Wouldn't be the first time - ask any of the guards on the forum.For two hours... Really?
Wouldn't be the first time - ask any of the guards on the forum.For two hours... Really?
Wouldn't be the first time - ask any of the guards on the forum.
Is the witness not supposed to write everything down there and then, have me agree to it and then sign it so that nothing else can be written? because this did not happen... on the witnesses 'report of irregular travelling' which was received in the summons pack it is dated 16th December
But if youre suggesting imagery of me being asleep, then surely it would see what else happened given that I was not taken to a more private place to discuss the matter?The quoted posting from me was about CCTV imagery.
Your above comment is about a different matter and again is not correct.
Agreed... I was naïve on the day... I don't deny that!TBH for someone about to be taken to court your naivety is shocking.
Please, stop this. CCTV is a complete and total red herring. I can pretty much guarantee that the CCTV of the day in question was deleted months ago. The only reason it would have been kept is if it supports XC's case.But if youre suggesting imagery of me being asleep, then surely it would see what else happened given that I was not taken to a more private place to discuss the matter?
Courts don't quite work that way. If the Prosecution wants to question the Accused then he will have to take the Stand and answer personally, and not speak through a third party.
But if youre suggesting imagery of me being asleep, then surely it would see what else happened given that I was not taken to a more private place to discuss the matter?
Please, stop this. CCTV is a complete and total red herring. I can pretty much guarantee that the CCTV of the day in question was deleted months ago. The only reason it would have been kept is if it supports XC's case.
Only if there was something on it that helped their case (and defeats yours) and they felt that they needed to keep it.So surely they would have kept it then?
But if youre suggesting imagery of me being asleep, then surely it would see what else happened given that I was not taken to a more private place to discuss the matter?
Why would you be taken to "a more private place to discuss the matter". It was a fare irregularity not a medical consultation!
The Guard/ Train Manager/ RPO (or whatever he was) has got other work to do other than deal with your complex back story!
Any chance of the court details & date? This could be worth a day out.
If he is cautioning me for an offence, he has to do so in a private place, not in the carriage. It says so on XC's Policy of prosecutions... That's why he said to me "I'm giving you this 'No Ticket?' card because I didn't want my actions to be seen as harassment! Had he have done what he was meant to do, he would have had no reason to feel it was harassing
Not what I suggested!
I suggested to others (and you) that if you wanted to use the CCTV images as a defense then that should have been requested within the time limits. They weren't, therefore it is a pointless thing to raise and does not help the discussion.
The Prosecution will not be using it; they don't need to as they have all the evidence they require from their staff.
For what little it's worth the defendant is not obliged to appear in person at a Magistrates Court hearing and can have a solicitor appear on his behalf.
So surely they would have kept it then?
To prove that I was asleep? Could I not then argue that perhaps that's why they weren't kept, because it didn't help them, and it showed that I was in fact asleep?
To prove that I was asleep? Could I not then argue that perhaps that's why they weren't kept, because it didn't help them, and it showed that I was in fact asleep?
I fear he isn't.You are joking, aren't you?
There is no way CCTV could prove you were asleep. Please stop clutching at straws.Could I not then argue that perhaps that's why they weren't kept, because it didn't help them, and it showed that I was in fact asleep?
If he is cautioning me for an offence, he has to do so in a private place, not in the carriage. It says so on XC's Policy of prosecutions...
Just had a ski, through and can find nothing on there that states it will happen in a private place and not in the carriage - which is where most of XC ticket irrgularities will be discovered by them seeing as they dont run or manage any stations
https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/customer-service/no-ticket/prosecutions-policy
Did he "caution" you?
Where does it say what you claim in the XC Policy?
I swear I read somewhere that if someone is being cautioned that it must be done privately to align with either PACE or Data Protection Act
Would someone on here please call me to wake me up from this nightmare fantasy world? Please!I swear I read somewhere that if someone is being cautioned that it must be done privately to align with either PACE or Data Protection Act
Would someone on here please call me to wake me up from this nightmare fantasy world? Please!
Sorry Dave I think it may carry on for some time yet.
I swear I read somewhere that if someone is being cautioned that it must be done privately to align with either PACE or Data Protection Act
Would someone on here please call me to wake me up from this nightmare fantasy world? Please!
Would someone on here please call me to wake me up from this nightmare fantasy world? Please!
Your mate in Sheffield phoned you, but the ringtone didn't wake you.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
iPod in... Maybe my phone was on silent - I don't remember
My comment was in response to DaveNewcastle (and deeply off-topic), but are you now saying you had your iPod in during your journey?
This is a classic fare-dodger tactic.I don't see why this is relevant though...