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

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

SJCWHUK wrote:
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.

So how would you distinguish that from mere forgetfulness or being
distracted by other events? As far as I can see, intent has not been
demonstrated at all.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article , Richard J.
writes

So how would you distinguish that from mere forgetfulness or being
distracted by other events? As far as I can see, intent has not been
demonstrated at all.

OK, well try this one.

Couple of weeks ago I went to High Wycombe station to get the train into
London. The main car park was full so I used the one by Platform 3 and
entered by the other station entrance.

Ticket booth was closed, barriers open and the PTT machine was
(surprise, surprise) broken or out of tickets.

My train arrives in 2 mins. Not enough time to go to the other platforms
via the subway, walk to the main ticket office then get back in time for
my train.

So, I got on the train. My ticket was checked by the guard, I explained
what had happened. He said no problem and sold me the relevant ticket.

No fuss, no bother.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

On Sun, 02 May 2004 21:11:18 +0000, Richard J. wrote:

SJCWHUK wrote:
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.

So how would you distinguish that from mere forgetfulness or being
distracted by other events? As far as I can see, intent has not been
demonstrated at all.

I suppose by getting on at the middle in the first place when you need to
go to the front. Unless the forgetting was that the perp had an elapsed
travelcard that they had forgotten to renew - which has happened to
me at the cost of a tenner - despite remembering on the journey and
offering to pay at the end gate - which is always gated so how I could
have been attempting to defraud? I even forget the penalty fare on the DLR
was a fiver - although how would you prove this at Bank station?

On Sun, 2 May 2004 10:25:01 +0200, "tim"
wrote:


"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'.

How do you get that? If I was in the position of, say, getting on a
bus with a buggered Oyster reader the day after I'd forgotten my TC
expired, and part-way through the journey a ticket inspector getting
on and checking it with a hand-held, my first reaction would be to put
my hands up, admit an error on my part, and cough up the penalty fare.
An person making an honest mistake is not always going to stand (or
sit) there whinging/arguing, because that rarely achieves anything.

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).

You seem to have formed an opnion and are trying to fit the known
facts around it. Have you considered that it may just be that the
GF's immediate offer to pay the penalty fare and the inspector's
refusal of that actually counts very much in her favour, and not his,
hence he has "forgotten" that detail?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On Sun, 2 May 2004 22:22:55 +0100, Andrew P Smith
wrote:

In article , Richard J.
writes

So how would you distinguish that from mere forgetfulness or being
distracted by other events? As far as I can see, intent has not been
demonstrated at all.

OK, well try this one.

Couple of weeks ago I went to High Wycombe station to get the train into
London. The main car park was full so I used the one by Platform 3 and
entered by the other station entrance.

Ticket booth was closed, barriers open and the PTT machine was
(surprise, surprise) broken or out of tickets.

My train arrives in 2 mins. Not enough time to go to the other platforms
via the subway, walk to the main ticket office then get back in time for
my train.

So, I got on the train. My ticket was checked by the guard, I explained
what had happened. He said no problem and sold me the relevant ticket.

No fuss, no bother.

And clearly that guard was exercising his power of discretion
sensibly, unlike - it seems - the bus ticket inspector in the original
incident.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"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? How exactly did he
describe the incident?

The Inspector does not *have* to accept an penalty under *any*
circumstances. If he suspects fare evasion he may report the individual, as
he has done here. To do so, he *must* caution the person and tell them they
are being reported and for what offence. The fact a penalty fare was
offered immediately is not eveidence of regular fare evasion, as suggested
by some of those posting here, and would not be deemed so by the court.

The fact that a summons has been issued just with the six months cut off
period set out in the magistrates court act is typical of these *private*
prosecutions. The departments who put the cases together are generally less
than competent, and rely on individuals pleading guilty.

The offence in question is a criminal one. There are 2 options here.

1. Plead gulity by post, outlining the circumstances you describe as
mitigation. A fine will be the result, plus costs, probably £50. You WILL
NOT recieve a criminal record.

2. Plead not guilty, attend court and cross examine the inspector as to his
procedure at the time of reporting (caution etc as above), and challenge the
fact that you *intended* to avoid your fare. After all you where in
possession of a ticket, just not validated, not allready used or out of
date. The magistrate will take into consideration how you come across when
giving evidence, and also how the inspector does. IME a properly prepared
defence case will wipe the floor with most rail/bus ticket inspectors.

regards

Baloo

"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? How exactly did he
describe the incident?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

The inspector's report in the summons says:

This statement is compiled from original notes made at [.] am on [.]. On
Monday [.] at [.] am, I was on duty in uniform at CANNON STREET/BUDGE ROW,
EC4 when I ticket checked a route 521 bus, garage code 7 on a journey in
service to WATERLOO. I identified myself to a female passenger on the only
deck, who I now know to be [.] who was taking a journey from CANNON STREET
STATION to HOLBORN a fare of £1.00p. The above named person offered for my
inspection a Single SAVER TICKET serial No.[.] . I observed that ticket had
not been validated with the driver. I now offer this in evidence. 1 said to
[.] "is this the ticket you are intending to use for your journey"? She said
"Yes", I said "This ticket is a saver ticket, you have not given the
hexagonal half to the driver". She said "I'M SORRY I FORGOT. I QUICKLY GOT
ON THE BUS BY THE MIDDLE DOORS AND FORGOT TO GIVE THE TICKET TO THE DRIVER".
I said "Saver tickets are only valid when the staff portion has been given
to the driver". I asked [.] for her name and address, she gave these as [.].
these details were verified by voters check. I issued her with a SAVER
TICKET number [.] endorsed "issued without payment" I then said to her "I am
withdrawing this SAVER TICKET and I will be submitting a report on this
matter to London Buses Prosecution Section, for their consideration."She
said "I'M VERY SORRY"

My partner says this is more or less right, except that at some point fairly
early on in the conversation she offered to pay a penalty & he said "it
doesn't work like that".

She did this because she was mortified at having made a mistake, and felt
very bad about it - being very honest, she hated the thought that she might
be seen as having tried to cheat. She is emphatically *not* an evader of any
kind, let alone regular - she uses a season ticket and makes occasional bus
journeys for which she uses the savers. She made the mistake because she was
worried about something: I think most people who had just been asked to come
to a meeting at which they thought they might be being made redundant might
be a bit distracted & make a similar mistake.


--
Evan

remove certain words in address to email

On Sun, 2 May 2004 at 22:33:10, Barry Salter
wrote:

On Sun, 2 May 2004 19:17:46 +0100, "SJCWHUK"
wrote:

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.

If you have a Saver ticket you *must* enter by the front door. The same
also applies if you have an Oystercard and there aren't readers by the
other doors, even if you have a Travelcard.

I haven't used one of these buses since I got my Oyster - how do you
know, until too late, that there are no readers by the other doors, or
do all buses only have a reader by the front door?
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 8 March 2004