Perhaps that's more along the lines of what they said. Still, a prosecution for trespass really wouldn't result in a very severe penalty; obviously the trespass isn't central to this video, but in other instances it's quite foreseeable that the ad revenue from keeping the video up would be more than any fine.
Yes, but there's the hassle factor and the fact that the police might look further and find more.
I tried to report Graffiti on trains as I feel it to be glorifying a criminal act, there is no category to report crimes in their drop down list and I got no response from them. There should be an option for YouTube to be prosecuted in these cases
It's not a crime to host videos which some may perceive as glorifying criminal acts, and it certainly shouldn't be.
I hate to admit that this would be kind of brilliant.
No. It's obviously completely groundless.
I did wonder, but it's not April 1st!
I'm not sure a yellow "warning, have you paid?" Sign that would have been applicable to Bourneville since about 1994 qualifies as lengthy terms and conditions . The biggest shock is any form of Revenue enforcement on the cross city line!
From what it sounds like he arrived at the station at the same time as the train, so decided to jump on the train instead of buying a ticket.
And of course the requisite data access request after the fact which will capture how many times someone has done it. Not a wise choice!
For me this isn't as clear cut as you seem to make it. If there is a 10 minute wait for the next train, then sure, waiting for the next train is fine. But if it's an hour or longer wait, I think that we should allow people on the train, and personally, I would like to see them purchase a ticket on their phone and then the ticket inspector or whoever can check this, and perhaps it is purchased 3 mins after the train left but thats fine. If it was me personally, I would go up to the train manager and ensure that it is ok for me to board without a ticket and tell them that I would buy a ticket on my phone as soon as I can (or in one case, I wanted a day ranger so i specifically asked them to come up to me and sell me the ticket once the train had left)
This seems eminently sensible. But no use on my line (Thameslink), where your first encounter would be with an RPI or at the destination. But at my TL station, the trains do usually arrive every 10 minutes! I'm sure that others will say that if you know it's an hourly service, you should buy a ticket in advance, or aim to turn up well in advance.
If you're planning to catch a train that only leaves hourly, you should ensure your plans give you time to buy a ticket before you get on. Especially with etickets where you don't even have the excuse of needing to queue at the station!
I don’t tend to frequent this part of the forum because of the reasons I outlined below but you’ve asked the question so I’ll answer as best I can based on my own beliefs. Love and respect if those contrast to anyone reading
I have seen the guard before boarding and asked but would not risk boarding without.
Indeed. Or just use your car instead - which is what the avg person thinks - ie the structures / ticketing systems / sanctions etc are not really customer focussed if you want to actively make it easy for people to buy your service (aka travel by train). This is the problem.
It's not always that simple. Some people, me included, travel to the station by bus, which in my case runs once an hour, and if it is delayed in traffic can arrive minutes before the train departs, usually from the platform over the bridge. Should I make my plans to involve getting a bus an hour earlier, and hanging around the station for over an hour, as when it arrives on time that would be the situation?
Accepting for the sake of argument your view of how the railway should be funded, but acknowledging that society (through elected governments) has chosen to position the cost of travel as a mixture of tax funded and individually paid, my reaction is that by refusing to pay a fare, an individual is taking money from all taxpayers by requiring them the contribute more to the cost of running that service than they otherwise would. As such, and at a moral rather than legal level, travelling without payment is both anti-social (by refusing to abide by that social bargain) and a form of theft (by requiring all taxpayers to pay more to offset the contribution to running the railways that has been foregone).
