Oh, there was much more to the whole incident than the press reported, but it is 'an example' of 'what the public can do'. The 'point' that I am making is that the 'photographer', who may himself have acted illegally (note use of word 'may') took the time and trouble to 'do something' rather than just wander off and do 'nothing'.

I think the real 'issue' is one of choice. You need a sort of 'conference' before going to determine what it is that you want. Personally, I would hate to be in a place with lots of kids running aroung, I am (as previously said) and old git. Equally, your nippers would probably be very bored (with all of the consequences) if they went to the places that I would choose. The internet does allow you to do a lot of research prior to choosing. The 'big companies' probably have the better 'garauntees', the smaller ones may have some of the more interesting destinations. With small children, I think 'flight times' may be 'an issue'. (When I was younger, most of my 'long flights' were with 'Crab Air' and us 'passengers' tended to sleep throughout, the 'stewards' would gently wake us on arrival with the toe of a boot) As such, I am not sure that 'Egypt' is a good idea.

One of the dangers of looking for 'advice' on the internet is that you do not always know the qualifications of the person giving the advice, or their personal philosophy. I have stayed at may 'odd' locations, and I normally look to see what comments the hotels have attracted. In particular, one hotel had a string of very negative comments, but it was exactly where I needed to be for one night on a trip. I stayed there, and could not see what those negative comments had been about. The staff were friendly, the accommodation was adequate, and the food was good. But then I watched another British tourist giving the staff a stupidly hard time, and I watched those charming staff slowly change. As would I have done. I have never found a toilet in France or Belgium that lives up to the general perception, but more importantly, I do not go there to look at toilets, and, once away from the channel ports, I have found wonderful things to look at and do, and I have yet to find an unnecesarily rude French or Belgian person. I try to speak French, which I think helps, unless you are in Flemish Belgium, but I think that showing a willingness to 'meet them halfway' will always pay huge dividends with the way that you are treated in return. I rather suspect that Spain would be similar. If you treat Spanish waiters as Basil Fawlty does, you will not be looked after well.

As a small child, I once was given a dinner that I did not like. I sat and pushed food around the plate until a very old lady said 'what's the matter with you?' I told her that I didn't like peas, but I told her quietly, scared in case anyone heard me. She said 'You have a tongue in your head, if you don't like something, say so.' That was a lot of years ago, but her 'advice' is as true to day as it was then.

Famously, a member of the public filmed an incident at one of the stations on my local line. There may be all sorts of questions about the legality of filming on railways, but he supplied the images to the press. The 'press' followed protocols, but getting no response from the 'company', those images found their way onto front pages of local papers and 'inside pages' of all of the 'nationals'. If you search the internet, those images may still be found quite easily. There are other avenues for the public. Allegations may be sent to Health & Safety executive, or 'Trading Standards' or the Department for transport. Local MPs and councillors are also very happy to look into issues. However, all of these options require that 'the great British Public' stops wasting it's life watching 'Celebrity come skate at my dining jungle', and pokes it's collective nose into those things that upset them. And has the tenacity to follow the complaint/allegation through. In a world where corporations and Governments routinely bury 'bad news', of course there is corruption. It would be foolish to think that railways alone were immune to it. But you will not change that sorry situation without effort, and making a fuss, and obtaining the 'truth'.

When I first read the title of this thread, I became rather excited. All my working life, I have messed around with low level crime, and I have always wanted to be the guy outside The Old Bailey releasing a statement to the press about a major scalp taken throroughly for some of the most serious villainy in the land. However, we failed to get an allegation of corruption. The 'good question' was 'what can the public do about it?'

Yes. At first sight, an offence contrary to Section 5,3,b, Regulation of railways act 1889 seems to have been committed.

The majority of cases like this are dealt with in the absence of the defendant. Duty solicitor is likely to refuse to advise you, the 'scheme' does not cover 'minor' matters. The 'mood' of the Magistrates does make a difference, but they have sentencing guidelines, and their 'mood' is much less influential than it was 30 years ago. From your general tone, I think if you go along, the Court will see your contrition and embarrassment. It is possible that they might award a discharge, conditional or absolute, but nothing is ever certain until the Bench announce verdict and sentence. Trust me, it will not be the worst case before them on the day. Nobody died, there is no huge financial implication. It is commendable that you are embarrassed, but please keep some perspective!

I have happily used Maplins for many years, only for 'small stuff', but always been happy with their service. My last purchase was a mobile phone. I had been almost kidnapped by a salesman from another high street mobile phone company, who showed me all sorts of cameras that you can also text 21 people that you know for nothing, and so on. I explained that what I wanted was a phone. I was then treated with the sort of contempt that irritates the hell out of me, and wandered aimlessly into Dixons. Very polite chap, understood exactly what I wanted, told me the two types of phone that would suit me, regretted that they do not carry them in stock, but could get either within a 'couple of days'. Then he said 'Try Maplins.' I did, they not only served me courteously, but had what I wanted in stock. My advice to people wanting to use any shop is 'caveat emptor'.

I suppose that I ought to say that I have no financial interest in any holiday related business! The other thing that will have a great bearing on what you do is 'where do you live'? I am spoiled for choice in the south of England, ports, airports, even direct(ish) trains straight to the middle of France. Some airports are a delight (Southampton comes to mind) others are 'not'. (For really relaxed flying, go from Shoreham! Unfortunately, there are very few flights, and only to a couple of destinations, but the departure area is very relaxing.) Thank you for your post, I probably haven't helped you, but it has made me look forward to my next 'jolly'.

Blimey, how to advise a 'holiday noob', whatever one of those may be! I think, to start with, you should think about what you want to do when you get 'there'. Do you want to veggie out by a safe pool, or do you want to go sightseeing? Are you culture vultures or karaoke kings? For my own money, albeit I don't have little nippers in tow, look on the Gites de France websites, find a holiday cottage in Creuse or the Dordogne, find a cheap hotel for one night in Normandy (Rouen comes to mind, but there are equally nice places) to break the drive down, and use P&O from Dover. 'Packages' take some of the stress away, but I am one of those independant gits that hates to be organised by other people. (I am a 'git', a 'gite' is a self catering cottage)

Old Codja and I are both cynics! I think that the indpendance comes from the situation that IPFAS is most certainly not part of the 'train operator' 'revenue protection team. They charge the train operator for each appeal received and responded to, whether it is 'granted' or 'declined'. They will look mainly at whether the penalty was correctly issued, which is not always the same as 'fairly issued'. RPSS has the longer 'pedigree' being what is left of the old British Rail penalty fare set up, and even having the same PO box number. In practice, both offer the same range of services to train operators. I have never liked 'fixed penalties'. Penalty fares are a little like the speed cameras we all love so much. They tend not to be interested in 'why' you did something, merely that you did it. You got on a train without a valid ticket, you are liable to a penalty fare. It is not a 'fine' although most people call it one. Fixed penalties are used for a huge variety of offences now, and are very useful for keeping 'offences' out of Courts. Police even use them for a range of matters that I feel should be before a Bench, public order matters, strangely Sec 55 British Transport Commission Act 'trespass' matters and so on. I sometimes feel that they are all part ofthe 'dumbing down' processes. You no longer need an intelligent constable, you can replace him with a cheap option armed with a fixed penalty pad. Ho hum, rant over.

Andy and I have both 'failed' the first test, we have both assumed something. Andy has mentione Tfl, I mentioned LUL and 'proper railways'. One of the good things about a penalty fare notice is that it will show the address to which appeals should be sent. There can be very confusing situations at stations like Barking and Upminster. The penalty could be issued by any one of several 'authorities', Tfl, LUL, c2c, NXEA or 'LOROL'. (added to which, some offences will be dealt with by either British Transport Police or Metropolitan Police.) Curiously, c2c and NXEA (both franchises operated by National Express) use different 'service providers' for their penalty fares. Don't ask me what the letters stand for, but c2c use RPSS/IPFAS and NXEA use IRCAS. As I am lost in London, and do not know whether Petts wood is SWT or Southern or even some strange French railway, use the address on the penalty notice.

I am a great believer in 'common sense' and 'fairness'. I would have hoped that your Oyster history would have shown the 'authorised collector' that you 'always' except today swipe in at Petts Wood. But: My minor experience with such matters has brought me into contact with people who always touch in at Rainham, every day. Except the day that they spent the night carousing with their boyfriend who lives in Leigh on Sea. If i have come across such stories, I am confident that ticket examiners will have come across many, many similar situations, and they may be a tad less charitable than I. Penalty fares are there (almost) specifically for the person who has an aberration, and forgets to get a ticket or 'swipe an Oyster'. They carry no suggestion that you intended to avoid a fare, they are not a 'criminal' charge. If there was clear evidence of naughtiness of the deliberate variety, I am sure that a different, and more serious, action would have been taken. It is galling that one person gets penalised, and others do not. I understand that. Sadly, as Esther used to say, that's life. What you may not know is why those 'others' were allowed to buy tickets. It is possible that they travelled from stations where 'problems' had been reported. All penalty fare schemes that I have looked at require that 'authorised collectors' are somehow or another told about stations where ticket machines have failed. No doubt some were chancers who deserved a penalty, and some will have got away with it simply because the collector was busy talking to you.

This should be a good debate when the revenue Inspectors get hold of it! The 'authorised person' who issued the penalty was 'correct' to do so, but did have discretion to deal with the matter in other ways. Pay as you go Oyster will automatically deduct a 'maximum' fare, which to my mind is a sort of penalty. However, most 'London' train companies lose a lot of revenue through failure to 'touch in', and as such, I daresay that revenue protection managers want staff to penalty whenever the situation arises. What you have not told us is what sort of Oyster you have. Is it 'just' PAYG, or do you have (For example) a 'Zones 1&2' travelcard and PAYG? Despite 'paying' the penalty, you may still appeal against it, and if succesful, will get you £20.00 back (I am assuming that the penalty was issued by a 'proper' railway, and not LUL, their penalties are higher. (I am told, never had one, and I don't use LUL) My unexpert opinion is that the appeal is likely to fail, but don't let me put you off trying.

The one certainty is that a solicitor will cost you money. I sugges that you rootle around and find Old Codja's draft letter. I do not advocate admitting guilt, but certainly show that you will be careful in future, offer to pay 'reasonable costs'.

Rail fare evasion are 'summary only' offences, and therefore are heard in a Magistrates Court in front of Magistrates, or sometimes a District Judge. (You may hear Court staff talking about a 'DJ', who most certainly will not have twin decks and scratch crucial sounds) Letters to the 'prosecutor' are not normally read to the Court in the event of a guilty plea. Letters to 'the Court' might be. (Note the words 'normally' and 'might') As such, I expect that if you plead guilty to the Court, they will not get to see any of the correspondence that went between you and the railway. Unless you mention it in your letter to the Court. Many times, I have heard 'defendants' say all sorts of interesting stuff about 'I wrote to them, but they took no notice'. Magistrates may well, then, ask the prosecutor about the correspondence.

I seem to recall a previous thread where various rail staff reported that no one gets a commission, there may still be some 'conducters' that do, but generally speaking, my understanding is that the staff are salaried, and do not get 'productivity' bonuses. As has been said in many other previous threads, Companies that have a penalty fare scheme are not obliged to always offer a penalty fare. Nothing in any of the penalty fare schemes procludes prosecution for offences, and there are even provisions for the situation where a penalty is 'part paid', which allow for the matter to still be put before a Court. As an 'income stream' for train operators, I rather think that the revenue generated by penalty fare schemes and prosecution will be small in comparison to other income. However, the knowledge that Court and prosecution is a potential consequence of getting on a train without a ticket should increase the revenue from ticket sales. There must be many passengers who are tempted to 'bunk', who decide against the idea when they understand the risks.

So £82m is the figure for all penalty fares in the UK. Ok. Nat.Ex is only responsible for two franchises, so will get very little of that £82m. As far as I am aware, there has been no significant increase in the number of prosecutions since 1995. If you have specific complaints about services provided by any train operating company, write to them. One complaint at a time, preferably in English. Freepost 'comment forms' may be obtained from any NXEA or c2c station.

Using a ticket by 'mistake' amounts to a defence against the charge of 'intending that the fare be avoided'. (Section 5,3,a Regulation of Railways Act 1889) The problem is whether the evidence 'proves' that it was not a mistake. All 'early guilty pleas' result in a reduction in the sentence, normally a third off.

I had reason to ask my 'local railway' prosecutor about this subject. If a person is 'reported' for an offence, they will be contactd by the railway prosecution unit. Dependant on the response, or lack of one, a decision will be made, firstly whether the case will go to Court, and secondly what charge will be laid. If the charge is 'recordable' (In this instance, under section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889), the allegation will be given an 'arrest/summons' number on the same day as the decision is made. As such, the 'pending prosecution' would be seen by agencies checking PNC. The Court will then update the record, I am told within 48 hours, when the case is finalised at Court. I am also advised that because of the extra work involved in getting the 'a/s' number, and then administering it, it is very unlikely that the railway will agree to withdraw cases once the 'decision' has been made. Too much effort for too little reward. The potential impact for people that we (collectively) advise to 'settle' cases is that you would need to act a bit quickly, or the 'railway' will (metaphorically) smile and say 'sorry, see you in Court.'

Of course, less people will want to go to Grays with the impending closure of Grays Magistrates Court, which in my mind is a retrograde step in keeping justice accessible to all.

There are some stations that are neither run by Tfl or within the 'travelcard Zones' where Oyster may be used. The agreements between the TOC and Tfl are complex, and the installation of the Oyster equipment is costly. However, if you want to go to Grays in Essex, you can use Oyster, but I must confess to not knowing exactly what the passenger has to do, maybe one of the other folk will explain 'OEP's which are a complete confusion to me. I am surprised that people want to use Oyster. In my rather addled mind, the are an infringement of liberty. They allow the user to be tracked almost more effectively than an ankle tag. Freedom for many ordinary people was vastly improved when laws enabled the ordinary folk of the nation to be paid in cash, and to buy from whomsoever they wanted. Credit cards, electronic purchasing and so on, are in my view a retrograde step in preserving freedom. However, that may be a debate for another forum.

Where did you get the £82m figure from? Not one that I have seen. The 'fat cats' will not be sailing off into any sunset for a while, the franchises were recently extended. The public can do several things. In the first instance, they can buy the right ticket before boarding any train. Then no penalty or prosecution will follow. They can stop putting their feet on the seats, or smoking on the station, or climbing over the fence. If the public does not want to do all of those things, they can buy a car, tax it, pay for insurance and stay off the railway. As I have said in other posts, if they still do not like something that a train operator does, they can write to the registered company offices. I think it was Old Codja who also reminded us of our right to write to MPs, Dft, ATOC and Uncle Tom Cobbley.

I must confess that I do not know about NXEA, but I do know that c2c Inspectors do not get any commission, either for penalty fare notices or for the 'income' from prosecutions. The number of prosecutions that c2c has carried out in 2010 is much the same as it has been for the last ten years. The Courts examine cases, and do not allow 'costs' claims to be more than a 'contribution towards' the costs of bringing a case. If you think that they make a profit, maybe you should write to the 'company' and ask for their figures. As avoiding fares is a crime, the costs of which would otherwise be passed on to people who pay their fares or tax payers who subsidise railways, I feel that it is a duty that TOCs should try to get the money from the offenders.