Ronnie Biggs denied parole

Sankari · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:17

It has nothing to do with him being a threat. It's all about the fact that he hasn't served his sentence yet, and he's totally unrepentant.

Atomic · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:19

It's a shame such sentencing doesn't happen today. Too many people who do armed robberies at banks or post offices get single digit terms and even then they're not fully served. Doesn't matter if the sentencing was influenced by politicians or whatever - at the end of the day people who commit such crimes deserve severe punishment. I think 30 years is a minimum sentence to be honest, and I wish more like it is dished out to the scumbags. Government/law should not show any compassion to Ronnie or any other criminal that's serving time. Ronnie should die in prison, behind bars and very lonely.

Vulcan · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:23

sidthesexist said:
On another point iirc wasn't it a European court that decided in the past that government ministers couldn't decide whether to increase someones sentence or not and that it had to be decided by a judge? if that's the case should it not be that whether someone is released is decided by a judge as well rather than someone with political motives?

His sentence hasn't increased. He's only served about 10 years of his 30 year sentence. And parole is a privilege not a right.

sidthesexist · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:27

Longbow said:
His sentence hasn't increased. He's only served about 10 years of his 30 year sentence.

didn't say it has, the point i was trying to make is that previously it was decided that politicians shouldn't be able to increase someones sentence so why should they be able to deny them parole after the parole board has recommended it?

Tom0 · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:27

This thread is missing a cliché but words never ring more true;

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Edit: oh aadvark said it

DAMN YOU

I agree with most of whats been said though, no sympathy.

Mr-White · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:34

Why should he get off early because of his age especially as he legged it to Brazil. He wouldn't have got off after serving the same time in prison if he handed gone on the run.

MW

aardvark · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:46

Tom0 said:
This thread is missing a cliché but words never ring more true;

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Edit: oh aadvark said it DAMN YOU

I agree with most of whats been said though, no sympathy.

ha ha - in your face Tom0!

sidthesexist · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:49

Mr-White said:
Why should he get off early because of his age

it's not just age but I'll health as well, he can't walk/talk and iirc needs a tube to eat amongst other things. So what purpose is there in keeping him prison when he will spend most of that time in the hospital wing? you are effectively spending cash keeping him incarcerated when he's already incarcerated within a dying body and you are spending cash on his medical treatment so wouldn't it be a better idea to save half that cash especially when he blatantly is a threat to no one?

JBuk · 1 Jul 2009 at 20:51

sidthesexist said:
it's not just age but I'll health as well, he can't walk/talk and iirc needs a tube to eat amongst other things. So what purpose is there in keeping him prison when he will spend most of that time in the hospital wing? you are effectively spending cash keeping him incarcerated when he's already incarcerated within a dying body and you are spending cash on his medical treatment so wouldn't it be a better idea to save half that cash especially when he blatantly is a threat to no one?

Are you saying the state should kill him now? I'm all for that

semi-pro waster · 1 Jul 2009 at 21:00

Michael Biggs said:
"My father has been made to serve a long sentence because of his surname."

I fear he rather misunderstands this, he's not serving a long sentence because of his surname, he's serving a long sentence (or a sentence of the correct length, that can be debated) because of his crime(s).

While Mr Biggs may no longer be a realistic threat he is also unrepentant and the Parole Board itself notes that the only thing likely to prevent him returning to his previous criminal lifestyle is his ill-health so if by some miracle his health should take a turn for the better he may again pose a risk.

lakitu · 1 Jul 2009 at 21:02

what does it matter if he's a threat, he hasn't done the time.

semi-pro waster · 1 Jul 2009 at 21:08

lakitu said:
what does it matter if he's a threat, he hasn't done the time.

It's one of the grounds that parole is considered on but there is also discretion to allow early release on the basis of ill-health.

dannyjo22 · 1 Jul 2009 at 21:13

Evangelion said:
He's a filthy, unrepentant waste of human DNA who stuck two fingers up at the police and the nation for years, and profiting from his infamy. Now he's finally paying for it. I see no reason why he should be allowed to dodge his sentence.

And if a burly inmate decides to tap Biggs' head against the wall a few times for the lulz, I won't be shedding any tears.

Exactly, people love to glorify high profile thieves and gangsters, as though they only hurt other criminals.

Feek · 1 Jul 2009 at 21:29

semi-pro waster said:
... so if by some miracle his health should take a turn for the better he may again pose a risk.

Hasn't he been on death's door about four or five times already since he returned to the UK?

I'd swear that he's been about to die, or won't last another month, or will be dead by the end of the year more times than I care to remember :rolleyes:

Vulcan · 1 Jul 2009 at 21:36

sidthesexist said:
didn't say it has, the point i was trying to make is that previously it was decided that politicians shouldn't be able to increase someones sentence so why should they be able to deny them parole after the parole board has recommended it?

They are two different things.

alexakasloth · 1 Jul 2009 at 21:40

He's been in prison for 9-10 years? I don't agree that he should get parole for the crime he has commited, maybe in 10 years time.

semi-pro waster · 1 Jul 2009 at 22:21

Feek said:
Hasn't he been on death's door about four or five times already since he returned to the UK?

I'd swear that he's been about to die, or won't last another month, or will be dead by the end of the year more times than I care to remember

More than likely, I'm afraid I stopped counting or caring a while ago about this particular media circus.

Makunouchi · 1 Jul 2009 at 22:23

I don't understand this whole 'he is old now so he should be let out' thing. Prison isn't just to keep criminals off the streets so they can't re-offend, it's also (and mainly) a punishment.

He is getting his for what he did. It's called Justice.

cheets64 · 1 Jul 2009 at 22:29

He should only be released after he has served his sentence, he did 15 months he has over 28 years to serve. So he is snookered.

To let him free would be injustice to the people he terrorised.

N$X · 1 Jul 2009 at 22:32

Von Smallhausen said:
He participated in what was then the biggest robbery in British history where over £2m was taken and a train driver died not long after. He was coshed at the scene and died a broken man.

Ronnie Biggs was sentenced to 30 years and decided to escape after 15 months, flee to Brazil, live the high life, stick two fingers up at the authorities and court the press.

When the money and women ran out, he returned to the UK and resumed his sentence.

His capacity to re-offend is diminished purely by circumstance and he has not shown one iota of remorse for what he took part in and don't forget that if he had of done his time from the start, he would have been free after about 12-15 years and free to live his life.

No sympathy from me. He is reaping exactly what he has sowed.

well said.