A sorry state of affairs

[142094]

When there are replacement bus services on the Tyne and Wear Metro, tickets are checked boarding the bus. On a few occasions I've seen people get on the bus without a ticket, then moan 'I never normally buy a ticket anyway' when they are turfed off the bus for not having a ticket.

 

[bb21]

When there are replacement bus services on the Tyne and Wear Metro, tickets are checked boarding the bus. On a few occasions I've seen people get on the bus without a ticket, then moan 'I never normally buy a ticket anyway' when they are turfed off the bus for not having a ticket.

Got ya!

 

[island]

Reminds me of the chap on the London bus I was on yesterday who hadn't enough money on his Oyster and started giving the driver grief and saying he was "legally entitled to one of those yellow tickets" (a UPFN). Happily, he got turfed off too.

 

[nw1]

Can you please tell me how to differentiate between the person travelling Paddington to Radley (for example) who made an honest mistake and boarded at an unbarriered platform and asks the guard to buy a ticket when the guard comes through, and the person who habitually never buys a ticket, figuring they will only get asked once a fortnight (with the help of visits to the lavatory when the guard walks through)?

I've been doing the job for seven or eight years now, and I can't tell them apart.

Assume an honest mistake and issue a PF? As I've said before that to me seems a sensible compromise. Or maybe there should be a database where you take names and addresses and you only go through the courts if the same person has done something two or three times.

It's probably just my personal outlook on life but to me the moral wrong of putting someone through the courts, and the attendant worry that they might get a criminal record, when they did *not* deliberately set out to defraud the railway means it should never, ever be done unless it is fairly obvious that intent to defraud was there.

Everyone on this thread, I'm sure, has, out of the context of the railway, slipped up from time to time and forgotten something, run late, or whatever. People make mistakes, it's part of being a human. I'm sure most would accept a moderate consequence similar to a PF for making a mistake, but few would want to be summonsed to court for these sorts of things.

 

[Flamingo]

Assume an honest mistake and issue a PF? As I've said before that to me seems a sensible compromise. Or maybe there should be a database where you take names and addresses and you only go through the courts if the same person has done something two or three times.

It's probably just my personal outlook on life but to me the moral wrong of putting someone through the courts, and the attendant worry that they might get a criminal record, when they did *not* deliberately set out to defraud the railway means it should never, ever be done unless it is fairly obvious that intent to defraud was there.

Everyone on this thread, I'm sure, has, out of the context of the railway, slipped up from time to time and forgotten something, run late, or whatever. People make mistakes, it's part of being a human. I'm sure most would accept a moderate consequence similar to a PF for making a mistake, but few would want to be summonsed to court for these sorts of things.

Apart from all the practical difficulties around the suggestions above, the whole point of a court is that it is up to the railway company to prove the passengers wrongdoing, and the passenger is innocent until proven guilty, and has got every opportunity to put their side of the case and mitigation if it was an honest mistake to an impartial judge outside of the rail system. What's wrong with that?

 

[Harpers Tate]

You mean, aside from the huge potential costs involved whenever the legal system gets involved? Costs which many members of the public - innocent or not - may find hard to underwrite?

 

[Flamingo]

You mean, aside from the huge potential costs involved whenever the legal system gets involved? Costs which many members of the public - innocent or not - may find hard to underwrite?

If the sole consideration is to be cost, then what is the point of having a court system?

 

[island]

Assume an honest mistake and issue a PF? As I've said before that to me seems a sensible compromise. Or maybe there should be a database where you take names and addresses and you only go through the courts if the same person has done something two or three times.

It's probably just my personal outlook on life but to me the moral wrong of putting someone through the courts, and the attendant worry that they might get a criminal record, when they did *not* deliberately set out to defraud the railway means it should never, ever be done unless it is fairly obvious that intent to defraud was there.

Everyone on this thread, I'm sure, has, out of the context of the railway, slipped up from time to time and forgotten something, run late, or whatever. People make mistakes, it's part of being a human. I'm sure most would accept a moderate consequence similar to a PF for making a mistake, but few would want to be summonsed to court for these sorts of things.

FGW guards can't issue PFs, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[RJ]

Reminds me of the chap on the London bus I was on yesterday who hadn't enough money on his Oyster and started giving the driver grief and saying he was "legally entitled to one of those yellow tickets" (a UPFN). Happily, he got turfed off too.

Oh I had loads of those types grace my night bus with their presence. I used to tell them that I don't give them out, before offering them the option of paying or getting off. The regulars knew my face and knew I didn't ramp!