On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Roger R wrote:

In this country you are innocent until proved guilty.

However, increasing numbers of offences are based solely on the
factual evidence, without any need to prove *intention*. For example
(I don't know the TfL rules, but the railway byelaws state this very
clearly) in a compulsory ticket area one *must* be in possession of a
valid ticket, otherwise it's a byelaw offence. It doesn't matter
whether you paid the fare, nor intended to pay the fare - that byelaw
offence isn't based on intention, it's based on factually not holding
a valid ticket.

You don't have to prove your innocence.

If the accused cannot present a valid ticket, then their mere
*intention* to have paid the fare might not be sufficient. IANAL.

"Barry Salter" wrote in message
...
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.

Well I saw the BBC London news report and the accused fare dodger was quite
emphatic that she offered to pay the penalty fare a number of times, but the
inspector just demanded her name and address and confiscated the oyster
card. This was in February, and she has got the summons two weeks ago.

If her version of events are true, it would not be a first. TfL penalty fare
staff seem to assume everyone without a valid fare did so deliberately and
needs to go through the courts . The whole system is reminiscent of the ham
fisted way of the performance related pay parking wardens were originally
run. There must be some kind of internal target for prosecutions they have
all the staff aiming for.

Cheers,

Barry

--
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

In message . ac.uk, at
10:33:45 on Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Alan J. Flavell
remarked:
However, increasing numbers of offences are based solely on the
factual evidence, without any need to prove *intention*. For example
(I don't know the TfL rules, but the railway byelaws state this very
clearly) in a compulsory ticket area one *must* be in possession of a
valid ticket, otherwise it's a byelaw offence. It doesn't matter
whether you paid the fare, nor intended to pay the fare - that byelaw
offence isn't based on intention, it's based on factually not holding
a valid ticket.

And a bit of an issue if the reason you don't have a ticket is because
you've been mugged and your bag stolen.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:38:20 on Fri, 21 Oct
2005, Chris remarked:
Well I saw the BBC London news report and the accused fare dodger was quite
emphatic that she offered to pay the penalty fare a number of times, but the
inspector just demanded her name and address and confiscated the oyster
card.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just try swiping the card again? I
assume it had some credit on it.
--
Roland Perry

Has anyone ever requested PROOF from the bus driver that the Oyster has
been validated?

I was thinking of printing out a form and asking the driver or DLR
train captain to sign each time I board a bus to acknowledge my
successful validation.

It would appear that I have NOTHING to hold as proof if I use Oyster.

In theory, it would appear that an inspector can say whatever he likes
and I have no comeback.

Richard Adamfi wrote:
It would appear that I have NOTHING to hold as proof if I use Oyster.

I supose if it goes to court as in the bus case, you could request the
CCTV tape which may well capture the fact you attempted to touch the
Oyster.

regards
HN28

wrote:

Richard Adamfi wrote:
It would appear that I have NOTHING to hold as proof if I use Oyster.

I supose if it goes to court as in the bus case, you could request the
CCTV tape which may well capture the fact you attempted to touch the
Oyster.

Of course the bus company might have *accidentally* erased the tape by then.

Adam Funk wrote:

Of course the bus company might have *accidentally* erased the tape by then.

However, if you request to see the CCTV but it is no longer available,
then the fact that you were willing to request the CCTV shows strong
evidence in your favour of your innocence.

Richard Adamfi wrote:


Adam Funk wrote:

Of course the bus company might have *accidentally* erased the tape by
then.

However, if you request to see the CCTV but it is no longer available,
then the fact that you were willing to request the CCTV shows strong
evidence in your favour of your innocence.

Good point.

"Alan J. Flavell" wrote in message
. gla.ac.uk...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Roger R wrote:

In this country you are innocent until proved guilty.

However, increasing numbers of offences are based solely on the
factual evidence, without any need to prove *intention*.
[snip]

Speed trap cameras are in this catagory too.
(not sour grapes I've never been snapped - AFAIK)

I don't know how what passes for our elected represenatives have
allowed such travesties of fundamental rights to come to pass.... er
perhaps I do...they are worse than useless. :-)

Roger



Roger