On 4 Feb, 07:39, Neil Williams wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:56*pm, MIG wrote:

Are we talking about the Oyster card now or the umbrella?

The card.

Assuming the former, it is beyond doubt that there are physical
opportunities to get the refund. *That doesn't mean that there are
many circumstantial opportunities.

There are plenty, if you want it - i.e. all LUL ticket offices. *Most
people won't want it. *But it is, unlike many systems worldwide (and,
admittedly, unlike the Visitor Oyster), an option.

Neil

That's not what I meant. See other responses, but I am talking about
circumstances when you know that you don't want it any more.

In message
MIG wrote:

[snip]

Because he needs the physical card to do anything. *He can't go handing
out addresses willy-nilly.

What has that got to do with anything? I wasn't asking for the
details; I was giving the serial number to the people who had the
details.

Otherwise what proof has he got that what you are saying is true? You could
be making mischief for the card owner.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
MIG wrote:

On 4 Feb, 07:45, Neil Williams wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:27*am, Graeme wrote:

The likelyhood is all they would have would be his address so nothing
was going to happen in a hurry.

And as the punter presumably had the need to travel pretty soon after
losing it (possibly immediately), the likelihood is that he already had a
new one and would perhaps later have reported it lost/stolen and had it
blocked and any outstanding balance refunded or moved to the new card,
which I think you can do with a registered card.

Neil

It was an early evening. He/she may not have known. It would save a
lot of panic and searching in the morning if needed the next day (it
was just before PAYG acceptance on NR and seemed likely to have been
lost by someone who was on their way out of London on NR, but it might
have had a season on it).

There were a number of reasons why I thought it was worth making the
effort.

Obviously I am alone in this.

While we all accept you were doing it for purely altruistic reasons you
obviously haven't thought it through.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Feb 4, 9:03*am, Graeme wrote:

While we all accept you were doing it for purely altruistic reasons you
obviously haven't thought it through.

I once spotted a lonely Oyster card on an LU train. Everyone else
ignored it as the journey out of London proceeded, until there were
only about 5 of us in the coach. As I got off, I also ignored it...
Does this thread really have much point about it now?

On 3 Feb 2010 23:34:53 GMT someone who may be "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote this:-

Personal data so Data Protection Act applies - if it's kept longer than
a reasonable time that's a violation.

Plenty of weasel words in that about access to data by those who
claim to be enforcing the law. Could also be covered by Data
Retention.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

ticketyboo wrote:

I once spotted a lonely Oyster card on an LU train.

So, they really are self-aware...
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633041.html
(47 483 at Hereford, Jun 1985)

David Hansen wrote:

On 3 Feb 2010 23:34:53 GMT someone who may be "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote this:-

Personal data so Data Protection Act applies - if it's kept longer than
a reasonable time that's a violation.

Plenty of weasel words in that about access to data by those who
claim to be enforcing the law.

Serious question (and, if you can manage a straight answer, I'd be so
much happier): do you actually believe in principle that the state
should employ anyone with a purpose of making sure that the laws of the
land are upheld?

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11938597.html
(40 063 at Bescot, 7 Jun 1985)

In message
ticketyboo wrote:

On Feb 4, 9:03*am, Graeme wrote:

While we all accept you were doing it for purely altruistic reasons you
obviously haven't thought it through.

I once spotted a lonely Oyster card on an LU train. Everyone else
ignored it as the journey out of London proceeded, until there were
only about 5 of us in the coach. As I got off, I also ignored it...
Does this thread really have much point about it now?


You didn't try and chat it up, make it feel less lonely?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:35:05 +0000 someone who may be Chris Tolley
(ukonline really) wrote this:-

Serious question (and, if you can manage a straight answer, I'd be so
much happier):

If you really want an answer then it is best not to make snide
comments like that.

do you actually believe in principle that the state
should employ anyone with a purpose of making sure that the laws of the
land are upheld?

Yes.

However, because of the power this involves they must be very
carefully controlled to keep abuses to a minimum. That is missing at
the moment, as demonstrated by many examples I have given.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen wrote:

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:35:05 +0000 someone who may be Chris Tolley
(ukonline really) wrote this:-

Serious question (and, if you can manage a straight answer, I'd be so
much happier):

If you really want an answer then it is best not to make snide
comments like that.

I apologise if it read as a snide comment. It was meant to be a friendly
invitation.

do you actually believe in principle that the state
should employ anyone with a purpose of making sure that the laws of the
land are upheld?

Yes.

Ta.

However, because of the power this involves they must be very
carefully controlled to keep abuses to a minimum. That is missing at
the moment, as demonstrated by many examples I have given.

I suppose that what exercises me when I read some of what you have
written is that it hasn't always been clear whether you think the
principle of the system was flawed, or just that the people who have to
apply the principles just aren't very good at it. Now that it's clear
that it's the latter, my question moves on.

One of the things that is axiomatic in my line of business is that
nobody is perfect, and that we have a tendency (memorably crystallised
in a comment about motes and beams) to ignore our own defects while
overplaying defects in others. If one accepts that there is some truth
in that view, where do you think people are going to be found who will
always carry out their duties 100% accurately, especially in
circumstances where they may be confronted by people who are out to
subvert the process? You seem to be expecting as high a standard (of
capability, let alone integrity and knowledge of the law) as gets people
called saints in circumstances I am more familiar with.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683838.html
(158 831 at Whitland, 1 Jul 1999)