Blackburn murderer who absconded from prison set to be extradited

Blackburn murderer who absconded from prison set to be extradited

Blackburn murderer who absconded from prison set to be extradited

First published in News
Last updated

A MURDERER who fled prison while serving a life sentence for killing a man in East Lancashire is set to be extradited back to Britain.

Anthony Craig, who absconded from prison in 2002, murdered accountant John Kirby in Corporation Park, Blackburn, in 1973 by hitting him repeatedly with a brick.

The 66-year-old has now been ordered to return to the UK by the High Court in the Republic of Ireland, after relocating to Dublin following his escape.

Craig, formerly of Kendal Street, Blackburn, is currently out on bail until September 8, when he is expected to appeal the Irish court’s decision.

He murdered Mr Kirby, a 32-year-old from Whalley Road, Samlesbury, in November 1973 after following him to the park under the pretence that the two were going to have sex.

He then robbed Mr Kirby, who was openly gay, of two pence and hit him three times over the head with a brick.

Craig served 28 years of his sentence before he walked out of HMP Sudbury, an open prison in Derbyshire, and failed to return.

The former labourer was arrested by Irish police officers in Rathcoole, south Dublin, in February 2013 and appeared before the High Court on Thursday. Mr Kirby's murder sent shockwaves through Blackburn.

The 32-year-old was found in a pool of blood by a dog walker near Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School on the morning of November 4. Lancashire police immediately launched a huge appeal to find his killer.

Mr Kirby had spent a Saturday night drinking at the Merchants Hotel in Darwen Street, Blackburn, a popular gay pub at the time. Ken Pilling, then-licensee of the Merchants Hotel, acted as a link man between Blackburn’s gay community and police.

He said Corporation Park was a popular late-night meeting place for gay men. After six days of frantically combing the park for clues, with police dogs and all five major Lancashire Task Forces involved, unemployed labourer Anthony Craig was arrested by detectives on November 10.

During his trial the following February, 26-year-old Craig, of Kendal Street, Blackburn, told Lancaster Crown Court he pretended to be gay so that he could rob him in the park. Once there, Craig hit Mr Kirby twice with a brick.

He stole just 2p. Realising that his victim may not be dead and scared that Mr Kirby might recognise his attacker, Craig returned to the scene and struck him again on the back of the head with another stone.

Police displayed six bloodied stones to the jury at his trial. Craig, who had initially pleaded not guilty and said he used the bricks in self-defence, admitted he had lied under oath.

He revealed he had burnt the clothes he had worn on the night. A policeman had spotted him enter the park on November 3, nine hours before Mr Kirby’s body was discovered.

A pathologist said Mr Kirby died because the base of his skull had been shattered. After a six-day trial, an all-male jury took a mere 45 minutes to find Craig guilty.

Craig, who had previous convictions for burglary and the possession of offensive weapons, was jailed for life.

In February 1995, Craig went on-the-run for a month after absconding from prison in HMP Haverigg, Cumbria, to visit his sick brother.

He handed himself over to police in Manchester, and remained behind bars until he fled prison again in 2002 and headed for the Irish Republic, where he was arrested in February 2013.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:12am Tue 5 Aug 14

NeverEnding says...

Please DONT send him back here.Keep the sod were he is I as a Tax payer don't want to pay for his keep.
Please DONT send him back here.Keep the sod were he is I as a Tax payer don't want to pay for his keep. NeverEnding
  • Score: 21

10:45am Tue 5 Aug 14

Eric Shawn says...

More open prisons not working !
More open prisons not working ! Eric Shawn
  • Score: 14

11:12am Tue 5 Aug 14

Cimbri says...

Not to mitigate his actions at that time, where there were inferences of premeditation but having already served 22 years in prison, just how much of the 'pound of flesh' required for Justice to be satiated, remains to be served?
It is apparent, from other sources, that this man is going to be made an example of when he is returned to prison. With both politicians and senior policeman being embarrassed by him.
Blackburn MP Jack Straw – Home Secretary until 2001 - said: ‘This was a very shocking crime, and it’s important that this man is brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.' How long is that, Jack, as no tariff was set, back then?
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that keeping the public safe was Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ‘top priority’, yet apart from entering Eire illegally, he has, on the face of it, committed no other crimes.
Not until questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament, did this 'manhunt' become a reality. At the time, local MP Patrick McLoughlin – now Transport Secretary – told the Commons Derbyshire Police had claimed not to have a photograph of Craig and that ‘no publicity was given’ to his absconsion, when in fact the force had ‘decided not to release’ the photo.
No matter which way that you look at this case and even ignoring the fact that he married, lived and worked without drawing any criminal attentions to himself, with just him reporting to the Gardai that there was a suspected prowler near his home, which led to his arrest, this man has more than served his time. He's such a 'threat to society' that the lowest to highest courts in Eire, have consistently granted him bail, pending appeals and deportation.
Any subsequent prison term that he serves after repatriation, is just going to be seen by any right thinking man, as nothing more than political retribution, for the huge embarrassment that he has caused.
Not to mitigate his actions at that time, where there were inferences of premeditation but having already served 22 years in prison, just how much of the 'pound of flesh' required for Justice to be satiated, remains to be served? It is apparent, from other sources, that this man is going to be made an example of when he is returned to prison. With both politicians and senior policeman being embarrassed by him. Blackburn MP Jack Straw – Home Secretary until 2001 - said: ‘This was a very shocking crime, and it’s important that this man is brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.' How long is that, Jack, as no tariff was set, back then? A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that keeping the public safe was Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ‘top priority’, yet apart from entering Eire illegally, he has, on the face of it, committed no other crimes. Not until questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament, did this 'manhunt' become a reality. At the time, local MP Patrick McLoughlin – now Transport Secretary – told the Commons Derbyshire Police had claimed not to have a photograph of Craig and that ‘no publicity was given’ to his absconsion, when in fact the force had ‘decided not to release’ the photo. No matter which way that you look at this case and even ignoring the fact that he married, lived and worked without drawing any criminal attentions to himself, with just him reporting to the Gardai that there was a suspected prowler near his home, which led to his arrest, this man has more than served his time. He's such a 'threat to society' that the lowest to highest courts in Eire, have consistently granted him bail, pending appeals and deportation. Any subsequent prison term that he serves after repatriation, is just going to be seen by any right thinking man, as nothing more than political retribution, for the huge embarrassment that he has caused. Cimbri
  • Score: -8

1:54pm Tue 5 Aug 14

greenscreener says...

Cimbri wrote:
Not to mitigate his actions at that time, where there were inferences of premeditation but having already served 22 years in prison, just how much of the 'pound of flesh' required for Justice to be satiated, remains to be served?
It is apparent, from other sources, that this man is going to be made an example of when he is returned to prison. With both politicians and senior policeman being embarrassed by him.
Blackburn MP Jack Straw – Home Secretary until 2001 - said: ‘This was a very shocking crime, and it’s important that this man is brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.' How long is that, Jack, as no tariff was set, back then?
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that keeping the public safe was Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ‘top priority’, yet apart from entering Eire illegally, he has, on the face of it, committed no other crimes.
Not until questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament, did this 'manhunt' become a reality. At the time, local MP Patrick McLoughlin – now Transport Secretary – told the Commons Derbyshire Police had claimed not to have a photograph of Craig and that ‘no publicity was given’ to his absconsion, when in fact the force had ‘decided not to release’ the photo.
No matter which way that you look at this case and even ignoring the fact that he married, lived and worked without drawing any criminal attentions to himself, with just him reporting to the Gardai that there was a suspected prowler near his home, which led to his arrest, this man has more than served his time. He's such a 'threat to society' that the lowest to highest courts in Eire, have consistently granted him bail, pending appeals and deportation.
Any subsequent prison term that he serves after repatriation, is just going to be seen by any right thinking man, as nothing more than political retribution, for the huge embarrassment that he has caused.
Or, just maybe it's a reminder that people who commit serious crimes cannot simply escape and expect to be forgotten about.
[quote][p][bold]Cimbri[/bold] wrote: Not to mitigate his actions at that time, where there were inferences of premeditation but having already served 22 years in prison, just how much of the 'pound of flesh' required for Justice to be satiated, remains to be served? It is apparent, from other sources, that this man is going to be made an example of when he is returned to prison. With both politicians and senior policeman being embarrassed by him. Blackburn MP Jack Straw – Home Secretary until 2001 - said: ‘This was a very shocking crime, and it’s important that this man is brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.' How long is that, Jack, as no tariff was set, back then? A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that keeping the public safe was Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ‘top priority’, yet apart from entering Eire illegally, he has, on the face of it, committed no other crimes. Not until questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament, did this 'manhunt' become a reality. At the time, local MP Patrick McLoughlin – now Transport Secretary – told the Commons Derbyshire Police had claimed not to have a photograph of Craig and that ‘no publicity was given’ to his absconsion, when in fact the force had ‘decided not to release’ the photo. No matter which way that you look at this case and even ignoring the fact that he married, lived and worked without drawing any criminal attentions to himself, with just him reporting to the Gardai that there was a suspected prowler near his home, which led to his arrest, this man has more than served his time. He's such a 'threat to society' that the lowest to highest courts in Eire, have consistently granted him bail, pending appeals and deportation. Any subsequent prison term that he serves after repatriation, is just going to be seen by any right thinking man, as nothing more than political retribution, for the huge embarrassment that he has caused.[/p][/quote]Or, just maybe it's a reminder that people who commit serious crimes cannot simply escape and expect to be forgotten about. greenscreener
  • Score: 23

2:17pm Tue 5 Aug 14

iceni1 says...

Thank you Cimbri, a voice of reason. Everything you say is true apart from the fact that this man served 28 years in prison.
He has managed to live a normal life in Ireland for 13 years until he was "caught" despite the fact that he was repeatedly refused parole on the grounds that this would not be possible.
In many ways he was still serving a sentence as he was unable to live in this country and see any family.
Big news now, but no reports when he escaped, the authorities didn't even try to find him, although the parole board thought he was a danger. It's laughable to say that they had no photograph.
Hopefully the authorities won't make an example of him, but I won't hold my breath for the reasons you have already stated.
Thank you Cimbri, a voice of reason. Everything you say is true apart from the fact that this man served 28 years in prison. He has managed to live a normal life in Ireland for 13 years until he was "caught" despite the fact that he was repeatedly refused parole on the grounds that this would not be possible. In many ways he was still serving a sentence as he was unable to live in this country and see any family. Big news now, but no reports when he escaped, the authorities didn't even try to find him, although the parole board thought he was a danger. It's laughable to say that they had no photograph. Hopefully the authorities won't make an example of him, but I won't hold my breath for the reasons you have already stated. iceni1
  • Score: -9

2:36pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Cimbri says...

Arrested in 1973, absconded (not escaped) in 2002...25 years.
Where did LT get 28 years from, in the sentence, 'Craig served 28 years of his sentence before he walked out of HMP Sudbury, an open prison in Derbyshire, and failed to return'..?
Thanks, for making me look a right plank!
Arrested in 1973, absconded (not escaped) in 2002...25 years. Where did LT get 28 years from, in the sentence, 'Craig served 28 years of his sentence before he walked out of HMP Sudbury, an open prison in Derbyshire, and failed to return'..? Thanks, for making me look a right plank! Cimbri
  • Score: -6

2:40pm Tue 5 Aug 14

kenbro says...

At one time he would have hung for such a horrible murder. Anyone who will bash in someone's skull should not be walking around in society. Just because he has supposedly not broken the law in 13 years does not mean that he is not liable to over react if provoked. Some offences are unforgivable. I wonder what the murdered lad's family would have to say ?
At one time he would have hung for such a horrible murder. Anyone who will bash in someone's skull should not be walking around in society. Just because he has supposedly not broken the law in 13 years does not mean that he is not liable to over react if provoked. Some offences are unforgivable. I wonder what the murdered lad's family would have to say ? kenbro
  • Score: 14

3:00pm Tue 5 Aug 14

iceni1 says...

Kenbro, most people do not serve anywhere near 28 years on a life sentence despite the severity of the crime.
Of course I feel for his family, but it happened 41 years ago.
Kenbro, most people do not serve anywhere near 28 years on a life sentence despite the severity of the crime. Of course I feel for his family, but it happened 41 years ago. iceni1
  • Score: -9

3:28pm Tue 5 Aug 14

woolywords says...

Let's have a bit of a ramble...
Years ago, when I was a lad, a bunch of blokes robbed a train of a few bob.
They bashed the driver, Jack Mills, so bad that he never worked again and died just over a year later.
Now at that time, there was this rule; if you hurt someone and they died within the year of it happening, you would be charged with murder, and was the sentence of the day, swing for it!
However, those that were arrested for it, were afforded the best legal counsel in the country; all on legal aid, of course.
Now when they robbed this train, the banknotes on it had been taken out of circulation and so, technically, it wasn't legal tender; which meant that all the could be charged with -don't laugh, this is true- theft of the mailbags, property of the Crown! It was really Royal Mail back then, with a Gov't Minister appointed as Postmaster General..
So when it came to sentencing, they weren't sentenced for the £2+M that they stole but, for stealing from the Crown, which allowed the normal sentencing rules to go out of the window....they got 30 years!
Some of them took umbrage at this and escaped...one being Ronnie Biggs, who hid out in Australia and then Brazil but eventually he was brought back to jail after 36 years on the run.
Biggs made an utter mockery of the British legal system by regularly given Press interviews, claiming that he was beyond the reach of the 'long arm' of our law. Upon his return to the UK, didn't pass Go, went straight to jail and was eventually released on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. He served only 10 years of his 30 year sentence.
Now then, what you have to ask yourself is; was this justice for driver, Jack Mills' death and the robbery or not?
In another column of this newspaper, we have the case of a persistent offender, with a very serious past, whom seems utterly incapable complying with court orders regarding his freedom. Given his past and flagrant breaches, I'd have no problems in seeing him jailed for way longer that what Judge Bev Lunt has done. Were it me, I'd say to him, go to jail for 5 years or until you decide that you wish to comply. You can be out in a week, if you want....but break the rules, back you go, to start it all again minus one week.
This isn't anything to do with his original sentence but more to set a benchmark (pun intended), that you simply cannot flout the law such as he has done.
Now then, this bring me back to topic at hand..
This man, Craig, although has been unlawfully at large for all these years, I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail.
Why not make an agreement that he lives where he does now, reports to the police whenever and let him live out his days? He's no longer a risk nor burden to this state...live and let live, I say.
If absconding from jail requires a prison term, then make it suspended.
...
In closing let me state that, in no way, shape nor form do I condone what he did, way back then.
I take no comfort in that some will see this as a possible cause celebre to refine our justice system; to have a more clearer sentencing system than we have at present. I agree, it's a right dogs dinner of a thing.. but let's remember, we are supposed to punish then rehabilitate...not punish, mercilessly and without end.
I have read, many many times, the case of Ruth Ellis, a woman, so abused, maligned and dominated by men that, to some, she should never have hung. It took me some time to realise that; she had to hang, to send a clear and patent message to all women, that, at the time, it was a mans world and that, when the final appeal was made, to a man, he had no choice but to allow that injustice to go on.
Would you kindly not vote either way on this comment: Instead, have a think and write something, if only to show that you have an opinion; for or against mine, that you are capable of thinking about things, in real terms and not knee-jerk reactions....
Let's have a bit of a ramble... Years ago, when I was a lad, a bunch of blokes robbed a train of a few bob. They bashed the driver, Jack Mills, so bad that he never worked again and died just over a year later. Now at that time, there was this rule; if you hurt someone and they died within the year of it happening, you would be charged with murder, and was the sentence of the day, swing for it! However, those that were arrested for it, were afforded the best legal counsel in the country; all on legal aid, of course. Now when they robbed this train, the banknotes on it had been taken out of circulation and so, technically, it wasn't legal tender; which meant that all the could be charged with -don't laugh, this is true- theft of the mailbags, property of the Crown! It was really Royal Mail back then, with a Gov't Minister appointed as Postmaster General.. So when it came to sentencing, they weren't sentenced for the £2+M that they stole but, for stealing from the Crown, which allowed the normal sentencing rules to go out of the window....they got 30 years! Some of them took umbrage at this and escaped...one being Ronnie Biggs, who hid out in Australia and then Brazil but eventually he was brought back to jail after 36 years on the run. Biggs made an utter mockery of the British legal system by regularly given Press interviews, claiming that he was beyond the reach of the 'long arm' of our law. Upon his return to the UK, didn't pass Go, went straight to jail and was eventually released on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. He served only 10 years of his 30 year sentence. Now then, what you have to ask yourself is; was this justice for driver, Jack Mills' death and the robbery or not? In another column of this newspaper, we have the case of a persistent offender, with a very serious past, whom seems utterly incapable complying with court orders regarding his freedom. Given his past and flagrant breaches, I'd have no problems in seeing him jailed for way longer that what Judge Bev Lunt has done. Were it me, I'd say to him, go to jail for 5 years or until you decide that you wish to comply. You can be out in a week, if you want....but break the rules, back you go, to start it all again minus one week. This isn't anything to do with his original sentence but more to set a benchmark (pun intended), that you simply cannot flout the law such as he has done. Now then, this bring me back to topic at hand.. This man, Craig, although has been unlawfully at large for all these years, I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail. Why not make an agreement that he lives where he does now, reports to the police whenever and let him live out his days? He's no longer a risk nor burden to this state...live and let live, I say. If absconding from jail requires a prison term, then make it suspended. ... In closing let me state that, in no way, shape nor form do I condone what he did, way back then. I take no comfort in that some will see this as a possible cause celebre to refine our justice system; to have a more clearer sentencing system than we have at present. I agree, it's a right dogs dinner of a thing.. but let's remember, we are supposed to punish then rehabilitate...not punish, mercilessly and without end. I have read, many many times, the case of Ruth Ellis, a woman, so abused, maligned and dominated by men that, to some, she should never have hung. It took me some time to realise that; she had to hang, to send a clear and patent message to all women, that, at the time, it was a mans world and that, when the final appeal was made, to a man, he had no choice but to allow that injustice to go on. Would you kindly not vote either way on this comment: Instead, have a think and write something, if only to show that you have an opinion; for or against mine, that you are capable of thinking about things, in real terms and not knee-jerk reactions.... woolywords
  • Score: -6

3:56pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Bad News Barrett says...

Tracie S. Faulkner wrote:
My Uncle Jeremiah got yellow Cadillac SRX by working part-time online... you can check here

=====>>>&gt
;> x.co/5Bodc
what am i gonna do with a yellow cadillac in Mill Hill?
[quote][p][bold]Tracie S. Faulkner[/bold] wrote: My Uncle Jeremiah got yellow Cadillac SRX by working part-time online... you can check here =====>>>> ;> x.co/5Bodc[/p][/quote]what am i gonna do with a yellow cadillac in Mill Hill? Bad News Barrett
  • Score: 5

4:00pm Tue 5 Aug 14

woolywords says...

kenbro wrote:
At one time he would have hung for such a horrible murder. Anyone who will bash in someone's skull should not be walking around in society. Just because he has supposedly not broken the law in 13 years does not mean that he is not liable to over react if provoked. Some offences are unforgivable. I wonder what the murdered lad's family would have to say ?
Kenbro,
According to his own statement at that time, Craig hit him, twice.
Then left the scene but fearing that John Kirby might recover,
he returned and dealt another blow.
(Whether the first two strikes were fatal or the third, is a Moot point.)
That second visit, is to my mind, why he deserved a conviction of murder.
Where murder is defined as, with malice aforethought...
In other words, he went back, hit him again, to ensure that he was dead.
And by that act, is guilty of murder.
No doubt!
I make no bone of contention about that act.
You won't get me to be a juror against that valid conviction.
However...
He was sentenced to life imprisonment, before all this Human Rights garbage and tariffs were ever spawned..Appeals to everyone apart from the gods of Valhalla..
Back in the day, when I was a lad, you had 3 clear Sundays, then met Mr Pierrepoint, for the long drop. He deserved that but..

Only people like John Straffen, a truly terrible man, deserved life, forever.

Am still of the opinion that the moors murderers should have hung, only because their crimes were committed, whilst hanging was on the books..

So don't take me as some, libertarian... because I'm not!
I'll hang 'em, flog 'em and whip 'em with the best of you.
...
Not in this case though..
He escaped the noose, did a life of prison..
and now you want what, exactly?
...
You need to query the sentence that was gifted to him, at that time.
When other, of more heinous crimes, served less.
[quote][p][bold]kenbro[/bold] wrote: At one time he would have hung for such a horrible murder. Anyone who will bash in someone's skull should not be walking around in society. Just because he has supposedly not broken the law in 13 years does not mean that he is not liable to over react if provoked. Some offences are unforgivable. I wonder what the murdered lad's family would have to say ?[/p][/quote]Kenbro, According to his own statement at that time, Craig hit him, twice. Then left the scene but fearing that John Kirby might recover, he returned and dealt another blow. (Whether the first two strikes were fatal or the third, is a Moot point.) That second visit, is to my mind, why he deserved a conviction of murder. Where murder is defined as, with malice aforethought... In other words, he went back, hit him again, to ensure that he was dead. And by that act, is guilty of murder. No doubt! I make no bone of contention about that act. You won't get me to be a juror against that valid conviction. However... He was sentenced to life imprisonment, before all this Human Rights garbage and tariffs were ever spawned..Appeals to everyone apart from the gods of Valhalla.. Back in the day, when I was a lad, you had 3 clear Sundays, then met Mr Pierrepoint, for the long drop. He deserved that but.. Only people like John Straffen, a truly terrible man, deserved life, forever. Am still of the opinion that the moors murderers should have hung, only because their crimes were committed, whilst hanging was on the books.. So don't take me as some, libertarian... because I'm not! I'll hang 'em, flog 'em and whip 'em with the best of you. ... Not in this case though.. He escaped the noose, did a life of prison.. and now you want what, exactly? ... You need to query the sentence that was gifted to him, at that time. When other, of more heinous crimes, served less. woolywords
  • Score: -4

4:04pm Tue 5 Aug 14

iceni1 says...

woolywords wrote:
Let's have a bit of a ramble...
Years ago, when I was a lad, a bunch of blokes robbed a train of a few bob.
They bashed the driver, Jack Mills, so bad that he never worked again and died just over a year later.
Now at that time, there was this rule; if you hurt someone and they died within the year of it happening, you would be charged with murder, and was the sentence of the day, swing for it!
However, those that were arrested for it, were afforded the best legal counsel in the country; all on legal aid, of course.
Now when they robbed this train, the banknotes on it had been taken out of circulation and so, technically, it wasn't legal tender; which meant that all the could be charged with -don't laugh, this is true- theft of the mailbags, property of the Crown! It was really Royal Mail back then, with a Gov't Minister appointed as Postmaster General..
So when it came to sentencing, they weren't sentenced for the £2+M that they stole but, for stealing from the Crown, which allowed the normal sentencing rules to go out of the window....they got 30 years!
Some of them took umbrage at this and escaped...one being Ronnie Biggs, who hid out in Australia and then Brazil but eventually he was brought back to jail after 36 years on the run.
Biggs made an utter mockery of the British legal system by regularly given Press interviews, claiming that he was beyond the reach of the 'long arm' of our law. Upon his return to the UK, didn't pass Go, went straight to jail and was eventually released on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. He served only 10 years of his 30 year sentence.
Now then, what you have to ask yourself is; was this justice for driver, Jack Mills' death and the robbery or not?
In another column of this newspaper, we have the case of a persistent offender, with a very serious past, whom seems utterly incapable complying with court orders regarding his freedom. Given his past and flagrant breaches, I'd have no problems in seeing him jailed for way longer that what Judge Bev Lunt has done. Were it me, I'd say to him, go to jail for 5 years or until you decide that you wish to comply. You can be out in a week, if you want....but break the rules, back you go, to start it all again minus one week.
This isn't anything to do with his original sentence but more to set a benchmark (pun intended), that you simply cannot flout the law such as he has done.
Now then, this bring me back to topic at hand..
This man, Craig, although has been unlawfully at large for all these years, I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail.
Why not make an agreement that he lives where he does now, reports to the police whenever and let him live out his days? He's no longer a risk nor burden to this state...live and let live, I say.
If absconding from jail requires a prison term, then make it suspended.
...
In closing let me state that, in no way, shape nor form do I condone what he did, way back then.
I take no comfort in that some will see this as a possible cause celebre to refine our justice system; to have a more clearer sentencing system than we have at present. I agree, it's a right dogs dinner of a thing.. but let's remember, we are supposed to punish then rehabilitate...not punish, mercilessly and without end.
I have read, many many times, the case of Ruth Ellis, a woman, so abused, maligned and dominated by men that, to some, she should never have hung. It took me some time to realise that; she had to hang, to send a clear and patent message to all women, that, at the time, it was a mans world and that, when the final appeal was made, to a man, he had no choice but to allow that injustice to go on.
Would you kindly not vote either way on this comment: Instead, have a think and write something, if only to show that you have an opinion; for or against mine, that you are capable of thinking about things, in real terms and not knee-jerk reactions....
Intelligent none knee- jerk comments.
"I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail." Well said.
[quote][p][bold]woolywords[/bold] wrote: Let's have a bit of a ramble... Years ago, when I was a lad, a bunch of blokes robbed a train of a few bob. They bashed the driver, Jack Mills, so bad that he never worked again and died just over a year later. Now at that time, there was this rule; if you hurt someone and they died within the year of it happening, you would be charged with murder, and was the sentence of the day, swing for it! However, those that were arrested for it, were afforded the best legal counsel in the country; all on legal aid, of course. Now when they robbed this train, the banknotes on it had been taken out of circulation and so, technically, it wasn't legal tender; which meant that all the could be charged with -don't laugh, this is true- theft of the mailbags, property of the Crown! It was really Royal Mail back then, with a Gov't Minister appointed as Postmaster General.. So when it came to sentencing, they weren't sentenced for the £2+M that they stole but, for stealing from the Crown, which allowed the normal sentencing rules to go out of the window....they got 30 years! Some of them took umbrage at this and escaped...one being Ronnie Biggs, who hid out in Australia and then Brazil but eventually he was brought back to jail after 36 years on the run. Biggs made an utter mockery of the British legal system by regularly given Press interviews, claiming that he was beyond the reach of the 'long arm' of our law. Upon his return to the UK, didn't pass Go, went straight to jail and was eventually released on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. He served only 10 years of his 30 year sentence. Now then, what you have to ask yourself is; was this justice for driver, Jack Mills' death and the robbery or not? In another column of this newspaper, we have the case of a persistent offender, with a very serious past, whom seems utterly incapable complying with court orders regarding his freedom. Given his past and flagrant breaches, I'd have no problems in seeing him jailed for way longer that what Judge Bev Lunt has done. Were it me, I'd say to him, go to jail for 5 years or until you decide that you wish to comply. You can be out in a week, if you want....but break the rules, back you go, to start it all again minus one week. This isn't anything to do with his original sentence but more to set a benchmark (pun intended), that you simply cannot flout the law such as he has done. Now then, this bring me back to topic at hand.. This man, Craig, although has been unlawfully at large for all these years, I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail. Why not make an agreement that he lives where he does now, reports to the police whenever and let him live out his days? He's no longer a risk nor burden to this state...live and let live, I say. If absconding from jail requires a prison term, then make it suspended. ... In closing let me state that, in no way, shape nor form do I condone what he did, way back then. I take no comfort in that some will see this as a possible cause celebre to refine our justice system; to have a more clearer sentencing system than we have at present. I agree, it's a right dogs dinner of a thing.. but let's remember, we are supposed to punish then rehabilitate...not punish, mercilessly and without end. I have read, many many times, the case of Ruth Ellis, a woman, so abused, maligned and dominated by men that, to some, she should never have hung. It took me some time to realise that; she had to hang, to send a clear and patent message to all women, that, at the time, it was a mans world and that, when the final appeal was made, to a man, he had no choice but to allow that injustice to go on. Would you kindly not vote either way on this comment: Instead, have a think and write something, if only to show that you have an opinion; for or against mine, that you are capable of thinking about things, in real terms and not knee-jerk reactions....[/p][/quote]Intelligent none knee- jerk comments. "I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail." Well said. iceni1
  • Score: -8

4:09pm Tue 5 Aug 14

kitchener2 says...

Cimbri wrote:
Not to mitigate his actions at that time, where there were inferences of premeditation but having already served 22 years in prison, just how much of the 'pound of flesh' required for Justice to be satiated, remains to be served?
It is apparent, from other sources, that this man is going to be made an example of when he is returned to prison. With both politicians and senior policeman being embarrassed by him.
Blackburn MP Jack Straw – Home Secretary until 2001 - said: ‘This was a very shocking crime, and it’s important that this man is brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.' How long is that, Jack, as no tariff was set, back then?
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that keeping the public safe was Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ‘top priority’, yet apart from entering Eire illegally, he has, on the face of it, committed no other crimes.
Not until questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament, did this 'manhunt' become a reality. At the time, local MP Patrick McLoughlin – now Transport Secretary – told the Commons Derbyshire Police had claimed not to have a photograph of Craig and that ‘no publicity was given’ to his absconsion, when in fact the force had ‘decided not to release’ the photo.
No matter which way that you look at this case and even ignoring the fact that he married, lived and worked without drawing any criminal attentions to himself, with just him reporting to the Gardai that there was a suspected prowler near his home, which led to his arrest, this man has more than served his time. He's such a 'threat to society' that the lowest to highest courts in Eire, have consistently granted him bail, pending appeals and deportation.
Any subsequent prison term that he serves after repatriation, is just going to be seen by any right thinking man, as nothing more than political retribution, for the huge embarrassment that he has caused.
"Nice sentiments" and what is your enlightened view on the unfortunate Mr. Kirby?.......we wait with bated breath!
[quote][p][bold]Cimbri[/bold] wrote: Not to mitigate his actions at that time, where there were inferences of premeditation but having already served 22 years in prison, just how much of the 'pound of flesh' required for Justice to be satiated, remains to be served? It is apparent, from other sources, that this man is going to be made an example of when he is returned to prison. With both politicians and senior policeman being embarrassed by him. Blackburn MP Jack Straw – Home Secretary until 2001 - said: ‘This was a very shocking crime, and it’s important that this man is brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.' How long is that, Jack, as no tariff was set, back then? A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that keeping the public safe was Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ‘top priority’, yet apart from entering Eire illegally, he has, on the face of it, committed no other crimes. Not until questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament, did this 'manhunt' become a reality. At the time, local MP Patrick McLoughlin – now Transport Secretary – told the Commons Derbyshire Police had claimed not to have a photograph of Craig and that ‘no publicity was given’ to his absconsion, when in fact the force had ‘decided not to release’ the photo. No matter which way that you look at this case and even ignoring the fact that he married, lived and worked without drawing any criminal attentions to himself, with just him reporting to the Gardai that there was a suspected prowler near his home, which led to his arrest, this man has more than served his time. He's such a 'threat to society' that the lowest to highest courts in Eire, have consistently granted him bail, pending appeals and deportation. Any subsequent prison term that he serves after repatriation, is just going to be seen by any right thinking man, as nothing more than political retribution, for the huge embarrassment that he has caused.[/p][/quote]"Nice sentiments" and what is your enlightened view on the unfortunate Mr. Kirby?.......we wait with bated breath! kitchener2
  • Score: 6

4:09pm Tue 5 Aug 14

kitchener2 says...

Cimbri wrote:
Not to mitigate his actions at that time, where there were inferences of premeditation but having already served 22 years in prison, just how much of the 'pound of flesh' required for Justice to be satiated, remains to be served?
It is apparent, from other sources, that this man is going to be made an example of when he is returned to prison. With both politicians and senior policeman being embarrassed by him.
Blackburn MP Jack Straw – Home Secretary until 2001 - said: ‘This was a very shocking crime, and it’s important that this man is brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.' How long is that, Jack, as no tariff was set, back then?
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that keeping the public safe was Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ‘top priority’, yet apart from entering Eire illegally, he has, on the face of it, committed no other crimes.
Not until questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament, did this 'manhunt' become a reality. At the time, local MP Patrick McLoughlin – now Transport Secretary – told the Commons Derbyshire Police had claimed not to have a photograph of Craig and that ‘no publicity was given’ to his absconsion, when in fact the force had ‘decided not to release’ the photo.
No matter which way that you look at this case and even ignoring the fact that he married, lived and worked without drawing any criminal attentions to himself, with just him reporting to the Gardai that there was a suspected prowler near his home, which led to his arrest, this man has more than served his time. He's such a 'threat to society' that the lowest to highest courts in Eire, have consistently granted him bail, pending appeals and deportation.
Any subsequent prison term that he serves after repatriation, is just going to be seen by any right thinking man, as nothing more than political retribution, for the huge embarrassment that he has caused.
"Nice sentiments" and what is your enlightened view on the unfortunate Mr. Kirby?.......we wait with bated breath!
[quote][p][bold]Cimbri[/bold] wrote: Not to mitigate his actions at that time, where there were inferences of premeditation but having already served 22 years in prison, just how much of the 'pound of flesh' required for Justice to be satiated, remains to be served? It is apparent, from other sources, that this man is going to be made an example of when he is returned to prison. With both politicians and senior policeman being embarrassed by him. Blackburn MP Jack Straw – Home Secretary until 2001 - said: ‘This was a very shocking crime, and it’s important that this man is brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.' How long is that, Jack, as no tariff was set, back then? A Ministry of Justice spokesman said that keeping the public safe was Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ‘top priority’, yet apart from entering Eire illegally, he has, on the face of it, committed no other crimes. Not until questions were asked in the Houses of Parliament, did this 'manhunt' become a reality. At the time, local MP Patrick McLoughlin – now Transport Secretary – told the Commons Derbyshire Police had claimed not to have a photograph of Craig and that ‘no publicity was given’ to his absconsion, when in fact the force had ‘decided not to release’ the photo. No matter which way that you look at this case and even ignoring the fact that he married, lived and worked without drawing any criminal attentions to himself, with just him reporting to the Gardai that there was a suspected prowler near his home, which led to his arrest, this man has more than served his time. He's such a 'threat to society' that the lowest to highest courts in Eire, have consistently granted him bail, pending appeals and deportation. Any subsequent prison term that he serves after repatriation, is just going to be seen by any right thinking man, as nothing more than political retribution, for the huge embarrassment that he has caused.[/p][/quote]"Nice sentiments" and what is your enlightened view on the unfortunate Mr. Kirby?.......we wait with bated breath! kitchener2
  • Score: 3

4:22pm Tue 5 Aug 14

woolywords says...

Bad News Barrett wrote:
Tracie S. Faulkner wrote:
My Uncle Jeremiah got yellow Cadillac SRX by working part-time online... you can check here

=====>>>&gt
;
;> x.co/5Bodc
what am i gonna do with a yellow cadillac in Mill Hill?
wasn't there a pink Cadillac owned by some 'star', from Corrie?
...
A coat of emulsion,
Bob's your Uncle..
...
Magnolia, of Mill Hill..
Think, before you act..
..in fact, as I wrote this, I thunked..
...
Blown Vinyl..
top wrap...
makes them think..
Hmm, blown..
[quote][p][bold]Bad News Barrett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tracie S. Faulkner[/bold] wrote: My Uncle Jeremiah got yellow Cadillac SRX by working part-time online... you can check here =====>>>> ; ;> x.co/5Bodc[/p][/quote]what am i gonna do with a yellow cadillac in Mill Hill?[/p][/quote]wasn't there a pink Cadillac owned by some 'star', from Corrie? ... A coat of emulsion, Bob's your Uncle.. ... Magnolia, of Mill Hill.. Think, before you act.. ..in fact, as I wrote this, I thunked.. ... Blown Vinyl.. top wrap... makes them think.. Hmm, blown.. woolywords
  • Score: -7

4:27pm Tue 5 Aug 14

woolywords says...

Oh, by the way..
Last night, ye olde police helio was over Mill Hill, for ages..
Anyone that has too many lights on..
Do as they said in Shameless,
SCARPER!
Oh, by the way.. Last night, ye olde police helio was over Mill Hill, for ages.. Anyone that has too many lights on.. Do as they said in Shameless, SCARPER! woolywords
  • Score: -3

5:03pm Tue 5 Aug 14

woolywords says...

kitchener2,
The law of the land at that time was, life imprisonment, without any tariff.
Someone, with more knowledge of this man than me decided that he should go to an open prison.
If by that, he say a chance, beyond waiting for the dithering, blithering idiots that are, the Parole Board, he both saw a chance to wander off, and never be seen again, whom could blame him?
...
Am not here to defend what he did, originally,
more what he has done since..
Has he killed again?..
As Cimbri said..
When does your vengeance for a crime, ever end?
Or are you, one of those low-brows, that see yourself as an avenging angel, for all crimes ever committed?
Where you have divine right, under the Bible, quran or some make belive godhead.. where you see, an eye for an eye, is the just result..
Not that we need a judiciary; just some idiot, like you, to dispense justice.
so that the Ghandi said, make us all, half blind.
...
I am a rabid hater; where one crime perpetrated by one in a group, is visited upon all of them..
they bear, total and utter responsibility for that act..
where it is incumbent upon them to make total amends..
and by that, I cite..
Charles James Napier,
he of the pub, Sir Charles Napier..
That man, that did many an atrocity, yet you have the audacity to ask me, why I defend one killer, here in Blackburn; where you are proud to name a public house, after a noted killer...of thousands.
The absolute temerity of you people, is utterly, breathtaking..
as written here..
are you having a giraffe,
give your head a shake..
or just, give up..
He's not going to hurt anyone, ever.
Done his time, for that crime.
Live and let live
kitchener2, The law of the land at that time was, life imprisonment, without any tariff. Someone, with more knowledge of this man than me decided that he should go to an open prison. If by that, he say a chance, beyond waiting for the dithering, blithering idiots that are, the Parole Board, he both saw a chance to wander off, and never be seen again, whom could blame him? ... Am not here to defend what he did, originally, more what he has done since.. Has he killed again?.. As Cimbri said.. When does your vengeance for a crime, ever end? Or are you, one of those low-brows, that see yourself as an avenging angel, for all crimes ever committed? Where you have divine right, under the Bible, quran or some make belive godhead.. where you see, an eye for an eye, is the just result.. Not that we need a judiciary; just some idiot, like you, to dispense justice. so that the Ghandi said, make us all, half blind. ... I am a rabid hater; where one crime perpetrated by one in a group, is visited upon all of them.. they bear, total and utter responsibility for that act.. where it is incumbent upon them to make total amends.. and by that, I cite.. Charles James Napier, he of the pub, Sir Charles Napier.. That man, that did many an atrocity, yet you have the audacity to ask me, why I defend one killer, here in Blackburn; where you are proud to name a public house, after a noted killer...of thousands. The absolute temerity of you people, is utterly, breathtaking.. as written here.. are you having a giraffe, give your head a shake.. or just, give up.. He's not going to hurt anyone, ever. Done his time, for that crime. Live and let live woolywords
  • Score: -3

5:46pm Tue 5 Aug 14

greenscreener says...

woolywords wrote:
Let's have a bit of a ramble...
Years ago, when I was a lad, a bunch of blokes robbed a train of a few bob.
They bashed the driver, Jack Mills, so bad that he never worked again and died just over a year later.
Now at that time, there was this rule; if you hurt someone and they died within the year of it happening, you would be charged with murder, and was the sentence of the day, swing for it!
However, those that were arrested for it, were afforded the best legal counsel in the country; all on legal aid, of course.
Now when they robbed this train, the banknotes on it had been taken out of circulation and so, technically, it wasn't legal tender; which meant that all the could be charged with -don't laugh, this is true- theft of the mailbags, property of the Crown! It was really Royal Mail back then, with a Gov't Minister appointed as Postmaster General..
So when it came to sentencing, they weren't sentenced for the £2+M that they stole but, for stealing from the Crown, which allowed the normal sentencing rules to go out of the window....they got 30 years!
Some of them took umbrage at this and escaped...one being Ronnie Biggs, who hid out in Australia and then Brazil but eventually he was brought back to jail after 36 years on the run.
Biggs made an utter mockery of the British legal system by regularly given Press interviews, claiming that he was beyond the reach of the 'long arm' of our law. Upon his return to the UK, didn't pass Go, went straight to jail and was eventually released on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. He served only 10 years of his 30 year sentence.
Now then, what you have to ask yourself is; was this justice for driver, Jack Mills' death and the robbery or not?
In another column of this newspaper, we have the case of a persistent offender, with a very serious past, whom seems utterly incapable complying with court orders regarding his freedom. Given his past and flagrant breaches, I'd have no problems in seeing him jailed for way longer that what Judge Bev Lunt has done. Were it me, I'd say to him, go to jail for 5 years or until you decide that you wish to comply. You can be out in a week, if you want....but break the rules, back you go, to start it all again minus one week.
This isn't anything to do with his original sentence but more to set a benchmark (pun intended), that you simply cannot flout the law such as he has done.
Now then, this bring me back to topic at hand..
This man, Craig, although has been unlawfully at large for all these years, I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail.
Why not make an agreement that he lives where he does now, reports to the police whenever and let him live out his days? He's no longer a risk nor burden to this state...live and let live, I say.
If absconding from jail requires a prison term, then make it suspended.
...
In closing let me state that, in no way, shape nor form do I condone what he did, way back then.
I take no comfort in that some will see this as a possible cause celebre to refine our justice system; to have a more clearer sentencing system than we have at present. I agree, it's a right dogs dinner of a thing.. but let's remember, we are supposed to punish then rehabilitate...not punish, mercilessly and without end.
I have read, many many times, the case of Ruth Ellis, a woman, so abused, maligned and dominated by men that, to some, she should never have hung. It took me some time to realise that; she had to hang, to send a clear and patent message to all women, that, at the time, it was a mans world and that, when the final appeal was made, to a man, he had no choice but to allow that injustice to go on.
Would you kindly not vote either way on this comment: Instead, have a think and write something, if only to show that you have an opinion; for or against mine, that you are capable of thinking about things, in real terms and not knee-jerk reactions....
The issue here actually goes beyond the individual, because there is a danger that we set a very uneasy precedent.

If you give the prison population, particularly those with longer sentences, the idea that it's really worth a try absconding, there will be absolute anarchy in our penal system.

An over stretched system will either become more draconian or break down, neither of which is an improvement on what we have today.
[quote][p][bold]woolywords[/bold] wrote: Let's have a bit of a ramble... Years ago, when I was a lad, a bunch of blokes robbed a train of a few bob. They bashed the driver, Jack Mills, so bad that he never worked again and died just over a year later. Now at that time, there was this rule; if you hurt someone and they died within the year of it happening, you would be charged with murder, and was the sentence of the day, swing for it! However, those that were arrested for it, were afforded the best legal counsel in the country; all on legal aid, of course. Now when they robbed this train, the banknotes on it had been taken out of circulation and so, technically, it wasn't legal tender; which meant that all the could be charged with -don't laugh, this is true- theft of the mailbags, property of the Crown! It was really Royal Mail back then, with a Gov't Minister appointed as Postmaster General.. So when it came to sentencing, they weren't sentenced for the £2+M that they stole but, for stealing from the Crown, which allowed the normal sentencing rules to go out of the window....they got 30 years! Some of them took umbrage at this and escaped...one being Ronnie Biggs, who hid out in Australia and then Brazil but eventually he was brought back to jail after 36 years on the run. Biggs made an utter mockery of the British legal system by regularly given Press interviews, claiming that he was beyond the reach of the 'long arm' of our law. Upon his return to the UK, didn't pass Go, went straight to jail and was eventually released on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. He served only 10 years of his 30 year sentence. Now then, what you have to ask yourself is; was this justice for driver, Jack Mills' death and the robbery or not? In another column of this newspaper, we have the case of a persistent offender, with a very serious past, whom seems utterly incapable complying with court orders regarding his freedom. Given his past and flagrant breaches, I'd have no problems in seeing him jailed for way longer that what Judge Bev Lunt has done. Were it me, I'd say to him, go to jail for 5 years or until you decide that you wish to comply. You can be out in a week, if you want....but break the rules, back you go, to start it all again minus one week. This isn't anything to do with his original sentence but more to set a benchmark (pun intended), that you simply cannot flout the law such as he has done. Now then, this bring me back to topic at hand.. This man, Craig, although has been unlawfully at large for all these years, I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail. Why not make an agreement that he lives where he does now, reports to the police whenever and let him live out his days? He's no longer a risk nor burden to this state...live and let live, I say. If absconding from jail requires a prison term, then make it suspended. ... In closing let me state that, in no way, shape nor form do I condone what he did, way back then. I take no comfort in that some will see this as a possible cause celebre to refine our justice system; to have a more clearer sentencing system than we have at present. I agree, it's a right dogs dinner of a thing.. but let's remember, we are supposed to punish then rehabilitate...not punish, mercilessly and without end. I have read, many many times, the case of Ruth Ellis, a woman, so abused, maligned and dominated by men that, to some, she should never have hung. It took me some time to realise that; she had to hang, to send a clear and patent message to all women, that, at the time, it was a mans world and that, when the final appeal was made, to a man, he had no choice but to allow that injustice to go on. Would you kindly not vote either way on this comment: Instead, have a think and write something, if only to show that you have an opinion; for or against mine, that you are capable of thinking about things, in real terms and not knee-jerk reactions....[/p][/quote]The issue here actually goes beyond the individual, because there is a danger that we set a very uneasy precedent. If you give the prison population, particularly those with longer sentences, the idea that it's really worth a try absconding, there will be absolute anarchy in our penal system. An over stretched system will either become more draconian or break down, neither of which is an improvement on what we have today. greenscreener
  • Score: 6

9:05pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Shane says...

greenscreener wrote:
woolywords wrote:
Let's have a bit of a ramble...
Years ago, when I was a lad, a bunch of blokes robbed a train of a few bob.
They bashed the driver, Jack Mills, so bad that he never worked again and died just over a year later.
Now at that time, there was this rule; if you hurt someone and they died within the year of it happening, you would be charged with murder, and was the sentence of the day, swing for it!
However, those that were arrested for it, were afforded the best legal counsel in the country; all on legal aid, of course.
Now when they robbed this train, the banknotes on it had been taken out of circulation and so, technically, it wasn't legal tender; which meant that all the could be charged with -don't laugh, this is true- theft of the mailbags, property of the Crown! It was really Royal Mail back then, with a Gov't Minister appointed as Postmaster General..
So when it came to sentencing, they weren't sentenced for the £2+M that they stole but, for stealing from the Crown, which allowed the normal sentencing rules to go out of the window....they got 30 years!
Some of them took umbrage at this and escaped...one being Ronnie Biggs, who hid out in Australia and then Brazil but eventually he was brought back to jail after 36 years on the run.
Biggs made an utter mockery of the British legal system by regularly given Press interviews, claiming that he was beyond the reach of the 'long arm' of our law. Upon his return to the UK, didn't pass Go, went straight to jail and was eventually released on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. He served only 10 years of his 30 year sentence.
Now then, what you have to ask yourself is; was this justice for driver, Jack Mills' death and the robbery or not?
In another column of this newspaper, we have the case of a persistent offender, with a very serious past, whom seems utterly incapable complying with court orders regarding his freedom. Given his past and flagrant breaches, I'd have no problems in seeing him jailed for way longer that what Judge Bev Lunt has done. Were it me, I'd say to him, go to jail for 5 years or until you decide that you wish to comply. You can be out in a week, if you want....but break the rules, back you go, to start it all again minus one week.
This isn't anything to do with his original sentence but more to set a benchmark (pun intended), that you simply cannot flout the law such as he has done.
Now then, this bring me back to topic at hand..
This man, Craig, although has been unlawfully at large for all these years, I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail.
Why not make an agreement that he lives where he does now, reports to the police whenever and let him live out his days? He's no longer a risk nor burden to this state...live and let live, I say.
If absconding from jail requires a prison term, then make it suspended.
...
In closing let me state that, in no way, shape nor form do I condone what he did, way back then.
I take no comfort in that some will see this as a possible cause celebre to refine our justice system; to have a more clearer sentencing system than we have at present. I agree, it's a right dogs dinner of a thing.. but let's remember, we are supposed to punish then rehabilitate...not punish, mercilessly and without end.
I have read, many many times, the case of Ruth Ellis, a woman, so abused, maligned and dominated by men that, to some, she should never have hung. It took me some time to realise that; she had to hang, to send a clear and patent message to all women, that, at the time, it was a mans world and that, when the final appeal was made, to a man, he had no choice but to allow that injustice to go on.
Would you kindly not vote either way on this comment: Instead, have a think and write something, if only to show that you have an opinion; for or against mine, that you are capable of thinking about things, in real terms and not knee-jerk reactions....
The issue here actually goes beyond the individual, because there is a danger that we set a very uneasy precedent.

If you give the prison population, particularly those with longer sentences, the idea that it's really worth a try absconding, there will be absolute anarchy in our penal system.

An over stretched system will either become more draconian or break down, neither of which is an improvement on what we have today.
There's uneasy precedents being set all the time in the justice system. This case just needs a pragmatic approach
[quote][p][bold]greenscreener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woolywords[/bold] wrote: Let's have a bit of a ramble... Years ago, when I was a lad, a bunch of blokes robbed a train of a few bob. They bashed the driver, Jack Mills, so bad that he never worked again and died just over a year later. Now at that time, there was this rule; if you hurt someone and they died within the year of it happening, you would be charged with murder, and was the sentence of the day, swing for it! However, those that were arrested for it, were afforded the best legal counsel in the country; all on legal aid, of course. Now when they robbed this train, the banknotes on it had been taken out of circulation and so, technically, it wasn't legal tender; which meant that all the could be charged with -don't laugh, this is true- theft of the mailbags, property of the Crown! It was really Royal Mail back then, with a Gov't Minister appointed as Postmaster General.. So when it came to sentencing, they weren't sentenced for the £2+M that they stole but, for stealing from the Crown, which allowed the normal sentencing rules to go out of the window....they got 30 years! Some of them took umbrage at this and escaped...one being Ronnie Biggs, who hid out in Australia and then Brazil but eventually he was brought back to jail after 36 years on the run. Biggs made an utter mockery of the British legal system by regularly given Press interviews, claiming that he was beyond the reach of the 'long arm' of our law. Upon his return to the UK, didn't pass Go, went straight to jail and was eventually released on compassionate grounds due to his ill health. He served only 10 years of his 30 year sentence. Now then, what you have to ask yourself is; was this justice for driver, Jack Mills' death and the robbery or not? In another column of this newspaper, we have the case of a persistent offender, with a very serious past, whom seems utterly incapable complying with court orders regarding his freedom. Given his past and flagrant breaches, I'd have no problems in seeing him jailed for way longer that what Judge Bev Lunt has done. Were it me, I'd say to him, go to jail for 5 years or until you decide that you wish to comply. You can be out in a week, if you want....but break the rules, back you go, to start it all again minus one week. This isn't anything to do with his original sentence but more to set a benchmark (pun intended), that you simply cannot flout the law such as he has done. Now then, this bring me back to topic at hand.. This man, Craig, although has been unlawfully at large for all these years, I don't see what public good is being served by him being returned to jail. He is no longer the man that he was, has shown an ability to behave, more than can be proved in the confines of a jail. Why not make an agreement that he lives where he does now, reports to the police whenever and let him live out his days? He's no longer a risk nor burden to this state...live and let live, I say. If absconding from jail requires a prison term, then make it suspended. ... In closing let me state that, in no way, shape nor form do I condone what he did, way back then. I take no comfort in that some will see this as a possible cause celebre to refine our justice system; to have a more clearer sentencing system than we have at present. I agree, it's a right dogs dinner of a thing.. but let's remember, we are supposed to punish then rehabilitate...not punish, mercilessly and without end. I have read, many many times, the case of Ruth Ellis, a woman, so abused, maligned and dominated by men that, to some, she should never have hung. It took me some time to realise that; she had to hang, to send a clear and patent message to all women, that, at the time, it was a mans world and that, when the final appeal was made, to a man, he had no choice but to allow that injustice to go on. Would you kindly not vote either way on this comment: Instead, have a think and write something, if only to show that you have an opinion; for or against mine, that you are capable of thinking about things, in real terms and not knee-jerk reactions....[/p][/quote]The issue here actually goes beyond the individual, because there is a danger that we set a very uneasy precedent. If you give the prison population, particularly those with longer sentences, the idea that it's really worth a try absconding, there will be absolute anarchy in our penal system. An over stretched system will either become more draconian or break down, neither of which is an improvement on what we have today.[/p][/quote]There's uneasy precedents being set all the time in the justice system. This case just needs a pragmatic approach Shane
  • Score: -4

5:06am Wed 6 Aug 14

KYMER says...

well the craigs are well known in bburn.one of this guys family was jailed for pinching a ring of a corpse.not nice people
well the craigs are well known in bburn.one of this guys family was jailed for pinching a ring of a corpse.not nice people KYMER
  • Score: -3

10:57am Wed 6 Aug 14

Bad News Barrett says...

woolywords wrote:
Bad News Barrett wrote:
Tracie S. Faulkner wrote:
My Uncle Jeremiah got yellow Cadillac SRX by working part-time online... you can check here

=====>>>&gt
;
;
;> x.co/5Bodc
what am i gonna do with a yellow cadillac in Mill Hill?
wasn't there a pink Cadillac owned by some 'star', from Corrie?
...
A coat of emulsion,
Bob's your Uncle..
...
Magnolia, of Mill Hill..
Think, before you act..
..in fact, as I wrote this, I thunked..
...
Blown Vinyl..
top wrap...
makes them think..
Hmm, blown..
lol i thought i was nuts!
i think the pink cadillac was elvis' cause was in papers at the time that his actual car was parked at a garage in mill hill. Unless that was a different cadillac
[quote][p][bold]woolywords[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bad News Barrett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tracie S. Faulkner[/bold] wrote: My Uncle Jeremiah got yellow Cadillac SRX by working part-time online... you can check here =====>>>> ; ; ;> x.co/5Bodc[/p][/quote]what am i gonna do with a yellow cadillac in Mill Hill?[/p][/quote]wasn't there a pink Cadillac owned by some 'star', from Corrie? ... A coat of emulsion, Bob's your Uncle.. ... Magnolia, of Mill Hill.. Think, before you act.. ..in fact, as I wrote this, I thunked.. ... Blown Vinyl.. top wrap... makes them think.. Hmm, blown..[/p][/quote]lol i thought i was nuts! i think the pink cadillac was elvis' cause was in papers at the time that his actual car was parked at a garage in mill hill. Unless that was a different cadillac Bad News Barrett
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree