kids, northern rail, police

[Dolive22]

They admitted some facts. They relied on a police officer not to caution them when the offence hadn't been committed. It possibly hadn't been committed. Only clear cut cases are suitable for cautions, and this isn't clear cut.

As to the rest, there are rules about how the police must behave. It isn't about treating kids with kid gloves, it's about not treating police officers with kid gloves. They have to abide by the rules.

 

[Ferret]

They admitted some facts. They relied on a police officer not to caution them when the offence hadn't been committed. It possibly hadn't been committed. Only clear cut cases are suitable for cautions, and this isn't clear cut.

As to the rest, there are rules about how the police must behave. It isn't about treating kids with kid gloves, it's about not treating police officers with kid gloves. They have to abide by the rules.

So, all this is based around your questionable interpretation of Byelaw 18?

 

[Clip]

They may have detected fare evasion in the sense of someone who was going to take advantage of an opportunity to avoid paying, which I condemn. What they have not done is proven someone had committed any particular offence. It appears they have then administered a caution for an offence that may not have been committed. This is unprofessional. They appear to have been unprofessional in a number of other ways.

I'm rather disappointed that someone would try and have my post removed rather than going point by point with me disputing what I said.

I thought they had got caught without a valid ticket?

 

[Ferret]

They may have detected fare evasion in the sense of someone who was going to take advantage of an opportunity to avoid paying, which I condemn. What they have not done is proven someone had committed any particular offence. It appears they have then administered a caution for an offence that may not have been committed. This is unprofessional. They appear to have been unprofessional in a number of other ways.

I'm rather disappointed that someone would try and have my post removed rather than going point by point with me disputing what I said.

What is there to debate? The OP admits the offence has previously been committed, ok - while in ignorance of the law, but as I'm sure you are well aware, ignorance is no defence where the law is concerned.

 

[Dolive22]

So, all this is based around on your questionable interpretation of Byelaw 18?

If it's questionable, question it. Point out where I might be wrong. I'm more than happy to discuss it.

I'm not neccessarily saying the offence isn't complete (it might well be) but it is not clear, and in those circumstances you must not issue a caution. To do so is not only contrary to the law, it undermines the entire system of cautions. When the police look up their records and see a caution they can't tell nowadays whether the person did it, or whether they were bounced in to it by an Inspector who didn't follow the rules.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought they had got caught without a valid ticket?

Yes. They committed that element of the offence. Anyone who starts from an unmanned station commits that part of the offence. It's only a crime if you don't have one of the defences. It looks like they might have.

 

[jon0844]

I am really confused now. They didn't have a ticket, so were 100% guilty of a byelaw offence. And now we're arguing about the police not having proof or being heavy handed, disrespectful, unfair or whatever else we can try and use to shift the blame?

If people are willing to argue things like this, it's no bloody wonder our justice system is so f****d that we can't, or won't, properly punish those who commit more serious crimes.

I am not sure whether habitual fare evasion, taking steps to try and avoid opportunities to pay (by avoiding contact with those that might seek to sell a ticket before or during the journey) might lead on to more serious offences - but I'd have to hazard a guess that it might.

Therefore, to me, it's in the interest of the police, the OP, the children and society in general to have these things dealt with quickly. I'm sure many people have taken opportunities when young and not thought much of it, and this is all part of growing up and making you a better person.

 

[Ferret]

Yes. They committed that element of the offence. Anyone who starts from an unmanned station commits that part of the offence. It's only a crime if you don't have one of the defences. It looks like they might have.

OK - which defence precisely?

 

[Dolive22]

I hate fair evasion. The last fare evader I saw I almost called BTP to arrest them at St Pancras.

Not having a ticket does not make you guilty of a byelaw offence. To be guilty of the 18(1) offence, you must not have a ticket, enter a train for the purpose of travelling in a non-compulsory ticket area, do so where facilities do not exist to pay before you board, where there is no notice authorising you to pay on board and not have the permission of an authorised person. It's arguable they had the permission of an authorised person.

So yes, we're arguing about the police administering a caution for an offence they can't prove and being heavy handed, disrespectful and unfair, which they are expressly forbidden to be.

 

[221129]

Not having a ticket does not make you guilty of a byelaw offence. To be guilty of the 18(1) offence, you must not have a ticket, enter a train for the purpose of travelling in a non-compulsory ticket area, do so where facilities do not exist to pay before you board, where there is no notice authorising you to pay on board and not have the permission of an authorised person. It's arguable they had the permission of an authorised person.

At What point did they have permission from an authorised person?

 

[Dolive22]

OK - which defence precisely?

18 (3) iii.

It's debatable, which is why if they were not going to be let off it should have been debated and settled. Facilities to do so are provided in most large towns but are not inside police stations.

Of course the CPS might well decide that it was not in the public interest to prosecute someone who thought they had permission to buy their ticket on the train who wasn't able to do so. It's also possible that the court would not think is deserving of punishment and award an unconditional discharge, which is the equivalent of awarding 1p libel damages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Arguably when they were told to board without a ticket. How many times do you have to say 'pay on board' before it becomes standing permission?

It's not clear, that's why it isn't suitable for a caution.

 

[Ferret]

At What point did they have permission from an authorised person?

I think we've now reached the nitty gritty. I presume 'Dolive' is relying on the ticket office chap having *previously* been given permission for them to buy tickets on the train. If that's the case, then I think it's safe to ask the moderators to delete a whole swathe of drivel from this thread.

Arguably when they were told to board without a ticket. How many times do you have to say 'pay on board' before it becomes standing permission?

What part of Byelaw 18 refers to 'standing permission'? Telling somebody to buy a ticket on the train refers to the specific occasion and that specific occasion alone. Like I said, you have questioned the professionalism of the Police based on a very questionable if not downright ridiculous interpretation of the law as it stands.

 

[Dolive22]

Yes, I am. The issue is whether that, given on several occasions, gave permission to travel other times without buying a ticket first. That isn't settled, and therefore they shouldn't be cautioned.

There is also the other conduct issues. I can cite chapter and verse if you want?

I have tried to be civil during this discussion, and I would hope everyone else would as well. I'm not sure what in particular has been 'drivel' or why my name is in quote marks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Bylaw 18 refers to permission. It doesn't say whether that permission is standing or not. Clearly if it is 'On this occasion' or 'just this once' it is a one-off. Similarly if it is 'On this occasion and all others, you may' it lasts until revoked. The middle ground, where they could be doubt, is where permission is expressed several times without any express restriction. The offence is probably complete, but it is not clear and therefore they should not be cautioned.

I pick on the cautioning because the police in recent years have had a problem with cautions where they give them to people who don't understand their effect, and who shouldn't have been cautioned, and this has made the whole system unreliable.

There are also fairly clear cut problems on rudeness etc. The police are required to ' [treat] members of the public ... respect and courtesy'. It seems they didn't here.

 

[Ferret]

Yes, I am. The issue is whether that, given on several occasions, gave permission to travel other times without buying a ticket first. That isn't settled, and therefore they shouldn't be cautioned.

Irrelevant. The requirement is whether they were given permission on the day of the offence.

There is also the other conduct issues. I can cite chapter and verse if you want?

Save your typing fingers the effort - it would only be based on your assumptions of what the Police have done and your assumptions of how Byelaw 18 is applied. Speaking for myself, I've read quite enough now!

I have tried to be civil during this discussion, and I would hope everyone else would as well. I'm not sure what in particular has been 'drivel' or why my name is in quote marks.

I call things as I see them - and this is drivel. The OP has been good enough to state that the matter has been resolved and that the the children will be given season tickets which they will use for school and weekend travel into Manchester in future. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the children did not know they were doing anything wrong. They know now, and hopefully will not repeat this action in the future. Furthermore, hopefully by word of mouth, neither will some of their peers. That's what I would call good Policing.

 

[221129]

Irrelevant. The requirement is whether they were given permission on the day of the offence.


I call things as I see them - and this is drivel. The OP has been good enough to state that the matter has been resolved and that the the children will be given season tickets which they will use for school and weekend travel into Manchester in future. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the children did not know they were doing anything wrong. They know now, and hopefully will not repeat this action in the future. Furthermore, hopefully by word of mouth, neither will some of their peers. That's what I would call good Policing.

Totally Agree!

 

[Dolive22]

The requirement is whether they have permission. The day of the travel is neither here nor there. The byelaws make no provision for time. If they had permission they had permission. It it isn't clear, then they should not have been cautioned. The Home Office is clear they should only be used for simple cases where you're pretty sure to get a conviction. That isn't the case here.

The other conduct issues are actually nothing to do with the byelaw 18 issue. I can only go on what the OP said. On what she said, it seems like they broke the rules. I said she should report the matter. If she did that it would be investigated.

The problem is the conduct of the police officers who should know better. I suspect that if the allegations were substantiated that would have a similar effect on the officers and their colleagues as the caution had on the schoolchildren.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ollieb, the requirement is that they had permission. Obviously they may have had permission in the past and not have it now, but if they had permission they had it.

The requirement to administer a caution is (amongst other things) that the case is clear cut. This one wasn't.

 

[jon0844]

First line;

they were late

and later on;

It is quicker for us to use the disabled/side entrance, which bypasses the ticket office

So, I assume the ticket office was open and an opportunity to buy before boarding was there and ignored.

Can we end this arguing now?

 

[bb21]

I'm not neccessarily saying the offence isn't complete (it might well be) but it is not clear, and in those circumstances you must not issue a caution.

The offence is clear, and I can clearly see where your misunderstanding lies.

To be given repeated permission to purchase onboard cannot overwrite the Byelaws, as much as some of us might assume so.

 

[Dolive22]

Hopefully. I think it wasn't sufficiently clear cut for it to be a caution. Others either disagree or don't care. I expect the OP will see this and ultimately it's up to her and her children whether to complain. I'm happy to leave it here, but if anyone has any more questions I will happy answer them. I suspect johnmorris is getting sick of this so perhaps we should do that in messages to each other?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The offence is clear, and I can clearly see where your misunderstanding lies.

To be given repeated permission to purchase onboard cannot overwrite the Byelaws, as much as some of us might assume so.

I know it can't overwrite the byelaws. I'm not saying that permission being given often enough removes the need for it, I'm saying that if given often enough and apparently unsolicited and without exception, it might constitute permission which is not 'once and once only' and survives past any one boarding of a train.

 

[jon0844]

There might be an issue if someone at the station has been saying to just buy a ticket on the train, but even then - that advice was to buy the ticket on the train, not to get to the destination and walk out!

I know that there's no requirement to seek out a guard/TM but there's certainly an offence committed when you exit without paying - as we know from what the OP has admitted happens quite a lot. In fact, enough to presumably have made it cost effective to only buy single tickets (making me think that paying was actually quite rare).

 

[Dolive22]

jonmorris: They had reached their destination before they had the chance to pay. They got off and potentially reached someone who asked to see their ticket before they had the chance to pay.

I would also like to add if I may stretch bb21's patience that they may well have been going to evade their fare, which is wrong and which I disapprove of. I'm not condoning that, I'm just criticising other things which were done and should not have been.

 

[bb21]

I agree that this discussion has run its course. Both sides have expressed their reasons and I don't think either will be able to persuade the others as we are just repeating the same arguments.

Whether the OP wishes to lodge a complaint with the police is indeed up to herself, however I would recommend that she seeks further advice should this be the road she wishes to go down, such as consulting the CAB.

This thread is therefore locked. Any significant contributions not yet made please get in touch.