TfL Byelaw 17 - Enter a Compulsory Ticket Area

[BazzaS]

I believe that I have answered all the specific questions and yet to receive specific answers. It would be good if ALL specific questions not answered are listed in numbered points so that I can answer them again. I am not regretting trying to be of a little help but I must admit I never expected the stress of trying to get answers.

 

Hang on!

 

CAG is a "self-help" site. You post, and get help to help yourself, and that is what has been offered!

 

Nowhere does it say "CAGgers must number and itemise queries that the OP has left unanswered, for the benefit of the OP".

 

I can spend time posting on other threads to help others, or I could go through this thread line by line for you.

 

Why should I go through this thread line by line just because you "never expected the stress of trying to get answers" (or otherwise, OP effectively saying : 'I can't be bothered to put the effort in, let the people who've replied do all the work'), so the effective 'cost' to me of my time in tidying up YOUR thread becomes not helping others?

 

Looking back (just to show there is at least one question I've raised you've left unanswered):

"What wallets were the 2 passes in?"

"Did the OP's friend enter TfL's area of Barking station?"

 

You can tell they are questions : I've used the convention of the "?" as a suffix.

 

Reply or not: that's your choice.

Your reply MIGHT have helped me help you, but no longer.

I'm off to see if I can help someone more appreciative of my time (freely given).

 

Reply or not: that's your choice - the replies may still be useful to others to help, just no longer to me.

 

Edited to add: OCJ has itemised some of the queries : he's a gent : I didn't, for the reasons I've stated!

Edited August 28, 2013 by BazzaS

[Old-CodJA]

Edited to add: OCJ has itemised some of the queries : he's a gent : I didn't, for the reasons I've stated!

 

 

Thanks for the kind unnecessarily comment Bazza,

 

I feel exactly the same way as you actually and it is ONLY because replies, and any further responses, might help others in a similar situation that I have done so on this occasion.

 

 

You can tell they are questions : I've used the convention of the "?" as a suffix.

 

Reply or not: that's your choice.

Your reply MIGHT have helped me help you, but no longer.

 

That says it all for me, the OP has encouraged CAG users, who may well have been able to help with sound suggestions, to ask 'Why should I bother?'

[Kaykay]

I have provided the responses to the identified questions as requested

 

QUESTION 1 - Bazza's post #2

 

Originally Posted by BazzaS

D) Does she have any objective evidence of the racial discrimination she is claiming?[/Quote]

 

This was the relevant post from where BazzaS asked the question:

The Defendant believes that the Inspector was prejudiced because of her nationality otherwise would have accepted that she never proceeded rather wanted to know why the validator did not appear to read or showed the balance.[/Quote]

 

It all depends on how someone interprets prejudice. It could be considered as apparent bias based on false stereotype relating to the lady’s nationality. She said she never showed any sign of upset as there were several uniformed policemen within the ticket hall which alone gave so much police presence. She said she asked calmly that if her date of birth, place of birth and nationality were mandatory requirements after she (Inspector) had already got confirmation that her given name and address she (Inspector) gave to the police to confirm came back correct? The Inspector responded to her she must answer all her questions otherwise she (Inspector) would direct that she should be arrested. She then gave her the date of birth, place of birth, and nationality without any further questioning the inspector.

 

It was BazzaS who coined the words racial discrimination rather than apparent bias or prejudice.

 

I responded to BazzaS on post #5

She said the Inspector wrote on her notes (which she said she was forced to sign) the following comments which she considered offensive about her nationality. "Strong **** accent loud". I omitted her nationality from the comments. She said she took offense because she felt bullied when insisted she must provide all these information: name, address, date of birth, country of birth, nationality. She wanted to only give her name and address alone but the inspector bullied her to give all others otherwise she would be arrested[/Quote]

 

 

My post to you [Old-CodJA] on post #21

Considering that she stated she was bullied to provide her date of birth, place of birth and nationality more than the requirement of Name and Address, coupled with that she felt that the inspector was prejudiced as the inspector according to her made the following remark "Strong [country name] accent loud". Do you see any technicality in which this could be a way of finding a defense for her?[/Quote]

She said she only got to know about the remark [strong "Country name" accent loud] made by the Inspector after she had pleaded Not Guilty to the court through a disclosure of the Inspector's handwritten note which she was told to sign and she not knowing her rights in such situation and not wanting to be arrested signed it so that she can be allowed to go.

 

Post #28

You will observed that the Summons Statement of facts was incorrect according to her version that she intended to go to Dagenham Dock. She also said that she never used the words during the conversation "partner" as alleged but "husband".

 

Also in the Witness Statement of the Inspector I have also read, the Inspector stated she used the automatic gate whereas she claimed that she was invited by the C2C staff at the gate to use the manual gate and it was the manual gate validator she used.

 

There are several other contradictions between the note of event that occured provided by the Inspector compared to the event on the Inspector's Witness Statement. Do yu think all these contradictions had nothing to do with perception of the Inspector which could be correct in law of the prejudice claim of the individual?[/Quote]

 

Post #30

Paragraph 2.8 of the Transport for London Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy issued on 1 November 2012 is drafted in this way:

 

TfL Prosecutors must be fair and objective in the conduct of their duties. They must not let personal views about ethnic origin, gender, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation or age of suspected offenders play any part whatsoever in the consideration of any matter, nor must they be affected by improper or undue influence.

 

The lady said she was with her daughter of two years old and there was no remark about her daughter anywhere in the Inspector’s note and the Inspector’s Witness Statement.

 

She said the Inspector never correctly stated that she used the manual gate and that she was the one who after she observed that no balance was shown when she touched the validator by the manual gate after she was invited to use it by the C2C staff, she turn to the C2C at the gate there with her to ask why her balance never showed up. This was when the lady besides the C2C requested to see the pass. She said she cannot recall if the Inspector ever showed her the credentials but she recall she said she was an inspector. This was the relevant aspect of the Witness Statement sent to me.

 

I was in Plain Clothes performing a check of tickets by the Way in Barrier at Barking Station – which is in zone four of the London Underground zonal system. At [time] I witnessed a female customer who I now know to be [name, DoB, age, place of birth and address] walk up to the ticket barrier towards the direction of the trains, place a oyster card on the oyster card reader and pass through. As [name] placed her card on the reader a light illuminated on the monitor for the purpose of informing staff that a pass requiring a photo card had been used. I approached [name] and identified myself as a Revenue Control Inspector by showing my credentials.[/Quote]

 

She said the Inspector wrote she was going from “Barking” to “Dagenham Heathway” rather than she told the Inspector “Dagenham Dock.”

 

The Inspector wrote in the Witness Statement that she (Inspector) asked the lady “Do you agree with my notes?” and that the lady responded “Yes”. The lady told me she never said those comments to her and she never responded “Yes”. When I looked at the copy of the Inspector’s own sent to me the lady was again correct the stated question and answer was not in the Inspector’s handwritten note.

 

*************************

 

 

QUESTION TWO - My post #23

 

Originally Posted by Old-CodJA

Leave out the name of the accused and the date & time, but tell us what is the exact wording of the charge on the Summons that 'the defendant' has received?

 

I responded to this question in Post #28 to you Old-CodJA

... enter a compulsory ticket area without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of the Transport for London Railway Byelaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

... attempted to travel from BARKING (Zone 4) station to DAGENHAM HEATHWAY (Zone 5) station. At [time] she produced an DISABLED PERSONS OYSTER FREEDOM PASS of high value that did not belong to her. When stopped she produced the freedom pass and admitted it belonged to her partner.

 

Compensation for the outstanding fare avoided of [price] is claimed, together with the sum of [amount] as a contribution towards prosecution costs.[/Quote]

 

*************************

 

 

QUESTION THREE - My post #23

 

Originally Posted by Old-CodJA

What submission was made by the husband and what investigation took place?[/Quote]

I mentioned about the Investigation that took place in Post #5 in response to BazzaS.

 

…That they have been investigated by the Council and new concessionary card has been re-issued to the husband after the Council investigation of the events[/Quote]

 

Also see Post #16

…She called her husband but before husband came with other bag to demonstrate the same colour and pass inspector said no longer necessary that she would hear from them…[/Quote]

She told me that she wanted disclosure of the investigation that took place through London Underground prosecution and they responded that was not relevant to the charge against her. She requested for these information because the initial letter she sent to me showed the following comments from the London Underground prosecution

 

On [date at time] an incident took place at BARKING (Z4) station whereby you were spoken to by a member of London Underground staff regarding your train journey and the associated fare.[/Quote]

 

After the investigation carried out by the Council, in which her husband was written by the Council, that they would investigate the matter with the TfL Revenue Inspectors, the formal charge against her apparently after the investigation and in which her husband was re-issued with a new pass became:

 

That you on [Day and date] did enter a compulsory ticket area without having with you a valid ticket.[/Quote]

 

The colour of the ticket cover was black. The husband came to the station when she called him. The husband said he was not aware he was not with his pass until he picked up a call from her that she said that the pass with her belongs to him.

 

************************

 

 

QUESTION FOUR - My post #23

 

Originally Posted by Old-CodJA

Did the husband apply for and get a replacement on grounds of 'lost' pass?[/Quote]

No. See question THREE above.

 

************************

 

QUESTION FIVE - Madamfluff - post #31

 

Originally Posted by Madamfluff

And what proof do you or your friend have that the inspector asked the questions about her DOB, and Nationality or made the comment about her accent due to his personal views about her ethnic origin?[/Quote]

 

The prove can be found on the note written by the Inspector as well as on the Witness Statement of the Inspector. See answer to Question One above on biodata and personal view was noted on the inspector’s written note that was disclosed to her after the first hearing that her plea of Not Guilty was presented to the court.

 

************************

 

 

QUESTION SIX - Madamfluff's post #31

 

Originally Posted by Madamfluff

BTW what was the Ethnic Origin of the Inspector you have not said[/Quote]

The lady is of Black African Racial Background. The Inspector according to her of White European Racial Background.

[Grotesque]

I wonder how many times people here might have to ask, 'Was she entitled to attempt to travel on the ticket she presented?'. It's as simple as that! Sorry.

[Old-CodJA]

I wonder how many times people here might have to ask, 'Was she entitled to attempt to travel on the ticket she presented?'. It's as simple as that! Sorry.

 

That is clearly the point that I would be pursuing as a prosecutor.

 

I do think that two entirely separate charges might have been laid if the information provided by the OP is accurate.

[Old-CodJA]

On the matter of Questions 1 and 5, the comments appear to be opinion, not hard evidence. 'Strong 'Native' accent, loud' may be a perfectly accurate description and would seem no more prejudicial than saying "Big male, strong 'Native' accent', Shouting". I accept individuals may react to this kind of thing differently, but it is not hard evidence of prejudice.

 

Once the traveller, who held no valid ticket, had provided a name & address and that name did not match the name of the person for whose sole use the Disabled Person's Freedom Pass being used had been issued, the inspector was perfectly entitled to undertake further questioning. There is nothing to say that such questions as date of birth and nationality cannot be asked if considered relevant.

 

From the OPs own comments, it appears that a Police Officer assisted and provided the inspector with the traveller's details for report. Clearly, if that Police Officer did not consider the request relevant or justified then that assistance would have been unlikely to have been forthcoming. The OP makes clear that there were a number of Police Officers present at the time and it would therefore seem that none of them had any concerns about the processes being followed.

 

The reference to the 'defendant's' two year old daughter appears to be entirely irrelevant. At two years of age the child could hardly have played any part in the matter being reported.

 

I asked the question regarding what claim was made by the husband in order to ascertain what basis the replacement pass was issued on.

 

Any 'investigation' carried out by the Council has no bearing and cannot over rule any decision taken by TfL or a TOC. The decision to prosecute if a criminal offence is detected by rail staff is that of the TOC or TfL, whichever is investigating the matter. Freedom Passes are paid for by public money and any misuse is considered a serious matter.

 

The rules of disclosure do not kick-in until after a Summons is issued and therefore, the fact that a contemporaneous reference note made by the inspector in making a description of the person being reported, was not seen by the traveller when being questioned has no relevance and does not negate the value of any report.

 

I do not think we can assist the OP further and I shall leave it at that.

[Grotesque]

Solid assessment, putting my

[Kaykay]

I have discharged my part. Yes she is from Black African Background. I was warned never to mention her racial background because most people willing to help would not help knowing her racial background.

 

It is a shame anyone would equate "innocent mistake" to "entitled to attempt to travel".

 

Old-CodJA never found apology in his repertoire that he never read that I answered to his initial question of exact charge against the lady.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes she is from Black African Background. I was warned never to mention her racial background because most people willing to help would not help knowing her racial background.

 

An absolutely awful comment.

 

I find that kind of blatant allegation of inherent racism entirely unjustified and uncalled for and ask the site team to look at this as a matter of urgency.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Grotesque]

I have discharged my part. Yes she is from Black African Background. I was warned never to mention her racial background because most people willing to help would not help knowing her racial background.

 

Are you implying that 'people willing to help' here are persuaded by 'race'- one way or another- or that it impinged on any advice that you have been given?

 

It is a shame anyone would equate "innocent mistake" to "entitled to attempt to travel".

 

I'm afraid that where the latter is provable the former means very little, unfortunately.

 

Old-CodJA never found apology in his repertoire that he never read that I answered to his initial question of exact charge against the lady.

 

Sorry, a slightly confusing sentence, but he established- in his repertoire!- that everything apart from her ticket is of little relevance.

 

Cheers, and best of luck to the lady.

[Grotesque]

An absolutely awful comment.

 

I find that kind of blatant allegation of inherent racism entirely unjustified and uncalled for and ask the site team to look at this as a matter of urgency.

 

Absolutely vile. The amount of time people have put in on it! No worries if you haven't reported it, I have.

[BazzaS]

Sorry, didn't realise I must be a racist too, either for helping initially, or maybe because I am no longer helping, or perhaps just because I'm breathing, and not giving you what you want, when you want it, regardless of it is right or wrong.

 

My friends who have suffered from more racism than I are justifiably upset by racism.

Having discussed it with them, they are equally upset when they see the 'racism card' played, as an excuse by those who haven't been discriminated against.

 

Can I point out that you don't know my ethnicity, nor OCJ's, nor any potential poster's.

 

To assume all respondents are likely racists without knowing their background or observing their behaviour is equally bigoted as overt racism is.

[Madamfluff]

I have discharged my part. Yes she is from Black African Background. I was warned never to mention her racial background because most people willing to help would not help knowing her racial background.

 

It is a shame anyone would equate "innocent mistake" to "entitled to attempt to travel".

 

Old-CodJA never found apology in his repertoire that he never read that I answered to his initial question of exact charge against the lady.

 

I had actually guessed that the Lady was Black African but I still said that I hoped she would be treated fairly by the court,

Oh and I have reported your comment.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Madamfluff

[antone]

Moderating:

 

Erk. So, KayKay, here's the thing. The posters here are knowledgeable in this topic and have been trying to help you. They do it in their own time - they're not paid. I don't know much about the subject so I can't offer advice, but I do need to say this: Do not accuse the posters here of racism. It's offensive, against our rules, and we won't tolerate it.

 

I wish your friend the best, but don't do this again.

[BazzaS]

Moderating:

 

I don't know much about the subject so I can't offer advice, but I do need to say this: Do not accuse the posters here of racism. It's offensive, against our rules, and we won't tolerate it.

 

.

 

An emotive subject as per my previous response, and I'd not disagree with the site team (and their moderation of a thread), without good reason.

 

Thing is, I'd accept being called out for being a racist if I had been, and I'd then hope I had the courage to apologise and change my behaviour.

 

I don't want a blanket ban on calling people racists if it was justified - just a blanket ban on blanket, unfounded accusations : if that makes sense?

 

My thanks again to the site team who put in so much work behind the scenes.

Edited August 29, 2013 by BazzaS

[antone]

Fair enough BazzaS, I could have worded that better. My comments should not be taken as a blanket ban on using the word "racism". We just don't want to see the accusation thrown about randomly whenever someone doesn't like the advice they're getting.

[Kaykay]

I think some of us need some soul searching to do.

 

I have been accused and judgment appeared passed without the judge taking time to study the exact wordings of my posts and the posts of the alleged accusers.

 

Both BazzaS (post #51) and Old-CodJA (posts #50, #52) accused me wrongly that I never responded to their posts whereas as can now been clearly seen that was never the case. My first post provided the Charge TfL made against the lady. My first post also indicated how the Inspector knew the pass was not hers just on the face value. I responded to both of their specific questions as well in subsequent posts. The only question I believe I did not answer was that having to do with the racial background of the Inspector since I wanted the thread to be seen as what the lady suspected it to be - "prejudice" or "apparent bias" and NOT racial discrimination considering that racial discrimination can be very subtle in nature and difficult to discern.

 

When I responded the third time to at least one of the questions raised by Old-CodJA in post #53 I received shocking responses from him in posts #55 (first line response) and #56 considering his wealth of experience and knowledge. His post of #56 was not only extremely offensive (see my post #29 where I had stated my opinion which he ought to have read by his comments on post #50) but also created totally detached comments (see his paragraphs 2 to 5 on post #56) from the evidence that I have provided. He downplayed the evidence of two people that ought to have been recorded by the Inspector to only one person.

 

Lets look at paragraph 4 of post #56. TfL rules even stated that a child below 5 years of age is exempted not to have a ticket if and only if the child is travelling with an adult apparently with valid ticket. To understand this point is to compare it with say British Airways requirement that a child below 5 years must have ticket to travel with an adult with valid ticket obviously. Why would the Inspector having the time to note down her age, place of birth, nationality and the negative remark "Strong [Country name] accent loud" but omitting important evidential trail of being with a child considered being irrelevant, even on the face of the Inspector not willing to state categorically that she used the manual gate (see post #28, #53)?

 

Furthermore, I believe I showed respect in my responses to Madamfluff notwithstanding Madamfluff negative posts as can be seen on posts #31, #34, #37, #39, and #43 despite the picture showed the sign there "Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may have to pay penalty fare (at least £20). Also Post #45

 

Grotesque appeared to have be persuaded by Madamfluff negative posts as you can see in posts #38, #39, and post #42 note the offensive comment "WTF"

 

Things like this makes you to wonder about George Orwell 1945 book "Animal Farm".

Edited August 30, 2013 by Kaykay

[BazzaS]

I think some of us need some soul searching to do.

 

I have been accused and judgment appeared passed without the judge taking time to study the exact wordings of my posts and the posts of the alleged accusers.

 

Both BazzaS (post #51) and Old-CodJA (posts #50, #52) accused me wrongly that I never responded to their posts whereas as can now been clearly seen that was never the case. My first post provided the Charge TfL made against the lady. My first post also indicated how the Inspector knew the pass was not hers just on the face value. I responded to both of their specific questions as well in subsequent posts. The only question I believe I did not answer was that having to do with the racial background of the Inspector since I wanted the thread to be seen as what the lady suspected it to be - "prejudice" or "apparent bias" and NOT racial discrimination considering that racial discrimination can be very subtle in nature and difficult to discern.

 

When I responded the third time to at least one of the questions raised by Old-CodJA in post #53 I received shocking responses from him in posts #55 (first line response) and #56 considering his wealth of experience and knowledge. His post of #56 was not only extremely offensive (see my post #29 where I had stated my opinion which he ought to have read by his comments on post #50) but also created totally detached comments (see his paragraphs 2 to 5 on post #56) from the evidence that I have provided. He downplayed the evidence of two people that ought to have been recorded by the Inspector to only one person.

 

Lets look at paragraph 4 of post #56. TfL rules even stated that a child below 5 years of age is exempted not to have a ticket if and only if the child is travelling with an adult apparently with valid ticket. To understand this point is to compare it with say British Airways requirement that a child below 5 years must have ticket to travel with an adult with valid ticket obviously. Why would the Inspector having the time to note down her age, place of birth, nationality and the negative remark "Strong [Country name] accent loud" but omitting important evidential trail of being with a child considered being irrelevant, even on the face of the Inspector not willing to state categorically that she used the manual gate (see post #28, #53)?

 

Furthermore, I believe I showed respect in my responses to Madamfluff notwithstanding Madamfluff negative posts as can be seen on posts #31, #34, #37, #39, and #43 despite the picture showed the sign there "Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may have to pay penalty fare (at least £20). Also Post #45

 

Grotesque appeared to have be persuaded by Madamfluff negative posts as you can see in posts #38, #39, and post #42 note the offensive comment "WTF"

 

Things like this makes you to wonder about George Orwell 1945 book "Animal Farm".

 

I have indeed "searched my soul".

I have indeed wondered about Orwell's 'Animal farm' : I've concluded I've behaved appropriately, but you clearly feel you are "more equal" than the rest of us.

 

If this is how you treat people who are trying to help : don't be surprised when no more help is forthcoming either from previous respondents or potential new respondents who are put off by your behaviour.

 

You cite my post #51: So, lets look at that!

Looking back (just to show there is at least one question I've raised you've left unanswered):

"What wallets were the 2 passes in?"

"Did the OP's friend enter TfL's area of Barking station?"

 

I can see you have replied about 1 of the wallets, but not both wallets. Never mind, you don't have to reply here: your friend may have to answer though, if the prosecutor raises it in court, as part of them trying to establish that it wasn't all an accident in her using a pass she wasn't entitled to. Never mind that I was trying to establish information to help her avoid this pitfall : you seem to feel it is far better that you rail at me than provide info that will help me help her.

 

I can't see your answer about if your friend entered TfL's area of Barking station.

 

I could always nip along to Barking station and see where the trains to Dagenham Dock depart from and look at the location of the gates & windows whose photos have been posted, and use these to try and work out the geography of where events occurred to your friend : but, actually, that isn't a reasonable expectation of my time.

 

I also might not work it out correctly. A more reliable and time effective method is to ask "Did the OP's friend enter TfL's area of Barking station?" : which you haven't answered.

Ahh well, another potentially relevant question unanswered, but more fertile ground for you to just argue with anyone about anything.

Thing is : you likely don't even know why the question is relevant, and any inclination I may have had to let you know has evaporated.

 

(BTW it is NOT that the staff member [being a TfL employee?] couldn't make a report if the OP's friend had only been in non-TfL areas, but for a different reason)

 

Be careful what you wish for. It seems you are wishing to alienate those who might have helped you help your friend: you certainly seem to be succeeding!

Edited August 30, 2013 by BazzaS

[antone]

Erk. Kaykay, is there something we can help you with? If you feel you have been wronged in some way, what would you like these members who donate their free time to do? And please do bear in mind that if you don't like the advice you get here, you're perfectly free to take your nasty attitude to some other forum and see what they think.

 

What do you want from us?

[Old-CodJA]

When I responded the third time to at least one of the questions raised by Old-CodJA in post #53 I received shocking responses from him in posts #55 (first line response) and #56 considering his wealth of experience and knowledge. His post of #56 was not only extremely offensive

 

KayKay, I have re-read all of my posts and conclude that none of them can be considered to be 'shocking responses', nor do I believe that any of my comments can be considered 'extremely offensive'. My comments remain on view for all users to assess for themselves.

 

You may well consider this next comment extremely offensive and shocking, but it is my personal opinion and I suspect that it is one shared by many:

 

If you do not want to read truthful responses, which do not give you the answers that you want to hear, then it is probably best that you do not ask the question in the first place.

 

I do note that I had not apologised for having missed the direct quote from the Summons, I thought that I had done and I am sorry, but do so now. This does not alter my view nor my responses to any other points in any way.

 

Each response is based on the facts that you have provided to us as the sole supplier of the information relating to this incident. The first line in post 55 is a direct quote made by another user - not my words. The remainder of that post is fact.

 

If I were the prosecutor in this case, and we can only respond based solely on the information that you have given, I suggest that there could be two charges laid.

 

Firstly a Byelaw charge and you have already made clear that this has been done and secondly, a charge of 'intent to avoid a fare' by attempting to use a disabled person's Freedom Pass that was issued for the sole use of another person. Please read the legislation, it commences by stating that the charge may be laid 'if any person travels or attempts to travel....' so the charge is relevant.

 

The fact that a child of 2 years was present has no evidential bearing on the charge laid by the prosecutor.

 

I have to say that I can only endorse the comment made by Antone quoted here:

 

 

Erk. Kaykay, is there something we can help you with? If you feel you have been wronged in some way, what would you like these members who donate their free time to do? And please do bear in mind that if you don't like the advice you get here, you're perfectly free to take your nasty attitude to some other forum and see what they think.

 

 

I think many of us have already observed that you have taken your posts to other forums and got more or less exactly the same answers.

 

It appears that you will not be satisfied until you get someone to agree with your clearly skewed interpretation of the supposed 'evidence' and your individual interpretation of the relevant legislation. I suggest that if you are expecting any Magistrate or District Judge to agree with you, you are most likely to be disappointed.

 

I have to be honest and say that I can see one potential avenue that could be exploited if all that you have said is accurate, albeit one with no guarantee of success, but what does intrigue me is why would the defendant bring the papers to you unless you are a lawyer with current practising certificate.

 

If so, I respectfully suggest that you need to re-read the legislation & process. If not, I strongly suggest that the defendant seeks expert legal advice very quickly.

 

I shall not waste any more of my free time on this thread.

[Madamfluff]

I am not really sure what your problem is with my posts Kay Kay

 

You asked if the fact that she 'did not see' any notices saying it was a compulsory ticket area would be a defence, you were informed not seeing a notice is not the same as there being no notices

 

OCJ pointed out that

 

It has often been made clear that ignorance of any law is not a defence.

 

'Did not see' a sign is not the same as no sign being displayed.

 

There was a post about the same incident on a rail forum, where a picture of the station was posted clearly showing the sign that a valid ticket must be shown, this is the one I reposted.

 

Neither grotesque or myself understood your apples and oranges comments hence his/hers reply.

 

 

 

 

 

As for your comments about the matter of Racial Discrimination

 

A person may be prejudiced against a person of another race or Nationality but the minute they attempt to act on this or treat another person unfairly because of their prejudice then it becomes Discrimination

 

 

Taken from the Race Discrimination Act

 

Racial discrimination.

(1)

A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if—

 

on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons;

Now you have said many times that the lady believed she was asked for more details and the comments made about her strong accent were due to the fact that she is Black African, if that were true then the Ticket Inspector would have been guilty under the articles in the RR Act as detailed above. Therefore it could be argued that the TC is being accused of Discrimination and not just prejudice.

 

Racial discrimination (quite rightly) is not just seen in the UK as subtle or difficult to discern which is why there are laid down laws and procedures to prevent and report it.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Madamfluff

[stifle]

Kaykay,

 

You have come looking for advice on a matter. You have received free advice from a range of people. The advice did not support your point of view.

 

We are not going to turn around and say "you know, actually you're right and the charge should be dismissed". We can't. It would be irresponsible and wrong.

 

Attacking the people who give freely of their time and energy, casting aspersions and suggesting that we would not have been quite so free of our time had you mentioned the defendant's race in the beginning... that is at best ungracious and at worst a good way of alienating people.

 

Please, take a moment to reread your posts and see why many of us are offended. If you can't, please ask a neutral friend's opinion.

 

Then, if you find there is a question you have which we have not given an answer to, please state or restate it and I will try to help you. But bickering about whether X person was rude in Y post or didn't answer question P in post Q is at best going to get the thread ignored or closed by the mods.

[Grotesque]

at best going to get the thread ignored or closed by the mods.

 

The best course of action for all CAGgers.

[Kaykay]

Erk. Kaykay, is there something we can help you with? If you feel you have been wronged in some way, what would you like these members who donate their free time to do? And please do bear in mind that if you don't like the advice you get here, you're perfectly free to take your nasty attitude to some other forum and see what they think.

 

What do you want from us?

 

When one teaches he does learn. You are looking at it as if I was not making any contribution to the thread and only having contribution from forumers. That is not the proper way to look at it.

 

I shared so much information about this case which I believe will help one or two other forumers. So it is always good not to pass judgment without the facts.

[antone]

When one teaches he does learn. You are looking at it as if I was not making any contribution to the thread and only having contribution from forumers. That is not the proper way to look at it.

 

I shared so much information about this case which I believe will help one or two other forumers. So it is always good not to pass judgment without the facts.

 

Thanks for your beneficence. This is closed.