On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 01:40:15 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:56:14 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

There always turns out to be considerable subtext to this sort of
thing. Let's see what emerges. I'll almost guarantee she had an
agenda.

I'd be willing to lay money on her Oyster not having been read properly
(perhaps because she didn't touch it flat to the disc) and the driver
not having called her back, given the 94 is a "normal" Double Decker
route.

I'd further suggest that she was given the option of paying the £20
Penalty Fare, declined to do so, failed to pay within 21 days, and
*that* is why TfL are taking her to Court.

This was in the 'Standard' on Monday. It said: "neither the machine
nor the driver warned her the payment had apparently failed." Reading
between the lines, that suggested she _didn't_ get a green light, but
she still boarded, without querying it with the driver. Saying, "the
machine didn't warn me," is lame.


--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War, and in Films & TV:
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/