tim (back at home) wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Not getting prosecuted for this type of offence is really easy -- buy a
valid ticket for the whole of your journey on the railway and comply
with the terms and conditions set out in the byelaws. When they say
tickets are not transferable they really mean it!

How does buying a ticket stop the OP being prosecuted because
his friend 'borrowed' his pass.

No-one here thinks that the friend deserves anything less
than he gets. It's the, potentially, entirely innocent ST holder
we are helping



Either the flatmate stole something worth £3500, in which case the OP
has to make a complaint to the police, or else the OP was complicit in
a fraud, in which case an unrecorded "fine" of £3500 is probably a lot
better than a similar fine plus criminal record.

He hasn't bothered to confirm this, so I assume the latter. Railway
companies give enough sh*t to people trying to use tickets honestly,
without people crying wolf like this.

Why should a ticket which has already been used fraudulently be
returned for further use?

MIG wrote:

Either the flatmate stole something worth £3500, in which case the OP
has to make a complaint to the police, or else the OP was complicit in
a fraud, in which case an unrecorded "fine" of £3500 is probably a lot
better than a similar fine plus criminal record.

He hasn't bothered to confirm this, so I assume the latter. Railway
companies give enough sh*t to people trying to use tickets honestly,
without people crying wolf like this.

Why should a ticket which has already been used fraudulently be
returned for further use?

I am not a lawyer.

I'm not sure the situation is as black-and-white as you suggest.

I thought that stealing required 'intent to permanently deprive', so
for the flatmate to be convicted of stealing, the prosecution would
have to show that intent. If the OP does not wish to press charges,
this may be difficult.

The flatmate has apparently (we do not know all the facts of the case)
defrauded the railway of the cost of a ticket for the journey he made.

Hypothetically, if the flatmate knew the OP were not going to use the
season ticket that day, he could possibly have borrowed it without the
OP's knowledge, with the intention of replacing it before the OP
noticed its absence. I'm not sure a charge of stealing could be made
to stick in that case.

Regards,

Sid

wrote:
MIG wrote:

Either the flatmate stole something worth £3500, in which case the OP
has to make a complaint to the police, or else the OP was complicit in
a fraud, in which case an unrecorded "fine" of £3500 is probably a lot
better than a similar fine plus criminal record.

He hasn't bothered to confirm this, so I assume the latter. Railway
companies give enough sh*t to people trying to use tickets honestly,
without people crying wolf like this.

Why should a ticket which has already been used fraudulently be
returned for further use?

I am not a lawyer.

I'm not sure the situation is as black-and-white as you suggest.

I thought that stealing required 'intent to permanently deprive', so
for the flatmate to be convicted of stealing, the prosecution would
have to show that intent. If the OP does not wish to press charges,
this may be difficult.


Hmm, so everyone just says "I intend to give it back" when they get
caught?


The flatmate has apparently (we do not know all the facts of the case)
defrauded the railway of the cost of a ticket for the journey he made.

Hypothetically, if the flatmate knew the OP were not going to use the
season ticket that day, he could possibly have borrowed it without the
OP's knowledge, with the intention of replacing it before the OP
noticed its absence. I'm not sure a charge of stealing could be made
to stick in that case.


But I am assuming, since the OP has never said otherwise, that he was
complicit in the flatmate's fraudulent use of the ticket. I don't
really think it's worth going into the more far-fetched scenarios.

"MIG" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hypothetically, if the flatmate knew the OP were not going to use the
season ticket that day, he could possibly have borrowed it without the
OP's knowledge, with the intention of replacing it before the OP
noticed its absence. I'm not sure a charge of stealing could be made
to stick in that case.


But I am assuming, since the OP has never said otherwise, that he was
complicit in the flatmate's fraudulent use of the ticket.


I assumed the exact opposite, because he didn't say otherwise.

ISTM that assuming a poster acted legally is a more
reasonable interpretation of no info than assuming he
acted illegally.
Someone who has acted legally is not always going to
know that this info is required, but a person who has
acted illegally IS going to know that this info is important
(but they may still leave it out)

BICBW

tim

tim (back at home) wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hypothetically, if the flatmate knew the OP were not going to use the
season ticket that day, he could possibly have borrowed it without the
OP's knowledge, with the intention of replacing it before the OP
noticed its absence. I'm not sure a charge of stealing could be made
to stick in that case.


But I am assuming, since the OP has never said otherwise, that he was
complicit in the flatmate's fraudulent use of the ticket.


I assumed the exact opposite, because he didn't say otherwise.

ISTM that assuming a poster acted legally is a more
reasonable interpretation of no info than assuming he
acted illegally.
Someone who has acted legally is not always going to
know that this info is required, but a person who has
acted illegally IS going to know that this info is important
(but they may still leave it out)



Then why did he say

"My question is I doubt I can do anything about the imminent fines for
both of us - but does anyone have a clue how much we'll get fined?"?

And your assumption would seem to be that the flatmate, who has had no
opportunity, unlike the OP, to say otherwise, was guilty of something
far worse than he was likely to have been.

On 22 Apr 2006 11:59:00 -0700, "MIG"
said:

a season gets you
through the barriers without a photocard, and you don't usually get
inspectors at barriered stations. Maybe the borrower hoped not to be
inspected on the train.

And even when you do get a ticket inspector, they almost never check
the photocard. I know this because I never show them mine and get by
just fine.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david