Ticket Inspectors Behaviour

[jon0844]

I was so annoyed when they changed the law that said fare dodgers had to carry signs to say there were evading their fare. Ever since then, people have had to assume that EVERYONE might be a fare evader and not just look out for the obvious signs!

 

[Greeny]

What a great way to say "hello" to a new member. No surprise he has not been back. Disgusting IMHO.

G

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Greeny, I don't foind it disguisting, but if she/he is going to come on here, critiscise a TOC/member of staff, leave no details, and actually break the law (potentially, by not buying a ticket), what do you expect us to do?

 

[Greeny]

I expect people to disagree with them. I do not expect a new member to be attacked in the way he was for expressing an opinion or relating his own personal experience. I have encountered some of the obnoxious creatures who get themselves into RPI jobs. I used to work amongst some of them and their only pleasure in life seemed to be looking for trouble, then hiding behind "I am only doing my duty" when somebody complained about their conduct. Why behave like that when it is far easier to help somebody ?. But of course, we all know that anybody making such complaints is either a crank or a liar don't we?.

Those who say that there are two sides to every story are correct. Sadly, though, in this instance just about everybody who has been attacking him seems to be living in a world where all is black and white.

As I said - disgusting IMHO, and I'm not asking anyone to agree.

 

[GB]

Where has any one "attacked" him on here?

 

[Greeny]

Pages 1 and 2. Just about the only person who didn't was a Moderator.

 

[GB]

You definition of an attack must differ from mine then as I can not see anything that would constitute one. Telling someone they were wrong to do something whether it was said by one person or multiple people is not an attack. Maybe if there were name calling I'd agree but unless some posts have been deleted I just dont see it.

 

[Greeny]

I don't expect or ask for anybody to agree. I am expressing the opinion that the responses to his experience was (in my opinion) disgusting. You may not regard it as an attack but I do and we are not going to agree on the matter. I've spent the last 36 years watching that sort of behaviour and dislike it now as much as ever. A new member related his experience, and almost the only responses he received were hostile - you can disguise it any way you like, but it still ads up to a new member being attacked. Hiding behind "he was breaking (or potentially breaking) the law is just an easy way of dismissing something out of hand. The man acknowledged that he was in the wrong and he did not deserve the be treated as he was.

Sorry - I just hold the unfashionable view that everybody is entitled to a fair hearing.

G

 

[Geezertronic]

Disgusting? Hostile? Attacked? Come on Greeny, you're having a laugh are you not? Either that or vastly over dramatising the situation?

No need to really be a "narky awld sod"

 

[Greeny]

Sorry, no, I'm not having a laugh. And once again, nor am I asking anybody to agree.

The poster described his experience, and acknowledged that he was in the wrong. He did not complain about being caught out (for want of a better expression) he complained at the RPIs' conduct-cum-attitude and all people on this forum could do, to quote John Cleese, was "stating the bleedin' obvious".

I'm happy to be in a minority of one here but, again, it is a hell of a way to welcome a new member who made a serious point.

Sorry if my attitude offends anybody but it isn't going to change.

 

[dcmbarton]

And that's where you whole post unravels. What does a fare-dodger look like? After 13 years of ticket checks I can tell you that I've not been able to pin it down to a specific appearance of individuals. One of the most important parts of the job of finding fare-dodgers is to not show prejudice or discriminate in any way as to who could be a problem, doubtless you'd be quite poor at this though.

That's a fair point. I don't have any problem at all having my tickets checked, but what I object to is the attitude that everyone's under suspicion. Ticket inspectors should understand how tickets work; they should know that if two people are travelling together, although they'll have separate tickets, they won't have separate seat reservations. There was no need for us to be pulled aside and interrogated, especially as they'd been shown all they needed to be shown at the barrier.

 

[yorkie]

Greeny, I don't foind it disguisting, but if she/he is going to come on here, critiscise a TOC/member of staff, leave no details, and actually break the law (potentially, by not buying a ticket), what do you expect us to do?

So someone who asks for a ticket but is refused is "breaking the law"? Which of these three people are "breaking the law"? Please state which are, and which aren't (in your opinion), giving reasons for your answers. Thanks

...He also refused to let me buy a ticket - his manner was so aggressive and confrontational - and then because I refused to move he began making abusive and offensive remarks....

...And believe me, I want to pay fares, but honestly some see the Priv pass, and say 'you're alright' or don't even want to take your money...

...This time though, he hit a snag. He explained to the situation to the gateline staff at Kings Cross (suburban platforms) and they did... nothing. They refused to sell him a ticket. They made no effort to charge him a Penalty Fare. They didn't call the BTP. They just said "we don't sell tickets" and otherwise ignored him. They had ticket machines. They had pads. I watched some of this farce. It was bizarre...

Or, you could say "Actually, it's best not to judge any of them" and withdraw your comment?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Very clever yorkie, mine, but its the TMs responsibility to charge me a fare, it is therefore at his discretion to charge me.

 

[yorkie]

I'm happy to be in a minority of one here but, again, it is a hell of a way to welcome a new member who made a serious point..

You're not the only one. See the FCC Notice of intention to prosecute thread.

The OP has provided very few details, and there are too many questions that are unanswered so we cannot judge either that the OP acted incorrectly, or the ticket inspector acted incorrectly, or a bit of both. However some people have judged, despite very little info being available.

If the OP answers my questions I will be happy to provide further assistance. If they don't, then we'll never know!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Very clever yorkie, mine, but its the TMs responsibility to charge me a fare, it is therefore at his discretion to charge me.

What's the answer? And whose 'discretion' is it to charge or not on FCC, where there are no Train Managers.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's the answer? And whose 'discretion' is it to charge or not on FCC, where there are no Train Managers.

What do you mean 'what's the answer?': Mine, I thought I made that perfectly clear. On FCC its the RPIs job. See what I mean about victimisation? What happened to that PM anyway?

 

[yorkie]

I asked Which of these three people are "breaking the law"? and your answer is "mine"?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's hardly victimisation to be asked some questions :roll:

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It's hardly victimisation to be asked some questions :roll:

You may want to look back at my posts in the £155 Darlington thing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I asked Which of these three people are "breaking the law"? and your answer is "mine"?

Not technically, but me, I offer to pay. Or the Bel person who got on without buying a ticket.

 

[yorkie]

Not technically, but me, I offer to pay. Or the Bel person who got on without buying a ticket.

Surely in all 3 cases I quoted someone got on without buying a ticket, and then asked on the train or at their destination and were then refused? In your case, you talk about the TM refusing to issue you a ticket, so how come if you already had a ticket did you then ask for a ticket?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

In your case, you talk about the TM refusing to issue you a ticket, so how come if you already had a ticket did you then ask for a ticket?

What? I don't already have a valid ticket when I ask the TM for tickets, otherwise I show my ticket. The majority of journeys I board at unmanned stations or stations where the booking office is closed, and when I say onboard (ticketless): 'Hi, can I have a Child Priv Return to....' they interupt me and say: 'No, you're fine'. I then usually insist on buying one, or buy at my destination. I never complete a whole journey ticketless.

 

[yorkie]

What, I dont already have a valid ticket when I ask the TM for tickets, otherwise I show my ticket. The majority of journeys I board at unmanned stations or stations where the booking office is closed, and when I say onboard (ticketless): 'Hi, can I have a Child Priv Return to....' they interupt me and say: 'No, you're fine'. I then usually insist on buying one, or nuy at my destination. I never complete a whole journey ticketless.

OK, that's fine, but the other two people I quoted also tried to buy at their destination and didn't try to complete their whole journey ticketless either.

I'm not criticising you for your actions, my point is that you are criticising people for their actions, but if someone else asks for a ticket and is refused it's surely not their fault any more than if you ask for a ticket and are refused?

Also we don't know where the OP boarded, so how can we judge?

 

[GB]

but if someone else asks for a ticket and is refused it's surely not their fault any more than if you ask for a ticket and are refused?

Surely it depends on the reasons for not purchasing a ticket at the origin?

 

[yorkie]

Surely it depends on the reasons for not purchasing a ticket at the origin?

Well, yes, that is true, and and it also depends on the company policy (e.g. Virgin allow full-fare tickets to be bought on board, but FCC don't allow that, while GC allow discounted tickets to be bought on board, for example) and all sorts of other factors. Unless we know the exact situation (how long exactly were the queues? What time exactly did the customer arrive before their train was due? Does the machine issue the full range of fares? etc) we really shouldn't be judging IMO.

These people want advice, not judgements and being labelled as "breaking the law", especially when they have asked for a ticket but were then refused. I just want people to be less judgemental and have more of an open mind toward fellow members of this forum who seek our advice. We should be proud of the advice we give here. If someone deems a member to have acted so incorrectly that they don't want to give advice it's best to simply not post.