On 2 Jul 2009 at 11:59am Rozzer wrote:
Should Ronnie Biggs be kept in prison while a war criminal like Tony Blair remains at liberty?
On 2 Jul 2009 at 12:22pm Democrat Bloke wrote:
to my knowledge, Tony Blair hasn't been convicted of anything so the term "war criminal" is technically incorrect.....surely we in Lewes do not dispense summary justice just like that!...
On 2 Jul 2009 at 12:40pm Rozzer wrote:
Hitler was never brought to trial but i don't think we're in any doubt about his status.
On 2 Jul 2009 at 12:58pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
On 2 Jul 2009 at 1:01pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Adolf shot himself, so difficult for him have been at court.
No one has put Tony on trial. Rozzer are you going make a citizen's arrest...dare you.
On 2 Jul 2009 at 1:02pm river boy wrote:
well said Rozzer.
On 2 Jul 2009 at 2:25pm Mr Bone wrote:
at least Blair was elected PM unlike the one eyed Jock we have now
On 2 Jul 2009 at 3:49pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
I think you are asking two entirely separate questions, Rozzer. (1) Should Ronnie Biggs be in prison? (2) Should Tony Blair be in prison?
On (1), while I normally consider myself to be a fairly liberal kind of guy, sadly I believe that Biggs should stay in prison for the rest of his life. He served 15 months of a 30 year sentence for a very violent and very lucrative armed robbery. Nearly 40 years later, having taunted the UK authorities from afar, he resurfaced in the hope that he could serve a short sentence and then enjoy his final days at home and in peace. Frankly he is taking the p*ss. Justice does not and should not work in that way.
On (2), I do not know whether or not Tony Blair should be in prison. You say he is a "war criminal". What do you mean by that? What are you accusing him of doing? What national or international laws has he broken, and what is your evidence? For what it's worth, I am not a fan of Blair, or New Labour. I am just not sure why you think he should be in prison.
On 2 Jul 2009 at 4:00pm Rozzer wrote:
Well spotted Cliffe Hanger - it is called juxtaposition and is intended for effect. Blair was responsible for taking Britain to war based on a lie. There are prima facie grounds for believing the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law.
On 2 Jul 2009 at 4:07pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
I accept your argument that "Blair was responsible for taking Britain to war based on a lie". But did he know the "45 minutes" claim was stuff and nonsense? Again, what national or international laws has he broken? What is your evidence?
And do you really think Ronnie Biggs should be set free?
On 2 Jul 2009 at 5:23pm Rozzer wrote:
The details are by now well known. The specific national and international laws are: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to these crimes under Sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001; a crime against peace and complicity in a crime against peace under Articles 6 and 7 of The Nuremburg Principles; murder, incitement to murder and conspiracy to murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; conspiracy to commit genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
I think the State should be prepared to show greater compassion to Biggs than the train robbers showed to the guard who was injured. On that basis, yes, I do think a dying old man should be freed.
On 2 Jul 2009 at 5:37pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
Ok, thank you for that Rozzer. I disagree that the details "are now well known". The details of precisely who knew what and when are not at all well known, and that is why there are calls for a public enquiry. Of course, I very much doubt that the enquiry, when and if it happens, will get to the bottom of who knew what, and when. As I said in my first post on this thread, I am no fan of Blair. I think he, Brown and most of their inner circle are a mendacious bunch.
To answer a slightly amended version of your original, "juxtaposition": Yes I do believe Ronnie Biggs should be kept in prison while an ALLEGED war criminal like Tony Blair remains at liberty.
Biggs may be an old man. So what? Of course he is no serious risk to anyone. But I don't think that is really the point. He has lived a good 30-40 years on his ill gotten gains. Now is the time to pay the price. Hearltess b*stard I may well be, but that is just my view!
On 2 Jul 2009 at 5:57pm Rozzer wrote:
Cliffe Hanger - I don't think it is a particularly heartless point of view and think some of the points you make have some validity, though I disagree with it.
On 2 Jul 2009 at 6:06pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
Ok, thanks Rozzer. Let's agree to disagree .
On 3 Jul 2009 at 8:53am sashimi wrote:
Biggs would have been released if he had been sentenced in 2001 because the Justice Secretary only has the right to overturn a decision of the Parole Board because he was sentenced under the law as it stood in the 1960s. Biggs is dying so why not save the money on a pointless and expensive prison place. And Tony Blair? He went to some trouble to prevent the government holding an inquiry and then to ensure it was held in secret. He has a lot to answer for and if Rozzer and many others want to characterise him as a war criminal, I've some sympathy with them. If TB went into politics and government expecting to be loved he was deluded. The pity is that the=rough his own actions, he left office disrespected.
On 3 Jul 2009 at 10:33am Garty wrote:
Ronny briggs should rot in hell for what he did and got away with for all those years. Least the family of the poor victim of his crime can now get so peace knowing he is getting what he deserves.
On 4 Jul 2009 at 10:25am Rozzer wrote:
You may be right about 'Ronny briggs' - but what do you think about Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber? That's who we were talking about.
On 7 Jul 2009 at 2:28pm Garty wrote:
LOL Rozzer sorry yes i did mean to say Ronnie Biggs :|