snowychap Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) ...the penalty for fare dodging (maximum £1000 per offence) plus standard costs of £125... He dodged the fare each day that he travelled, didn't he? It wasn't one single, continuous offence, was it? So wouldn't that be five years of journeys (generously giving him 12 weeks of holiday per year would suggest 1,000 dodges) multiplied by £1000 of fines? I'll leave the rest of the back of a fag packet maths up to others. Edited April 15, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 ...the penalty for fare dodging (maximum £1000 per offence) plus standard costs of £125... He dodged the fare each day that he travelled, didn't he? It wasn't one single, continuous offence, was it? So wouldn't that be five years of journeys (generously giving him 12 weeks of holiday per year would suggest 1,000 dodges) multiplied by £1000 of fines? I'll leave the rest of the back of a fag packet maths up to others. Agree with that yes Snowy (especially the maths) but no bench of magistrates will consider 1000 offences nor will they fine the maximum for each offence. Assume he would have pleaded guilty that's 33% discount before his lawyers have even got near mitigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 there's no point in being rich if you can't buy off the occassional petty nuisance court case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms 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. You do understand, don't you, that this is a matter of fairness and justice? That an offence which can be dealt with by means of a criminal conviction for one offence for one person, while an offence repeated daily over several years by another person results in no conviction, is absolutely, screamingly against any possible interpretation of fairness? That the fairness and justice of the criminal law is completely and inalienably a matter for government? Because that's what government is, not a process of timidly, cravenly subletting responsibilities to corporations. People have been criminalised for failing to pay one fare. This little shit has bought himself protection after knowingly, determinedly evading fares for several years. The fine he has been given sounds a lot, but is probably pocket change for him. He has escaped completely, in other words. If the government allows this level of injustice to persist, they should expect to see more people on the streets. Like in 1981 and 1986 and 1990 and last year, it's the mounting sense of injustice that creates the conditions for angry displays of disaffection. The venal and self-interested calculation of one train company about maximising its take is about the least important of all possible factors in deciding what should happen here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 what it tells me, is that providing I have money I should avoid paying as the worst that will happen to me as a wealthy person is that I might eventually have to pay what was due all along however, if you don't have money then best you comply you thieving little shit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) Agree with that yes Snowy (especially the maths) but no bench of magistrates will consider 1000 offences nor will they fine the maximum for each offence. Assume he would have pleaded guilty that's 33% discount before his lawyers have even got near mitigation. Sure, I accept the logistics of the number of offences times the max fine but the point that I make is that for his offences (okay they aren't offences as he hasn't been found guilty of them) he has repaid a sum of the amount that the train company missed out on and avoided a criminal record and also the public naming and shaming (I'm not an advocate of this but it's relevant to the level playing field discussion). When you then compare that to matey boy who has evaded the fare between New St and Barnt Green (I have intentionally selected a midland journey that I have never undertaken!) and his subsequent fines and punishment then it would suggest that we are geared towards a situation where, if one can buy oneself out of a criminal situation (fare dodging is a criminal matter, no?), then you can do so at cost - if you don't have the means, however, you are prohibitively punished in financial terms and also handed a criminal sentence. It may not be 'government' who is directing it but it is society that is allowing it. There is a problem with both (there always has been; let's hope there won't always be). Edit: Apologies for the sly maths dig. Edited April 15, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Agree with that yes Snowy (especially the maths) but no bench of magistrates will consider 1000 offences nor will they fine the maximum for each offence. Assume he would have pleaded guilty that's 33% discount before his lawyers have even got near mitigation. Sure, I accept the logistics of the number of offences times the max fine but the point that I make is that for his offences (okay they aren't offences as he hasn't been found guilty of them) he has repaid a sum of the amount that the train company missed out on and avoided a criminal record and also the public naming and shaming (I'm not an advocate of this but it's relevant to the level playing field discussion). When you then compare that to matey boy who has evaded the fare between New St and Barnt Green (I have intentionally selected a midland journey that I have never undertaken!) and his subsequent fines and punishment then it would suggest that we are geared towards a situation where, if one can buy oneself out of a criminal situation (fare dodging is a criminal matter, no?), then you can do so at cost - if you don't have the means, however, you are prohibitively punished in financial terms and also handed a criminal sentence. It may not be 'government' who is directing it but it is society that is allowing it. There is a problem with both (there always has been; let's hope there won't always be). Edit: Apologies for the sly maths dig. Anyone can do the buying out though....its just the level of £ required that's different. Be it £4.50 or £45k the opportunities to pay up and avoid prosecution are extended to all. I dont accept this argument that his wealth has meant he "got off"...its just more shocking because of the amount. No worries about the dig. I can take. Just don't pretend it was sly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 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. That to me sounds like the most reasonable explanation in all of this. Perhaps somebody bristling at the unfairness of it all can post a case where somebody much poorer WASN'T given the opportunity to settle rather than go to court? "A spokesperson added: 'All customers have the option to settle out of court and in this case he chose to pay the settlement fee that we put to him." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Anyone can do the buying out though....its just the level of £ required that's different. Be it £4.50 or £45k the opportunities to pay up and avoid prosecution are extended to all. I dont accept this argument that his wealth has meant he "got off"...its just more shocking because of the amount. That only suggests there is an 'equal opportunity offered' rather than an equal opportunity to take up the offer (if you don't have the money then you can't pay them off). If the cost of the opportunity is beyond you then the nominal 'equal access' is not much more than sophistry. I'm also not sure about the 'anyone can do it' - penalty fare zones have often been strictly enforced from what I've seen. No worries about the dig. I can take. Just don't pretend it was sly. I thought it was! Worrying that I am unable to distinguish between sly and brazen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Perhaps somebody bristling at the unfairness of it all can post a case where somebody much poorer WASN'T given the opportunity to settle rather than go to court? As a start, you might check out why both the HoC and the watchdog are concerned about this. Beyond those reports, I'm sure you're resourceful enough to find your own leads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) Perhaps somebody bristling at the unfairness of it all can post a case where somebody much poorer WASN'T given the opportunity to settle rather than go to court?They may well have been given the 'opportunity to settle' but the settlement may well not have been a sensible amount with regard to the fare not paid (e.g. penalty fare zone's penalties) and it may not have been a settlement that they could have managed (perhaps being poorer may have limited the possibility of paying any kind of amount to settle).Perhaps, also, you've chosen a pretty damn stupid challenge that asks for details of 'a case' that won't widely be reported anywhere (local rags hardly even run much court reporting nowadays).Edit: Wrong. Edited April 15, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 "A spokesperson added: 'We give the wealthier customers the option of escaping embarrassing proceedings. The poorer ones, for some inexplicable reason, seem unwilling to pay the sum we demand, so we screw them good and proper."Corrected that for you/him/her. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Perhaps somebody bristling at the unfairness of it all can post a case where somebody much poorer WASN'T given the opportunity to settle rather than go to court? As a start, you might check out why both the HoC and the watchdog are concerned about this. Beyond those reports, I'm sure you're resourceful enough to find your own leads. I'd need to, as those two links have nothing to do with what I asked, whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 "A spokesperson added: 'We give the wealthier customers the option of escaping embarrassing proceedings. The poorer ones, for some inexplicable reason, seem unwilling to pay the sum we demand, so we screw them good and proper." Corrected that for you/him/her. I know you're probably labouring under the misapprehension that that's really witty and clever, but please don't alter my posts in such a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Perhaps somebody bristling at the unfairness of it all can post a case where somebody much poorer WASN'T given the opportunity to settle rather than go to court?As a start, you might check out why both the HoC and the watchdog are concerned about this. Beyond those reports, I'm sure you're resourceful enough to find your own leads. I'd need to, as those two links have nothing to do with what I asked, whatsoever.As you know, the only reason those two bodies exercised themselves with this is because there's a number of cases of plain injustice which came to their attention.What's up with you tonight? Playing daft? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 "A spokesperson added: 'We give the wealthier customers the option of escaping embarrassing proceedings. The poorer ones, for some inexplicable reason, seem unwilling to pay the sum we demand, so we screw them good and proper."Corrected that for you/him/her. I know you're probably labouring under the misapprehension that that's really witty and clever, but please don't alter my posts in such a way.Do you think I misrepresented your view, put words in your mouth, or otherwise breached site guidelines? Do explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Some truly truly shocking statistics in this report on food banks. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27032642 An end of year report you wouldn't want to let your mum see. A damning indictment of this governments incompetence, inability and immorality heading into its final year. Disgraceful. Edited April 16, 2014 by Kingfisher 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Some truly truly shocking statistics in this report on food banks.http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27032642 An end of year report you wouldn't want to let your mum see. A damning indictment of this governments incompetence, inability and immorality heading into its final year. Disgraceful. It's just the Tory way. They like to get the the poor, sick or people caring for others to live life on the edge of a cliff, better to keep them thinking "Where's my next meal" than anything else. This is the price you pay for not being one of "Them" To go to a food bank to get food for your kids must be truly heartbreaking. It must amuse Tory supporters immensely when they go to sleep at night that there are toddlers around the country crying them selves to sleep from hunger. This is the Tory supporters ideal world, crying and distraught poor children. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 By using CPI and including bonuses the government's announcement today on wages v inflation sounds quite positive. Take away bonuses and use RPI and the picture sounds probably more familiar to you. RPI inflation 2.5%, regular pay rises 1.4%. You good hard working people are still getting up every day to work for less under the Tories four years in to their governance. Source: ONS Tories coming in and cleaning up the mess 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 So what you are saying is using the system introduced by labour, that have been in place for nearly a decade, it's good news. Labour changing the stats to suit themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts