Jumping Barrier Incident

[jon0844]

Rest assured "foul mouthed aggressive yobs" receive the greatest priority from me and my colleagues.

Plus they may get away with it for a while but their luck runs out eventually - and quite often they wind up arrested for other crimes (given they become emboldened and think they can walk in water) and jailed.

 

[Stewart2887]

Meanwhile, rail companies will focus their efforts prosecuting tourists and lilttle old ladies for getting on the wrong train with an advance ticket...

 

[6Gman]

The railway has long targeted the low-hanging fruit, clobbering people for huge penalties for making minor errors or “errors” but letting the real hardcore get away with it scot-free. People who may be trying it on but who do comply with RPI instructions when caught get sent bills for hundreds of pounds; people who simply tell the RPI to eff off do not.

Two lads travelling from M Keynes to Wrexham with only one railcard between them thought they'd got away with it by giving the Train Manager a false address.

Indeed, after she left they laughed about it.

They weren't laughing when BTP escorted them off the train at Crewe.

 

[800001]

It's far safer and probably more effective to report, investigate and prosecute repeat offenders than try to prevent every single case on the day which just risks creating an arms race and making life more dangerous for staff - TfL documentaries often show the techniques used.

Channel 5 tonight at 21:00 has a fare evasion programme - Fare Dodgers at War with the Law.

 

[Krokodil]

Plus they may get away with it for a while but their luck runs out eventually - and quite often they wind up arrested for other crimes (given they become emboldened and think they can walk in water) and jailed.

I had one a little while ago. Child ticket:
"How old are you?"
"Sixteen"
"For future reference you need to be buying adult tickets now"
"I DON'T LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE..."

So rather than just accept a verbal warning with a "sorry, I won't do it again" he started gobbing off. He'd bought his ticket online so our fraud department and BTP were able to identify him. Turns out that he's actually 24. They'd be interviewing him with a view to prosecution if he wasn't currently doing a decent stretch in prison for something more serious. Funnily enough those who kick off at the slightest thing often do have history. Remember that he could just have accepted the verbal warning and that would have been the end of it, but he kicked off and brought a full investigation upon himself.

 

[Phil R]

Channel 5 tonight at 21:00 has a fare evasion programme - Fare Dodgers at War with the Law.

Thanks for the heads up. Saw your post in time to catch the last ten minutes of it. Interesting stuff, what a job the revenue protection guys do.

 

[azOOOOOma]

I had one a little while ago. Child ticket:
"How old are you?"
"Sixteen"
"For future reference you need to be buying adult tickets now"
"I DON'T LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE..."

So rather than just accept a verbal warning with a "sorry, I won't do it again" he started gobbing off. He'd bought his ticket online so our fraud department and BTP were able to identify him. Turns out that he's actually 24. They'd be interviewing him with a view to prosecution if he wasn't currently doing a decent stretch in prison for something more serious. Funnily enough those who kick off at the slightest thing often do have history. Remember that he could just have accepted the verbal warning and that would have been the end of it, but he kicked off and brought a full investigation upon himself.

I love when that happens. Karma can be rather unforgiving!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I love when that happens. Karma can be rather unforgiving!

After recently confronting someone playing their phone out loud in the quiet coach of a Pendolino that barely had ten people on it (why not at least pick a non quiet coach?) and getting a gobful of abuse, I was amused when the guard showed up that he didn't have a ticket and was made to cough up. I was however secretly disappointed it wasn't an RPI writing him up for prosecution, but it did make me giggle to myself in confirming the principle that if someone is seen committing a crime (even a minor Byelaw one of playing a device out loud to someone's annoyance) once you start investigating you are likely to find more crimes where those came from.

That's one key reason it's worth apprehending these people. If we look at barrier jumping in south London in particular, it's very likely you'll not only find a solid record of fare dodging but also minor drugs offences, petty theft, assault etc, and quite possibly also some immigration offences in some parts of London too.

 

[jon0844]

After recently confronting someone playing their phone out loud in the quiet coach of a Pendolino that barely had ten people on it (why not at least pick a non quiet coach?) and getting a gobful of abuse, I was amused when the guard showed up that he didn't have a ticket and was made to cough up. I was however secretly disappointed it wasn't an RPI writing him up for prosecution, but it did make me giggle to myself in confirming the principle that if someone is seen committing a crime (even a minor Byelaw one of playing a device out loud to someone's annoyance) once you start investigating you are likely to find more crimes where those came from.

That's one key reason it's worth apprehending these people. If we look at barrier jumping in south London in particular, it's very likely you'll not only find a solid record of fare dodging but also minor drugs offences, petty theft, assault etc, and quite possibly also some immigration offences in some parts of London too.

This is why I've said for years that the big blocks that work with revenue, BTP, home office and often have drug detection dogs and metal detectors always catch a number of people - criminals literally coming straight to you. I am amazed that it's so hard to coordinate these operations, unless of course you don't want to be stuck with a load of people who were found to be carrying drugs, weapons, were wanted, or had overstayed etc.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I had one a little while ago. Child ticket:
"How old are you?"
"Sixteen"
"For future reference you need to be buying adult tickets now"
"I DON'T LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE..."

So rather than just accept a verbal warning with a "sorry, I won't do it again" he started gobbing off. He'd bought his ticket online so our fraud department and BTP were able to identify him. Turns out that he's actually 24. They'd be interviewing him with a view to prosecution if he wasn't currently doing a decent stretch in prison for something more serious. Funnily enough those who kick off at the slightest thing often do have history. Remember that he could just have accepted the verbal warning and that would have been the end of it, but he kicked off and brought a full investigation upon himself.

It just shows what nuggets some people are!
A colleague of mine called BTP for two gents who wouldn't pay the fare of around £3 each, or give their details. When the Police ran their names through the system it turned out they were affiliated to the UK branch of the triads and were wanted for various drugs and weapons-related charges.... and you think, why didn't you just pay the £3??

 

[jon0844]

It just shows what nuggets some people are!
A colleague of mine called BTP for two gents who wouldn't pay the fare of around £3 each, or give their details. When the Police ran their names through the system it turned out they were affiliated to the UK branch of the triads and were wanted for various drugs and weapons-related charges.... and you think, why didn't you just pay the £3??

A police officer told me that the kids moving stuff for county lines are told not to draw attention themselves. Not to use burner phones on a train, not to push through or create drama.

But clearly some of them can't help themselves.

I can't imagine how many high-level criminals are using public transport every day and falling under the radar simply through buying a ticket and not causing a fuss.

 

[185]

A police officer told me that the kids moving stuff for county lines are told not to draw attention themselves. Not to use burner phones on a train, not to push through or create drama.

I think this is a nonsense claim by (some) cops given the amount of county lines little darlings we collared in joint ops with another, very proactive non-btp force. Sometimes the element of low key unpredictability and surprise whilst less of that high visibility reassurance policing catches them out... the cardboard cutout policemen from B&M Bargains could do that job. You'd assume dealers and drug runners pay for tickets to avoid drawing attention to themselves, but from experience, this just isn't the case. A force's most wanted on suspicion of double murder was picked up for non-payment of a £2.35 single... at a station behind the force HQ.

Revenue protection and discovering other offences are inextricably linked - having repeatedly lost all four officers on revenue operations, each getting an arrest, often within the first half hour. What concerned me more, was the attitude of that police unit's inspector, who repeatedly complained that we were "skewing the crime figures with all these arrests" - probably in the wrong job, that one.

 

[Edsmith]

Meanwhile, rail companies will focus their efforts prosecuting tourists and lilttle old ladies for getting on the wrong train with an advance ticket...

They're far easier to deal with.

This is why I've said for years that the big blocks that work with revenue, BTP, home office and often have drug detection dogs and metal detectors always catch a number of people - criminals literally coming straight to you. I am amazed that it's so hard to coordinate these operations, unless of course you don't want to be stuck with a load of people who were found to be carrying drugs, weapons, were wanted, or had overstayed etc.

Also very expensive and large numbers of police officers standing around doing nothing, as inevitably they will be much of the time, doesn't go down well with the general public who probably don't see it as the best use of resources.

 

[DJ_K666]

This is a false equivalence - nobody is “rewarding” people for pushing through barriers, but there simply isn’t an effective method of preventing in given a system which, as you have noticed, relies on consent.

The railway only “throws the book” at people who have committed offences, and even then the vast majority are let off with discretion.

Unfortunately they have a habit of throwing not only the book but also the bookcase, the library and the librarian. And sometimes at the wrong people. In fact I know someone who had a conviction letter come through for fare evasion when he wasn't even there. Turns out GTR found another guy with the same name and birth date and just dID the SJP without telling him. He used the Stagecoach telematics system to prove his whereabouts at the time. Should have sued for defamation really but there you go.

In the case of the shouties and screamies this approach ought to be made even more robust (ie police called, tasers used, and hope its a....ahem....large library you throw at them) but if someone meekly complies and follows instructions they get hammered. Which is a bit back to front. But I do understand the need to consider personal safety, especially in our increasingly violent society and properly funding the police is essential.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I am reminded of an occurence many years ago when an "all hands to the pumps" block at certain North London line stations. A rich harvest of bail issues, wanted people etc resulted.

One particular individual was asked to just pay his fare , - something like £3.00 or so , he got quite nasty so we had the BTP handy but out of sight. This caused a torrent of abuse resulted , calling the BTP unmentionalble words of which "Dibble" was the mildest. So he got searched and found to be in possession of illegal drugs , and the bike he was wheeling turned out to be stolen......

 

[Tetchytyke]

there simply isn’t an effective method of preventing in given a system which, as you have noticed, relies on consent.

There is- but it costs money.

The railway only “throws the book” at people who have committed offences, and even then the vast majority are let off with discretion.

It throws the book at some people who “commit offences”. Whether they’ve made a mistake or tried it on doesn’t matter, the common factor is that the people who get absolutely clobbered are ones who meekly comply with instructions when identified. The dispute forum is full of countless examples where, to be quite frank, if they’d told the RPI to eff off they’d not be here.

From a commercial perspective that makes sense- maximum revenue, minimum effort.

But at the same time the railway will back down if someone starts screaming and swearing and shouting. Again I get why- I wouldn’t put myself in a position to get stabbed either.

But what does that encourage?

They weren't laughing when BTP escorted them off the train at Crewe

Good. More of that please!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A police officer told me that the kids moving stuff for county lines are told not to draw attention themselves. Not to use burner phones on a train, not to push through or create drama.

But clearly some of them can't help themselves.

I think some of the attraction of the whole thing is that they get to act like gangstas innit as they see on films and feel big and important - so doing those things is part of that. The trouble is (as they find when they get caught) that the real world isn't the same as in Hollywood and they'd have done better acting on the advice of their gangmasters if they didn't want to end up being caught and prosecuted.

Revenue protection and discovering other offences are inextricably linked - having repeatedly lost all four officers on revenue operations, each getting an arrest, often within the first half hour. What concerned me more, was the attitude of that police unit's inspector, who repeatedly complained that we were "skewing the crime figures with all these arrests" - probably in the wrong job, that one.

Unfortunately there are a fair few coppers in the wrong job. I witnessed one yesterday parking in a disabled bay at Bletchley Tesco, right across from an available normal bay. Totally unnecessary, damaging the Police's reputation for no reason bar bone-idleness - that sort of thing just creates the image from the Simpsons of lazy people eating donuts (sadly I didn't wait around long enough to see if that was what they had purchased when they came back out). If the Police want a good impression with the public they really do need to pack that sort of thing in.

 

[virgintrain1]

I think some of the attraction of the whole thing is that they get to act like gangstas innit as they see on films and feel big and important - so doing those things is part of that. The trouble is (as they find when they get caught) that the real world isn't the same as in Hollywood and they'd have done better acting on the advice of their gangmasters if they didn't want to end up being caught and prosecuted.



Unfortunately there are a fair few coppers in the wrong job. I witnessed one yesterday parking in a disabled bay at Bletchley Tesco, right across from an available normal bay. Totally unnecessary, damaging the Police's reputation for no reason bar bone-idleness - that sort of thing just creates the image from the Simpsons of lazy people eating donuts (sadly I didn't wait around long enough to see if that was what they had purchased when they came back out). If the Police want a good impression with the public they really do need to pack that sort of thing in.

The fact you didn't see what they were attending how can you possibly judge. A large percentage of police won't be blue light trained and will still be attending the same emergency calls. Plus if you are having to scuffle with someone to get them in the back of police car, disabled spaces make better sense. I'm sure you'd be annoyed if the prisoner kicked the door open and it hit your car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact you didn't see what they were attending how can you possibly judge. A large percentage of police won't be blue light trained and will still be attending the same emergency calls. Plus if you are having to scuffle with someone to get them in the back of police car, disabled spaces make better sense. I'm sure you'd be annoyed if the prisoner kicked the door open and it hit your car.

They did not enter the shop in a hurry, rather they sauntered in chatting, so it seems clear to me that they were there to make a purchase; also I'd just left the shop myself and seen no scuffle, issues or security activity. It's very common, unfortunately.

Were they attending an emergency I'd be more than happy that they parked right outside the store.

 

[sh24]

This is why I've said for years that the big blocks that work with revenue, BTP, home office and often have drug detection dogs and metal detectors always catch a number of people - criminals literally coming straight to you. I am amazed that it's so hard to coordinate these operations, unless of course you don't want to be stuck with a load of people who were found to be carrying drugs, weapons, were wanted, or had overstayed etc.

I saw one of these recently at the top of the Waterloo Jubilee line escalators to ground level - where there is no escape as the escalators deliver you into the hands of the block. They were very, very busy.

A block like this also has a very positive impression on the vast majority of law abiding citizens. And cute detection dogs too!

 

[RJ]

Yet these very same staff seem keen to intervene and accuse people with valid tickets of not having one.

The railways and BTP have plenty of resource to devote to this. If a member of staff is unfamiliar with the validity of a ticket and calls the police for help, the BTP will dispatch multiple officers promptly, without fail, and they'll hang about for ages. They also have resource to spend months building cases to take to court, which inevitably gets binned when reviewed by a more senior officer.

The TOCs and the individual members of staff using the police in this way are very supportive of this and are happy for resource to be tied up this way, while staff up against ticketless travellers and violent passengers struggle for support. Maybe it would pay to be more strategic as to what staff should say to the police to get a fast response.

It's probably never going to change so I'd say kudos to the staff who don't put themselves at unnecessary risk.

Yet these very same staff seem keen to intervene and accuse people with valid tickets of not having one.

The railways and BTP have plenty of resource to devote to this. If a member of staff is unfamiliar with the validity of a ticket and calls the police for help, the BTP will dispatch multiple officers promptly, without fail, and they'll hang about for ages. They also have resource to spend months building cases to take to court, which inevitably get binned when reviewed by a more senior officer.

The TOCs and the individual members of staff using the police in this way are very supportive of this and are happy for resource to be tied up this way, while staff up against ticketless travellers and violent passengers struggle for support. Maybe it would pay to be more strategic as to what staff should say to the police to get a fast response.

It's probably never going to change so I'd say kudos to the staff who don't put themselves at unnecessary risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't wholly get why, if a passenger actually does show a ticket and it's an e-ticket and so traceable, they bother having an argument. Surely just scan it and tap whatever button says "I don't think this is valid, please investigate", then in due course a letter will show up if it wasn't. It avoids the conflict in the same way as enforcing parking by camera rather than by ticketing in person.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't wholly get why, if a passenger actually does show a ticket and it's an e-ticket and so traceable, they bother having an argument. Surely just scan it and tap whatever button says "I don't think this is valid, please investigate", then in due course a letter will show up if it wasn't. It avoids the conflict in the same way as enforcing parking by camera rather than by ticketing in person.

Because with a car, the keeper of the car is liable until they name/prove anyone else who actually did the deed.

With tickets, which are transferable, no such strict liability exists upon the purchaser of the tickets. You need to properly identify the traveller.

 

[43066]

It throws the book at some people who “commit offences”. Whether they’ve made a mistake or tried it on doesn’t matter, the common factor is that the people who get absolutely clobbered are ones who meekly comply with instructions when identified. The dispute forum is full of countless examples where, to be quite frank, if they’d told the RPI to eff off they’d not be here.

From a commercial perspective that makes sense- maximum revenue, minimum effort.

But at the same time the railway will back down if someone starts screaming and swearing and shouting. Again I get why- I wouldn’t put myself in a position to get stabbed either.

But what does that encourage?

But equally lots of people who “meekly comply” are shown discretion. The vast majority, in fact, based on the RPIs and guards I work with. People are generally only absolutely clobbered when they’ve embarked on a sustained campaign of fare evasion.

The fact that some people say “eff off” is perhaps a suggestion that more robust enforcement is needed - it isn’t a reason not to attempt to enforce the rules when possible to do so. If they do it repeatedly they will end up doing so within earshot of BTP sooner or later.

 

[43066]

There is- but it costs money.

Yes it does - the cost is ultimately born by taxpayers and farepayers. It’s a balancing act - the industry loses £250m per year from fare evasion, and there’s an argument that if would be “profitable” to spend on enforcement - both against evasion and the various types of anti social behaviour.

 

[styles]

Because with a car, the keeper of the car is liable until they name/prove anyone else who actually did the deed.

Only in England & Wales mind. Not up here in bonny Scotland, or in Northern Ireland

Registered keeper liability is potentially coming to Scotland, but it seems very far down Holyrood's list of priorities so wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[43066]

Unfortunately there are a fair few coppers in the wrong job. I witnessed one yesterday parking in a disabled bay at Bletchley Tesco, right across from an available normal bay. Totally unnecessary, damaging the Police's reputation for no reason bar bone-idleness - that sort of thing just creates the image from the Simpsons of lazy people eating donuts (sadly I didn't wait around long enough to see if that was what they had purchased when they came back out). If the Police want a good impression with the public they really do need to pack that sort of thing in.

That is pretty shocking to be fair. Similarly I’ve seen police cars but blue lights on to get through red traffic lights and then immediately switch them off again.

 

[Krokodil]

I don't wholly get why, if a passenger actually does show a ticket and it's an e-ticket and so traceable, they bother having an argument. Surely just scan it and tap whatever button says "I don't think this is valid, please investigate", then in due course a letter will show up if it wasn't. It avoids the conflict in the same way as enforcing parking by camera rather than by ticketing in person.

Because (as I related above) a simple "how old are you?" can trigger some people to flip.

 

[styles]

Because (as I related above) a simple "how old are you?" can trigger some people to flip.

I think that's their point though - if you can silently flag a ticket as being used suspiciously, there's no need to confront people face-to-face and deal with potential aggro.

The issue with this as mentioned though, is that the buyer of a ticket isn't necessarily the traveller. You'd need to introduce some legislation which requires ticket purchasers to identify travellers using the tickets they've purchased, like the requirement to identify a driver who gets caught speeding.

 

[duffield]

I think that's their point though - if you can silently flag a ticket as being used suspiciously, there's no need to confront people face-to-face and deal with potential aggro.

The issue with this as mentioned though, is that the buyer of a ticket isn't necessarily the traveller. You'd need to introduce some legislation which requires ticket purchasers to identify travellers using the tickets they've purchased, like the requirement to identify a driver who gets caught speeding.

I can see a big flaw in that. In the motoring case, the person identified by the registered keeper has still committed an offence, which can then be pursued.

However, in the rail case, the purchaser simply buys and uses a discount ticket (child, railcard whatever) that they are not entitled to, and then when required to identify the actual user, just pretends to "identify" someone else, who *is* actually entitled to use the ticket (child relative for example), and suddenly no offence has been committed. With no further checks they could get away with this fraud for ever.

So to stop that, really you *still* need to positively identify the person who was actually stopped at the time - which is exactly what you were trying to avoid.