MovieChat Forums > Mrs Biggs Discussion > another drama about losers

another drama about losers


The Great Train Robbery was an important event in British social history and I don't expect films not to be made about it but I do object when the low lifes involved are shown to be heroes or loveable rogues or in any sort of positive way.

ROBBERY is a good film but BUSTER was a lot of cliches and Phil Collins should still be ashamed of being in it since it did not show the effect of the robbery on JACK MILLS the driver or his second man.assistant.
Now we have this new production MRS BIGGS,we are supposed to feel sorry for the woman on the run with her loser husband Ronnie Biggs.

reply

Calm down will u...it's just entertainment!! It would be pretty boring if everything was all sweetness & light!! It's reality...good & bad things happen! Anyway, wind ya neck in!

reply

Besides-Ronnie's sentence way over the top.I'm rather glad he got away all those years-and have heard that driver Mills' evidence not 100% accurate.Charmian's father-pompous prat.

reply

I'm just glad to see ITV showing something that isn't to do with Simon Cowell and orange skinned chav warblers on their journey.




You know, Wobbles... I'm kinda mad at you.

reply

[deleted]

For most people, the great train robbers lost a lot of sympathy because of the coshing of Jack Mills, and rightly so. However, the sentences were so harsh, not because of this, but because it was 'Royal' mail.
Thirty years was way over, remember there was no such thing as parole in 1963. It did get introduced during their sentences. No guns. Is it any wonder that seventies bank robbers were generally armed,thirty years is like saying 'life over'.
As for this series, I think it's quite good and its always nice to have proper English drama on tv. Having spoken to Bruce Reynolds many years later I would have to say that the actor who plays him in this has him to a tee.

reply

"No guns"

Oh, they were just loveable rogues, and just gave that evil Jack Mills a little light tap, I suppose? They were all thieving scum, and thirty years was not "way over". They should all have got life or the death penalty.

"Is it any wonder that seventies bank robbers were generally armed,thirty years is like saying 'life over'."

Well, it would be a crying shame if they were given a serious, heavy sentence, wouldn't it? Britain is absolutely screwed as long as it is full of people with your moral compass.

reply

Did I suggest they were 'lovable rogues?' NO!
Did I question Jack Mills? NO!
Did I make it clear the coshing of Mills was terrible? YES!
For justice to prevail, we must have a sliding tariff in sentencing. If we 'hang' a theif, what are we going to do to a rapist; hang him twice?
Robberies with firearms increased 6-fold after the g.t.r got the thirties. If sentences are over the top, a villain will do more to ensure he isn't caught (ie murder).
This is not to suggest he has the right to steal in the first place. But let us not forget, Britain stole a third of the world during the 19th century. And the elite were always determined not to share the wealth with the masses.
Wrong-doers don't do wrong for no reason.
Many people in Britain work hard and honestly their entire lives, only to be shat on when they reach old age.Please don't question my 'moral compass' when you haven't the decency to even read my words properly.

reply

I believe that the British empire was the greatest the world has ever known and lament its loss.These countries were all far better off back then.I repeat that the train robbers' sentences were over the top.

reply

I think I have every right to question the moral compass of someone who thinks 30 years for committing an armed robbery which resulted in someone's death was "way over".

Are you aware of just how many crimes (and many of them murders and rapes) are committed by people who have been given ridiculously lenient sentences or been let out half way through their sentences? Had they been given a proper punishment (and I couldn't give two hoots about rehabilitation - it doesn't work with hardened criminals) many of those crimes would not have been committed. And that is not something you can argue with. (And that applies to the Great Train Robbers - had they been given proper sentences for their previous crimes they would not have been free to go and commit that particular crime - argue against that if you can).

"For justice to prevail, we must have a sliding tariff in sentencing".

Why? Why can we not just punish ciminals, and punish them severely? Let them know that what they did was wrong and will not be tolerated. I never suggested we should hang a thief. But hang a rapist? Who on earth would disagree with that?

I don't have any problem with different sentences for different crimes, depending on the level of their seriousness. Had this lot received the death penalty for this offence, which they jolly well should have, we wouldn't have had the subsequent charade of Biggs in hiding on the other side of the world for 40 odd years.

Oh, and "Did I make it clear the coshing of Mills was terrible? YES!" - well, not really, no, you did not.

reply

Who would disagree with hanging a rapist? Me for one-and most Britons. And you do seem in favour of hanging thieves.

reply

Are you implying that the "Great Train Robbers" were just "thieves"? That puts them on a par with shoplifters, which would be a ridiculous assertion. What they did went way beyond mere thievery (I know, I know, it's a made-up word!), and fully warranted the 30 year sentences.

reply