"tim" wrote in message ...
"Steve Peake" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:32:17 +0000 (UTC), evan wrote:

A couple of people have frightened her about this & said she can get a
fine
of up to £1000 & a criminal record - it's the criminal record bit she is


So ISTM that either there is something missing from the story
or they have no chance of winning.

See a solicitor prompto.

tim






Steve

Whilist I think £1000 fine is a bit over the top I think anyone who
evades paying on the bendy buses should be proscuted for the sole
reason of the honest people who pay a pound to travel even though
there is little chance of anyone checking their ticket.
And it does seem strange that someone so innocent should be taken such
a hard line with. Possibly there is something that the poster "forgot"
to mention about the case as in my experince it doesn't matter how
honest the person when faced with being punished for something they
have done they are usually clean as a sheet but "forgot" certian
aspects of the case.

"CJG Now Thankfully Living In The North" wrote in
message om...
"tim" wrote in message
...
"Steve Peake" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:32:17 +0000 (UTC), evan wrote:

A couple of people have frightened her about this & said she can get
a
fine
of up to £1000 & a criminal record - it's the criminal record bit
she is


So ISTM that either there is something missing from the story
or they have no chance of winning.

See a solicitor prompto.

tim






Steve

Whilist I think £1000 fine is a bit over the top I think anyone who
evades paying on the bendy buses should be proscuted for the sole
reason of the honest people who pay a pound to travel even though
there is little chance of anyone checking their ticket.
And it does seem strange that someone so innocent should be taken such
a hard line with. Possibly there is something that the poster "forgot"
to mention about the case as in my experince it doesn't matter how
honest the person when faced with being punished for something they
have done they are usually clean as a sheet but "forgot" certian
aspects of the case.

I take the point, but I really don't think so. She is absolutely an honest
person all the time - I've seen her give back £10 change when she was given
a £20 note rather than a £10. This was a genuine mistake: she'd just be told
she had to come to a meeting at which she thought she was going to be made
redundant, she was thinking about that & she simply forgot to get her ticket
torn off. We went over it in a lot of detail several times as she was very
upset at the time.

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

She carries a book of tickets because she occasionally uses buses rather
than the tube or train.

--
Evan
remove certain words in address to email

On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement? How exactly did he
describe the incident?
--
Nick Cooper

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

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

tim


How exactly did he
describe the incident?
--
Nick Cooper

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

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

In message , tim
writes

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

Totally agree - a person that arrives off a trains at a barrier that is
not normally manned, with £10 in their hand & offers to pay the PF
without being asked will get asked a lot more questions.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but if she straight away said
'sorry' and then offered to pay the PF - I can see why you are off to
court now

--
Martin Summerfield

It all depends on whether you are permitted to enter the bus via any door if
you have a ticket that requires marking by the driver.

A travelcard holder may be permitted as they have a valid ticket. If you
have a single journey ticket that requires marking and you enter by any door
other than at the front and then fail to get it done perhaps intent has been
shown.

"Martin Summerfield" wrote in message
...
In message , tim
writes

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something
that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made
a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work
like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

Totally agree - a person that arrives off a trains at a barrier that is
not normally manned, with £10 in their hand & offers to pay the PF
without being asked will get asked a lot more questions.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but if she straight away said
'sorry' and then offered to pay the PF - I can see why you are off to
court now

--
Martin Summerfield

SJCWHUK wrote:
It all depends on whether you are permitted to enter the bus via
any door if you have a ticket that requires marking by the driver.

A travelcard holder may be permitted as they have a valid ticket.
If you have a single journey ticket that requires marking and you
enter by any door other than at the front and then fail to get it
done perhaps intent has been shown.

So how would you distinguish that from mere forgetfulness or being
distracted by other events? As far as I can see, intent has not been
demonstrated at all.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sun, 2 May 2004 10:25:01 +0200, "tim"
wrote:


"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

How do you get that? If I was in the position of, say, getting on a
bus with a buggered Oyster reader the day after I'd forgotten my TC
expired, and part-way through the journey a ticket inspector getting
on and checking it with a hand-held, my first reaction would be to put
my hands up, admit an error on my part, and cough up the penalty fare.
An person making an honest mistake is not always going to stand (or
sit) there whinging/arguing, because that rarely achieves anything.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

You seem to have formed an opnion and are trying to fit the known
facts around it. Have you considered that it may just be that the
GF's immediate offer to pay the penalty fare and the inspector's
refusal of that actually counts very much in her favour, and not his,
hence he has "forgotten" that detail?
--
Nick Cooper

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

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 2 May 2004 10:25:01 +0200, "tim"
wrote:


"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something
that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made
a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work
like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

How do you get that? If I was in the position of, say, getting on a
bus with a buggered Oyster reader the day after I'd forgotten my TC
expired, and part-way through the journey a ticket inspector getting
on and checking it with a hand-held, my first reaction would be to put
my hands up, admit an error on my part, and cough up the penalty fare.

1) if the card reader is broken, why is this your fault?
2) using an expired TC is a bit different from having no ticket at all.

An person making an honest mistake is not always going to stand (or
sit) there whinging/arguing, because that rarely achieves anything.

No, but they normally do.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

You seem to have formed an opnion

which opinion is this?

and are trying to fit the known facts around it.

which facts.

Have you considered that it may just be that the
GF's immediate offer to pay the penalty fare and the inspector's
refusal of that actually counts very much in her favour,

In the sense that it is a possibiliy, I have considered it.
In the sense that I do not believe it be be in the poster's
interest then I haven't. I really believe that you will find
this action is not the usual action of the first time forgetful
person and *is* the usual action of the habitual ticketless
traveller. And the Inspectors (and the mags) know this

and not his,
hence he has "forgotten" that detail?

Forgetting material detail does not ever work in the
inspector's favour

tim


--
Nick Cooper

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

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement? How exactly did he
describe the incident?

The Inspector does not *have* to accept an penalty under *any*
circumstances. If he suspects fare evasion he may report the individual, as
he has done here. To do so, he *must* caution the person and tell them they
are being reported and for what offence. The fact a penalty fare was
offered immediately is not eveidence of regular fare evasion, as suggested
by some of those posting here, and would not be deemed so by the court.

The fact that a summons has been issued just with the six months cut off
period set out in the magistrates court act is typical of these *private*
prosecutions. The departments who put the cases together are generally less
than competent, and rely on individuals pleading guilty.

The offence in question is a criminal one. There are 2 options here.

1. Plead gulity by post, outlining the circumstances you describe as
mitigation. A fine will be the result, plus costs, probably £50. You WILL
NOT recieve a criminal record.

2. Plead not guilty, attend court and cross examine the inspector as to his
procedure at the time of reporting (caution etc as above), and challenge the
fact that you *intended* to avoid your fare. After all you where in
possession of a ticket, just not validated, not allready used or out of
date. The magistrate will take into consideration how you come across when
giving evidence, and also how the inspector does. IME a properly prepared
defence case will wipe the floor with most rail/bus ticket inspectors.

regards

Baloo