Offramp wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:22 am, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:36:15 -0000, Offramp
wrote:

The judge may have thought that Tfl was itself mainly to blame in
introducing a ticket that is so irrational, and is merely a pivot for
all types of fraud.
That's like saying it's OK to burgle a house that's been left
unlocked. How ridiculous.

Insurance companies would seem not to agree with you.

Good thing that the law isn't determined by insurance companies then.
Well, at least not solely by insurance companies.
--
Michael Hoffman

On 1 Nov, 02:21, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
My suggestion was more about how TfL could attempt to prevent such
frauds flourishing in the first place.

I appreciate that point exactly. Custodial sentences have three main
effects; they act as punishment, they help prevent further undesirable
acts from being perpetrated by the same individual (for the duration of
the custody) and finally, they act as a deterrent to those that would
otherwise commit the crime in the first place. In not adequately
punishing those responsible they are giving implicit approval to anyone
that cares to emulate them. Alas, the notion of deterrence has been lost
to political expediency.

What rot. The public, being ignorant, are massively keen on hangin'
'n' floggin' an' lockin' up, and if a politician wants to buy some
cheap votes all he needs to do is announce some new draconian
measures.

But the thing about deterrence w.r.t prison sentences is that *it
doesn't work*. The only correlation that has been demonstrated between
punishment and crime rates is % of convictions (i.e. the more certain
a crim is to get caught, the less likely he is to do crime).

So your ingenious plan would cut crime *exclusively* by taking the
relevant miscreants out of circulation for the duration of their
sentence (and then raise it again when they were released, given that
prison has a worse reoffending rate than other forms of punishment).

I can understand the logic in paying £40k a year to keep a mugger or a
rapist off the streets. But it seems like a crap investment to do the
same for a chap who sells photocopied bus tickets...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

What rot. The public, being ignorant, are massively keen on hangin'
'n' floggin' an' lockin' up, and if a politician wants to buy some
cheap votes all he needs to do is announce some new draconian
measures.

If that were the only kind of political expediency then the sentences
for most things would have been ratcheted up years ago. However, the
reality is that hardly anyone serves the full sentence let alone suffers
a draconian one.

But the thing about deterrence w.r.t prison sentences is that *it
doesn't work*. The only correlation that has been demonstrated between
punishment and crime rates is % of convictions (i.e. the more certain
a crim is to get caught, the less likely he is to do crime).

That's not true if you consider the various *types* of crime.
White-collar crime and fraud - where exercise of thought is usual - are
significantly deterred by the prospect of sentencing. Indeed fear of
'being caught' in and of itself is meaningless without consideration of
the consequences.

So your ingenious plan would cut crime *exclusively* by taking the
relevant miscreants out of circulation for the duration of their
sentence (and then raise it again when they were released, given that
prison has a worse reoffending rate than other forms of punishment).

It isn't a 'plan'. It's merely a description of the purpose of prisons
and our existing legislation. The reason custodial sentences are being
discouraged is not through a wide recognition that they fail but because
the prisons are at capacity.

I can understand the logic in paying £40k a year to keep a mugger or a
rapist off the streets. But it seems like a crap investment to do the
same for a chap who sells photocopied bus tickets...

Well, if that's your attitude then why bother making fraud punishable at
all ? The return on investment is a society that respects the law.
Perhaps the £40k per annum should be reduced or be recovered like a
student loan, but that's another story...

ESB

John B wrote:

I can understand the logic in paying £40k a year to keep a mugger or a
rapist off the streets. But it seems like a crap investment to do the
same for a chap who sells photocopied bus tickets...

Fine the guy 40 grand as well as putting him in prison for a year. I bought
several bus savers just before they put the price up significantly, and I
use buses so rarely that I still had about 10 rides left unused when the old
design was invalidated because of this sort of fraud. These crooks have left
me out of pocket, and there must be many thousands like me, so it's not a
victimless crime

On 1 Nov, 12:16, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
But the thing about deterrence w.r.t prison sentences is that *it
doesn't work*. The only correlation that has been demonstrated between
punishment and crime rates is % of convictions (i.e. the more certain
a crim is to get caught, the less likely he is to do crime).

That's not true if you consider the various *types* of crime.
White-collar crime and fraud - where exercise of thought is usual - are
significantly deterred by the prospect of sentencing. Indeed fear of
'being caught' in and of itself is meaningless without consideration of
the consequences.

But white-collar crime *doesn't* require prison for the deterrent to
be effective, because (e.g.) a finance clerk convicted of a dishonesty
offence has already lost his career and ruined his life prospects
*whether or not* you jail him. If he has his hands in the till, it's
because he thinks he won't be caught, not because he thinks that if he
is caught then it won't matter.

I can understand the logic in paying £40k a year to keep a mugger or a
rapist off the streets. But it seems like a crap investment to do the
same for a chap who sells photocopied bus tickets...

Well, if that's your attitude then why bother making fraud punishable at
all ? The return on investment is a society that respects the law.

But you don't need to put people in prison to make them respect the
law. You just need to make them believe that you'll find them out. If
they don't believe they'll be found out, then even hanging isn't a
deterrent; if they do believe they'll be found out, then prison isn't
necessary.

Perhaps the £40k per annum should be reduced or be recovered like a
student loan, but that's another story...

....which is a bit of a problem if the chap in question is supposedly
being deported, as with this bloke (I'm not quite sure why the judge
didn't have the power to give him a non-custodial sentence but then
have him taken to a secure migrant detention centre before
deportation, but that's another story too...)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
John B wrote:

I can understand the logic in paying £40k a year to keep a mugger or a
rapist off the streets. But it seems like a crap investment to do the
same for a chap who sells photocopied bus tickets...

Fine the guy 40 grand as well as putting him in prison for a year. I
bought several bus savers just before they put the price up significantly,
and I use buses so rarely that I still had about 10 rides left unused when
the old design was invalidated because of this sort of fraud. These crooks
have left me out of pocket, and there must be many thousands like me, so
it's not a victimless crime


Did you miss the (apparently little publicised) decision to trade the old
design for new? IIRC it came after some pressure from the public, and was
mentioned here a while ago...

Paul

On 1 Nov, 12:50, "John Rowland"
wrote:
I can understand the logic in paying £40k a year to keep a mugger or a
rapist off the streets. But it seems like a crap investment to do the
same for a chap who sells photocopied bus tickets...

Fine the guy 40 grand as well as putting him in prison for a year.

To be paid how exactly? You may wish to bear in mind that the judge in
this case specifically didn't impose a fine on the grounds that the
guy had no money and would only be able to obtain any through working
illegally.

I bought
several bus savers just before they put the price up significantly, and I
use buses so rarely that I still had about 10 rides left unused when the old
design was invalidated because of this sort of fraud. These crooks have left
me out of pocket, and there must be many thousands like me, so it's not a
victimless crime

I agree. But it's still a *trivial* crime. Having £15 nicked is mildly
annoying for a few minutes; it's grossly disproportionate to the cost
to society (and the harm inflicted on the criminal) of sending someone
to jail.

[equally, the £15 you lost was £15 that TfL got to keep and spend on
improving public transport for Londoners in general. Cheers for that.]

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Paul Scott wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in
message ...

I
bought several bus savers just before they put the price up
significantly, and I use buses so rarely that I still had about 10
rides left unused when the old design was invalidated because of
this sort of fraud. These crooks have left me out of pocket, and
there must be many thousands like me, so it's not a victimless crime


Did you miss the (apparently little publicised) decision to trade the
old design for new? IIRC it came after some pressure from the public,
and was mentioned here a while ago...

I remember it, but there wasn't a lot I could do, apart from make lots of
bus rides I didn't need to make.

On 1 Nov, 14:09, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote:

I bought several bus savers just before they put the price up
significantly, and I use buses so rarely that I still had about 10
rides left unused when the old design was invalidated because of
this sort of fraud. These crooks have left me out of pocket, and
there must be many thousands like me, so it's not a victimless crime

Did you miss the (apparently little publicised) decision to trade the
old design for new? IIRC it came after some pressure from the public,
and was mentioned here a while ago...

I remember it, but there wasn't a lot I could do, apart from make lots of
bus rides I didn't need to make.


Why don't you still attempt to exchange the old Saver tickets for new
ones now?

Try emailing London Buses customer services via email:


Or use the web contact form he
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/contact/default.asp?type=buses

Alternatively write to them or call them - all the contact details are
on this page:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/contact/4417.aspx

On Nov 1, 9:39 am, Mizter T wrote:
On 1 Nov, 02:36, Offramp wrote:

I can see it is open to one type of fraud, which is the fraud in
question

....And they have been offered up on Tube trains as tickets for
travel... Believe me!