I thought I'd make sure that everyone on this thread knows the outcome of the court hearing. I arrived at court and spoke with the Prosecutor prior to the hearing; he asked (very politely) for my evidence, which I showed him. He said that there were only three defences to this Byelaw charge and I had evidence of two, specifically: written evidence of a failure of the machines due to a power failure from Southeastern; written evidence of the authorisation by the Southeastern trains agent to "get the ticket at the other end". On the basis of this, the Prosecutor (acting on behalf of First Capital Connect) said that he would not dispute this and, instead, he would state that FCC had no evidence against me. He also said that this information should have been in his file. I said that I had written to FCC's Prosecutions Manager about this, citing the evidence that I had, but had not received the courtesy of a reply; I said that the only correspondence I had received from FCC's Prosecutions department was a demand for payment in a letter filled with threats. I had also written to the Managing Director of FCC who said "since this has proceeded to court there is nothing that I can do", even though this was a *private* criminal prosecution and there was everything that he could do, especially since I had cited the evidence that I had in my letter to him. I also told the Prosecutor that my MP, Joan Ruddock, had written on my behalf but also had not received the courtesy of a response from FCC. Finally, TravelWatch had been in phone contact with the Prosecutions Manager himself, they had stated I had this evidence, and the Prosecutions Manager had declined to change his course of action. TravelWatch then got back to me and said there was nothing more they could do since it was proceeding to court; this is as much rubbish as the Managing Director's letter, as they can lend an expert opinion but choose not to do so. The case was called, I pleaded not guilty, the prosecutor for FCC did not argue, the case was dismissed; I was awarded costs. In addition, the *prosecutor* said that he himself would file a complaint against the FCC's ticket-barrier agents as he recognised that the situation should never have come this far. In short, the following points may be made: 1. this is not a strict liability issue; there are three defences (including lack of availability to buy tickets; authorisation by a railway agent). I thank Lemingsville in particular for pointing this out. 2. FCC has failed in its duty of care to the public on repeated occasions, particularly the failure to explore the information (which I gave them at the very beginning) that constitutes an adequate defence; failure to regulate the behaviour of their ticket-barrier agents; failure of the Prosecutions Manager to enter into adequate correspondence to ascertain the facts; failure of their Managing Director to take responsibility to regulate their Prosecutions Managers performance (or lack of it); failure to respond to a Member of Parliament's inquiry; etc. In short, failure to do the job they are paid for. In addition, I will be pursuing a formal complaint with FCC, with a request for a written apology from the ticket-barrier agents individually, as well as from the Prosecutions Manager and the Managing Director; I will write to the CEO of the Group as well. I will write to the newspapers about this (especially Metro) and BBC Watchdog, because I am fairly rare in my willingness to stand up to bullying by providers of statutory public services. This has been several months of my time wasted and a lot of stress and if I don't do something to make them take note, then they'll just continue doing the same thing to other people, with impunity. In this regard, it is the greatest pity that Old-CodJA and timbo58 have failed to grasp that the public nature of a criminal prosecution means that my name can be found by anyone who wishes to trawl the public records (including online). This is not fair treatment, especially in light of the quality of the outcome. FCC has a duty to the public, which includes transparency and accountability, and they, along with old-CodJA and timbo58 are clearly of the opinion that workers' rights are far more important than workers' duties, even in statutory public services. Let me be clear: the people I cited ARE NOT PRIVATE CITIZENS in this situation, as I am, but providers of statutory public services. In such an instance, it is entirely appropriate to name people who are paid by the public to provide a service to the public and not only fail to do so, but harass and bully the public in the course of their 'service'. Even the British Government is coming to the same conclusion in having individual surgeons' quality of service reported individually and publicly; it it's good enough for surgeons, then it's certainly good enough for ticket-barrier agents. That said, it is entirely sensible for this internet board to remove the stated names if there is a risk of prosecution to the board for defamation (and I understand that the law in question is still in development). Finally, I had to take a First Capital Connect train on the way back home from court; due to their failure to ensure the performance of their trains, their service was 55 minutes late. They would only acknowledge publicly 25 minutes' delay, not mentioning the fact that they had made the intervening train magically disappear. This sort of thing (failure and cover-up/spin) is to be expected when people are dissuaded from standing up against incompetent service. Perhaps Old-CodJA can be gladdened by the FCC's reversion to "times of better standards"—after all, there's nothing quite so heart-warming and nostalgic as a really poor service that doesn't give a damn about anything except taking your money, is there? In particular, Old-codJA seems to have used this forum to meet his own emotional needs and enforce his own values by shifting the focus in a thread originally about a problem that was not his to face; that was unhelpful, at best, and I would ask him to desist from doing so in future unless he starts a thread about a problem that he has to face himself. For the other contributors to this thread who have been constructive and thoughtful in their comments, I would like to send my thanks. I hope you can appreciate how much the constructive approaches to the original problem posed—and for sticking to that issue—have been helpful to me, both practically and emotionally.

As I said before, courtesy goes two ways. I received no courtesy from First Capital Connect. It is a great pity that you have failed to grasp this, repeatedly.

Will do; currently it is with a solicitor; I've written to the Managing Director of First Capital Connect, copied to the Prosecutions Manager, and Southeastern Customer Service to get written confirmation that there was a power failure. Will be writing to BBC Watchdog, Transport for London, my MP, etc, in due course if no substantive replies are forthcoming. The solicitor is looking into the legal situation, which is obviously not clear for the general public as we can see from this thread. I'll keep you updated. I'm glad for your interest.

I'd really like to thank everyone who has contributed to this advice to me; it's heart-warming that this is of concern to more than just me. I'm sorry that my use of the term 'fare evasion' seems to have caused some problems in interpreting the byelaws; it simply shows that this is not my area of expertise. The only line of relevant text in the summons (which is to criminal court) is "failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person". I should also clarify that I got the exculpatory note from the Southeastern ticket agent the following morning, after I had had the interaction at St. Pancras with the First Capital Connect agents. The note states that there was a power failure, no tickets could be issued, that he advised me to get the ticket "at the other end" (quote), and I should not be issued a penalty. That said, I have been informed by a solicitor that this is a charge of dishonesty, but in fact any criminal charge risks the loss of my clinical license—not to mention my clinical insurance, which is already high enough. Whether or not it is a dishonesty charge per se is beyond my knowledge—or the difference that that makes to my employment situation. Can anyone clarify the situation on this as to whether or not it is a dishonesty charge, what that means, etc. What is clear is that it is being brought as a criminal charge. I have absolutely no concerns about naming people who are paid to provide a public service (or even a private one) and fail to do so; further, when they bully and harass the public, it needs to be brought to account. There seems little way in which to do this these days (if ever there were) and self-regulation by companies is risible; I know what it consists of in the NHS, which is effectively nothing. Publicly naming these people is the same principle as having surgeons rated publicly and individually for the quality of their practice, as is now being done and which I agree with. Furthermore, the charge levelled against me by First Capital Connect is publicly recorded and I have to defend it publicly; contrary to the FCC agents, I DO have a reputation to defend and this is potentially very damaging. They have extended no courtesy to me at all - contrary to their own Passenger's Charter. The more that the public shies away from this sort of calling-to-account, then the more we will get bully-boys flicking their name badges (with just their first name on it) and sneering at customers when asked for their full name. The only reason I found out **** **** last name was because he then had to put it on a form specifying the charge against me, which I read and then said "it would simply have been easier for you to tell me your full name rather than flicking your name-badge at me". He was surprised that I actually read the form—a form which it was demanded that I sign but of which I was also not allowed to have a copy. That said, I would value any further discussion of this issue as it is of particular interest to me. How does one bring public providers to account without risking being sued for defamation just because you stated that you found their manner offensive or their service reprehensible? As I understand it so far, from everyone's thoughtful and helpful comments: 1) there is a defence, even though it is a 'strict liability' law. 2) this defence is contained in the very same bye-law, in a subsequent paragraph 3) both employees in question may have committed an offence themselves by their behaviour of failing to provide identification when requested to do so. Is there anything else that I have missed from the thread so far? Many thanks.

I've been summoned to court for fare evasion in a private action by First Capital Connect - i.e., not through the CPS. I went to my local station (on SouthEastern) where there was a power failure; the ticket machine would not work. There is no Permit-to-Travel machine at the station (it had been removed ages ago). I went to the ticket office where the staff member said none of his machines were working either. He said I should get the ticket 'at the other end' (I have a letter from the originating station officer confirming this very phrase). I interchanged at Blackfriars where there was a three-minute interval between trains and I had to go under the platforms but not out of the barriers. At St. Pancras I asked to buy a ticket (I needed a Travelcard as I had to return the same way I had come within three hours) and asked the barrier attendant if he could sell me one. He said that he could, but refused to do so, saying he was going to issue me a penalty fare despite what I told him about the power-failure. I refused, as I had not done anything wrong and had informed him of the problems at the originating station, which he did not check. After giving my details and being subject to bullying, I was allowed out of the barriers, whereupon I had to buy the same ticket I had just asked for, for my return journey (I have the ticket, time-stamped, and the credit card receipt). I am now being summoned to Magistrate's Court under Bye Law No 18(2) of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000. This is a criminal charge of dishonesty and I am a doctor; if convicted, I lose my license to practise. However, I have done nothing wrong, I have been honest throughout, I have a letter from the originating station officer confirming that there was a power failure and no tickets could be sold and that I was advised to get the ticket 'at the other end', I was not given the option of buying a Travelcard at the other end, and I was not given the option of paying just the amount for the ticket in the penalty charge and contesting the rest. I would appreciate some advice on this. I have been told since that I should have been bought the ticket at the interchange as I was changing railway companies (from Southeastern to First Capital Connect, which I didn't realise), even though this would have meant that I would have missed my connecting train and been late for my appointment and that I was advised at the original station to the get the ticket 'at the other end'. Not being a solicitor, I didn't know this I was supposed to do this. However, I didn't realise that the public has to meet the corporations' needs rather than vice versa; I thought the rail companies were supposed to be providing a public service. Further, I was treated in a disgusting fashion by the barrier attendant '*******' (who refused to give his surname, while I had to give my full name, date of birth, address, phone number etc) and by ***** ****, who represented himself as a manager but wasn't and refused to amend incorrect information on the form that he then demanded that I sign (I declined). The prosecutions manager of First Capital Connect, Martin Grier, clearly has not checked that there was a power failure at the originating station or has taken a disliking to a customer who stood up to being bullied by his staff. I'm getting rather fed up with private corporations having more rights than the public. Clearly, accountability only works in the corporations' favour.