egafd.com

Reggie Perrin wrote:
> No not really, because like the paedo and the rapist and the
> murderer, the person who conspired to rob a fortune of public
> money
... which was insured; so the Govt. premiums rose a bit- and,
unlike the other gang-members, he committed NO act of violence
whatsoever against the traincrew..

> He is just as much a criminal as they.
As above, no.


You're still clinging to
> that stupid idea that criminals in the past weren't so bad,
> actually some kind of popular hero and were so badly treated
> when the judge of the day handed down a stiff sentence.
Patronising rubbish- why do you always assume you are the one-eyed
King in the country of the blind?



> Fortunately sentences aren't made on a compare-and-contrast
> basis
Actually, under current sentencing-policy, they're supposed to be just
that.


> because they are mostly an emotional response to the
> plight of a sick old man.
Patronising, part 2. And why do you single him out particularly?
What about McVicar and all the other long-term escapees, who never
served their full sentences?

If he had enough brain to fake a
> bit of contrition he'd be out now and I'd say good luck to him
> too. He's still inside because he's stupid.
Saunders should have been re-imprisoned immediately upon 'recovery'.
This damaged the public's faith in justice far more than our leaders ever
realised. It also taught the useful but unjust lesson that in general,
crimes of violence are viewed far less severely than crimes against
finance.


> His son looks and sounds like a criminal too.
... but seems so far only to have been convicted by you, rather than
any trivia such as evidence. 'Daily Mail' reader, by any chance?

> I think you are inclined to defend him because you think that
> he's pretty harmless, well he is now but he wasn't back in
> 1963.
I remember the trial, and Biggs' previous history- he was a petty,
non-violent shyster who lucked out by crawling up the arses of a
group of serious villains. The 'tea-boy' thing is perfectly accurate.


> I didn't say that Biggs had been unfairly treated by any
> judges.
Err.... no; but everyone else has, so you're in a minority of one.

You always know when someone's in trouble when they start
twisting your previous words.

Reggie Perrin wrote:
> I'll accept your repsonse as something of a climb-down.
Dear God, is there no end to your arrogance?

> Nice to see so much back-pedalling,
WHAT ????

>though as usual you resort to abuse
Which you started, with ignorant and personal comments about
people's illiteracy merley because they had the tenmerity to disagree
with your somewhat twisted view of reality.....

> simply because somebody disagrees with you.
NO-ONE seems to agree with you.

Reggie Perrin wrote:
> As I studied English for a good many years I don't think there
> is much wrong with my comprehension of written English thanks
> all the same.
Then perhaps you should have inserted a comma after 'English'. Those
who live by the sword......


>
> This isn't about one point of view versus the other,
It plainly is; your view is the only one and everyone else is wrong.
You seem to have a Type 2 personality disorder, the 'right man'
syndrome. Just out of interest, both Dennis Nielsen and Peter Sutcliffe
were diagnosed with the same disorder, albeit in far more serious
form : -)

> Aside from this option I've given five distinct reasons why he
> should stay in jail,
But your basic reason is prejudice against an individual- at least be
honest, rather than trying to dress it up as a rational argument.


> In about 2037 Ian Huntley will be sitting with the parole board
> when his 40 year minimum term is up and he'll be pleading that
> he's a sick old man by then etc.
Huntley is a very poor comparator; how does one equate a paedophile
predator with someone who took part in a botched blag?

Now THAT'S a climbdown : -))

In a [rather unpleasant, apparently] world of his own, yes.

Yes; the world is full of morons.

Irrelevant.

Merely because,. even at his worst, he didn't organise gang-rapes
of single mothers and 12-y-o boys, as an 'example'.
Yes, better the devil you know......