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'.

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

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 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.

"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

On 1 Nov, 02:21, Ernst S Blofeld
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.

What rot. The public, being ignorant, are massively keen on hangin'
'n' floggin' an' lockin' up, and if a politician wants to buy some
cheap votes all he needs to do is announce some new draconian
measures.

But the thing about deterrence w.r.t prison sentences is that *it
doesn't work*. The only correlation that has been demonstrated between
punishment and crime rates is % of convictions (i.e. the more certain
a crim is to get caught, the less likely he is to do crime).

So your ingenious plan would cut crime *exclusively* by taking the
relevant miscreants out of circulation for the duration of their
sentence (and then raise it again when they were released, given that
prison has a worse reoffending rate than other forms of punishment).

I can understand the logic in paying £40k a year to keep a mugger or a
rapist off the streets. But it seems like a crap investment to do the
same for a chap who sells photocopied bus tickets...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

What rot. The public, being ignorant, are massively keen on hangin'
'n' floggin' an' lockin' up, and if a politician wants to buy some
cheap votes all he needs to do is announce some new draconian
measures.

If that were the only kind of political expediency then the sentences
for most things would have been ratcheted up years ago. However, the
reality is that hardly anyone serves the full sentence let alone suffers
a draconian one.

But the thing about deterrence w.r.t prison sentences is that *it
doesn't work*. The only correlation that has been demonstrated between
punishment and crime rates is % of convictions (i.e. the more certain
a crim is to get caught, the less likely he is to do crime).

That's not true if you consider the various *types* of crime.
White-collar crime and fraud - where exercise of thought is usual - are
significantly deterred by the prospect of sentencing. Indeed fear of
'being caught' in and of itself is meaningless without consideration of
the consequences.

So your ingenious plan would cut crime *exclusively* by taking the
relevant miscreants out of circulation for the duration of their
sentence (and then raise it again when they were released, given that
prison has a worse reoffending rate than other forms of punishment).

It isn't a 'plan'. It's merely a description of the purpose of prisons
and our existing legislation. The reason custodial sentences are being
discouraged is not through a wide recognition that they fail but because
the prisons are at capacity.

I can understand the logic in paying £40k a year to keep a mugger or a
rapist off the streets. But it seems like a crap investment to do the
same for a chap who sells photocopied bus tickets...

Well, if that's your attitude then why bother making fraud punishable at
all ? The return on investment is a society that respects the law.
Perhaps the £40k per annum should be reduced or be recovered like a
student loan, but that's another story...

ESB