Heads up - Panorama tonight, BBC1 8.30pm

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
pedantCherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of
the former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair"./pedant


Nah .. she stopped being Booth when she became Mrs. Blair.

Not professionally, she didn't.


A rose by any other name

In message , at 14:37:19 on Sat, 24
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
Because the rail system has come out of a government body it may have
special statutes applying that are specific to transport law.

Yes, there are special rules about paying for rail travel.

Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket
and the means to pay for one because
she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms and
conditions do not allow for this.
The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company saw
little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.

Her incident neither sets a precedent, nor demonstrates what the rule
for "mere mortals" is.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

Her incident neither sets a precedent, nor demonstrates what the rule for
"mere mortals" is.

Obviously no precident is set as no court case occured to make one.
However traveling without a ticket is well reviewed in courts.

It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or criminal
offence.
If it is civil then a contract has to be shown to exist between the rail
company and the traveller. Contracts are two sided affairs and do not exist
merely because one party
says it does. Clearly a passanger has by action shown an intent to enter
into some contract, which may be to travel from Waterloo Directly to Bristol
Parkway.
So the passenger has offerd to enter into a contract with the company by
entering the train. The representative of the company (conductor) may accept
this offer to treat by selling a ticket. The conductor may decline, as no
contract yet exists he is free to decline, he may do so for many or in fact
any reason other than those proscibed by law such as a racial decision. One
of the reasons to decline is that the train being the Waterloo to Exeter
train he cannot comply with the single train trip to Bristol that the other
party wishes, so no contract has been agreed. At this point the customer
should vacate the train. If he is prevented from doing so by the action of
the rail company (i.e. the train has now left Waterloo)
that is not a contractual issue.

A similar example is say you get in a Taxi and the driver moves off, you say
where you want to go and the driver says, North Side Taxis dont go Sounth of
the river I'll take you back to the Taxi Rank and you can get a All London
Taxi mate. Would you pay their standard £10 minimum hire charge?


As you mentioned precident,

I doubt you will find that any rail company has taked a passenger to court
over boarding the wrong train. Many passengers may well have paid up, but
that is back to mugging.

In message , at 06:57:21 on Sun,
25 Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or
criminal offence.

It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
available to buy at the station where you boarded).
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 06:57:21 on Sun, 25
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or criminal
offence.

It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
available to buy at the station where you boarded).
--

I am still googeling for any reference to an arrest for having no valid
ticket while on the wrong train.

However I did find a BR explanation of how a contract with them comes about
:#

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...an_elderly_per

A ticket forms a 'contract' and the 'terms and conditions' printed
on it are part of that contract and are binding on both parties as
there has been 'consideration' by an exchange of money.

So BR terms and conditions do not apply as no contract has been made.

So we are back to either common law or statute law, which would be in
Hansard or Parliamentary Acts not T&Cs

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:57:21 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
wrote:

A similar example is say you get in a Taxi and the driver moves off, you say
where you want to go and the driver says, North Side Taxis dont go Sounth of
the river I'll take you back to the Taxi Rank and you can get a All London
Taxi mate. Would you pay their standard £10 minimum hire charge?

That's not too good an example, as there is no such thing as a "north
side taxi". A London taxi is a London taxi, and they should take any
fare within the Greater London boundary.

However, this is a known problem that has existed for many years, and
it should be reported when it occurs. Though the above example
shouldn't occur as in London it's more conventional IMX to state your
destination to the driver through the window before getting in.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In message , at 18:41:54 on Sun, 25
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or
criminal offence.

It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
available to buy at the station where you boarded).

I am still googeling for any reference to an arrest for having no valid
ticket while on the wrong train.

People will usually pay the penalty fare (or buy a new ticket), if they
aren't given a waiver. So you'd be looking for someone who failed to
pay. The worst you usually get in the press is those people moaning
about having to pay.

--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
People will usually pay the penalty fare (or buy a new ticket), if they
aren't given a waiver. So you'd be looking for someone who failed to pay.
The worst you usually get in the press is those people moaning about
having to pay.


Which only means people believe that have to pay or that it is not enough
for the bother of claiming.

Only a court case proves the law.

I live in Wiltshire where the county council has has to repay over a million
pounds for speeding fines on the A303 because 1 of thousands
actually challenged in court and had a verdict that the council did not have
the authority to impose the fines. The contractors put the speed cameras in
place
where road works were planned and put the new speed restriction signs up a
month later.

That was several years ago, I understand Swindon are having to repay people
because speed cameras were installed without being calibrated.

Just because a fine is levied and lots of people pay it does not in itself
prove the liability.

In message , at 18:15:35 on Mon, 26
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
People will usually pay the penalty fare (or buy a new ticket), if they
aren't given a waiver. So you'd be looking for someone who failed to
pay. The worst you usually get in the press is those people moaning
about having to pay.


Which only means people believe that have to pay or that it is not
enough for the bother of claiming.

Only a court case proves the law.

Hundreds of people have criminal records for travelling without paying
the fare. All you have failed to discover, is reports of the
circumstances, in the press.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:23:42 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or
criminal offence.

It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
available to buy at the station where you boarded).

I am still googeling for any reference to an arrest for having no valid
ticket while on the wrong train.

People will usually pay the penalty fare (or buy a new ticket), if they
aren't given a waiver. So you'd be looking for someone who failed to
pay. The worst you usually get in the press is those people moaning
about having to pay.

IIRC it's been stated (on Usenet...) that some ticket inspectors are
trained to interpret willingness to pay the penalty fare as evidence
of deliberate fare evasion, and therefore refuse to allow the
passenger to pay the penalty fare, instead insisting on prosecution.

This is because in many areas, ticket inspections are rare enough that
it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty fare on every inspection than to
buy a ticket for every journey.