On 15 Oct, 10:19, Stimpy wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:13:05 +0100, Paul Weaver wrote



4th Offence: £80 on the spot or prosecution

Given that most people don't carry £80 in their wallet, do they march
you to a cashpoint?

Perhaps a debit card?

Many people don't carry them.

Many people don't have £80.

On 30 Oct, 09:43, DavidCh0 wrote:

Many people don't have £80.

I assume they will be prosecuted, then. If they can't afford the
"time", they shouldn't do the crime.

Neil

On Oct 30, 9:58*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On 30 Oct, 09:43, DavidCh0 wrote:

Many people don't have £80.

I assume they will be prosecuted, then. *If they can't afford the
"time", they shouldn't do the crime.

Neil

If they are thought to be evading their fare, they should be
prosecuted full stop. Lesser on-the-spot fines, penalty fares etc are
all inappropriate in every situation.

They only make sense if one assumes that the authorities don't really
care about fare-evasion, but want to find a way of getting a bit of
extra cash from a set of passengers which partly overlaps with the
fare-evaders.

On 30 Oct, 10:14, MIG wrote:
If they are thought to be evading their fare, they should be
prosecuted full stop. *Lesser on-the-spot fines, penalty fares etc are
all inappropriate in every situation.

They've tried that and found it costs thousands of pounds per case and
doesn't have a high conviction rate. Also I don't think there's much
public support for doing so, and certainly the press have a field day
each time a case comes up (well, at least if the offender is white,
middle class and has a good sob story).

U

On 30 Oct, 11:15, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 30 Oct, 10:14, MIG wrote:

If they are thought to be evading their fare, they should be
prosecuted full stop. *Lesser on-the-spot fines, penalty fares etc are
all inappropriate in every situation.

They've tried that and found it costs thousands of pounds per case and
doesn't have a high conviction rate. Also I don't think there's much
public support for doing so, and certainly the press have a field day
each time a case comes up (well, at least if the offender is white,
middle class and has a good sob story).


The burden of proof for a criminal conviction is of course "beyond
reasonable doubt" - well, I dare say that doubt can be conjured up by
those who wish for it. One rather suspects that the fare evaders who
are more likely to be prosecuted are those who, on being caught out
and confronted face-to-face by officialdom, subsequently decide to
adopt an honest approach and confess their sins. The problem is trying
to nail the others.

On Oct 30, 11:15*am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 30 Oct, 10:14, MIG wrote:

If they are thought to be evading their fare, they should be
prosecuted full stop. *Lesser on-the-spot fines, penalty fares etc are
all inappropriate in every situation.

They've tried that and found it costs thousands of pounds per case and
doesn't have a high conviction rate. Also I don't think there's much
public support for doing so, and certainly the press have a field day
each time a case comes up (well, at least if the offender is white,
middle class and has a good sob story).

But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper
hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without
trial?

I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court
though. The press stories are usually about people being hassled for
extra money on trains. It's demanding money on the spot rather than
prosecution that leads to press stories.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Because we have been
unsuccessful at dealing with scumbags through proper legal processes,
we punish a different bunch of people without a fair hearing.

On 30 Oct, 11:55, MIG wrote:
But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper
hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without
trial?

Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you?

I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court
though. *The press stories are usually about people being hassled for
extra money on trains. *It's demanding money on the spot rather than
prosecution that leads to press stories.

I'm talking about the "TfL wastes thousands prosecuting [photogenic
sympathetic white-collar worker] over a 90p bus fare" type stories.

(usually coupled with gripes about Oyster touching in, which I believe
is a cause you're sympathetic too)

U

On Oct 30, 12:04*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 30 Oct, 11:55, MIG wrote:

But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper
hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without
trial?

Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you?

I think that technically, you should only be issued a penalty fare if
fare evasion isn't suspected, although the definition of fare evasion
seems to be extended according the the TfL statement. But given that
a penalty fare is technically a fare, you can be prosecuted for
evasion of the penalty fare if you refuse to pay. I hadn't seen that
as an option presented on the spot exactly.


I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court
though. *The press stories are usually about people being hassled for
extra money on trains. *It's demanding money on the spot rather than
prosecution that leads to press stories.

I'm talking about the "TfL wastes thousands prosecuting [photogenic
sympathetic white-collar worker] over a 90p bus fare" type stories.

(usually coupled with gripes about Oyster touching in, which I believe
is a cause you're sympathetic too)

I do have objections to Oyster, but they are only relevant if you
agree with me (which many don't) that Oyster unresolved journey fares
etc are penalty fares. I don't know if my objections to Oyster rules
have any bearing on potential prosecution cases.

On Oct 30, 12:04*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 30 Oct, 11:55, MIG wrote:

But if there's a low conviction rate when someone gets a proper
hearing in court, is that really an argument for punishment without
trial?

Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you?

I can't remember any sob stories about people found guilty in court
though. *The press stories are usually about people being hassled for
extra money on trains. *It's demanding money on the spot rather than
prosecution that leads to press stories.

I'm talking about the "TfL wastes thousands prosecuting [photogenic
sympathetic white-collar worker] over a 90p bus fare" type stories.

(usually coupled with gripes about Oyster touching in, which I believe
is a cause you're sympathetic too)

Oh I remember what I was thinking of in a comment upthread.

In a week where, due to a non-functioning machine, I had a zone 1 - 2
paper travelcard, I was thinking of going to Rickmansworth. That
should have cost me £2 return PAYG from the boundary.

If I touched in and out at Baker Street I would pay £4 too much
overall.

If I went through the Baker Street barrier with the paper travelcard
and touched only at Rickmansworth I would pay £8 too much.

If I got off at Wembley Park and waited for the next train while
touching in, I would pay the correct fare but would be without a valid
ticket if gripped between Willesden Green and Wembley Park, and then
at risk of the full penalty fare (the relevant bit, but my most likely
plan).

If I got the Jubilee, got off at Willesden Green etc, I would not be
at risk but would hugely increase my journey time.

And all that hassle because the machine wasn't working and TfL won't
issue reasonably priced extensions to holders of paper travelcards.

Hang on - you can refuse a penalty fare and go to court, can't you?

No. When an inspector finds you with an invalid / no ticket he has
two options.

1. He thinks that you are deliberately avoiding the fare. He will
not issue you with a penalty fare but report your details to the
prosecution office who decide if there is enough evidence to take you
to court.

2. He decides to issue you with a penalty fare. Once he has gone down
this route then you cannot be taken to court for fare evasion as this
would be considered double jepody

So you can see that is either court or penalty fare but not both. In
the penalty fare case you can appeal to an independent adjudicator but
you will not get a criminal record whatever the outcome.