http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7071356.stm

This (and perhaps other similar?) scams is presumably what lay behind
TfL's decision to change the design of the Bus Saver ticket earlier
this year.

Before Oyster PAYG, I was a big fan of the Bus Saver tickets, and they
can still come in useful when travelling on the bus with an Oyster-
less visitor from out of town. Nonetheless by their very nature
they're vulnerable to fraud.

I wonder how many Ticket Stops (i.e. newsagents and other shops
selling TfL tickets) bought these forged Saver tickets from these
crooks to sell on to punters - I'm minded to think that quite a few
did, given that it was an easy earner for them. I guess that one way
to counter this fraud would be for TfL to threaten to expel shops from
the Ticket Stop scheme should they be caught selling forged Saver
tickets, which is such an obvious suggestion I wouldn't be surprised
if they've already done just that.

Mizter T wrote:

I guess that one way to counter this fraud would be for TfL to threaten
to expel shops from the Ticket Stop scheme should they be caught selling
forged Saver
tickets, which is such an obvious suggestion I wouldn't be surprised
if they've already done just that.

I would have though the obvious suggestion would have been to apply the
full weight of the law and send everyone involved in the scheme to
prison. In these perverse, pseudo-liberal times however, punishing
criminal acts is frowned upon and fraud is 'victimless', so why bother?
Just give them 100 hours community service and let them enjoy the
proceeds of their criminal undertakings. They obviously earned it.

ESB

On 1 Nov, 00:29, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
I guess that one way to counter this fraud would be for TfL to threaten
to expel shops from the Ticket Stop scheme should they be caught selling
forged Saver
tickets, which is such an obvious suggestion I wouldn't be surprised
if they've already done just that.

I would have though the obvious suggestion would have been to apply the
full weight of the law and send everyone involved in the scheme to
prison. In these perverse, pseudo-liberal times however, punishing
criminal acts is frowned upon and fraud is 'victimless', so why bother?
Just give them 100 hours community service and let them enjoy the
proceeds of their criminal undertakings. They obviously earned it.

ESB

My suggestion was more about how TfL could attempt to prevent such
frauds flourishing in the first place.

The article makes no mention of anyone else who was involved in this
fraud having got caught. Maybe others have got caught, in which case
I'd expect to hear more on this story in the future as cases come to
court. Then again maybe no-one else has been nabbed - a possibility if
it was a 'professional' operation, with distance between the 'foot
soldiers' such as this guy and the 'masterminds'.

On Oct 31, 9:44 pm, Mizter T wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7071356.stm

This (and perhaps other similar?) scams is presumably what lay behind
TfL's decision to change the design of the Bus Saver ticket earlier
this year.

Before Oyster PAYG, I was a big fan of the Bus Saver tickets, and they
can still come in useful when travelling on the bus with an Oyster-
less visitor from out of town. Nonetheless by their very nature
they're vulnerable to fraud.

I was amazed when I heard TfL was changing the design. I have never
seen the point of these tickets, and to persevere with them after
Oyster became widespread seemed like the decision of someone
completely & utterly doolally. It is like a return to the 1860s! Do
they have a 'No expectorating' warning on the back?

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

Offramp wrote:
It is like a return to the 1860s!
Do they have a 'No expectorating' warning on the back?

Given the prevalence of TB in these parts, it seems like that piece of
advice would be entirely suitable once again!

ESB

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, and is merely a pivot for
all types of fraud.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:36:15 -0000, Offramp
wrote:

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.

That's like saying it's OK to burgle a house that's been left
unlocked. How ridiculous.

Neil

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

On Nov 1, 6:22 am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:36:15 -0000, Offramp
wrote:

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.

That's like saying it's OK to burgle a house that's been left
unlocked. How ridiculous.

Insurance companies would seem not to agree with you.

On 1 Nov, 02:36, Offramp wrote:
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, 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.