That's Longer than violent crime these days. Sounds proportianate.
-
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!
Passengers - would you report a fare dodger?
- Thread starter trainophile
- Start date
- Status
That's Longer than violent crime these days. Sounds proportianate.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Oh no im just interested into what and why different people think different things .
Anti social behavior means different things to different people , are we talking about the legal definition of it , or are we talking about a layman's terms definition of it
Are we talking about giving a bit of lip to the police or traincrew , which might currently result in a fixed penalty notice ?
or are we talking about getting drunk and assaulting a police officer or a member of train crew that might currently result in an arrest and possible charge for an offence ?
if it has no bargaining rights in the real world why bother wasting your time stating your opinion on here ?
Last edited:
As long as there is a decent chance of them being caught in the first place.
Laws lose their effectiveness if they are only rarely enforced (e.g. motorists breaking speed limits).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For some reason I first interpreted that as you stating that cycling is a worse crime than burglary and theft. Perhaps that is a sign I need to go and sleep.
isnt that what discussion forums are for? Opinion stating? I often state mine backed up with hard facts......but on this particular subject , I wont bother. As far as Im concerned, 3 strikes and out = 5 years. Problem solved.
Skimpot flyer
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
I would report a potential fare-dodger. But I would only advise the RPI that I have suspicions about the person's possible lack of a ticket, based on their behaviour (e.g. moving from one carriage to another for no apparent reason, immediately prior to an RPI entering the carriage the person has just made a hasty exit from). It is the RPI's job to ascertain whether the person does in fact have a valid ticket.
On a side-note, I was on an FCC train out of London today when an RPI was questioning a youth aged approximately 17-19, who was being belligerent and increasingly aggressive. I overheard clearly the entire conversation. On leaving Potters Bar, the RPI was checking tickets and established that the youth had no ticket on his person. The youth then produced a PAYG Oyster card, which he claimed to have 'touched in' at Finsbury Park, intending to travel to Hatfield (well outside zone 6). On hearing the words 'penalty fare', the guy then offered to 'pay for my ticket', but of course the RPI calmly and politely told him that this is not how train travel is paid for. The guy became increasingly aggressive, shouting that he 'ain't payin for no journey, Bro', in mockery of the the RPI's afro-carribean appearance.
I was sorely tempted to step in and explain that the guy had in fact boarded the train at King's Cross, not Finsbury Park as claimed. I know this, because he was walking in front of me, with music blaring so loud that I could hear it through his headphones, as we passed through the (open) barriers at Platforms 9-11 at lunchtime today. But I must admit, his aggressive attitude was intimidating, and both the suspect and the RPI got off at Hatfield, and I do not know what the outcome was. The last I saw was the RPI talking to someone via a mobile phone, as the suspect began to walk the long walk back along the down island platform*, towards the footbridge, and thence the gateline. I was left wondering whether assistance could get to Hatfield in time to 'greet' our belligerent friend !
*northbound trains stop at the distant end of the platform, approx 10? carriage lengths from the footbridge, and this was a 4-car service
On a side-note, I was on an FCC train out of London today when an RPI was questioning a youth aged approximately 17-19, who was being belligerent and increasingly aggressive. I overheard clearly the entire conversation. On leaving Potters Bar, the RPI was checking tickets and established that the youth had no ticket on his person. The youth then produced a PAYG Oyster card, which he claimed to have 'touched in' at Finsbury Park, intending to travel to Hatfield (well outside zone 6). On hearing the words 'penalty fare', the guy then offered to 'pay for my ticket', but of course the RPI calmly and politely told him that this is not how train travel is paid for. The guy became increasingly aggressive, shouting that he 'ain't payin for no journey, Bro', in mockery of the the RPI's afro-carribean appearance.
I was sorely tempted to step in and explain that the guy had in fact boarded the train at King's Cross, not Finsbury Park as claimed. I know this, because he was walking in front of me, with music blaring so loud that I could hear it through his headphones, as we passed through the (open) barriers at Platforms 9-11 at lunchtime today. But I must admit, his aggressive attitude was intimidating, and both the suspect and the RPI got off at Hatfield, and I do not know what the outcome was. The last I saw was the RPI talking to someone via a mobile phone, as the suspect began to walk the long walk back along the down island platform*, towards the footbridge, and thence the gateline. I was left wondering whether assistance could get to Hatfield in time to 'greet' our belligerent friend !
*northbound trains stop at the distant end of the platform, approx 10? carriage lengths from the footbridge, and this was a 4-car service
As you are aware I too am often a fan of hard facts but there are no hard facts to be had here its not an issue that hard facts are relevant to . I am just discovering what different people think about different subjects . in the 3 years I spent at uni I was exposed to many many different ideas and thought processed and it is something I enjoyed and wish to continue .
And you have jumped the gun because depending on what you define as anti social behavior I might tend to actually agree with you , perhaps not on the length of sentence but the concept
If you define anti social behavior as giving a bit of lip to the police or being a bit of a nuisance, drunk and disorderly or falling asleep on a park bench then no I dont agree with 3 strikes and 5 years inside .Half the bleedin country would be inside unfortunately thats the way society has gone .
If you define anti social behavior as assault , battery or ABH whilst under the influence of alcohol then yes I do support a 3 strikes and some sort of prison sentence . Maybe 3 as oppose to 5 years . Or a mandatory alcohol treatment program and dry order meaning if you are found intoxicated in any public place the 3 year prison sentence applied automatically . Not to mention review of the license of the premises they have been in .
Personally I think in past years in this country the law has been diluted to let people off pretty easy if they have committed what used to be serious offenses against the person just because they are intoxicated .
Last edited:
So 50% of the country are involved in antisocial behaviour eh? Well look at it this way.......at a guess 95% of crimes are committed by just 0.5 % of the population at a guess........so remove that 0.5% from the law abiding society and hey presto - problem solved.
swj99
Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 770
Would I report a fare dodger ?
No. If I wanted a job in revenue protection, I'd apply for one, in the same way that if I was a sales assistant in a shop, I wouldn't try to catch shop lifters, because being a store detective / security guard is not part of the job.
No. If I wanted a job in revenue protection, I'd apply for one, in the same way that if I was a sales assistant in a shop, I wouldn't try to catch shop lifters, because being a store detective / security guard is not part of the job.
Last edited:
It's 8 carriages and Hatfield has a LOT of people that try and travel there with Oyster (and no doubt many of them not actually touching in and assuming staff at Hatfield won't have readers to check). Perhaps the word is that if you claim to have used Oyster, you can be given a penalty fare but not anything more (no intent, just an 'honest mistake')?
Hatfield now has the rather bizarre situation that, due to supposed fire regulations, the exit gate at the far end of platform 1 is often left open. So if the gentleman above decided to, he could walk off, over the bridge, down platform 1 and just leave. And the gates are sometimes open at Hatfield in the day anyway.
But maybe he didn't get out, and we'll hear his side of the story in the coming days as a new poster on here!!
Last edited:
your guess is wildly out what basis have you used for making that guess ?
Most people will have at some point got heavily intoxicated and done something that would amount to anti social behavior at some point in their life Okay so my half was just a flippant remark but I would put the figure somewhere between 35 and 40% . How many times do you think the police on a Friday and Saturday night will let something slide or deal with it by way of a stern word because using a FPN or arresting someone just takes up too much time when they are needed on the streets to keep people safe from their own alcohol consumption
In my study of criminal justice I discovered that in 2003 the home office did a study in which it found that 29% of young people admitted to performing some sort of anti social behavoir in the past year . During the same sort of time it was also widely reported that around a third of British men had a criminal record of some sort by their 30th birthday . Now I dont think things have massively changed since then .
Statistics actually show that sending people to prison for minor offenses actually leads to them re offending on a more serious level . Its common sense come out with no job prospects and questionable morals and what is going to happen this is why many academics dub prisons the university of crime .
Im all for three strikes and you are out when it comes to committing assault battery and abh , criminal damage etc whilst under the influence as those to me are reasonably serious crimes and you should not be absolved of responsibility for them just because you are drunk
What is the problem you are trying to solve anyway ?
I disagree, fare-dodging is seen to be in the same league as stealing office stationary or not wearing your seatbelt, that is why people do it.
However, as I have said on another thread, fare-dodging is a slippery slope. I have seen people steal pens from the office, not pay for a ticket, and then eventually commit assault/criminal damage.
I was speaking to an RPI I know. A few weeks ago I informed him that a certain train always has people sitting in 1st without a correct ticket. He said at the time he will try to target that train. Today he told me my tip-off paid off, out of 2 people sitting in 1st, only 1 had a ticket!
Skimpot flyer
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
I do hope so.
I think he was in need of a life lesson, that taking a belligerent attitude when you are clearly guilty of wrong-doing, will only bring more serious consequences.
Had there not been an RPI on board, he would have had a free ride from (at a minimum) Kings Cross to Hatfield. Perhaps he knew - from previous journeys - there was a possibility of getting out without going through a gateline, and was 'chancing it'?
I resent paying full price for tickets to subsidise those who fare-dodge !!! :-x
By how much do you think your ticket would go down, were there no evasion?
Bear in mind that railway revenue was £7.7bn in 2012/13, and ATOC puts the cost of evasion at £240m per year.
Even if ATOC's numbers are correct (which is doubtful, since they're not exactly neutral in this situation) and they pass all the savings onto the passengers your fares would drop by 3%. In reality, your fare would stay the same (supply & demand and all that), and that money would go to the shareholders.
As far as reporting it, it's none of my business. We're told at length on here that we shouldn't get involved in railway matters and we should let the staff do their job. Also, I don't judge people by appearances.
Sources:
http://www.atoc.org/media-centre/pr...n-the-railways-top-10-dodgy-excuses-revealed/
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06384.pdf
5 years in prison for dropping litter 3 times.
3 years in prison for death by dangerous driving. Community sentences for fairly hefty thefts.
Seems proportionate! Are you one of the people that believes prisons are like a 5 star hotel? I recommend you read "Inside" by John Hoskison to see how bad a 5 year sentence would be - I certainly wouldn't want youths going in for 5 years over nothing and coming out hardened criminals!
Even if the money went to shareholders, that would be better than not getting the revenue at all. Anyone can be a shareholder (it's not an evil thing) and it could help a range of investments (like pensions) so that's even more reason not to disregard fare evasion.
And if you employ some more revenue officers, there's a further benefit there too.
And if you employ some more revenue officers, there's a further benefit there too.
But 3 strikes works so well in the USA.
Oh wait, they have the highest prison population (per capita) in the world. :roll:
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm
Last edited:
steamybrian
Established Member
Would I report someone for fare evasion? Having done it once--never again.
The one occasion I did report it - A group of teenagers were waiting on Redhill station for a train to the next station -Nutfield . I overheard them say that when the train arrives to get in the opposite of the train to where the guard is situated so that in the journey time of less than 5 minutes there is good chance they will not have to pay. The train arrives the teenagers see the guard and walk along the platform and board the train the opposite end from the guard. I tell the guard what has happened and get a mouthful of abuse from him not to tell him how to do his job. The teenagers must have heard this conversation because they then come along the train and threatened me but luckily the train was well crowded and it was a short journey time.. So never again...!!!
Someone mentioned anti-social behaviour- I had to move house in 2005 due to anti-social behaviour from the family from hell that had moved in to the adjacent house in 2000. All they got was a ASBO, fine and court costs.
The one occasion I did report it - A group of teenagers were waiting on Redhill station for a train to the next station -Nutfield . I overheard them say that when the train arrives to get in the opposite of the train to where the guard is situated so that in the journey time of less than 5 minutes there is good chance they will not have to pay. The train arrives the teenagers see the guard and walk along the platform and board the train the opposite end from the guard. I tell the guard what has happened and get a mouthful of abuse from him not to tell him how to do his job. The teenagers must have heard this conversation because they then come along the train and threatened me but luckily the train was well crowded and it was a short journey time.. So never again...!!!
Someone mentioned anti-social behaviour- I had to move house in 2005 due to anti-social behaviour from the family from hell that had moved in to the adjacent house in 2000. All they got was a ASBO, fine and court costs.
That wasn't the point made though. The point was that no evasion would make tickets cheaper. I don't think it would.
I'd be interested to see how ATOC calculates the lost revenue to fare evasion.
I've encountered a guard with that sort of attitude on SET, somebody complained about kids in first class who clearly didn't have the appropriate ticket and the guard told the person in no uncertain terms not to tell him how to do his job etc etc.
I was so disgusted at his behaviour that I put a complaint in to SET, I don't know whether the victim of the guards rudeness did likewise?
Astonishing!! I obviously don't know the full story but if the person had reported the matter to the police in good faith he should not have accepted the caution. The onus would then have been on the police to produce evidence that the person had reported the info to them maliciously if they wanted to take it any further.
A lot of police time is spent on fools errands after well intended info has been passed to them by members of the public. A classic example was on a police programme on TV last night, police in Lincolnshire were investigating reports of a body being seen in a river, when they found 'the body' it turned out to be a scarecrow from nearby farmland.................but better safe than sorry!
Skimpot flyer
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,938
By definition, that £240 million is an estimate. How is it calculated? How would they know, if the true scale of evasion is far, far greater than their guesstimate? My suspicion is that they are massively underestimating the scale of the problem.
In any case, a 3% reduction in fares would save me a lot of money over a year. So, you are happy to subsidise freeloaders then, Tibbs? I look forward to you giving me 3% of your 2014/15 income, even though you did the work to earn it !
By definition, that £240 million is an estimate. How is it calculated? How would they know, if the true scale of evasion is far, far greater than their guesstimate? My suspicion is that they are massively underestimating the scale of the problem.
In any case, a 3% reduction in fares would save me a lot of money over a year. So, you are happy to subsidise freeloaders then, Tibbs? I look forward to you giving me 3% of your 2014/15 income, even though you did the work to earn it !
As I said, the chance of you getting a 3% reduction should they eliminate is roughly equal to my giving you 3% of the value of your ticket, i.e. Zero.
It's not in ATOC's interest to underestimate the cost of fare evasion, that £240m is likely to be at the high end. And bear in mind, the cost of fare evasion is not the value of the tickets that all the travellers should have bought. The Film & Music indistries tried this in relation to copyright infringement costs, and got laughed at. The cost to the rail industry is the cost of the tickets that would have been bought had fare evasion not been possible. That'd be a much lower number, as a lot of fare evaders wouldn't travel if it weren't 'free'.
zn1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 435
no whats the point...we all done in once ....
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
I'm sorry, I don't see the logic in your statement.
Last edited:
It is.
I can't say if fares might come down (or more likely not go up quite as much) but I'm all for it being obtained whatever the outcome. Fact is, it will help somewhere and I don't believe it would all just go direct to shareholders. It could fund ticket promotions and goodness knows what else, or it might simply discourage said evaders from travelling at all which could reduce antisocial behaviour and encourage others to use the railway.
I don't see any downsides of tough enforcement, but bean counters see things differently.
PaxVobiscum
Established Member
... is much lower than the estimates for overcharging made to passengers making longer journeys, compared to the fares charged when the fare is "split" into multiple tickets.
On trainsplit.com, the average saving is around £10. There are around 1.2billion journeys made per year. Now I'm obviously not suggesting 10*1.2 billion, as many tickets cost under £10 and people wouldn't bother "splitting" and even if they did, wouldn't save much. However I'm pretty confident the total would be a lot more than £240 million.
So, yes it's true the Train Companies are being unfairly cheated out of money (which may be £240 million but is likely less as they'll be exaggerating), but the Train Companies are also overcharging people by significantly more than £240 million. However, oddly, they are quiet about that.
In an ideal world, passengers would all be paying, and paying a fair fare.
swj99
Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 770
Interestingly, defamation is one area of law where a reverse burden of proof exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
Wouldn't it be better for TOCs to actually make sure passengers have or are sold a ticket before they get on the train ? That way, there would be no reason for ticketing issues to cause delays to the service. It's all very well people complaining about people travelling without tickets, but if they are on a train without one, the fact is that someone allowed to them to get on. Maybe this aspect needs to be addressed.
Cue the joke about pushing it under the door.
Sounds like you're not at all happy about this kind of situation.
Personally I think I'd be more critical of the TOCs for allowing these ticketless passengers onto the trains, rather than blaming other passengers for not reporting them.
Hebden Bridger
Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 163
I suppose I qualify as a beancounter - in a totally different business - but if I was guaranteed something between 95% and 98% of my revenue (and Tibbs is correct about the true value lost to the company) up front instead of 4-5 months in arrears, I'd be an extremely happy and considerably less stressed man.
The railway industry is already uniquely protected by its own laws - it really is about time it was less mollycoddled and moved into the real commercial world.
JohnB57
Member
Tough enforcement is absolutely the right way. But making paying for something as difficult and confusing as it often is in the case of rail journeys should not work in the favour of the provider, rather the opposite.
Hebden B is right. In today's commercial environment, the rail industry should have to live with commercial standards, including the opportunity to pay for something with relative ease. Take away the ability to apply penalty fares pretty much automatically and see what happens to fare collection.
- Status