Wrongly accused of overwritten carnet by FCC

[Royston Vasey]

Some of those guesses were extraordinarily forthright though.


And I think such forthrightness should be exposed, particularly when it has been proved wrong.

You've quoted me there but I wasn't categorical about it, I just didn't believe it was the full story. I thought it was the same date overwritten (not a deliberate attempt to defraud) and I still think there's no real evidence to prove one way or the other. That's my opinion, I didn't say it was definitive fact.

I said: "It's possible, but from the evidence we have, it's impossible to tell."

I also stand by this statement I made:

"How anyone can categorically state, from a monochrome scan, that it is a dodgy felt tip is beyond me" ...so not "it is not a dodgy felt tip" but "how you can categorically state that it is from a monochrome/falsely coloured scan". I did enjoy reading the keyboard forensic science though!

I'd like to see the forensics and know the real facts, now we never will because the case is dropped! Nothing has actually been "proved wrong". Good for him anyway, carnets the passenger fills in themselves are a ridiculous anachronism, particularly when an apparent honest and immaterial infringement like this (if indeed that's what it is, it may not be), has almost led to full-blown prosecution in the litigious culture FCC have adopted.

Interesting that it's a BBC report on a BBC employee!

 

[jon0844]

It still looks dodgy to me, but only from looking at the photo. I'm entitled to that opinion, and given FCC didn't take it to court or produce its forensic information - we'll never know 100%.

But it doesn't matter. Maybe FCC was bluffing all along and never did any checks at all... and I'm not even going to attempt to speculate on the BBC reporting on its own member of staff (I know people who work there, so I'm keeping well clear of any conspiracy theories!!).

I've been talking about carnet tickets and all of their problems for at least a year or more, starting at least one thread myself.. however, I have no doubt that they are frequently tampered with, and I even found out about a particular scam that was only changed when they changed from 10x tickets usable in either direction, to 2 lots of 5 tickets.

 

[Flamingo]

And I think such forthrightness should be exposed, particularly when it has been proved wrong.

It has not been proved right or wrong, as it never made it to a court.

 

[island]

Are users of these Carnet tickets obliged to use them or not?

No, but doing so will help to avoid arguments.

Some of those guesses were extraordinarily forthright though.

"That cannot possibly be a fibre from the tip going astray."

"The evidence presented is dodgy to say the least."

"Definitely been altered."

"Cannot possibly be a stray fibre."


And I think such forthrightness should be exposed, particularly when it has been proved wrong.

It has not been proved right or wrong, as it never made it to a court.

Precisely what I was about to write. All that can be said is that FCC's opinion has changed from that the case is winnable and worth pursuing to that it is either not provable beyond a reasonable doubt or that it is not, for whatever reason, worth prosecuting.

 

[gingerheid]

It has not been proved right or wrong, as it never made it to a court.

There is much that can be read into the fact that it didn't, in the "have a leg to stand on" and "didn't" departments.

FCC state that they got forensic evidence, and as I've said before I know that a respectable organisation like FCC would use a thumping big lie to try and bully someone if they didn't.

We can only presume then that the evidence went against them, otherwise the only possibility is that they were lying.

 

[jon0844]

There are loads of possible reasons for FCC dropping the action. Maybe they bluffed, or maybe they damaged/lost the evidence, or maybe they didn't fancy the negative publicity of 'taking on' a journalist. Or maybe they lied and realised they never had a case.

None of us will probably ever know.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[bnm]

or maybe they didn't fancy the negative publicity of 'taking on' a journalist.

Bloke I saw being interviewed in the BBC News item quoted upthread isn't a journalist. Not everyone who works at the BBC is a journalist.

A quick Google search of his name plus "BBC" will reveal all.

Probably safe to say though that he didn't have to try to hard to get the BBC News team involved.

 

[transmanche]

Probably safe to say though that he didn't have to try to hard to get the BBC News team involved.

Although Tim Edwards (the journalist who interviewed him) is the transport correspondent for BBC London (the regional news for London), rather than the national news team.

 

[gingerheid]

Bloke I saw being interviewed in the BBC News item quoted upthread isn't a journalist. Not everyone who works at the BBC is a journalist.

A quick Google search of his name plus "BBC" will reveal all.

Probably safe to say though that he didn't have to try to hard to get the BBC News team involved.

I noticed that!

Not the kind of person you'd want to lose to, so if they had the evidence they claimed they had there's no way they'd have given up.

 

[swj99]

.........companies often back down once they realize an individual is willing to defend an action rather than throw in the towel. They tend to prefer people who make an admission, or offer to pay, just to 'make something go away' even when they are actually innocent.............

Nice to see another example of this concept in action.

 

[bb21]

Let's re-visit some earlier posts:

Some of those guesses were extraordinarily forthright though.

Your point being?

This case has proved absolutely nothing. It did not go to court. FCC dropped the charges for god knows whatever reason. You have an amazing ability to pick something out of nothing. :roll:

I gave my opinion on this matter. I gave my best opinion under the current legal framework. If you or the OP do not agree, you do not have to take it onboard.

Great news for the passengers in general, but I would have preferred FCC to have gone to court and subsequently lost. I hope there is more to come, but as always, I will give my assessment on my best understanding under the current legal framework and the specific circumstances of each case. It will not always be the same as everyone else's.

You seem to have a big appetite for ridiculing people whose opinions you do not agree with. No one even to date knows all the facts except the OP so I am surprised that you are so sure everyone you have quoted is incorrect.

 

[bnm]

Your point being?

Answered in the second quote you've used.

 

[bb21]

Answered in the second quote you've used.

If you say so.

 

[bnm]

Evidence of ridicule please. Speak as I find.

If that comes across as derision then you have the power to sanction.

OP came here for advice and assistance. Too much of that was couched with judgements based on the flimsiest of reasoning. I made the point early in the thread that if such judgements were being made on so little evidence then an opposite judgement was perfectly possible.

I've only passed judgement on those passing judgement.

I highlighted the forthright opinions, not to mock or deride, but to show the dangers of passing judgement from afar.

If you want derision then what about this:

If you say so.

Posted to prompt debate, or had it been spoken, said with withering scorn?
:roll:

 

[bb21]

Evidence of ridicule please. Speak as I find.

If that comes across as derision then you have the power to sanction.

OP came here for advice and assistance. Too much of that was couched with judgements based on the flimsiest of reasoning. I made the point early in the thread that if such judgements were being made on so little evidence then an opposite judgement was perfectly possible.

I've only passed judgement on those passing judgement.

I highlighted the forthright opinions, not to mock or deride, but to show the dangers of passing judgement from afar.

If you want derision then what about this:

Posted to prompt debate, or had it been spoken, said with withering scorn?
:roll:

At no point did I pass judgement on the OP. I have never accused him of fare evasion or anything of the sort, and I wouldn't, because I don't know the facts. I have expressed my opinion on what I think the standard of his evidence is, and this has not been proven either way.

The OP came here for advice, and people have expressed their opinion on the case, which is clearly causing a lot of debate. Some opinions will be ones you do not agree with, but it doesn't make them any less valid. Defending a prosecution can be an expensive business. If I have doubts over the chances of the OP succeeding, I am not going to keep it to myself. I do not believe his evidence is good enough, so there will be others who will think along the same lines. It will be irresponsible if I don't say it.

We have been through this before earlier in the thread so I have no intention of getting into further discussions about it.

I have my own interpretation on what your intentions were by highlighting the various comments that you do not agree with, but I have no intention of getting into a discussion about it either.

As for sanctions, I will take action in accordance with forum rules if and when appropriate.

 

[WillPS]

I'm not intending to get involved in some big personal debate here but I have to agree that I think it sucks how little belief some have. What sucks is the disbelievers (FCC and staff included) will continue to disbelieve because FCC have opted not to take it to a level at which they would have been proven wrong.

Lends a lot of weight to the argument of the TOCs holding all the cards.

 

[jon0844]

For one thing, the OP is referring to another person (their partner) so may not even know the full facts themselves.

Secondly, we never saw the ticket(s) in the flesh so can only go by what we see. And to me, they looked suspicious.

But that's my opinion and counts for nothing, but I'm still entitled to have that view, no?

It wouldn't be the first (or last) time that a case was dropped even if there was a strong case, or some loophole or mistake made the prosecution fall apart, or someone else stepped in and halted things for other reasons.

We will never know, any more than we will know what really happened with the tickets.

However, if you don't want anyone to question your story then it's probably best not to post it on a forum. I had my own fair share of sceptical opinions with my various FCC incidents, but I always knew the truth and that's all that matters.

 

[Yew]

Good, however its a shame FCC didnt take it to court and lose.

 

[bb21]

I'm not intending to get involved in some big personal debate here but I have to agree that I think it sucks how little belief some have. What sucks is the disbelievers (FCC and staff included) will continue to disbelieve because FCC have opted not to take it to a level at which they would have been proven wrong.

Lends a lot of weight to the argument of the TOCs holding all the cards.

I think there is some misunderstanding here.

Some people (me included in this case) have doubts and questions, not because it satisfies some superior complex or because people enjoy pointing out the faults of others. We are all here to help, so if we think that something doesn't appear to add up, then there is no reason why we should keep quiet about it. It is not about doubting the OP's story, but about making sure that all bases are covered. If some people on here are unconvinced by the evidence presented (and can only base their opinion on what is in front of them), then there is every possibility that the magistrates might think the same, in the absence of any better evidence, which the OP might have or might not and we simply don't know.

It is not a game of "us against them", or "believers against doubters". I know some people on here don't believe me when I say that I would love nothing more than to be proved wrong in this case, and in other similar cases where I have doubts, and I am sure that applies to jonmorris0844 and most other so-called "doubters", too. I am genuinely pleased for the OP for the outcome in this case. It would have been easy for me to sit here and nod along, saying that I think everything is fine, but it is not my money that I would be messing around with, and it would be most irresponsible if I have doubts over the possibility of a successful challenge and don't air it. I don't fight battles that I can't be sure of winning, and certainly wouldn't recommend it to others. If my opinion is not one that people (including the OP) wish to agree with, then it can be simply ignored, or if people wish, challenged. Because the TOCs hold all the cards, we need to be extra careful when advising people in situations like this one (or at least that is my view), otherwise one wrong move and the consequences could be costly.

We will never know the truth in this case, but even if the so-called "doubters" are proved wrong, it does not mean that it was wrong to raise those doubts.

(Not aimed at you but) I do sometimes get the impression that some members seem to be of the view that if you don't agree with the passenger completely then you are anti-passenger, which is absolutely not the case. It is an incredibly naive view if I may. I care to point out anything that I am not sure about because I am pro-passenger. If I am not, then I wouldn't care one jot if there is something that might cause a problem later on because things don't appear to add up. I would just let things proceed and let the case implode on its own.

The majority of members on here are here because they want to help, not because they want to feel superior.

These will be my final words on this matter, as I have said all I need to say. I also think that this thread has run its course so if anyone wants to have the last word, then feel free. You will have until the end of today to do so.

 

[WillPS]

My reading of some of the earlier pages, and particularly those in response to my original assertion that it looked *exactly* like a split fibre/CD pen were along the lines that it *absolutely could not* be that.

I hope, if nothing else, this proves that this is a distinct possibility when/if this reoccurs.

 

[jon0844]

As this never went to court, it means absolutely nothing for any future case.