Details taken but unsure why

[DaleCooper]

That is the question I think a court might ultimately have to address, if the matter was prosecuted.

(Go and read the original messages again, not the selective quotations.)

You have selectively quoted me in such a way as to reverse my meaning.

At risk of repeating myself; the crux of my argument is that reasonable people have doubts therefore it cannot be said to be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[furlong]

At risk of repeating myself; the crux of my argument is that reasonable people have doubts therefore it cannot be said to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, I thought that a court determines whether or not a matter is beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented to the court and its verdict is not constrained by any doubts of reasonable people on this forum who have, incidentally, not seen that same evidence.

 

[Flamingo]

And a court will be getting both sides of the story before making a decision...

 

[cjmillsnun]

If the exit says ticket holders only, it follows that if you attempt to leave there without a ticket, you know what you're doing.

If it just says way out.... Then there is reasonable doubt....

 

[tony6499]

If the exit says ticket holders only, it follows that if you attempt to leave there without a ticket, you know what you're doing.

If it just says way out.... Then there is reasonable doubt....

Why would a regular passenger attempt to leave at a gate saying ticket holders only if he didn't hold a ticket ?

 

[gray1404]

Why would a regular passenger attempt to leave at a gate saying ticket holders only if he didn't hold a ticket ?

because he didn't actually intend on leaving the station unless he was able to get a ticket from the members of staff he saw he that area, so he therefore pro-actively approached them to ask to buy a ticket. That demonstrates what his intent was. Had he not saw those members of staff there then maybe he would have gone to the other side of the station to get a ticket.

 

[DaleCooper]

Well, I thought that a court determines whether or not a matter is beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented to the court and its verdict is not constrained by any doubts of reasonable people on this forum who have, incidentally, not seen that same evidence.

And a court will be getting both sides of the story before making a decision...

...and until it goes to court and a verdict is reached reasonable doubt remains.

 

[Flamingo]

...and until it goes to court and a verdict is reached reasonable doubt remains.

Not according to a lot of posters on here - he's pure as the driven snow and being victimised...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

because he didn't actually intend on leaving the station unless he was able to get a ticket from the members of staff he saw he that area, so he therefore pro-actively approached them to ask to buy a ticket. That demonstrates what his intent was. Had he not saw those members of staff there then maybe he would have gone to the other side of the station to get a ticket.

That's a big maybe, and the whole arguement falls down because of it...

 

[DaleCooper]

Not according to a lot of posters on here - he's pure as the driven snow and being victimised...

Your lack of a cogent argument is becoming farcical.

Yes some posters think the OP is innocent, some think the OP is guilty and still more are undecided hence there is doubt and that doubt is reasonable.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Why would a regular passenger attempt to leave at a gate saying ticket holders only if he didn't hold a ticket ?

I think the answer to that is obvious.

 

[sheff1]

...and until it goes to court and a verdict is reached reasonable doubt remains.

Not according to a lot of posters on here - he's pure as the driven snow and being victimised...

Whilst other posters say it is a slam-dunk, pretty obvious fare evasion attempt.

Quite clearly then there is doubt, as it is impossible for both groups to be correct.

 

[Flamingo]

Well, that's what we've got courts for...

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I have no doubt that the OP intended to pay his fare and not dodge it. However you have to see things from the RPI point of view

No, actually, you don't.

The difference between understanding the OP's point of view, and the RPI's point of view, is exactly the difference between a customer-centric organisation and a procedure-centric organisation.

It is to FGW's discredit - and I say this as someone who thinks they are one of the best TOCs in Britain - that they are appearing decidedly customer-hostile in this case.

 

[DaleCooper]

No, actually, you don't.

The difference between understanding the OP's point of view, and the RPI's point of view, is exactly the difference between a customer-centric organisation and a procedure-centric organisation.

It is to FGW's discredit - and I say this as someone who thinks they are one of the best TOCs in Britain - that they are appearing decidedly customer-hostile in this case.

To be scrupulously fair we haven't heard the RPI's side of the story so we are unable to judge FGW's position.

 

[sheff1]

It is to FGW's discredit - and I say this as someone who thinks they are one of the best TOCs in Britain - that they are appearing decidedly customer-hostile in this case.

There is no evidence in the OP that FGW have done anything yet following the incident.

 

[andykn]

Why would a regular passenger attempt to leave at a gate saying ticket holders only if he didn't hold a ticket ?

If the only staff he or she could see were just the other side of that gate then I think most reasonable people would.

It doesn't seem to me to be in the public interest to criminalise people acting as any reasonable person would have done just because that's how a criminal would have acted too.

Of course, it may be that the arrangement of the exit and signage make it so that a reasonable person would not have done that. However, given the strict liability nature of the offence of not having a ticket only the prosecutor can make that decision, once it goes to court I don't think the court can care - if the OP admits stepping over that line he's guilty.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no evidence in the OP that FGW have done anything yet following the incident.

They have refused to let the OP get a ticket at what appears to be the first visible opportunity.

 

[DaleCooper]

They have refused to let the OP get a ticket at what appears to be the first visible opportunity.

Not quite, from the evidence we have it appears that an individual RPI refused to sell a ticket, as yet we do not know FGW's response to the event.

 

[jaffa]

Hello everyone, I have been in contact with some senior staff at FGW, and they have apologised for the incident and will ensure no further action is taken.

Thank you to everyone for their advice and everyone who believes that not every passenger is trying to evade paying. There are some honest people out there!

 

[gray1404]

Delighted to hear this! That is a great outcome for you... (are they going to compensate you for the inconvenience too! )

 

[sheff1]

Not quite, from the evidence we have it appears that an individual RPI refused to sell a ticket, as yet we do not know FGW's response to the event.

And now FGW's response is known and it is obviously a good one from jaffa's point of view.

Thanks jaffa for letting us know the outcome.

 

[181]

I'm glad to hear that there has been a satisfactory outcome.

In case anyone is interested, I has a look when at Oxford station the other day, and the route the OP used appears to be completely unsignposted from inside the station, with nothing to either encourage or discourage its use as an exit. No doubt people do so use it, though -- I don't see why they shouldn't unless it's to avoid payment. I don't remember the 'West Oxford' sign that can be seen in post #6 -- either I was half asleep or it's been removed.

There is a poster on the right immediately inside the passage (about where the more distant poster on the left can be seen in the picture -- taken from the opposite direction -- in post #48), and probably fairly easy to miss if exiting with a crowd, saying 'Ticket Holder Entrance. This gate is open for ticket holders only at the following times:' and then giving the times. Further down on the left (roughly where there's a poster on the right in post #48) is one of those black and yellow posters warning about penalty fares.

Even if there had been a more obvious sign, it's not unreasonable to think that the presence of staff at a normally unstaffed exit might mean that tickets were in fact being sold there on the day in question, overriding the sign; approaching staff to ask where a ticket can be bought is entirely reasonable for someone in the position the OP they said they were in. FGW appear to have agreed with this (or at least realised that they'd make themselves look silly trying to argue otherwise in court).

If there's a problem with people fraudulently claiming to have boarded at Radley, then it seems that any sting aimed at them needs to include a staff presence at Radley to hand out tokens or sell tickets, so genuine Radley passengers can be distinguished from fare dodgers.

 

[34D]

Good result.

I wonder if a forum member might be prepared to spend £6 to purchase the Land Registry title and plan for this premise? I'd be interested to know how far beyond the gate the 'railway land' actually goes (noting of course the rebuttable presumption that a property owner owns upto the median point of the highway).

 

[Greenback]

Good result.

I wonder if a forum member might be prepared to spend £6 to purchase the Land Registry title and plan for this premise? I'd be interested to know how far beyond the gate the 'railway land' actually goes (noting of course the rebuttable presumption that a property owner owns upto the median point of the highway).

Can you not spend the £6 as you're so interested?

 

[Barn]

However, they approached the first member of staff they saw and attempted to purchase a ticket. This isn't typical behaviour for someone in the habit of fare dodging - I would expect that they would clock the sting and go to the ticket machine.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is actually typical behaviour of fare evaders and avoiders (the latter being the 'pay when challenged' brigade). Not that I am making a judgement about the OP - I don't feel able to make that without more information as others above have highlighted.

I think the problem is that the very same action which might be typical of evaders might also be/seem a perfectly reasonable thing to do to an honest person.

This can lead to real traps when honest people come up against 'seen it all before' RPIs, prosecutors and indeed magistrates.

 

[34D]

Can you not spend the £6 as you're so interested?

I am an impecunious soul, sadly. It would perhaps be of more interest generally to someone local.

 

[47802]

Hello everyone, I have been in contact with some senior staff at FGW, and they have apologised for the incident and will ensure no further action is taken.

Thank you to everyone for their advice and everyone who believes that not every passenger is trying to evade paying. There are some honest people out there!

And rightly so pretty disgraceful if you ask me, do the TOC intend to **** off most of their passengers and turn them into criminals.

If the Railway wants to operate stations without ticketing facilities then they should always give passengers from these stations the benefit of the doubt.

 

[crehld]

If the Railway wants to operate stations without ticketing facilities then they should always give passengers from these stations the benefit of the doubt.

Or simply an opportunity to pay the appropriate fare without being unduly accused.

 

[Greenback]

I am an impecunious soul, sadly. It would perhaps be of more interest generally to someone local.

I am also in a poor financial state at the moment. I feel your pain.

 

[TheApproach]

My question to this is after walking down the alley on platform 2 which leads to a back street if no one was there what would the OP's intention have been then ??
As once you have left the premises it is fare evasion

 

[DaleCooper]

My question to this is after walking down the alley on platform 2 which leads to a back street if no one was there what would the OP's intention have been then ??
As once you have left the premises it is fare evasion

It's pointless to speculate about something that didn't happen, you can only judge by their actions.