stupid stupid fare dodger

Jeff_Bridges_hair

They wouldnt have to even view CCTV. All they would do is catch him once, maybe twice, understand his behaviour and then when they have caught him 3 times - bingo - a lot worse than a penalty fare and something that will stay on his record.

But if he wants to be smart then tell him to carry on and you'll have the tissue ready

Jeff_Bridges_hair

goonarmy wrote: »

No one is keeping an eye on him. Its a mass transit system. Too many people passing through to say" oh look theres that really average
Looking geezer slap bang in the middle of rush hour again". Also how is it more serious than we think?

You would be surprised. TfL and the TOCs around the South East have dedicated revenue teams who dont do the normal Penalty Fare stuff but go out looking for persistant offenders and do follow them on their journeys to build up a good case against them

[Deleted User]

I recall a great case in the Edinburgh area a few years ago when the train company carried out a type of sting operation. It seemed odd that a high number of people were arriving at the ticket barriers at Waverley Station without tickets and asking to pay the single fare from, I think, South Gyle - seemed that most of them were coming in from much further away.

On the morning in question, staff had blitzed the South Gyle platform with ticket sellers so nobody got on that train at that station without a ticket. All those claiming to have boarded at South Gyle were taken aside, had their details taken and were prosecuted.

Served them right in my opinion.

WR

terra_ferma

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

You would be surprised. TfL and the TOCs around the South East have dedicated revenue teams who dont do the normal Penalty Fare stuff but go out looking for persistant offenders and do follow them on their journeys to build up a good case against them

Surely some of these cases where surveillance was used would have made it on the news, or at least some forum, or even some obscure website?

rdwarr

terra_ferma wrote: »

Surely some of these cases where surveillance was used would have made it on the news, or at least some forum, or even some obscure website?

Like this one?

terra_ferma

rdwarr wrote: »

Like this one?

The way I understand it is that they checked cctv on one occasion, and used season tickets to check how long she had been buying the wrong tickets for, rather than surveillance, but it's still interesting.

geordie_taxi

rdwarr wrote: »

Like this one?

gutted didnt think u wud come up with the goods but well done nice find

terra_ferma wrote: »

The way I understand it is that they checked cctv on one occasion, and used season tickets to check how long she had been buying the wrong tickets for, rather than surveillance, but it's still interesting.

the news report doesnt really say wot first alerted national express to Gostovic actives but the CCTV does seem to be the final bit of evidence to convict her. it is very strange as if they were on to her for sometime then a RPO/RPI wud be on the train at her start station and wud have challenged her after Hackney Downs which wud make a stronger case in court as CCTV can sometimes prove to be unreliable

my opinion somebody grassed her up

Jeff_Bridges_hair

terra_ferma wrote: »

Surely some of these cases where surveillance was used would have made it on the news, or at least some forum, or even some obscure website?

Surprisingly a lot of people who do get caught through surrveilance actually settle up before it even gets to court so that they dont lose their job and such like.

I remember one such person who worked for a large government organisation and got caught with an Oyster even though they lived further out. They tried to say they had just moved but this revenue team looked into it and found he had lived there for years and had done the same trick for years. Settled out of court for £15K.


Just because you dont hear many of them in the news doesnt mean iut doesnt happen.

terra_ferma

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Surprisingly a lot of people who do get caught through surrveilance actually settle up before it even gets to court so that they dont lose their job and such like.

I remember one such person who worked for a large government organisation and got caught with an Oyster even though they lived further out. They tried to say they had just moved but this revenue team looked into it and found he had lived there for years and had done the same trick for years. Settled out of court for £15K.


Just because you dont hear many of them in the news doesnt mean iut doesnt happen.

Sorry, but I don't agree, someone somewhere would mention it, for example there are specialist forums (e.g. links given in posts above) where people go and ask for advice.
If it was used systematically someone somewhere would mention that, at least one person in the whole UK would ask for advice, or would be taken to court.
And even the example you give doesn't involve surveillance as such (cctv and covert surveillance).

There are a few arguments I can use with my friend, but surveillance is probably not one of them as there is simply no evidence that it's actually happening.

One question to the forum, my friend doesn't use a season ticket, buys individual tickets a few times a week, would they investigate his credit card records? There is evidence that could check where he goes to work and if they matched that with the tickets he purchased it could get interesting....
I now that 'potentially' it could happen as the police are involved and they would have the power to obtain bank records, but are there cases where they actually checked purchases of single tickets through a third part (online re-seller) as opposed to season tickets and oyster cards (factual with links please)?

This thread has been a real eye-opener.

Fire_Fox

Do you interview your friends on the consistent use of condoms unless actively trying for a baby and send them information packs on STDs if they don't comply? You've said your piece so either accept your friend for who they are warts and all, or decide what they are doing is morally wrong because the costs of far dodging are borne by more honest travellers, end the friendship and report them to the transport police.