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.

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 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:14:27 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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.

Certainly on the mainline, though, it only overlaps so far as people
who aren't paying enough attention. A PF cannot be issued for a
ticket that would be valid other than that it's the wrong time of day
- the only thing that can be done there is an excess. It might well
be the same for a route issue as well. That leaves people who travel
beyond their destination, with no ticket or in the wrong class, all of
whom should really be paying more attention.

The only one I'd think needs leniency as well (but doesn't currently
get it) is someone travelling on a season ticket that's one day out of
date from a station with no barriers, as that would be quite easily
done. Perhaps a way to handle that in a sensible world would be to
issue a PF which would be refunded against the renewal of the ticket,
if this was to be done that day.

Neil

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

On Oct 30, 9:30*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:14:27 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
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.

Certainly on the mainline, though, it only overlaps so far as people
who aren't paying enough attention. *A PF cannot be issued for a
ticket that would be valid other than that it's the wrong time of day
- the only thing that can be done there is an excess. *It might well
be the same for a route issue as well. *That leaves people who travel
beyond their destination, with no ticket or in the wrong class, all of
whom should really be paying more attention.

Isn't that because penalty fare areas generally don't correspond to
routes on which the only affordable fares are limited to specific
trains?

In both cases there is a high "fare" which people wouldn't normally
pay, and which they have to pay when caught out, but it'd defined in a
different way.


The only one I'd think needs leniency as well (but doesn't currently
get it) is someone travelling on a season ticket that's one day out of
date from a station with no barriers, as that would be quite easily
done. *Perhaps a way to handle that in a sensible world would be to
issue a PF which would be refunded against the renewal of the ticket,
if this was to be done that day.

I am not in favour of leniency as such, but I'd like to decriminalise
day-to-day travel. Ticketing systems that are a test of ordinary
folks' knowledge of complicated regulations and where ten times as
many staff check tickets as sell them do not do anything for the
competitiveness of the railways.