Offramp wrote:

On Nov 1, 9:39 am, Mizter T wrote:
On 1 Nov, 02:36, Offramp wrote:

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

...And they have been offered up on Tube trains as tickets for
travel... Believe me!


Yeah, sure - as have bus passes and National Rail tickets with no
validity on the Underground. So what?

That's a rubbish argument and is not a demonstration of a different
type of proper, organised, systematic fraud.

You've failed to answer any of the questions I posed in relation to
your comments.

On Nov 1, 3:55 pm, Mizter T wrote:

You've failed to answer any of the questions I posed in relation to
your comments.

Can you repeat what your questions were as I cannot find them?

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:16:19 -0700, Offramp
wrote:

Insurance companies would seem not to agree with you.

Insurance companies won't pay out if you leave your house open; this
is merely a way of reducing paying out, that after all being the
object of an insurance company, like it or not. This is rather a
different issue from the fact that theft is still a crime, regardless
of whether the item being stolen is secured or not.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 1 Nov, 17:56, Offramp wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:55 pm, Mizter T wrote:

You've failed to answer any of the questions I posed in relation to
your comments.

Can you repeat what your questions were as I cannot find them?

OK, if you want - here they are again, copied from upthread...


On 1 Nov, 09:39, Mizter T wrote:
On 1 Nov, 02:36, Offramp wrote:

(snip)

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.

On Nov 1, 8:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 1 Nov, 17:56, Offramp wrote:

How is it an irrational ticket?

It has no point. It merely duplicates what can be bought elsewhere,
except that it has the added drawback of delaying bendybuses.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:23:20 -0700, Offramp
wrote:

It has no point. It merely duplicates what can be bought elsewhere,
except that it has the added drawback of delaying bendybuses.

It doesn't delay anything; it takes as long to throw a receipt on the
desk as it does to touch in with an Oyster. It does have some uses in
being transferable (in the sense that I could give one to someone
travelling with me without requiring a separate card and a separate
balance) unlike Oyster Pre-Pay.

I will admit to being surprised it wasn't abolished, though.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:27:21 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I was gobsmacked when the Saver ticket was introduced as it went against
years and years of concerted effort to remove a source of easy fraud.

Yet, prior to Oyster, it was a very, very useful ticket for the
occasional passenger who didn't want to fumble for change and would
just keep a book in their wallet.

The one and only time I've bought a book it was on behalf of a group
of Scouts (12 kids for free, 6 adults who had to pay) going from
Euston to Victoria at about 5am (only wanting one single journey).
The alternative would have been to pay twice as much in cash and to
have to carry 12 quid in coins to do so.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Offramp" wrote in message
ups.com...
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,

Have is the bus saver irrational?

It is the normal type of ticket in many European countries (usually
issued in the form of strip card rather than a carnet)

tim

"Offramp" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 1, 8:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 1 Nov, 17:56, Offramp wrote:

How is it an irrational ticket?

It has no point. It merely duplicates what can be bought elsewhere,

But it does so in a way that offers a dicount for making
a bulk pre-purchase.

What you are saying is that it is irrational for shops to sell
six packs of beer because cans can be bought individually.

tim

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:39:55 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

On 1 Nov, 02:36, Offramp wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
My suggestion was more about how TfL could attempt to prevent such
frauds flourishing in the first place.

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.

The intrinsic problem with the Bus Saver ticket is that it is "value
stock" - i.e. the ticket when printed at the factory is of specific
value and thus worth duplicating. LT and LU went to enormous trouble to
remove value stock when UTS was installed and the Pass agent machines
provided. The only way you get a valid ticket is if a ticket blank of no
value is passed through a genuine machine and printed and encoded.
While not impossible to copy they take a damn sight more effort to get
right than the simplistic design of the Saver ticket.

I was gobsmacked when the Saver ticket was introduced as it went against
years and years of concerted effort to remove a source of easy fraud.
Now whether the judge took any view of this change of practice in
reaching his decision I really cannot say.

I can't believe that a judge is going to be the slightest bit
interested in the operating practice of LT.

Now the Saver ticket was clearly put in place to encourage pre-purchase
of bus tickets and was done in a hurry to meet what I would speculate as
being a political timetable "for something to be done".

To solve what problem? Personally, I find the ability to buy
tickets in advance quite useful and can see good reasons for
providing such tickets

tim