On Oct 30, 12:04*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 30 Oct, 11:55, MIG wrote:

But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper
hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without
trial?

Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you?

I think that technically, you should only be issued a penalty fare if
fare evasion isn't suspected, although the definition of fare evasion
seems to be extended according the the TfL statement. But given that
a penalty fare is technically a fare, you can be prosecuted for
evasion of the penalty fare if you refuse to pay. I hadn't seen that
as an option presented on the spot exactly.


I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court
though. *The press stories are usually about people being hassled for
extra money on trains. *It's demanding money on the spot rather than
prosecution that leads to press stories.

I'm talking about the "TfL wastes thousands prosecuting [photogenic
sympathetic white-collar worker] over a 90p bus fare" type stories.

(usually coupled with gripes about Oyster touching in, which I believe
is a cause you're sympathetic too)

I do have objections to Oyster, but they are only relevant if you
agree with me (which many don't) that Oyster unresolved journey fares
etc are penalty fares. I don't know if my objections to Oyster rules
have any bearing on potential prosecution cases.