gray1404
Established Member
I respectfully beg to differ.
Last edited:
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Times: Tragic outcome from feared rail fine
- Thread starter itsjustmyjob
- Start date
- Status
I respectfully beg to differ.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If you meant 'respectfully' then I agree, but only because the DDA only applies in Northern Ireland, having been repealed and replaced in both England and Wales and Scotland by the Equality Act 2010.
However, I am not convinced that ADHD (unless extremely severe) would meet the standard of the Act:
People with ADHD can, generally speaking, carry out normal day-to-day activities.Equality Act 2010 said:
And using the subject of this thread to further your crusade against the TOC's is very poor form.
He was not only not working and disabled, he also didn't turn up to court, hence why they had to presume his earnings.
He should have turned up for court, regardless of whether it was difficult for him. It is very sad that this appears to have been one difficulty on top of another, but that doesn't alter the facts, or his responsibility to pay for a ticket, or to turn up when a court of law tells him to.
Mitch in Notts
Member
He did turn up for court, that is the whole point, as stated in the article. On the first occasion the Prosecution did not turn up. It then appears he didn't receive subsequent letters hence his no show.
That isn't what the article says.
Early in the timeline of events some letters from the TOC did not get to him because of a change in address or the wrong address being held or recorded (one wonders why the TOC would have the wrong address; could be any number of reasons not the fault of the TOC).
He certainly got the first summons from the court, as he turned up, and there is no suggestion or reason to think he didn't get the second.
Joe Paxton
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 2,959
Thanks, and apologies for the out of date reference... I thought it didn't sound quite right, but I found it on the 'Equal oppotunities monitoring' page of a job application form for a nameless organisation that really should know better! (I'm sure they do know better, but just haven't updated this bit of the form.)
Like you I don't think ADHD fits the criteria of the 2010 Act either, but I won't claim expertise in the matter.
Regardless, I think talk of disability or otherwise is perhaps a bit of a red herring in this very sad case.
gray1404
Established Member
ADHD certainly can and does fit the criteria of the 2010 Act. I have had chance to confirm this with a friend who is a consultant psychiatrist tonight.
Are they also a lawyer?
A quick Google brings up several legal articles which say ADHD isn't necessarily a disability for the purposes of the Act; you can also find details of court cases where ADHD has been rejected as not fitting the purposes of the Act either.
'Can' but not 'does'. They are two different words with different meanings.
It would need to be severe enough to have "a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
Mitch in Notts
Member
Sorry it's not in the quoted article here, but as I stated in an earlier post, the in print newspaper article states the case was adjourned the first time due to a no show by the prosecution.
I can't link to the Times article where I read it in print, but the Sun article online states the prosecution didn't turn up here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/41870...he-would-be-sent-to-prison-for-not-paying-it/
gray1404
Established Member
Any "crusade"/"campaign" is not against TOCs per se, but against poor behaviour of TOCs.
Last edited:
We do not know enough about the case to know that.
I am aware of cases where Northern Rail have been quite right, cases where they have been heavy handed, and cases where they have been downright wrong. We'll probably never know the details of the case.
If he lived in Scotland and made a similar journey with Scotrail, there would almost certainly not have been a criminal prosecution. Likewise if the dispute had involved another mode of transport without special legislation; it would be a civil matter. I am much more comfortable with the way things are done in Scotland with regards fares matters. The combination of the English legal system and Byelaw 18 is not remotely acceptable, in my opinion.
Regardless, there is nothing presented so far that indicates any malfeasance on the part of the TOC. Despite your assertion, it was the Court and not the TOC who decided the level of fine.
Yes, that is why the deceased turned up to court once, and the case didn't progress. The prosecution were not present. We can deduce that the court had the proper contact details for the deceased, because he turned up. It doesn't seem likely that they suddenly changed those contact details meaning a second summons was not received.
Please explain what "poor behaviour" you're crusading against here?
gray1404
Established Member
I am not "crusading" against anything, that's my very point. (Was a mere unfounded theory created by another poster.)
Thanks for clarifying that, I think your initial response resulted in some confusion.
From your article:
"an attack rate in excess of 15 cases per 100,000 people for two consecutive weeks constitutes a sizeable epidemic"
If 15 people out of 100,000 were taking their own lives every two weeks that would merit being called an "epidemic".
The stats referred to in this case, however, are annual: 15 cases per 100,000 people a year would make the word epidemic wildly inappropriate (fixed definition or not).
Last edited:
- Status