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