snowychap Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Sure, I guess that the ordinary people who get off without paying see it as some form of legal aid.What a load of crap and several fathoms beneath you.I am pretty sure that most countries would give an option to pay, especially when they see the kind of figure involved, and have the likelihood of getting it.Except this country which wouldn't appear to (posters on the train stations 'naming and shaming' people who have been prosecuted for fare evasion).It's like the speeding fine system in Finland - means tested.Except this is a decision by a private, profit making enterprise to allow someone to get away with something if they have the means to pay a penalty that outweighs the revenue that would have otherwise been obtained.As said in the Miller case, it's like nicking a telly from Currys and, when caught, saying that you'll settle the 'theft' by paying the money back (or twice the money back). If you don't have the excess money then you're not on the same field. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Sure, I guess that the ordinary people who get off without paying see it as some form of legal aid.What a load of crap and several fathoms beneath you.I am pretty sure that most countries would give an option to pay, especially when they see the kind of figure involved, and have the likelihood of getting it.Except this country which wouldn't appear to (posters on the train stations 'naming and shaming' people who have been prosecuted for fare evasion).It's like the speeding fine system in Finland - means tested.Except this is a decision by a private, profit making enterprise to allow someone to get away with something if they have the means to pay a penalty that outweighs the revenue that would have otherwise been obtained.As said in the Miller case, it's like nicking a telly from Currys and, when caught, saying that you'll settle the 'theft' by paying the money back (or twice the money back). If you don't have the excess money then you're not on the same field. I don't particularly disagree with you. I don't ride trains much, so have never noticed 'name and shame' posters. But the original article was a bit desperate, and I stand by the observation that thousands of people, rich, poor or otherwise, 'get away with it' on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) trees, you're failing to recognize the different reasons why (especially when for the same kind of offence). Edited April 13, 2014 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Sure, I guess that the ordinary people who get off without paying see it as some form of legal aid.What a load of crap and several fathoms beneath you. I am pretty sure that most countries would give an option to pay, especially when they see the kind of figure involved, and have the likelihood of getting it.Except this country which wouldn't appear to (posters on the train stations 'naming and shaming' people who have been prosecuted for fare evasion). It's like the speeding fine system in Finland - means tested.Except this is a decision by a private, profit making enterprise to allow someone to get away with something if they have the means to pay a penalty that outweighs the revenue that would have otherwise been obtained.As said in the Miller case, it's like nicking a telly from Currys and, when caught, saying that you'll settle the 'theft' by paying the money back (or twice the money back). If you don't have the excess money then you're not on the same field. I don't particularly disagree with you. I don't ride trains much, so have never noticed 'name and shame' posters. But the original article was a bit desperate, and I stand by the observation that thousands of people, rich, poor or otherwise, 'get away with it' on a daily basis. You seem to miss the central point. People who are rich, who really would be shamed and punished by imprisonment, have an option to pay and get off a charge. Ordinary people don't. This is a society that Shakespeare, Marlowe and others would recognise. Four hundred years on, it's not what we were told we were buying in to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 'I'm alright Jack' Nigel Evans was able to afford his 130k legal fees. He supported cuts to legal aid for those that can't. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 He supported cuts to legal aid for those that can't.Did he? Where did he do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) He supported cuts to legal aid for those that can't.Did he? Where did he do that?In House of Commons votes. On radio. On TV this morning.http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5145097?utm_hp_ref=uk Regrets his support now. Someone get the violins out. Edited April 14, 2014 by Kingfisher 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5145097?utm_hp_ref=uk Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5145097?utm_hp_ref=uk Thank you. No problem. He's clearly just another out of touch Tory who doesn't understand and clearly hasn't tried to understand the issues he's voting on. More interested in a 'career', getting pissed in the Westminster bars and trying to get his end away with his young male staff than actually giving a **** about the people he serves. He cares about this issue now? Bit late now isn't it Nige? He gets no sympathy from me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Conservative Party councillor Nick Martin has asked the question that's on everybody's lips. 'Are we still letting Mongols have sex with each other?'http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/swindon-mayor-says-sorry-for-calling-disabled-people-mongols--but-charities-dismiss-forced-apology-9258603.html Perhaps he meant it as a joke. Ricky Gervais thinks it's comedy genius. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Quite an insensitive thing to say, especially considering he's the mayor of Swindon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Quite an insensitive thing to say, especially considering he's the mayor of Swindon.Ha, it's all been a misunderstanding! He was obviously talking about Swindon's Mongolian community. With UKIP and the Tory's you can't tell who they're insulting anymore. Edited April 14, 2014 by Kingfisher 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Quite an insensitive thing to say, especially considering he's the mayor of Swindon. Are there a lot of mongols in Swindon then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I do not for one second believe he got 6 months for nicking £2.19 worth of goods, as a first offence. Suspended perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I think it was for looting during the riots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I do not for one second believe he got 6 months for nicking £2.19 worth of goods, as a first offence. Suspended perhaps. Not suspended. No previous. Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Going back to the fare dodger TSSA: One law for the rich and one for the poor Edited April 14, 2014 by villaajax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 good to see a hard working Wirral MP with her finger on the pulse of events in her area today 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Pucker up now. Mouths like a fish's arse, spewing a constant stream of excrement in the general vicinity. A marriage made in heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Another example of the rich getting off where others would have been prosecuted. It is the steady and repeated occurrence of things like this that destroys confidence in fairness and justice. A bit of Guardian desperation really. Evading justice isn't the preserve of the rich. Plenty of violent offenders, rich and poor, are put back on the streets immediately. Fairness and justice? Not in Britain in this millennium. Too much leniency in general. People do realise that this is not a matter for the CPS, Police or the Government don't they? Yes the guys a prize arsehole but in his case the penalty for fare dodging (maximum £1000 per offence) plus standard costs of £125 mean this is the most efficient way of Southeastern seeing the money again and it is solely their decision on how to deal with it. They generally offer such settlements to everyone and those who end up in court are often those who ignore the situation or still refuse to pay when challenged. Its not just however that dodging a £2.10 fare ends up in Court with the final bill being nearly £500 in fines, compensation and costs but that is the way of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts