Let's face it, they were all scumbag criminals who would have done other crimes as well, I doubt it was first offences for any of them. I loathe the way these gangland scum became so called 'hero's' when you look at the misery they caused. I was unfortunate to meet Biggs when on a port visit to Rio on HMS Blake in the 70's, he was boastful and definately unrepentent and lording it up with the matelot's who were in port. I stuck it for about 10 minutes and left with some other like minded lads, other stayed and had photos taken with him and bought his beer all night. He used to get money out of anyone by pleading he was skint.

A couple of years later some idiots snuck him onboard a frigate which was in Rio and he boasted about it to news reporters, this landed the young officer of the day in deep shoite, probably destroyed his career, but Biggs would have laughed at it and wouldn't have given a toss.

Toerag undoubtedly, but the "thug" comment was about him personally, not legally. Biggs was in a getaway car and while therefore criminally part of the offences including the assault on driver Mills, he personally assaulted nobody and was not there when Mr. Mills was coshed and didn't know anyone was going to be coshed. I'm perfectly happy that as complicit in the overall crime, he is criminally responsible for whatever happened, I was just questioning what evidence there was that as a person he was a "thug", and also wondering why 50 years of no offences in his case can be completely dismissed purely because once he was involved in a robbery.

Personally I think there are very many bankers who have recklessly destroyed multiple lives, while stealing billions and losing economies and countries trillions, yet basically none were ever prosecuted whereas Biggs probably did overall about ten years in jail. Given that Biggs played no personal part in attacking Mills, I view them as far worse criminals than him.

He didn't commit any offences for 50 years because he was on the run. Had he offended and been caught he would have been bounced back to the UK and back in the Scrubs.

Its all an incredible piece of organised publicity for this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03mk394, BBC1 at 8pm tonight and tomorrow night, my old mates son is playing one of the baddies in it, I asked him today how the hell they'd managed to co-ordinate Bigg's snuffing with the exact day of their program airing - "Never under estimate the BBC's capability" is all he'd say.

Its all an incredible piece of organised publicity for this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03mk394, BBC1 at 8pm tonight and tomorrow night, my old mates son is playing one of the baddies in it, I asked him today how the hell they'd managed to co-ordinate Bigg's snuffing with the exact day of their program airing - "Never under estimate the BBC's capability" is all he'd say.

Wouldn't you agree that all criminals are "on the run" from the moment they commit their offences, until they are caught? I think most criminals are content to take the risk of detection and being caught. I'm not sure being abroad adds much to it. Most if not all either think they won't be caught, or else are prepared to take the risk.

I'd suggest that committing no more offences "because" he was on the run just doesn't follow. Someone on the run might typically be more inclined to commit offences, to survive. Biggs clearly didn't.

And haven't you overlooked that he spent a very long time in South America as a perfectly legal resident, when extradition failed, and thus not really "on the run" at all, and at no risk of being bounced back? Had he committed any offences in Brazil during those years then he'd have been dealt with within the Brazilian criminal system. He didn't.

Unless he did, but got away with it, I s'pose

JerryChicken wrote:Its all an incredible piece of organised publicity for this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03mk394, BBC1 at 8pm tonight and tomorrow night, my old mates son is playing one of the baddies in it, I asked him today how the hell they'd managed to co-ordinate Bigg's snuffing with the exact day of their program airing - "Never under estimate the BBC's capability" is all he'd say. I await the usual nuts condemning me for being 'sheeple', to 'open my eyes', and 'to research'; desperate to convince me that the BBC were blatantly complicit in the conspiracy to assassinate a rather insignificant elderly criminal in order to boost ratings on a Wednesday evening in mid December. It'll happen, mark my words.

JerryChicken wrote:Its all an incredible piece of organised publicity for this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03mk394, BBC1 at 8pm tonight and tomorrow night, my old mates son is playing one of the baddies in it, I asked him today how the hell they'd managed to co-ordinate Bigg's snuffing with the exact day of their program airing - "Never under estimate the BBC's capability" is all he'd say. I await the usual nuts condemning me for being 'sheeple', to 'open my eyes', and 'to research'; desperate to convince me that the BBC were blatantly complicit in the conspiracy to assassinate a rather insignificant elderly criminal in order to boost ratings on a Wednesday evening in mid December. It'll happen, mark my words.

Gangland scum? Who were?

They were modern day Robin Hoods, (Ned Kellys over here), people who French Connection UK over the establishment and lots of people secretly love it. Imagine if you heard someone hacked into a major corporation's computer system and stole information or moved money out of their accounts?

I know someone who knew the Krays and was involved with the Richardsons. He's not a bad man. It's who he grew up with. A case of being affected by your environment. People would nick what they could back in those days, because they earnt bugger all. Still happens today.

A text to 5Live yesterday morning said pretty much the same thing. I couldn't believe they read it out.

The Krays didn't just "nick what they could" or, as delusion would have it, 'only do anything to their own': they threatened non-criminal businessmen and women in order to extract money from them – that's how they got their dosh. Nobody would dare charge their mother if she went into a shop.

I have met a man who refused (he ran a billiard hall on Bethnal Green Road) and he still bears the mark of a glassing all down his face.

Someone else who lived round the corner from me (until his retirement) had grown up in the area and, as a late teen, out for a quiet drink with friends, had been turned over by the Kray's pet thugs for all their money – something that happened if the thugs in question walked into a pub where any such youngsters were having a drink.

And the Krays and their mob were nasty, murdering criminals. Simple as.

Biggs wasn't in the same class, but he was still a crook. And while Biggs himself wasn't near the incident when it happened, what happened to Jack Mills shouldn't be just brushed over as being a bit Robin Hoodish.

He was beaten over the head with a metal bar. He never recovered properly; suffered headaches for the rest of his life, couldn't work again properly.

They weren't some bunch of nice, rather gentle and romantic heroes.

I was referring to a posting saying the Great Train Robbers were gangland scum. Were they? They were held in the opinion of the average working class Londoner and more so South Londoner as being up there for getting away with it.

As for the Krays and all that, you are telling me nothing I don't know.

It was London, it was tough, it was rough, it was post war working class East End.

Read what I said again. The great train robbers were like modern day (in the 60s) Robin Hoods, nicking what they could from the rich.

Also would you be slightly amused to hear that say someone like Rupert Murdoch's bank account was hacked and someone half inched a few mill out of it? I bet you would.