said you are saying that the sentences today should be the same as we used in the sixties else it is evidence that the sentence was "political" (never mind that it ignores the world has changed since the 60s).

These are false representations of what I am saying. You were the one that said sentences were longer now but you have yet to show this. If, in fact, they are longer now then why can you not show a recent case where armed robbers got more for a train robbery with no guns. If you have nothing then it must show these sentences were unusually long. So why do you think they were unusually long?

That is simply a non-sequitur - the one does not follow from the other. You need to show some evidence that the sentences were politically decided or influenced - simply quoting the length of some of the original sentences does not do this.

I need not further anymore evidence for anything which is my opinion. If you disagree with my opinion but you are pretty much in the minority for a lot of people who know about this crime. It was an embarrassment to the govt and they were the longest sentences handed out for that type of crime ever. In act AFAIR there was only one sentence longer than that in all history of the modern justice system in the UK. And it was not for a robbery where no guns were used and no-one was killed.

Then you need to show some evidence that demonstrates that the sentences were either influenced by a politician or decided by a politician.

No, I do not. Ask for that which is unseen. This is truther mode 101.

However politics are involved in the justice system as is demonstrated by the fact Jack Straw is involved now.

Otherwise all you are doing is speculating, which of course is fine, but in my opinion we should try to distinguish our speculations from assertions.

How about some evidence for your opinions?

[funk de fino]

I think you understand that what I meant was that you can never know. You can only guess. So no, you don't know if he would have served his sentence and I have very good reason to believe that he would not.
ETA: You have no evidence at all to support that he ever intended to stay in prison if given a shorter sentence. I think you romanticise this issue.

In his youth Ronnie Briggs was discharged from the RAF dishonorably for desertion after only two years.
The train robbery was 1963, he was imprisoned in 1964, and he escaped in 1965 after less than a year and a half.

Had he waited at least 5 years before his escape, your assertion may have some merit.

He profited from his celebrity while in exile and laughed at the inability of the law to force his return. Then, when he returned he was reportedly paid plenty to do so, and since his return he has made money from his story. He has also had other failed attempts to get out of his sentence based on claims that his death was practically guaranteed in the short term. He's still here. You'll forgive me if I find his word on this a little less than reliable.

You claim he would have served a shorter sentence. I disagree with this based on his rather pathetic history. He didn't fulfill a military term he voluntarily signed up for, and to escape from prison within a year and a half he must have been plotting to leave very soon after going in. He has no apparent consideration as to the terms of his commitments, whether enforced or otherwise.


Do you know the circumstances of his escape? I think you will find it was arranged by others and he was asked to go with them.

The military thing is a red herring. Many people do not serve the full term.

I think that knowing you have a potential 30 year stretch or a 5 years stretch is a big decider in whether you want to go with the escapees.

The fact the media in this country has little or no morals and people like him can make money from it is irrelevant. I have no sympathy for his current plight. I am only talking about the original sentencing and the politics behind some justice decisions. Its like the outcry when a criminal kills a police officer. They will invariably get a more severe sentence. Why?

[funk de fino]

According to one of them it was: http://idler.co.uk/uncategorized/conversations-bruce-reynolds/

I guess Reynolds would have had different feeling about whether he had 5 years or 30 though eh?

[richardm]

Do you know the circumstances of his escape? I think you will find it was arranged by others and he was asked to go with them.
Depends on who you ask. (http://www.madfrankiefraser.co.uk/frankiefraser.htm?story/wouldbe.htm~mainFrame)


He was sitting next to Ronnie sewing mailbags in Wandsworth. He said "I've only got about 3 months to do but when I get out I'll get you away". Wandsworth, like every other prison only had a wall around it, a very big wall but that's all. No fence. Well almost every prison has got them now, inside the wall and some outside but not then. And it was arranged that Ronnie would have money sent to Paul to finance getting him away caus Paul went out with no money. Ronnies wife supplied him with the money.


Its like the outcry when a criminal kills a police officer. They will invariably get a more severe sentence. Why?

I suppose because in addition to being for punishment and rehabilitation of the offender, prison is also there to be a salutory lesson to others. We as a society want to discourage other people from killing police officers, so the book is thrown at them at sentencing time. It's much the same reason the judge gave in his when sentencing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1964/apr/17/ukcrime.fromthearchive) the train robbers, in fact.

Speaking solemnly from carefully written notes, the judge told one of the criminals that he proposed to do all in his power to ensure that the mail robbery would be the last of its kind.

[funk de fino]

ETA: Also I've just noted that you yourself quote time served when you are putting forward your argument i.e.:

So what is it? Is time served a "goalpost shift" or not?

The time served was in no way related to any arguments I have made. I have shifted no goal posts. You have and have not even denied it.

You do know what "original point" is dont you? You do know it was you who brought "served" into it dont you?

I was talking about original sentencing and my thoughts on parole are quite clear also.

[funk de fino]

Depends on who you ask. (http://www.madfrankiefraser.co.uk/frankiefraser.htm?story/wouldbe.htm~mainFrame)

So he did not organize it then? He gave someone money for it. Do you think those nice criminals would have got him out for nothing?

Nice source there!!

I suppose because in addition to being for punishment and rehabilitation of the offender, prison is also there to be a salutory lesson to others. We as a society want to discourage other people from killing police officers, so the book is thrown at them at sentencing time. It's much the same reason the judge gave in his when sentencing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1964/apr/17/ukcrime.fromthearchive) the train robbers, in fact.

Yes, that really worked eh? No huge robberies nowadays.

It should not matter whether it is a policeman or a man on the street.

Anyone else find it difficult to type "sentence"? I'm having major probs:(

[richardm]

So he did not organize it then? He gave someone money for it. Do you think those nice criminals would have got him out for nothing?

The escape was arranged for him and around him. You made it sound a bit like he'd just happened to wander past the rope ladder on the way to the chapel for a bit of a pray. ;)

Nice source there!!There's some weird reading on that website.

Yes, that really worked eh? No huge robberies nowadays.
Well, perhaps it didn't work. But that was the stated intention. It probably just made people be more careful about fingerprints.


It should not matter whether it is a policeman or a man on the street.
It probably shouldn't but nevertheless I can understand the reasoning.


Anyone else find it difficult to type "sentence"? I'm having major probs:(Try "Banged Up" instead :D

Incidentally I've seen a number of references to "Second longest sentence", here and reading around. All this makes me do is wonder what the longest sentence was, and what it was for. Any idea?

[Darat]

These are false representations of what I am saying.

...snip...

No it is simply what your argument means.

You were the one that said sentences were longer now but you have yet to show this.

...snip...

What I said was that sentences are on the whole longer today than they were in the sixties - if you would like to evidence to back up that assertion I will try to find a link I have used in the past that demonstrates that fact.



If, in fact, they are longer now then why can you not show a recent case where armed robbers got more for a train robbery with no guns. If you have nothing then it must show these sentences were unusually long. So why do you think they were unusually long?

...snip...

This is another non sequitur. What you are claiming does not follow from what I stated.



If you disagree with my opinion but you are pretty much in the minority for a lot of people who know about this crime.

...snip...

Again your logic fails you - it matters not one iota how many believe in something as to whether something is true or not.


It was an embarrassment to the govt and they were the longest sentences handed out for that type of crime ever. In act AFAIR there was only one sentence longer than that in all history of the modern justice system in the UK. And it was not for a robbery where no guns were used and no-one was killed.

...snip...

Again you are using the same non-sequitur: longest sentence does not equal "political" sentence.

To date you have offered nothing bar the length of their sentences to support your opinion/assertion that their sentences were "political" sentences.





No, I do not. Ask for that which is unseen. This is truther mode 101.

...snip...

Havena clue what this means.



However politics are involved in the justice system as is demonstrated by the fact Jack Straw is involved now.

...snip...

This is a strawman since I have not argued this point at all.



How about some evidence for your opinions?

At least try and have a grown-up discussion.

[Darat]

I guess Reynolds would have had different feeling about whether he had 5 years or 30 though eh?

Now this is goalpost shifting since what you said and I di quote was was:

...snip... 5 years was nothing for guys like that. ...snip...

As can be seen from the quote I supplied this is not true for "guys like that".

[Darat]

The time served was in no way related to any arguments I have made. I have shifted no goal posts. You have and have not even denied it.

...snip...

So we are back to you thinking a justice system is judged to be consistent or not by the sentences it actually passes out rather than what time is actually served. Your argument leads to the conclusion that if all murderers were given a sentence of "30 years" but some were released after 1 year some after 25 years then the justice system is "consistent".

You may not like that conclusion but that is the conclusion your argument supports.

[Aitch]

According to this (http://www.shortlist.com/funny-stuff/article/longest-prison-sentences-ever/1), they got off quite lightly. ;)

[Southwind17]

That's because no one coshed you over the head and left you for dead.

It suddenly struck me last night (pun intended) that poor old Ronnie was not the one who delivered the blow. How ironic. If the movie "Robbery" is anything to go by, IIRC the robbers were not an excessively violent lot.

Incidentally, this link (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/biggs/index.html) provides a great, factual account of the robbery - far more interesting discussion material than Ronnie Biggs' fate!

[funk de fino]

The escape was arranged for him and around him. You made it sound a bit like he'd just happened to wander past the rope ladder on the way to the chapel for a bit of a pray. ;)

No, I was saying he did not arrange it or even suggest it. Someone else did. It was not a big plan he had to escape and had been arranging it. Another crim saw an opening to get cash and help another famous con and maybe climb the ladder. ronnie went along with the others having paid cash to facillitate it. A van and two ladders, hardly needed much planning or cash upfront did it?

Incidentally I've seen a number of references to "Second longest sentence", here and reading around. All this makes me do is wonder what the longest sentence was, and what it was for. Any idea?

I think it was 42 years foir murder or something like that.

[bonavada]

I think it was 42 years foir murder or something like that.


The spy George Blake was sentenced to 42 years. I think that record still stands.

ETA Just read a Wiki entry on Blake:-

It was the longest sentence (excluding life terms) ever handed down by a British court, until terrorist Nezar Hindawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nezar_Hindawi) was sentenced to 45 years for the attemted bombing of an El Al jet.


Seems Hindawi conned his wife into carrying a bag (containing a bomb) on a flight from Heathrow to Tel Aviv. She was stopped before boarding the plane. She was pregnant with his child at the time. Puts Biggs' and Blakes crimes into perspective I think.

[funk de fino]

No it is simply what your argument means.

False, it just proves you do not understand my posts. Again, not my fault. If you want to see something that is in them that is not feel free to carry on.

What I said was that sentences are on the whole longer today than they were in the sixties - if you would like to evidence to back up that assertion I will try to find a link I have used in the past that demonstrates that fact.

For that crime? Rubbish, I have already given you links to crimes like that where the sentences less. I have seen many recent liinks from studies which show sentences for robberies and armed robberies are less than they were and still reducing. Its one of the reason The tories call Labour soft on crime.

This is another non sequitur. What you are claiming does not follow from what I stated.

So you cannot find a comparable sentence for that crime? The floor is yours.

Again your logic fails you - it matters not one iota how many believe in something as to whether something is true or not.

Not to you but I really dont care what you think.

Again you are using the same non-sequitur: longest sentence does not equal "political" sentence.

Defend it till the end.

To date you have offered nothing bar the length of their sentences to support your opinion/assertion that their sentences were "political" sentences.

The length of the sentences is the whole point. Along with who they robbed and how it was carried out.

Havena clue what this means.

You ask me to supply a letter from the govt to the judge, or a tape recordnig of a conversation at the gentlemens club? Something which I cannot get. this is a truther shift mode.

This is a strawman since I have not argued this point at all.

Its from my first post and the OP, pay attention. Politics in justice.

At least try and have a grown-up discussion.

When you actually go back and read my posts from the start, stop misrepresenting what I am posting, stop building strawmen and stop shifting goalposts then I may.

here we go just for clarity.

What kind of sentences do guys get for that now??

On the whole, longer sentences then they did in the sixties..

if they get longer now but the robbers got 30 years back then, then why was this? Why did they get this for a crime with no guns and one act of violence back then when sentences were shorter on the whole? What could possibly have made the judge decide to give out the second longest sentences in modern history for this act? You're being a little naive here.

[funk de fino]

The spy George Blake was sentenced to 42 years. I think that record still stands.

Cheers for that.

[funk de fino]

Now this is goalpost shifting since what you said and I di quote was was:

...snip... 5 years was nothing for guys like that. ...snip...

As can be seen from the quote I supplied this is not true for "guys like that".

What did Ronnie have to say?

[funk de fino]

So we are back to you thinking a justice system is judged to be consistent or not by the sentences it actually passes out rather than what time is actually served. Your argument leads to the conclusion that if all murderers were given a sentence of "30 years" but some were released after 1 year some after 25 years then the justice system is "consistent".

You may not like that conclusion but that is the conclusion your argument supports.

You can go back to thinking whatever you want but your conclusion is incorrect.

What I am saying is that sentences for crimes should be consistent and should not be influenced by society or politics.

I am also saying that I do not believe in parole. What you are sentenced to is what you serve. Admitting the crime or saying you are sorry should make no difference to your term or sentence. Its open to abuse.

Do you need me to make this any clearer?

[kallsop]

The whole rotten bunch stole a lot of money and that was way back in a different time so todays sentencing guidelines are no more relevant than the horse and buggy is to contemporary transport. The scale of money has shifted dramatically with Bush's TARP + Obama's $Trillion bailouts every other day, but back then the train robbery was considered a colossal robbery, plus the assault.

How many boxes of Kleenex are those crocodile tears going to need anyway? Biggs is pure slime doing time, so sad, I'm heartbroken, not really.

[Damien Evans]

N32Wplx4IFU

Enjoy those 4 Walls Ronnie.

[ponderingturtle]

So do those arguing with this think Madoff got to harsh a sentance? After all he never even left anyone for dead. Yet he will die in prison.

[Ian Osborne]

So do those arguing with this think Madoff got to harsh a sentance? After all he never even left anyone for dead. Yet he will die in prison.

Given the amount of hurt he caused, the lives he ruined, and his cynical, self-serving motivations, no.

[Southwind17]

So do those arguing with this think Madoff got to harsh a sentance? After all he never even left anyone for dead. Yet he will die in prison.

To my mind it all, often but not always incorrectly, comes down to scale. I started a thread many months ago soliciting views as to why, in principle, a catastrophe affecting, say, hundreds or thousands of people, tends to attract both governmental and public recognition and support, sometimes financial, when a not disimilar catastrophe only affecting a few people doesn't. After all, at the individual or family level, where it really matters, the effect is the same whether it's 1000 people or 1 person.

Now, I think somebody wrote earlier to the effect that murder is murder (like-for-like murder that is, i.e. the same category), but we all know that if a hobo murders another hobo over a chicken leg he's likely to get a lesser sentence than if you shot and killed the President tomorrow. Similarly, embezzlement is embezzlement and fraud is fraud, but again it comes down to scale, which is why Madoff got 150 years and why you're not likely to see a British politician get more than 6 months suspended for falsifying an expenses claim, if anything.

And scale can be measured in many ways, but it usually boils down to actual or perceived effect, whether that be the collective effect on victims (e.g. Madoff) or political/credibility effect on Government (e.g. Ronnie Biggs), for example. And that's way certain crimes get headlined "Crime of the Century" and such like, when the same crime is committed day in day out.

Bottom line? Whilst it might be wrong to discriminate on the grounds of "scale" when sentencing, those committing pre-meditated "big-time" crimes should think long and hard before they do, and not be surprised when they land a life sentence. That said, few criminals believe they're going to get caught, so I doubt their thought process is likely to extend beyond the alibi story to the length of probable sentence within the perceptible range.

And this is why people tend to hold this view:

Given the amount of hurt he caused, the lives he ruined, and his cynical, self-serving motivations, no.

[Southwind17]

For information:

"Sentencing was set down for the following day so with the convicted felons assembled before him Justice Davies called them forward one by one and passed the following sentences:

Roger John Cordrey 20 years
William Gerald Boal 24 years
Charles Frederick Wilson 30 years
Brian Arthur Field 25 years
Roy John James 30 years
Thomas William Wisbey 30 years
Robert Alfred Welch 30 years
James Hussey 30 years
Douglas Gordon Goody 30 years
Leonard Dennis Field 25 years
Ronald Arthur Biggs 30 years
John Wheater, Reynolds solicitor friend who arranged the fake purchase of Leatherslade Farm was also convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

While most of the accused would later appeal against the severity of their sentences and be refused, Roger Cordrey and Bill Boal were able to have their sentences reduced to fourteen years a piece while Brian Field and Leonard Field (no relation) each had their sentences reduced to just five years."

[Damien Evans]

So do those arguing with this think Madoff got to harsh a sentance? After all he never even left anyone for dead. Yet he will die in prison.

Yes. Life is one thing, but 150 years or whatever it was he got is just stupid. The guy probably hasn't got another 15 in him let alone 150.

[Soapy Sam]

I never saw any sense in "life" sentences.

Bullet in the back of the head protects society just as well and seems a damn sight more humane.

[Southwind17]

I never saw any sense in "life" sentences.

Bullet in the back of the head protects society just as well and seems a damn sight more humane.

Unless you're innocent with a chance of appeal ;)

[Soapy Sam]

Never apologise. Never explain.

Seriously, I assume by the time someone is sentenced to imprisonment for life some degree of certitude has been established. The point is that the sentence of life- if taken literally- rules out any option of rehabilitation or release. At this point, it seems to me we are into retributive vengeance laced with sadism. Better a clean end.

I suppose "life" might be seen to have a deterrent effect, but so does death. And it's a lot cheaper.

[richardm]

Seriously, I assume by the time someone is sentenced to imprisonment for life some degree of certitude has been established.

But you can always pick out cases like Sally Clark, who received a life sentence but was innocent. If we'd shot her instead of jailing her, what could we do to rectify that?

Edit: Don't really want to derail this into a death penalty argument - in some cases it's indisputable and undisputed that the right person has been caught.

[Ian Osborne]

in some cases it's indisputable and undisputed that the right person has been caught.

But if you deem it OK to kill them, where do you draw the line? I'm all for seeing someone like Biggs end his days behind bars, but that's enough.

[richardm]

And it looks like he's finally got what he wanted. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8188898.stm)

[lionking]

What's the betting there will be a bidding war between the tabloids to cover his last days?

[Ian Osborne]

What's the betting there will be a bidding war between the tabloids to cover his last days?

That's another excellent reason why he should never be let out.

I'm all for criminals - even serious villains - being let out on compassionate grounds to live out the last few weeks of their lives with their families, but in Biggs' case I'd make an exception. He flicked the bird at the legal system for 35 years, and only returned to Britain so he could die on the NHS. We really should've left him in Brazil, but as we didn't, the least we could do is leave him in jail.

[Darat]

What's the betting there will be a bidding war between the tabloids to cover his last days?


Given it was The Sun that funded his return to the UK* they probably already have an exclusive signed with him and/or his family.


*If my recollection is correct

[Darat]

A few things have occurred to me:

One - poor quality photo of him in hospital bed, the TV reports over here are showing a very poor quality photo. We can assume that the photo is being used by permission of the family (respectable media over here can get into a lot of trouble of using "invasion of privacy" photos). Is this because he is not as ill as they are claiming? The photo doesn't show any of the paraphernalia you'd expect around someone apparently so gravely ill. (OK I know - pure speculation but if I hear he is "much better" anytime soon I'll be most annoyed.)

Two - glad we aren't now paying the ridiculous amounts to keep him under "guard" at the hospital.

Three - "Ronnie Biggs is to be set free" This one is really bugging me, every report I have heard has headlined with "Ronnie Biggs is to be set free." No wonder people have such a misinformed view of our justice and penal service - he isn't being set free, he is being released on licence. And if he breaches the terms of that licence he can be immediately returned to prison. That is hardly what you can call free!

Hopefully he now dies quickly and it's the end of such an unsavoury character.

[Ian Osborne]

Given it was The Sun that funded his return to the UK* they probably already have an exclusive signed with him and/or his family.


*If my recollection is correct

That's wholly correct.

Hopefully he now dies quickly and it's the end of such an unsavoury character.

It would be deliciously ironic if he died on the day he was about to be released.

[Eddie Dane]

Anecdote alert:

A Dutch fashion magazine once wanted to use Biggs as a model for a shoot.
The occasion was a "gangster collection", the brainchild of a local semi celebrity.

Biggs was hard up for cash, so he agreed to model.
When they met him, he seemed to have alzheimers. They couldn't get a coherent sentence out of him. He smiled like an idiot in all the pictures and they totally failed to get the desired "old tough guy" look they were aiming for

I worked with the stylist who did the shoot and she showed me the pictures.
He looked like they had to photoshop the dribble from his chin.

It gave me the impression of a sad, old, broke, mentally disabled wreck, stuck in developing nation with nowhere to go.

To be honest I felt quite sorry for him, but I didn't know that they'd taken a life during the robbery.

[sphenisc]

That's wholly correct.



It would be deliciously ironic if he died on the day he was about to be released.

It would be deliciously ironic if he was hit by a train.

[zooterkin]

To be honest I felt quite sorry for him, but I didn't know that they'd taken a life during the robbery.
They didn't, they coshed the driver and left him with head injuries, which he never fully recovered from. "Left for dead" means that the robbers didn't apparently care whether he lived or not, and as far as they knew he was dead.

ETA: I was going to say I didn't see why he was being freed just because he was ill, since he was in hospital anyway, but a release on licence seems more sensible (none of the stories I've read so far have any details of this). He spent the prime of his life, and a fair bit more, at large enjoying himself. To spend a few years of ill-health, getting the benefits of the NHS, for which he has presumably not been paying for the last 40 years, in custody in return seems a small price to pay. Certainly nothing deserving of sympathy.

[funk de fino]

They didn't, they coshed the driver and left him with head injuries, which he never fully recovered from. "Left for dead" means that the robbers didn't apparently care whether he lived or not, and as far as they knew he was dead..

One of them coshed him and it was not Biggs.

The driver suffered headaches the rest of his life and died 7 years later from leukemia. The robbers were not responsible for his death.

[zooterkin]

One of them coshed him and it was not Biggs.

The driver suffered headaches the rest of his life and died 7 years later from leukemia. The robbers were not responsible for his death.

Thanks for the extra information, though I don't think it disagrees with anything I said.

[funk de fino]

Thanks for the extra information, though I don't think it disagrees with anything I said.


I was only pointing out the they was one and adding extra info for the readers.

[Drudgewire]

...or maybe not. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/britain-frees-great-train-robber/)

vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv