Jump to content


London Underground - Prosecutions


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3584 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

If it wasn't for the fact that judsges get it wrong there wouldm't be any need for lawters ... I'm not lawyer ... just an ordinary 75-year-old who did a law degree 1980 - 83 yo go with my degfree in electronics for the purposes of negotiatimg European Telecomms ... never intended to get involved with the other stuff .

 

My point is this ... I happen to disagree with the judges decision in Corbyn ... the decision there was a policy decision anyway made a very specific set if circumstances. If you stack it up against LUL's REPP there's an argument to be made. LUL prosecutors seem to live in this "Section 5(a)(a) / Corbyn" bubble ... don't seem to have a life outside of that ...

 

SDo one of the parts olf the argument is that there's no such thing in statute as "partial / almost" liability - real terms or imagined terms ... seems a nonsense to me ... and very bizarre ...

 

m

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get into lengthy discussion about this one. You clearly are on a crusade, but I'd ask you to forget about Corbyn for a moment

 

Your initial post suggests that your daughter used your Freedom Pass. The more relevant case would therefore appear to be Browning & Floyd (1946)

 

'in the case of a passenger using another person's ticket, the rail company might not have lost any money, but that passenger has not paid his fare and the offence is therefore committed'

Link to post
Share on other sites
To Maxwell TM

 

The case is not " ... 4 years old ..."; it has been " ... ongoing for 4 years ..." ... as a legal man the words - and where you put them are essential ...

 

 

Massive legal cost??? I offered on up to thgree occasions to meet LUL to settle this internally with an apology,re-imbursement of my out-of-pocket expenses of around £2000 up to about November last year and a donation to Help for Heroes (I'm an ex-serviceman by the way) but got the brush off.

 

So ... p-l-e-a-s-e ... DON'T talk to ME about cynicism ...eh?

 

In any case if and when I win my two upcoming actions against LUL - take it from me I WILL regardless if the nay-sayers on here - of around fifty-kay, I'll dock my expenses, plus a bit for inconvenience and the rest WILL go to Help for Heroes.

 

Hobby horse? If people try to stitch me up then they take consequences ...

I re-qutoe you my family motto (albeit plaguerised): nemo meam familiam impune lacessit - no one wounds/provokes my family with impunity ... so there ...

 

m

 

The age of the case and challenges thereto are mere semantics. The point is that the case is old enough for the young person in question to have moved on. It would be interesting to see her view.

 

That you obviously expect plaudits for cobbling together an ersatz 'legal' bombshell, which will apparently shake TfL to its core is perhaps understandable. The cynicism with which you hide behind the protection of your 75 years, should this case fail is less so. Would you pursue this course were you liable to costs? I doubt it. Have you paused to let a competent expert examine your proposals? Apparently not.

 

If you are so bent on the legal route, why not volunteer at a local community drop in centre? With your specialist knowledge of fare evasion and its penalties, you could counsel those who contemplate bilking on their responsibilities and the consequences of dishonesty.

Edited by Maxwell TM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Maxwell TM

SRPO

Old Codja

 

I'll make thus the final post because the JR papers go off to the Admin Court on Monday so I'm going to rather busy ...

 

Nobody seems to have got the point that I made to LU and I will now for the fianl time before I go blue in the face:

 

I'm not challenging the conviction.

Yes she did use the FP, and yes, she was found guilty in her absence - but, using a bitta legal nous we didn't pay the fine the £250 and costs of £490, and in the same process saw off the bailiff who wanted £1200.

 

The use was inadvertent.

I didn't give her the card to use, nor did she ask me if she could nor would she have nicked it. She picked the blue wallet up by mistake thinking it was hers. Stuck her hand in her bag pulled out the wallet and plonked it on the terminal ... aah thought the RCI my first 'pull' ... and so early too ...

 

That bits over with ... geddit??

Well, at least the LU lawyers knew what I was talking about when I sent the requisite pre-Application Protocol. Unlike the readers here they understood completely that my beef is with " ... the manner in which the decision had been arrived at ..." .

Wasn't ANYBODY reading what I'd said?

 

Anyway the LU lawyers understood what I was talking about and responded appropriately

 

Their possible defences could be, me not being prompt and/or not within three months of the "decision" and res judicata. The court will decide whether grant permission to proceed regarding the first two just by reading the 2cm folder wth applications for directions etc etc.

If he rejects on the "paper exercise" he will tell me why and I have the option to ask for an oral hearing as an appeal.

 

If permission is granted and there's a prelim LU can move for

res judicata. If the judge agrees with them then I'm stuffed. So what's the problem/criticism ... even the professional get cases thrown out happens in courts every day ... so why hurl the bricks me - and from a distance I might add.

 

Corbyn and Browning are irrelevant in the JR context.

Where Section 5(3)(a) is being used is to challenge the validity of its prosecution policy based on S5 - different scenario altogether; no explanations - y'all can look it up for yourselves.

 

Semantics? Good grief - that's why they have to draft things properly to start with and without punctuatiom - especiallly commas.

 

Perhaps Old Codja would like to try this one:

 

She buys cakes from the supermarket in town

 

Now put the word 'only' in front of (or behind for that matter!) each word in the sentence ... see what I mean?) - and see whether semantics matters or not.

 

Hiding behind my 75 years? ... really? Cynical? Oh dear...!

 

Would I have pursued this if cost threatened?

Of course not ... would you?

But under HR I'm allowed to fight a case as a self-litigant - I have a case, and it's not vexatious ( see Uniplex and Burkett). For some people HR and politicians are a bit like sewers - nasty and smelly. but they're there for a purpose ... so get over it ....

 

Initially y'all came across as pretty objective.

 

But wot's all this?

 

"Obviously looking for plaudits" ... OMG ... where did that come from - and why?

If I were, I'd've been making much more noise in different places a lot earlier. I told SRPO earlier that IF I do have to walk away with egg on my face ...then so what? Y'all will have a chuckle ... but mentally I'm a tuff old boy (well, physically too for that matter) ... survived a lot worse

 

""" ... cobbling an ersatz case" - nothing ersatz about it ... copper-bottomed.

 

Should hear from High Court in about 3 - 4 weeks I guess.

 

m

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok

typically people use cag to gain help and assistance............

 

if this thread is to be used for nothing more than a tennis match of opinions, and may i say

not in the best possible nature either in some instances.....

 

then it will be closed.

 

we do not and will not tolerate CAG forum users whom help people daily

being used as a target to see if a 'crusade' will stand-up in court.

 

anyone and everyone is entitled to HELP here....

 

but if that is not what is required here l suggest it is left to die.

 

dx

siteteam

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

mm - i speak for all the peeople on this thread & at CAG

 

you are MOST welcome to 'comeback' and you will get help.

do not think that you will not get it either.

 

should you need us we are here.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I eagerly await the result of these actions, there seems little point in posting anything further as the OP appears to be in la la land.

 

But he can't be in la la land, that's where I am.

 

HB :)

Edited by honeybee13

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
But he can't be in la la land, that's where I am.

 

HB :)

 

As soon as I wrote it I noticed your location & thought thats handy you can keep us all updated lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that I don't know much, and what I do know is more to do with making a decent Yorkshire than law, but I have read this carefully.

 

To be a litigant in person, do you not have to be one of the parties in the action? The OP was not accused, and did not suffer any of the consequences. It is up to the daughetr to take action, isn't it?

 

Should I stick to eggs andflour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in my nature to throw anything. But I do make a reasonable sausage toad.

 

The OP sounds like the sort of talk I hear over Sunday dinner, I normally get told to stay out of arguments that I don't understand, and I am afraid that I really don't understand this one.

 

It seems like a Barrister has given advice, and other people have given advice on here, and the OP just wants to keep on going, when it is his daughter that is in the middle of this, not him. I think if the Barrister thought that the case stood a chance, he would have grabbed the chance to make money out of London Underground. I guess I have missed the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...