Ronnie biggs refused but now granted parole

Arthurgray50@blu · 01-07-2009, 17:02

This is the most scandolous decision, that Jack Straw has ever made, The decision has to be political, and the poor guy will almost certainly die in prison.

He cannot fend for himself, and has to have 24 hour care, He commited a crime 30 years ago, someone died which was sad, but to be held behind bars for this crime, which other sickos get ten years, child murderers get a smack on the wrist with trival sentences, and Peados are allowed to walk the street, is unforgiveable. The Labour government is a disgrace.

**Maggy** · 01-07-2009, 17:05

Good!It's his own fault for escaping and thumbing his nose at us for the length of time he spent in Brazil.He only came home because he ran out of money and wanted to get free health care.Why should we give him any preferential treatment over the decent non law breaking old folk who need care and attention in their old age?

**Hugh** · 01-07-2009, 17:05

and this year's winner of the understatement of the year is............

<extended drum roll>

Quote:

someone died, which was sad

Sirius · 01-07-2009, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This is the most scandolous decision, that Jack Straw has ever made, The decision has to be political, and the poor guy will almost certainly die in prison.

He cannot fend for himself, and has to have 24 hour care, He commited a crime 30 years ago, someone died which was sad, but to be held behind bars for this crime, which other sickos get ten years, child murderers get a smack on the wrist with trival sentences, and Peados are allowed to walk the street, is unforgiveable. The Labour government is a disgrace.

Don't tell me you expected anything else from this out of touch government ???

**Damien** · 01-07-2009, 17:13

So let me get this straight?

People should get harsh punishments unless it's someone you like?

---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

He cannot fend for himself, and has to have 24 hour care, He commited a crime 30 years ago, someone died which was sad, but to be held behind bars for this crime, which other sickos get ten years, child murderers get a smack on the wrist with trival sentences, and Peados are allowed to walk the street, is unforgiveable. The Labour government is a disgrace.

He is being held both for his original crime and then his escape from justice. Why should he walk free for that?

Derek · 01-07-2009, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This is the most scandolous decision, that Jack Straw has ever made,

Not in my book it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

The decision has to be political, and the poor guy will almost certainly die in prison.

Or maybe its been made because he has shown no remorse for the crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

He cannot fend for himself, and has to have 24 hour care, He commited a crime 30 years ago, someone died which was sad, but to be held behind bars for this crime,

Someone died. End of story. It wasn't a romantic robin hood type caper. It was a vicious robbery and someone died as a result. No different to someone walking into a bank with a sawn-off and a customer gets shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

which other sickos get ten years, child murderers get a smack on the wrist with trival sentences, and Peados are allowed to walk the street, is unforgiveable.

I haven't seen the child murderers getting a slap on the wrist. Perhaps you can provide some examples? Sentencing is IMO a bit light for some crimes and even lighter when you consider they will serve about half what they should.

Remember he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years inside. He done 15 months then legged it and only returned when his money ran out. He's now done about 1/3rd of his sentence.

Do you agree that all prisoners should get out at the 1/3 point of their sentence or do you think there should be conditions attached.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

The Labour government is a disgrace.

Well at least you got that bit right.

Personally I think he should have been given parole because he quite clearly isn't a danger to anyone any longer but can understand why he has been refused parole.

Arthurgray50@blu · 01-07-2009, 17:22

What l am saying is this, He is no longer able to fend for himself, so how can he be a danger to anyone, If you get life, its 15 years, he has done over 30 years, he will almost certainly die in prison, There was NO positive proof he hit the driver.

It costs nearly 2.000 per week to keep a prisoner in klink, It would not surprise me if 'the human rights' wasn't brought up, as it does breach it, he was given a 30 year prison sentence, he has done that, so l think this could happen, l am all for justice, its like Harry Roberts is still inside for killing three policeman in the 60's.

Derek · 01-07-2009, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

There was NO positive proof he hit the driver.

Which is why he wasn't done with murder.

As the saying goes. You fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows. He was part of the gang and knew the risks if he got caught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

It would not surprise me if 'the human rights' wasn't brought up, as it does breach it, he was given a 30 year prison sentence, he has done that,

Ok. Explain how keeping a convicted criminal in prison breaches their human rights and how he has done a 30 year stretch if he has spent less than 1/3 of it in prison.

punky · 01-07-2009, 17:39

I might have more sympathy if he hadn't ponced off to Brazil laughing for 35 years and sauntered back over when he needed some free healthcare. I thought foreigners coming over here and milking the NHS normally wound you up Arthur?

Anyway, I shouldn't flap. He's not in jail, he's in hospital. He'll probably remain there until he dies. He doesn't care, doesnt show any remorse, so I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. He did the crime so he should do the time.

**Chris** · 01-07-2009, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

What l am saying is this, He is no longer able to fend for himself, so how can he be a danger to anyone, If you get life, its 15 years, he has done over 30 years,

Ummm ... no, he hasn't. He spent about 30 years living it up in Brazil. Perhaps that's what has you confused?

Oh I don't know why I'm bothering, this is just another Arthur-gets-the-wrong-end-of-the-stick-and-beats-himself-over-the-head-with-it-repeatedly thread.

Xan · 01-07-2009, 17:48

let him ROOOOOOOOOOOOT only came back for the healthcare

Arthurgray50@blu · 01-07-2009, 17:52

I think its his health, this can be a breach, l know that The Human Rights is a silly law, but if a lawyer is determine, then l think they can appeal - dont get me wrong, if a person commits a crime, then they should pay the price, But in this situation, where he cannot look after himself, he cannot commit any other crime, The why not release him to a care home, with a tag, like anyone else, then release from prison.

papa smurf · 01-07-2009, 17:55

if you do the crime you do the time ,and as yet he has not paid his dept to society .

alferret · 01-07-2009, 18:03

I feel it would be prudent of the current gov to allow Biggs a bit of a reprieve.
Yea someone got clobbered, yea he done a bunk and he came back to get some free care in his old age, but surely it would be cheaper to hoof him out of jail and let his family pay for the care rather than at the expense of the tax payer.

**Hugh** · 01-07-2009, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think its his health, this can be a breach, l know that The Human Rights is a silly law, but if a lawyer is determine, then l think they can appeal - dont get me wrong, if a person commits a crime, then they should pay the price, But in this situation, where he cannot look after himself, he cannot commit any other crime, The why not release him to a care home, with a tag, like anyone else, then release from prison.

Because the sentence is for what he did, not for what he might be capable of doing - also, he has never shown any remorse.