Jack Straw loses the plot.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 01 Jul 2009, 19:35

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

What is Jack Straw gaining from keeping Biggs locked up?

"But the panel added that "in terms of his attitudes and risk areas" there was little evidence, apart from his increased age, to suggest he would not return to his old criminal lifestyle."

Can you see Biggs holding up a train? No.
Can you see Biggs raiding a bank? No.

The man has to be fed through a tube.

However, Jack Straw feels that he has to waste more tax payers money to stop this high profile criminal getting freedom. Why is it that sex offenders get to swan about the local community, yet an 80 year old man is refused parole by the Home Secretary even though it has been recommended that it be granted!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Jul 2009, 22:17

Jack says its down to lack of repentance and the fact that Biggs only served a short portion of his 30 year sentence. He is an armed robber with no remorse. Why should he be entitled to any release- ill health or not?

Would you advocate freeing Peter tobin if he said sorry and was aged, frail and ill?

Biggs has had decades to show remorse and in fact he has done the opposite, claiming he is proud to have his place in history.

Eck wrote:However, Jack Straw feels that he has to waste more tax payers money to stop this high profile criminal getting freedom. !

What cost per prisoner per annum would you say is the time we should free them all just to lighten the burden on the taxpayer? And can you see any downsides?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Jul 2009, 22:25

Furthermore.... The day the Government announces it is re-nationalising a key part of the railways- is not a good day to be releasing train robbers from prison, you got to look at the bigger picture.

Lima · Post by **Lima** » 02 Jul 2009, 12:57

I agree with Porty, in addition to this (correct me if I am wrong) but Biggs only returned to Britain once his health had deteriorated and wanted to be closer to his family and receive treatment from the NHS as opposed to the offerings in Brazil.

I am not sure if the extra costs to keep him in jail are that much more than if he was free due to the costs incurred to the NHS and the police would probably have to man his house to deal with the celebrity circus that would ensue as they all jostle to buy his story.

Also I believe he has applied for parole on several occasions before on compassionate grounds as his health was poor and he was close to death.

Keep him locked up where he belongs

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 03 Jul 2009, 08:42

The Government have released far more dangerous people from prison to walk the streets and re-offend.

If Peter Tobin was released he probably would re-offend, it's a bit daft comparing a serial killer to a decrepit old armed robber. Ronnie Biggs cannot walk unaided, he speaks using a childs letter board and is fed through a tube into his stomach... What danger is this guy to society.

Regardless if he is in prison or not, he will still receive medical treatment on the NHS at a cost to the tax payer. Why double the burden by keeping him locked up? Would it not be more suitable to put him under bail conditions such as being restricted to his home address between certain hours- as is done with many people who have committed sexual offences or violent offences.

The Government have been advised not to interfere in prisoner release policies, so why is Jack Straw going against the Parole Boards decision? Remember, if the prison officers had done their job in the first place then he would not have escaped from jail. The fact that he has made a fool out of the Government for years is the only reason that he is being kept in prison. That cell would be far better used if there was someone in it that society needed protection from.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 03 Jul 2009, 11:22

I was fairly indifferent to Biggs' case until I saw what solicitor he has been using.Using Di Stefano decided it for me....keep the old codger locked up.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Jul 2009, 11:40

Eck wrote:If Peter Tobin was released he probably would re-offend, it's a bit daft comparing a serial killer to a decrepit old armed robber. Ronnie Biggs cannot walk unaided, he speaks using a childs letter board and is fed through a tube into his stomach... What danger is this guy to society. .

I agree with your point about the HS overuling the parole board, I believe the Government have changed that policy, although it still applies to historic cases. On Tobin i said- "said sorry, aged and frail"

Biggs may not be physcially capable of harming society but he is an icon of the underworld. Releasing him sends out an inappropriate message.

You ask what harm he can do to society? I ask what benefits does releasing him give us?

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 03 Jul 2009, 17:25

It frees up a jail cell for a sex offender or violent maniac.

Prison should be used as a place where offenders are sent to protect society, not as a criminal nursing home.

There are plenty more dangerous people walking the streets that society would benefit from them being in Biggs' cell.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 03 Jul 2009, 17:30

Maybe someone like Paul Flynn, who having met, I can confirm that this man is best off being behind bars:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lates ... 5426683.jp

But the career criminal, who was out on bail at the time of the attack and was also under a supervised release for assault and robbery, lodged an appeal against the conviction.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Jul 2009, 18:50

I'm afraid your argument is flawed. According to you biggs has a few months to live. So following your logic a sex offender or serial killer would only get a short sentence.

Your right that there is a lot of reoffending from released prisoners - your faith in Ronnie biggs is remarkable.but misplaced.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 03 Jul 2009, 21:21

How would a sex offender only get a short sentence?

I don't have faith in Ronnie Biggs. I have faith in the facts and they are clear that he is not a risk to society and there are far more dangerous people out there who are. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way.

Biggs is being punished for making a mockery of the Government since he escaped from their custody and this is why he is being punished. Straw has even stated that due to his 'outrageous courting of the media' this has counted against him. Straw cannot surely believe that he is a risk to the community.

Lets not forget that whilst Biggs has evaded capture, he has not been convicted or even arrested since that escape back in 1965 save when he re-entered the UK in 2001. Jeez... what a career criminal, 44 years without brushing with the law.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Jul 2009, 13:16

Eck wrote:How would a sex offender only get a short sentence?

He wouldn't - which is my point.

Your argument is based on cell availability, you suggest releasing Biggs would free up a cell for a violent maniac or a sex offender. Like they are not going to be accommodated until he is released? It's plain silly.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 05 Jul 2009, 00:40

How is it plain silly?

A cell is being used for a decrepit old man when there are sex offenders allowed out on bail because of over-crowding.

Even a person carrying an offensive weapon would be better off in that cell. My ponit is that prison should be used for those who are a threat to socitey. Biggs is no longer a threat to society and there are other conditions which would still restrict his freedom that could be imposed on him being released, such as, tagging or freedom of movement restrictions and accociation restrictions. That would mean that a violent offender, sex offender or someone who is likely to re-offend, such as Mr Flynn, could be accomodated in that cell. This would therefore prevent such situations as Flynns happening and may have spared some young female the ordeal that she went through.

Nothing silly in that. What I do find silly is the contrary.

Post by **wangi** » 05 Jul 2009, 01:16

Hate to be the party pooper...
... But he's not in a cell, is he?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jul 2009, 10:42

He is in a metaphorical cell!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jul 2009, 10:53

We will. Have to agree to disagree eck. Not worth falling out over.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 05 Jul 2009, 16:36

A reserved prison place then... it's like penal bed blocking.

Good article... even if it is in the NOTW:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/columni ... ailed.html

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 05 Jul 2009, 19:16

Nope. It's reactionary twaddle.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jul 2009, 20:54

Releasing biggs would be a kick in the teeth for the surviving relatives of the train guard who died as a result of the injuries he suffered during the robbery.

I can't see any compelling reason to justify his release.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 06 Jul 2009, 01:56

Nobody died from the assault in the Robbery:

"Mills recovered but had constant trauma headaches the rest of his life. He died in 1970 from leukaemia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_train_robbery_(1963)

If they had then someone would have been charged with either the murder or the manslaughter.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Jul 2009, 13:01

Inflicting a life of trauma headaches by vicious assault is not a compelling reason for releasing biggs.

I wouldn't be sure he is immune from complicity in another iconic crime- let's face it he is a cheeky shit.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 06 Jul 2009, 16:25

Porty wrote:..let's face it he is a cheeky shit.

Or 'likeable rogue' in do-gooder speak

I'm sure the man they battered held them in high esteem for making the rest of his life traumatic. But no harm done eh? It's like saying "I didn't really mean to hurt anybody - I used the blunt end of the hammer" - which brings me to the title of a great country and western song - "Mama get the hammer, there's a fly on Papa's head...." (sorry, off topic but it makes me laugh

)

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 06 Jul 2009, 17:34

Porty wrote:Inflicting a life of trauma headaches by vicious assault is not a compelling reason for releasing biggs.

No, it's not. However, implying that someone had been killed during the robbery is an untruth and was a reason you used to continue his incarceration.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 06 Jul 2009, 17:36

Porty wrote: I wouldn't be sure he is immune from complicity in another iconic crime- let's face it he is a cheeky shit.

What iconic crime would that be?

The Great Brazilian Salsa theft?

He's not been convicted or even arrested so it's kind of outrageous to be acting as judge and jury.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Jul 2009, 20:22

I don't accept the assault and death were unconnected.

I'm afraid its you that's acting as judge and jury you are conuinced he won't reoffend - I'm not.

And as I say there's no compelling reason to release him

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 07 Jul 2009, 02:01

He died of leukemia 7 years after the robbery took place. Obviously his family, the police and the courts have accepted that it was un-connected so what evidence do you have that counts to the contrary?

I'm not accting as judge. I'm using the facts that are put in front of me to base my positon on. The man is incapable of walking and talking. What crimes do you think he is going to commit? He is pretty much incapable of committing a crime. This is not only my opinion but also the Parole Boards position, a professional body who have more evidence that you or I.

As I have said before, the reason for releasing Biggs, in my opinion, is that he is not a danger to socitey anymore due to his physical condition. The parole board have stated that he is incapable of re-offending. I am sure that there are a number of people that are likely to re-offend and that would be better placed in prison. Therefore, the most logical solution would be to grant bail to Biggs imposing strict restrictions on his movement and/or his association for the remainder of his sentence.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 07 Jul 2009, 02:18

Hmm, although it's more than likely to be a staged photograph... it does still beg the question... what crime is this guy going to commit?

Compare that to

I know who I would rather was behind bars, however, Mr Cronin is still free and walking about the streets- something that Biggs appears to incapable of doing. If Cronin was to rape another female, or sexually assault someone who do you think they would rather was behind bars?

Here's a little history on Mr Cronin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cronin_(convict)

Within the last month a Sunday newspaper has a photo of Cronin in attiure which was similar to that off a priest.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2009, 02:33

You can't have it both ways. Earlier you were adamant that you were only interested in facts, now you say opinion is good enough to release biggs.

Is cronin free because he served his time? You've got yourself all confused. You seem to believe that some who served their time should still be locked up but the exact opposite for others.

I'm not sure the country is ready for your opinion based penal system.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2009, 02:41

You started out by trashing jack straws judgement. And you. Armed with the news of the world, seek to persuade us that your opinion is more valid. Yet straw would have had all the facts and opinion to enable him to reach a decision. It seems reasonable to accept his decision given that he is elected and paid to decide on these matters. And he gets the same remuneration whatever he decides

Have you got £100 on his biggs release before his 81st birthday, with ladbrokes? .

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 07 Jul 2009, 02:43

I'm just pointing out that there are people out there who are a bigger danger to society than Biggs.

Again, what crime do you think that Biggs is going to commit.

Maybe this article will help you:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 650836.ece

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 07 Jul 2009, 02:50

Porty wrote:You started out by trashing jack straws judgement. And you seek to persuade us that your opinion is more valid. Yet straw would have had all the facts and opinion to enable him to reach a decision. It seems reasonable to accept his decision given that he is elected and paid to decide on these matters. And he gets the same remuneration whatever he decides.

Like it is reasonable to accept all the elected and paid members to submit reasonable expenses... but that's another discussion.

There are more people on the parole board than Jack Straw... majority decision.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2009, 08:09

Perhaps but its not safe to assume the parole board had all the data he did nor did they have to consider the bigger picture. And from what you say the pb were not unanimous. So it comes back to no compelling reason and no benefit to society.

Its only a few weeks since a 73 year old had his disability benefit cut for break dancing on x factor.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2009, 08:57

Eck wrote:I'm just pointing out that there are people out there who are a bigger danger to society than Biggs.

I am not argung against.this point. I am saying that it unlikely to have been relevant to straws decision on biggs.

And you will no doubt recall Ernest Saunders, another high profile crook, who was released from prison on medical grounds- dementia. Only to stage a miraculous "recovery" going on to continue a high level business career. We cannot entertain even the remotest chance of Biggs doing the same, can we?

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 07 Jul 2009, 15:13

Porty wrote: So it comes back to no compelling reason and no benefit to society.

Its only a few weeks since a 73 year old had his disability benefit cut for break dancing on x factor.

The benefit to society is that some who actually is a risk or danger to the general public could be housed in the prison place.

Yeh, however, that pensioner could walk, talk and didn't get fed through a tube or have a broken hip. I'm still puzzled as to what crime you think Biggs would committ?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2009, 16:01

Eck wrote:The benefit to society is that some who actually is a risk or danger to the general public could be housed in the prison place.

Like I say, I doubt the benefit you perceive figured in Jack Straw's decision, it is clearly irrelevant.

You give the example of Cronin; if he is currently walking free, it is because he has served his time. If he commits another crime, which seems a racing certainty, he will go back to prison, regardless of Ronnie Biggs status- it is irrelevant.

You kindly published the Times article about how 900 plus "out on licence" prisoners have broken the terms of their licence. Presumably you thought the article strengthened your argument for releasing Biggs- how come?

I have no idea what crime Biggs may commit but he certainly adores being infamous. Maybe he could lend his name to some fellow criminals on say; an armed bank robbery. Another Ronnie Biggs production- that sort of thing. Such is his iconic status amongst criminals it is simply not worth the risk. The potential cost outweighs any benefit, whether it be real or imagined.