It all depends on whether you are permitted to enter the bus via any door if
you have a ticket that requires marking by the driver.

A travelcard holder may be permitted as they have a valid ticket. If you
have a single journey ticket that requires marking and you enter by any door
other than at the front and then fail to get it done perhaps intent has been
shown.

"Martin Summerfield" wrote in message
...
In message , tim
writes

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something
that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made
a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work
like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

Totally agree - a person that arrives off a trains at a barrier that is
not normally manned, with £10 in their hand & offers to pay the PF
without being asked will get asked a lot more questions.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but if she straight away said
'sorry' and then offered to pay the PF - I can see why you are off to
court now

--
Martin Summerfield