On 1 Nov, 02:36, Offramp wrote:
On Nov 1, 2:21 am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
My suggestion was more about how TfL could attempt to prevent such
frauds flourishing in the first place.

I appreciate that point exactly. Custodial sentences have three main
effects; they act as punishment, they help prevent further undesirable
acts from being perpetrated by the same individual (for the duration of
the custody) and finally, they act as a deterrent to those that would
otherwise commit the crime in the first place. In not adequately
punishing those responsible they are giving implicit approval to anyone
that cares to emulate them. Alas, the notion of deterrence has been lost
to political expediency.

ESB

The judge may have thought that Tfl was itself mainly to blame in
introducing a ticket that is so irrational, and is merely a pivot for
all types of fraud.


How is it an irrational ticket?

How is it a pivot for "all types of fraud"?

I can see it is open to one type of fraud, which is the fraud in
question.