Naming and Shaming Fare Dodgers

[KoalaKandy]

So, I was browsing the news lately and came across this article:
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/names-naughty-fare-dodgers-devon-2651503

It highlights some of the names of the people who were stopped in the region for fare dodging, with their home address Street, where they were stopped, and fine including ticket cost.

I was wondering, despite the fact we all realise fare dodging is wrong, should we demonise people actively in the (local) media for a £2.20 fare dodge, as this is their reputation being tarnished.

Further, is this a part of a partership between GWR and the paper to prevent fare dodging, as say a deterrent or just a cheap score for a slow Newsday story, which is of course legal for any journalist to use courtroom details in the press in this sense.

Anyone seen this in other regions? I honestly felt more sad for the people in this article ending up with £800 costs over a tiny fare.

 

[NSB2017]

It’s not uncommon.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/fare-dodgers-fined-trains-southeastern-120246/

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/33-fare-dodgers-fined-7k-2035817

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14...the-list-of-fare-dodgers-caught-in-hampshire/

I seem to recall, although my memory may be playing tricks, this coms about when the TOcs circulate a list as a way of deterring. The press could cover every fare dodging case and report, but resources are such that is not going to happen.

 

[cuccir]

A long running way of local newspapers filling out their reporting is to show up at a magistrates court one day and report on everything that happens. These stories also appear when a paper has sent the reporter along for a more interesting case, and they hang around to get a couple more stories out of it.

If anything, these sort of stories are reducing as local newspapers lose resources.

I share the discomfort expressed by the OP, particularly in an era where these stories will remain easily accessible via Google - a search for these individuals' names might reveal these stories in decades time, whereas if 20 years ago if this was in a local paper it would quickly disappear.

BUT it is important that law is a matter of public record - it's the only way to ensure that it's fair.

 

[jon0844]

Local papers no longer (for the most part) have the resources or time to send someone to court. Especially those that use reporters for loads of different regions who are nowhere near the area the paper covers.

 

[Stigy]

So, I was browsing the news lately and came across this article:
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/names-naughty-fare-dodgers-devon-2651503

It highlights some of the names of the people who were stopped in the region for fare dodging, with their home address Street, where they were stopped, and fine including ticket cost.

I was wondering, despite the fact we all realise fare dodging is wrong, should we demonise people actively in the (local) media for a £2.20 fare dodge, as this is their reputation being tarnished.

Further, is this a part of a partership between GWR and the paper to prevent fare dodging, as say a deterrent or just a cheap score for a slow Newsday story, which is of course legal for any journalist to use courtroom details in the press in this sense.

Anyone seen this in other regions? I honestly felt more sad for the people in this article ending up with £800 costs over a tiny fare.

I’m all for it. These are the names of people who have committed a deliberate act of fare evasion. The cost of the ticket is irrelevant and let’s be honest here, that £2.20 fare is probably one of several hundreds that person has been guilty of avoiding. It just so happens that either this is the one case reported for that individual in the paper, or they’ve not been caught before.

 

[Typhoon]

Anyone seen this in other regions? I honestly felt more sad for the people in this article ending up with £800 costs over a tiny fare.

A previous operator in the West Midlands (London Midland?) used to have posters at the stations, changed monthly. Certainly gave name, town/ district, amount, I can't remember if it included street.

 

[Stigy]

A previous operator in the West Midlands (London Midland?) used to have posters at the stations, changed monthly. Certainly gave name, town/ district, amount, I can't remember if it included street.

SWT did the same thing a few years ago, however it was very vague and literally served as a deterrent, using made up names, but actual occupations of defendants. The posters were based on factual cases and all the fines/costs etc were accurate.

 

[Hadders]

If these are cases where the defendants have been found guilty in court then I see no issue in publicising the details. Justice is done in public in this country (with a few exceptions).

If administrative settlements were published then this would be different, unless the terms of the settlement allowed the case to be publicised.

 

[Llanigraham]

All Court cases are in the public domain, be that fare evasion or drink driving. All this paper has done is publish that information. If it stops another person doing it then we'll done to the paper.

 

[robbeech]

Yes. This seems acceptable to me.
My only concern would be if there were cases where the person was not guilty but were given some form of penalty anyway which is increasingly common. The usual suspects such as a broken ticket machine or an unstaffed station with no machine connecting at a larger station with insufficient time to purchase.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A previous operator in the West Midlands (London Midland?) used to have posters at the stations, changed monthly. Certainly gave name, town/ district, amount, I can't remember if it included street.

Merseyrail did it years ago (BR days). They also included photos. Unfortunately the photos were of (or at least looked rather like) the well known regular RPI team!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It is one thing publishing it for people convicted of an offence under RoRA. For that I think it is probably borderline acceptable, though I have grave reservations about the fact that the rail industry has its own (effectively) fraud law, except with a much lower threshold of what constitutes an offence, because it's not the intention to defraud that counts, but intent to avoid payment - even temporarily.

I find it unacceptable that people who are convicted of Byelaw offences have their details published, and I truly hope this isn't the case here. The first linked article from Cornwall, just like almost all other such "local rag" articles, doesn't distinguish between Byelaw and RoRA convictions, which is a very important difference.

I find no grounds whatsoever for something that only satisfies the Byelaws for prosecuting, but not RoRA, to constitute an offence, let alone to be something that justifies having one's name smeared in the local rag. It is, and ought to be treated as, a civil matter between the TOC and passenger, settled by means of a fixed penalty established in the contract (e.g. undiscounted anytime single) or in law (e.g. Penalty Fare).

I’m all for it. These are the names of people who have committed a deliberate act of fare evasion. The cost of the ticket is irrelevant and let’s be honest here, that £2.20 fare is probably one of several hundreds that person has been guilty of avoiding. It just so happens that either this is the one case reported for that individual in the paper, or they’ve not been caught before.

The article shifts constantly between describing what would be a RoRA offence, and what would be a Byelaw offence. There is no way of knowing that all the people were convicted of RoRA offences, and so it's quite possible that unwitting passengers who didn't even know there were ticketing facilities at their station (e.g. because a TVM was recently installed after the station previously didn't have any facilities, or because the facilities are not very obvious) are included in the list.

I feel a personal bias as an RPI is showing in what you have said, if you assume that everyone who has been prosecuted has done this hundreds of times before. If it has happened hundreds of times before then that should be provable and they should be prosecuted appropriately. If not, it is grossly disproportionate and clearly not in the interests of justice to take anyone to court over an unpaid fare of a few pounds.

 

[najaB]

I was wondering, despite the fact we all realise fare dodging is wrong, should we demonise people actively in the (local) media for a £2.20 fare dodge, as this is their reputation being tarnished.

This is all information that is in the public record, the paper is doing nothing wrong.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I was wondering, despite the fact we all realise fare dodging is wrong, should we demonise people actively in the (local) media for a £2.20 fare dodge, as this is their reputation being tarnished.

To be fair, the sort of people who dodge a £2.20 fare probably don't have much of a reputation anyway. Some probably do but not the sort of reputation you are thinking of.

 

[Stigy]

It is one thing publishing it for people convicted of an offence under RoRA. For that I think it is probably borderline acceptable, though I have grave reservations about the fact that the rail industry has its own (effectively) fraud law, except with a much lower threshold of what constitutes an offence, because it's not the intention to defraud that counts, but intent to avoid payment - even temporarily.

I find it unacceptable that people who are convicted of Byelaw offences have their details published, and I truly hope this isn't the case here. The first linked article from Cornwall, just like almost all other such "local rag" articles, doesn't distinguish between Byelaw and RoRA convictions, which is a very important difference.

I find no grounds whatsoever for something that only satisfies the Byelaws for prosecuting, but not RoRA, to constitute an offence, let alone to be something that justifies having one's name smeared in the local rag. It is, and ought to be treated as, a civil matter between the TOC and passenger, settled by means of a fixed penalty established in the contract (e.g. undiscounted anytime single) or in law (e.g. Penalty Fare).


The article shifts constantly between describing what would be a RoRA offence, and what would be a Byelaw offence. There is no way of knowing that all the people were convicted of RoRA offences, and so it's quite possible that unwitting passengers who didn't even know there were ticketing facilities at their station (e.g. because a TVM was recently installed after the station previously didn't have any facilities, or because the facilities are not very obvious) are included in the list.

I feel a personal bias as an RPI is showing in what you have said, if you assume that everyone who has been prosecuted has done this hundreds of times before. If it has happened hundreds of times before then that should be provable and they should be prosecuted appropriately. If not, it is grossly disproportionate and clearly not in the interests of justice to take anyone to court over an unpaid fare of a few pounds.

I doubt they’re all RRA prosecutions judging by the fines imposed. I know the fines do differ, depending on income etc, however there were a lot of base £440 and £220 fines, indicating the two general tiers between RRA and Byelaw convictions.

 

[KoalaKandy]

This is all information that is in the public record, the paper is doing nothing wrong.

Public record, sure. If you go looking, but this is a Google search away from any employer to match your name and home street for example and know it's you.

The other issue at hand here is this region of the article is Cornwall where inconsistencies are everywhere. Usually there's ticket machines, but barriers only at one station (Truro). So you will get a lot of chancers, but, it only takes the once and I'm sure there are plenty of who have done it just that one time, but just as much that are serial. What wholeheartedly annoys me is that I've seen some ticket conductors allow them to buy on the train and others stand there and insist they should've brought beforehand, at the same stations and same line. The rail industry needs to choose one way or the other to prevent this chancer attitude.

 

[najaB]

Public record, sure. If you go looking, but this is a Google search away from any employer to match your name and home street for example and know it's you.

End of the day, the best way to avoid your employer finding out about a conviction is not to break the law in the first place.

 

[LAX54]

So, I was browsing the news lately and came across this article:
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/names-naughty-fare-dodgers-devon-2651503

It highlights some of the names of the people who were stopped in the region for fare dodging, with their home address Street, where they were stopped, and fine including ticket cost.

I was wondering, despite the fact we all realise fare dodging is wrong, should we demonise people actively in the (local) media for a £2.20 fare dodge, as this is their reputation being tarnished.

Further, is this a part of a partership between GWR and the paper to prevent fare dodging, as say a deterrent or just a cheap score for a slow Newsday story, which is of course legal for any journalist to use courtroom details in the press in this sense.

Anyone seen this in other regions? I honestly felt more sad for the people in this article ending up with £800 costs over a tiny fare.

Theft is theft, be it £2.20 or £20000.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Scanning that long list, I see only two who attended court and had an income-related fine. The remainder did not attend or could not be bothered.

For a simple, first time, ticketing offence it is unlikely for the matter to end up in court. We all see the correspondence on this forum and the usual out of court settlements. I'm assuming that the two that did attend, either failed to engage or had a history with the TOC.

Either way, theft is theft. Fail to pay for your ticket and you deserve to be in court and have your name published as part of the process. I wish there were more reporting and lists placed at local stations.

 

[Llanigraham]

It is one thing publishing it for people convicted of an offence under RoRA. For that I think it is probably borderline acceptable, though I have grave reservations about the fact that the rail industry has its own (effectively) fraud law, except with a much lower threshold of what constitutes an offence, because it's not the intention to defraud that counts, but intent to avoid payment - even temporarily.

I find it unacceptable that people who are convicted of Byelaw offences have their details published, and I truly hope this isn't the case here. The first linked article from Cornwall, just like almost all other such "local rag" articles, doesn't distinguish between Byelaw and RoRA convictions, which is a very important difference.

I find no grounds whatsoever for something that only satisfies the Byelaws for prosecuting, but not RoRA, to constitute an offence, let alone to be something that justifies having one's name smeared in the local rag. It is, and ought to be treated as, a civil matter between the TOC and passenger, settled by means of a fixed penalty established in the contract (e.g. undiscounted anytime single) or in law (e.g. Penalty Fare).


The article shifts constantly between describing what would be a RoRA offence, and what would be a Byelaw offence. There is no way of knowing that all the people were convicted of RoRA offences, and so it's quite possible that unwitting passengers who didn't even know there were ticketing facilities at their station (e.g. because a TVM was recently installed after the station previously didn't have any facilities, or because the facilities are not very obvious) are included in the list.

I feel a personal bias as an RPI is showing in what you have said, if you assume that everyone who has been prosecuted has done this hundreds of times before. If it has happened hundreds of times before then that should be provable and they should be prosecuted appropriately. If not, it is grossly disproportionate and clearly not in the interests of justice to take anyone to court over an unpaid fare of a few pounds.

All the cases reported have been heard at a Magistrates Court. Therefore all those reports are in the public domain, for whatever legislation they have been prosecuted for. You should perhaps also note that ANY prosecution for ANY By-Law offence, railway or not, that ends up in Court can be reported in exactly the same way. To expect that railway By-Law prosecutions to be treated differently to any other By-Law prosecution is frankly preposterous, and would need a major change to British legislation.

Looking at past reports and the fine levels imposed most of these cases were heard and sentenced without the defendant being present or even bothering to respond to the original imposition or to the Court Summons. Therefore to me that looks like they got what they deserved.

 

[Llanigraham]

Public record, sure. If you go looking, but this is a Google search away from any employer to match your name and home street for example and know it's you.

And many Courts now publish their Court Lists and the results on their own websites, so they are in the public domain and searchable. It does not have to be the paper that reports them.

 

[island]

If you don’t want to get written up in the newspaper for fare evasion, buy a ticket. Simples.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Scanning that long list, I see only two who attended court and had an income-related fine. The remainder did not attend or could not be bothered.

For a simple, first time, ticketing offence it is unlikely for the matter to end up in court. We all see the correspondence on this forum and the usual out of court settlements. I'm assuming that the two that did attend, either failed to engage or had a history with the TOC.

Either way, theft is theft. Fail to pay for your ticket and you deserve to be in court and have your name published as part of the process. I wish there were more reporting and lists placed at local stations.

And being in breach of Byelaw 18 is theft?

If you don’t want to get written up in the newspaper for fare evasion, buy a ticket. Simples.

Does breach a breach of Byelaw 18 constitute fare evasion? Do all stations have obviously located ticketing facilities? Until the answer to both is yes, it's fare from simples.

Byelaw 18 has no place in society, and no-one in breach of it should have their name smeared. If it's fare evasion, prosecute it as such under RoRA. If there isn't sufficient evidence to prove it, you can't call it evasion, so just issue a PF!

 

[RPI]

And being in breach of Byelaw 18 is theft?


Does breach a breach of Byelaw 18 constitute fare evasion? Do all stations have obviously located ticketing facilities? Until the answer to both is yes, it's fare from simples.

Byelaw 18 has no place in society, and no-one in breach of it should have their name smeared. If it's fare evasion, prosecute it as such under RoRA. If there isn't sufficient evidence to prove it, you can't call it evasion, so just issue a PF!

Most of these will be people who were issued a PF or UFN and failed to pay it, also, as already pointed out, all of these Would Have been contacted first with the offer of a settlement.

 

[island]

Looking at what the law says rather than what we would like it to say, joining a train without a ticket where ticketing facilities were available is an offence. Feel free to write to your MP if you feel the law should be changed.

 

[richw]

Local papers no longer (for the most part) have the resources or time to send someone to court. Especially those that use reporters for loads of different regions who are nowhere near the area the paper covers.

Cornwall Live in their court write ups each week normally state that the information is sent to them by the courts for general stuff. Presumably the rail evasion is the same.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Most of these will be people who were issued a PF or UFN and failed to pay it, also, as already pointed out, all of these Would Have been contacted first with the offer of a settlement.

Either of which they could have been issued with after starting at a station without visible, or without any, ticketing facilities, respectively. So again, people who have done nothing that warrants being prosecuted.

 

[sheff1]

... joining a train without a ticket where ticketing facilities were available is an offence.

People keeping stating this, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[jon0844]

Cornwall Live in their court write ups each week normally state that the information is sent to them by the courts for general stuff. Presumably the rail evasion is the same.

Maybe one day they'll use a format that can be posted direct into a story without the need for any manual intervention at all. It's such a shame that local papers are now relying on getting information sent to them, or scanning social media for photos taken by residents and posted on Facebook, which following a 'can we use your photo?' request ends up as a 100 word story (if that).

The fact the BBC can make stories from Tweets just about says it all.

But, back to the topic, naming and shaming isn't a bad idea.. although some people do get very upset (not always the people mentioned, but do-gooders) and perhaps the idea of using fake names, but real offences/penalties is a good compromise.

 

[Llanigraham]

Byelaw 18 has no place in society, and no-one in breach of it should have their name smeared. If it's fare evasion, prosecute it as such under RoRA. If there isn't sufficient evidence to prove it, you can't call it evasion, so just issue a PF!

Says you.
Have you written to the Minister or your local MP with a properly researched, analytical and reasoned argument against it?