First Great Western Trains

[MilkTrayMan]

Originally Posted by Hobbie

...to date i've yet to be proved wrong where it counts, in a court.

Easily said, without evidence to sustantiate your statement...

Originally Posted by Hobbie

...Every case has a defence, even if the person admits to the offence, such things as mitigating circumstances a judge can take into consideration, but most likely the TOC won't be prepaired for a defended case, and will offer no evidence at first sight of the defence.

An offence which is admitted cannot be a defence.
Mitigation is NO defence.

To say that a TOC will NOT be prepared for a defended case is INCORRECT + a VERY dangerous assumption for peeps to make...

Originally Posted by Hobbie

...Reg 18, again explained in Reg 18(2)(ii).

Bylaw 18(2)(ii) would be the exception, rather than the rule.
It is therefore treated as such.
Furthermore, if it was to apply, the FULL range of Fares are available.


...

[Hobbie]

Originally Posted by MilkTrayMan

Easily said, without evidence to sustantiate your statement...

Indeed it is very easy to say, and no way to substanitate it without providing personal details.

Originally Posted by MilkTrayMan

An offence which is admitted cannot be a defence.
Mitigation is NO defence.

Why do people still bother employ a solicitor and instruct a barrister to represent them when they've admitted an offence if the person has no defence? Surely you understand basic law and right to defend? If not, I suggest you look in to it.

Originally Posted by MilkTrayMan

To say that a TOC will NOT be prepared for a defended case is INCORRECT + a VERY dangerous assumption for peeps to make...

A number of cases are withdrawn EVERY WEEK, I could name 2 TOCs that do this soon as a defence is presented (but I wont be naming anyone), the TOC offers no evidence and withdraw.

Originally Posted by MilkTrayMan

Bylaw 18(2)(ii) would be the exception, rather than the rule.
It is therefore treated as such.
Furthermore, if it was to apply, the FULL range of Fares are available.


...

Easily said, without evidence to sustantiate your statement...

Anyway, I beleive we've both wasted enough of our time on this discussion, you have your opinion, and I have mine.

[MilkTrayMan]

Originally Posted by Hobbie

Indeed it is very easy to say, and no way to substantiate it without providing personal details...

So why do U bother typing it then??...
...It is akin to a child saying, "I have a secret...but I'm NOT going to tell U what it is!"...

Originally Posted by Hobbie

Why do people still bother employ a solicitor and instruct a barrister to represent them when they've admitted an offence if the person has no defence?...

Wise peeps don't waste their money + use it to pay their dues instead...

Originally Posted by Hobbie

Surely you understand basic law and right to defend? If not, I suggest you look in to it.

I did...whilst I was at Uni.
My degree was Transport based btw.

Originally Posted by Hobbie

A number of cases are withdrawn EVERY WEEK, I could name 2 TOCs that do this soon as a defence is presented (but I wont be naming anyone), the TOC offers no evidence and withdraw...

Again, U make sweeping statements with absolutely NO substantiation.
U are either an 'ambulance chaser' hoping to entice peeps to contact U privately, or else U are someone who has been lucky so far + thinks that they have miraculously hit on a way to be able to defraud TOC's + deprive them of their perfectly entitled to revenue + is advocating that others do likewise.

Originally Posted by Hobbie

Easily said, without evidence to sustantiate your statement...

U make great play of Byelaw 18(3)(ii)...

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

MOST Railway Stations have ticket issuing/validating facilities, be they a traditional Booking Office or a Self Service Machine.
MOST peeps start their journeys when the aforementioned Services are available + operable.
MOST peeps are honest citizens + realise that they have to pay for their travel + do so accordingly, albeit begrudgingly in some cases.

SOME infrequent travellers DO make genuine mistakes, but an experienced Revenue Collector/Inspector would be able to recognise these type of peeps + perhaps be able to use his/her discretion.
Having said that, ignorance of the law is NO defence + even these peeps are STILL subject to it, however innocent they may feel that they are + how unjust that they believe they have been treated/dealt with etc.

Those peeps that deliberately choose NOT to pay for their travel fall into 2 categories:
1/ Those that CAN'T pay.
2/ Those that CAN pay, but either don't want to pay, or feel that they shouldn't have to pay.

With regards...
1/...WALK, or else use some other form of transport.
2/...These are quite often frequent travellers who are chancing their arm.
They KNOW what the crack is, but think that they are above the law + seek to dodge their obligations, even when caught out.
Their selfishness ensures that others who DO pay the correct Fare, have to 'invisibly' pay MORE for their journey to subsidise them.
(...It is my personal opinion that they are parasitic scum.)

Originally Posted by Hobbie

Anyway, I beleive we've both wasted enough of our time on this discussion, you have your opinion, and I have mine.

U have attempted to hijack the OP's Thread for your OWN purposes.
U have contributed NOTHING of benefit to the OP.
Your lack of reasoned argument would warrant U to be accused of being a 'Troll'.

YOUR Posts on this Thread could result in some peeps ending up financially worse off, by attempting ill thought out feeble defences.
The gist of the following link (...which was also inserted into Post #5 btw) comes from an independent passenger focused website + concurs with the advice that I have continually typed within this Thread.
Passenger Focus - Advice and complaints - Frequently asked questions - Do I have to buy a ticket?

...If U had wished to debate the subject matter U have done, U should have started your OWN Thread, + preferably in the BG2...


...