Overshot station scam

[35B]

I do not dispute the content of your argument, but your attitude. Why must we all accept that your 'ideas' are factual to the exclusion anyone else's?

Because they're an exposition of the law as it is, not as some of us might wish it to be?

 

[Clip]

I do not dispute the content of your argument, but your attitude. Why must we all accept that your 'ideas' are factual to the exclusion anyone else's?

Because Dave seems to have a better grasp of what the 'law' is compared to yourself and others - who simply have 'ideas' or 'scenarios' that this forum is choc a bloc with.

 

[Shempz]

A friend of mine has a season ticket for QPR. He has paid for 28.5 hours of football (over the course of a season). He is allowed to give someone else the use of it if he's not using it - for free or otherwise.

Someone buying a travelcard has paid for 28.5 hours of travel (in a continuous period, beginning at midnight). They are not allowed to give someone else the use of it if they're not using it.

I can see why people find this counter-intuitive. Of course, it doesn't change the rules, but I would sympathise with any unwitting person who was caught as a result.

That's not the case at Tottenham. Per the T&C's, seasons tickets are non-transferable, and anyone caught doing this can lose their season ticket. Of course in reality, a large no. of people pass on their season ticket to a mate when they can't go, and I'm pretty certain that most clubs take no action.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And in any case the price is set based on one person's usage. You could well use all those hours continuously, but in reality it isn't priced on that basis, and allowing them to be passed on would cause trouble for this business model.

Football is a bit different as there isn't a wide choice of matches, the assumption is that a season ticket holder will attend all of the matches (or very near all of them) or there's little point in getting one.

Neil

 

[DeeGee]

Football isn't hugely different:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/166
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/38/section/53

It's illegal to transfer a football ticket. Segregation would go completely to pot if there was a free-for-all.

 

[Flamingo]

I do not dispute the content of your argument, but your attitude. Why must we all accept that your 'ideas' are factual to the exclusion anyone else's?

Putting it simply (in words of one syllable) Dave does the law for a living. So he knows what he's talking about.

Although you may not like what he says, this does not change what he is saying. He is not expressing an opinion like "Spurs are a better team than Wolves", he is giving an opinion on the law, referenced to case law, which, if you had to go pay for it, would probably be more than a few hundred pounds.

So don't question his ability to do his job. We don't all follow you around at work tell you how to do yours.

 

[IanD]

Putting it simply (in words of one syllable) Dave does the law for a living. So he knows what he's talking about.

Although you may not like what he says, this does not change what he is saying. He is not expressing an opinion like "Spurs are a better team than Wolves", he is giving an opinion on the law, referenced to case law, which, if you had to go pay for it, would probably be more than a few hundred pounds.

So don't question his ability to do his job. We don't all follow you around at work tell you how to do yours.

Assuming you were referring only to your first sentence "living" has 2 syllables.

"Dave does the law as his job." or "Dave does the law to earn his wage." would be putting it in words of one syllable.

 

[bb21]

I think this thread has run its course.