Dodging train fare

Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
legzr1 said:
"Someone-who-cares, London, United Kingdom, 3 hours ago

His actions show a lack of probity that make him IDEAL for a life in the City. Wealthy and yet lacking any morals."

Surely it's not his fault?

If Labour had clamped down, the regulators were given some teeth or Blair hadn't murdered 3 billion this wouldn't have happened.

smile
Doggerel, based on lowest common denominator playground tactics.

The relevant authority has made it clear he's very much not ideal.

vonuber

17,868 posts

164 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
The relevant authority has made it clear he's very much not ideal.
Well obviously he was for a good few years, and ideal enough to be put into a managerial position.

legzr1

3,843 posts

138 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Doggerel, based on lowest common denominator playground tactics.

The relevant authority has made it clear he's very much not ideal.
The relevant authority comments after the effect and his resignation. All is well smile




wink

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
legzr1 said:
turbobloke said:
Doggerel, based on lowest common denominator playground tactics.

The relevant authority has made it clear he's very much not ideal.
The relevant authority comments after the effect and his resignation. All is well smile

wink
smile

As pointed out earlier the reason all is well is that the Daily Mail managed to get the price of his houses into the article, when that doesn't happen them something is seriously wrong.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
so this is what a pher looks like in the flesh, a bit of a nerd, but a rich one..

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
The Spruce goose said:
so this is what a pher looks like in the flesh, a bit of a nerd, but a rich one..
Cool - insider info, what was his PH ID?

legzr1

3,843 posts

138 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
, what was his PH ID?
£7.20

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
legzr1 said:
turbobloke said:
what was his PH ID?
£7.20
That's approx £7.20 more than Liam Byrne said Labour left behind, not a PH ID.

legzr1

3,843 posts

138 months

Saturday 2nd August 2014
quotequote all
Better than a deficit surely...

JensenA

5,671 posts

229 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
vonuber said:
turbobloke said:
The relevant authority has made it clear he's very much not ideal.
Well obviously he was for a good few years, and ideal enough to be put into a managerial position.
That applies to everyone - until they're found out.

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
JensenA said:
vonuber said:
turbobloke said:
The relevant authority has made it clear he's very much not ideal.
Well obviously he was for a good few years, and ideal enough to be put into a managerial position.
That applies to everyone - until they're found out.
Indeed. Just ask a 'leading ethical organisation' - that is, if it hasn't finally gone bust already.

Coverage said:
First it was revealed that he had resigned as a councillor on Bradford City Council in 2011 after IT workers servicing his laptop found it contained a series of gay porn images. Then it emerged that he had been convicted of gross indecency in 1981 and fined £75 by Fareham Magistrates' Court in Hampshire.

By Wednesday fraud was added to the growing charge list when it became clear that he had been forced to resign as chairman of drug and alcohol charity the Lifeline Project in 2004 over allegations of up to £150,000 in expenses claims dating back to 1992.

Just when it was beginning to look as if things couldn't get any worse a drink-driving conviction dating back to 1990 was then revealed - he had been caught driving significantly over the limit after celebrating his 40th birthday.

All this came on top of his public humiliation at the hands of the Treasury Select Committee earlier this month.

He was immediately suspended by the Methodist Church and the Terrence Higgins Trust while senior Labour politicians, who had once assiduously courted him for cheap loans and generous contributions, were pretending they barely knew him.
150k - not a PHer ID jester

Negative Creep

24,942 posts

226 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
No real PHer would use a train - they're for poor people who are only in that position because they didn't work hard enough

turbobloke

103,747 posts

259 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
Negative Creep said:
No real PHer would use a train - they're for poor people who are only in that position because they didn't work hard enough
Any fule kno that's a bus.

FiF

43,965 posts

250 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
Plus refer to the terminally stupid "London is awesome anywhere else is dire" thread where legions of ph bankers are waffling about how easy it is to get by pubic transport around the Smoke and facilitate their own potential as the only people in the nation who pay taxes.


EskimoArapaho

5,135 posts

134 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
OK, he was a tit, and he's been punished (some might say very severely given the nature of his offence),
You are right about the DM, but was he punished? I thought he just offered to pay up instead of facing a trial?

Which was an option unavailable to me or many millions of other fare-dodgers in London. I can't recall now, but my punishment was a penalty perhaps 10x the cost of the dodged fare. By far dodger, I mean someone who absent-mindedly strolled straight through the station at Finchley Central instead of getting the ticket. Once. And who went straight to the ticket wallah to explain. To be told 'Rules are rules; cough up the penalty now'.

Had he been penalised according to his intent and the frequency of offending, you'd have a point. But he wasn't. And he should be.

fido

16,752 posts

254 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
EskimoArapaho said:
Once.
But they only have your word about this. You may have done it once, but they probably hear about this every time. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but people dodge fares all the time - just because this guy is very rich (and has two nice houses) it seems to make the news. He might have some sort of OCD or mental illness.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
EskimoArapaho said:
You are right about the DM, but was he punished? I thought he just offered to pay up instead of facing a trial?

Which was an option unavailable to me or many millions of other fare-dodgers in London. I can't recall now, but my punishment was a penalty perhaps 10x the cost of the dodged fare. By far dodger, I mean someone who absent-mindedly strolled straight through the station at Finchley Central instead of getting the ticket. Once. And who went straight to the ticket wallah to explain. To be told 'Rules are rules; cough up the penalty now'.

Had he been penalised according to his intent and the frequency of offending, you'd have a point. But he wasn't. And he should be.
Sot on: he wasn't punished of course by having to pay back the fare he had avoided.

EskimoArapaho

5,135 posts

134 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
fido said:
But they only have your word about this. You may have done it once, but they probably hear about this every time. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but people dodge fares all the time - just because this guy is very rich (and has two nice houses) it seems to make the news. He might have some sort of OCD or mental illness.
Yes, well innocent until proven guilty is a fairly decent principle. I went straight up to the ticket office and let the chap know I'd forgotten to get a ticket that day. He didn't care or ask about previous trips - it's an 'on-the-spot' penalty, after all.

If BTP wanted to review the CCTV recordings, they would see that chummy was doing this each and every day. Had they reviewed the CCTV at Finchley Station, they'd have simply seen me getting a ticket on all of the other occasions.

The point I'm making is that for the rest of us, the penalty punishment is non-negotiable. We hate it, but we go along with that; it's harsh but fair. But now we see that it isn't.

Countdown

39,691 posts

195 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
EskimoArapaho said:
Countdown said:
OK, he was a tit, and he's been punished (some might say very severely given the nature of his offence),
You are right about the DM, but was he punished? I thought he just offered to pay up instead of facing a trial?

Which was an option unavailable to me or many millions of other fare-dodgers in London. I can't recall now, but my punishment was a penalty perhaps 10x the cost of the dodged fare. By far dodger, I mean someone who absent-mindedly strolled straight through the station at Finchley Central instead of getting the ticket. Once. And who went straight to the ticket wallah to explain. To be told 'Rules are rules; cough up the penalty now'.

Had he been penalised according to his intent and the frequency of offending, you'd have a point. But he wasn't. And he should be.
Not originally no. I was referring to him losing his job and being publicly "named and shamed". The DM seemed to be revelling in t and I found the schadenfreude a bit OTT.

FiF

43,965 posts

250 months

Sunday 3rd August 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
EskimoArapaho said:
You are right about the DM, but was he punished? I thought he just offered to pay up instead of facing a trial?

Which was an option unavailable to me or many millions of other fare-dodgers in London. I can't recall now, but my punishment was a penalty perhaps 10x the cost of the dodged fare. By far dodger, I mean someone who absent-mindedly strolled straight through the station at Finchley Central instead of getting the ticket. Once. And who went straight to the ticket wallah to explain. To be told 'Rules are rules; cough up the penalty now'.

Had he been penalised according to his intent and the frequency of offending, you'd have a point. But he wasn't. And he should be.
Sot on: he wasn't punished of course by having to pay back the fare he had avoided.