Fare Dodgers!

[yorkie]

I never said at all they were American!

Do you know what African American means?

If not, you could at least look it up on Wikipedia (or JFGI!)

African-American = black.

OK, by that logic....

Anglo African = white.

In which case, the last time I encountered some dodgers, some Anglo Africans were effing it from London to Leeds, they had come from Bishops Stortford. Okay, they probably weren't from Africa but would you rather I used another word and got into trouble? Oh, and their ethnicity had nothing to do with it, but I just thought I'd mention it anyway, even though it's wrong...:roll:

 

[CarterUSM]

Do you know what African American means?

If not, you could at least look it up on Wikipedia (or JFGI!)

OK, by that logic....

Anglo African = white.

Ha ha, stop it!!

 

[yorkie]

And you just don't get it

I.....AM.....NOT.....A.....RACIST

So? Is anyone saying you are?

And, please, there's no need to SHOUT.

Look, Ian, we've had this before with you and train drivers. You make a mistake, so what? We all make mistakes. Accept it, apologise, and move on. Simple! This constant arguing and digging a deeper hole doesn't do you any favours. There's no need to start shouting that you are "NOT A RACIST" when people are not, actually, accusing you of being a racist.

 

[sheff1]

For most of the time, the railway is pretty open and flexible - so people don't perceive it in the same way as they would when you have a boarding card for a set flight, and are subject to many checks, or going to a venue for an event (or indeed going on Eurostar). I am not sure they ever will, unless we have every single station gated and every single train with guards/revenue officers onboard.

You can then imagine the outrage at how tickets are checked so often, but it would stop people being able to commit many offences in the first place.

Call me an old fogie, but back in my childhood we lived near to Handsworth & Smethwick station on the line into Snow Hill. As with all local stations in the area this was staffed from first to last service. Unless you wanted to actually walk acros the lines it was impossible to get onto the platform without purchasing either a travel or platform ticket. When you got to Snow Hill the outward portion of your ticket was taken as you left the station. Coming back, the return portion was clipped on the way in and finally, when you reached Handsworth & Smethwick your used ticket was collected.

Labour intensive ? Maybe.
Effective at stopping anyone even thinking of ticketless travel ? - Almost certainly.


Edit
Oh sorry, I thought this thread was about fare dodging. Clearly I have somehow got onto the wrong board. Good night.

 

[RJ]

It's not my attitude, it's the way things are on that line. A large proportion of the black and asian population are fare dodging scroats.

No, there's not even the slightest slur of racism there.

Interestingly, I will say that I never, EVER, had a white person say to me when they didn't have a ticket: "you're picking on me because I'm white" - and yet this sort of phrase, as well as "you're only asking me for my ticket cos I is black" is often heard from the black or asian ethnic groups. That's not racist as such, merely an observation which is noted by many conductors.

I have. What point are you trying to make by sharing this observation? I don't think that the ability to display asinine ignorance is limited to any particular ethnicity. Whoever it comes from, it's a pitiful attempt at diversion from the real issue of their failure to show a valid ticket.

 

[glynn80]

Reading the original posts by 1V53 and IPT, for me at least, I felt they were just describing what they have experienced in their line of duties - namely that a disproportionate amount of those fare evading on their services were ethnically Black/Asian.

Whether their intentions were racist or not, it is not out of the realms of possibility that they are in fact fully correct.

There is a large racial wealth gap within the UK as the following statistics show:

The proportion of people who live in low-income households is:

* 20% for White people.
* 30% for Indians and Black Caribbeans.
* 50% for Black Africans.
* 60% for Pakistanis.
* 70% for Bangladeshis.

(there is further information is anyone wants it here: http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml)

As you can see those from Black and Asian ethnicities are overwhelmingly more likely to live within low-income households and are thus much more likely to be attempting to evade paying their fares.

Whether they were being racist or not is a debate I don't wish to get into, but whether what they were saying is true, from statistics like that above, I can totally believe it.

 

[First class]

Reading the original posts by 1V53 and IPT, for me at least, I felt they were just describing what they have experienced in their line of duties - namely that a disproportionate amount of those fare evading on their services were ethnically Black/Asian.

Whether their intentions were racist or not, it is not out of the realms of possibility that they are in fact fully correct.

There is a large racial wealth gap within the UK as the following statistics show:


(there is further information is anyone wants it here: http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml)

As you can see those from Black and Asian ethnicities are overwhelmingly more likely to live within low-income households and are thus much more likely to be attempting to evade paying their fares.

Whether they were being racist or not is a debate I don't wish to get into, but whether what they were saying is true, from statistics like that above, I can totally believe it.

A good, common sense approach to the topic.

Racism is always the card thrown up when anyone ever mentions something "bad" about an ethnic "minority". I personally believe that they do it to simply take attention away from whatever they have been accused of. I've lost count of the times I've heard, "You're only doing this 'cos i'm black". erm no, I'm making you get a ticket because you tried to jump the gate

Why do people struggle to accept that perhaps that a large proportion of fare evaders are "ethnic minorities"? Does any one actually care? Personally I don't really think it matters WHO is evading as long as they are caught and processed accordingly.

 

[EM2]

At the station where I work, the majority of revenue staff of one particular TOC are non-white.
One of the black RPIs was PF'ing a young black lad, who came out with the 'you're picking on me 'cos I'm black' line, at which point the RPI said, 'Do you even realise what you are saying?'.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Why was mentioning ethinicity even necessary? What bit of information did it give us? We would have known the same amount if IPT had said 'some teens' or just even 'some people'.
And to be honest, to say they were African-American and then claim that you never said they were American really illustrates some ignorance and prejudice here. And the line 'I can't be racist, I have lots of black friends'. Anyone who has to trot that line out really has nothing else worth saying in their defence.

 

[Ticket Man]

And, please, there's no need to SHOUT.

Can large letters really be considered shouting?

 

[1V53]

Why was mentioning ethinicity even necessary? What bit of information did it give us? We would have known the same amount if IPT had said 'some teens' or just even 'some people'.
And to be honest, to say they were African-American and then claim that you never said they were American really illustrates some ignorance and prejudice here. And the line 'I can't be racist, I have lots of black friends'. Anyone who has to trot that line out really has nothing else worth saying in their defence.

And anyone who makes posts like the one above is either simply missing the point or deliberately trying to be obtuse.

The fact that it's ok to drill down a group by age ("some teens") but not race is demonstrating the big problem with many people in this country - who feel it is fine to describe problem groups by age but not race - who are scared of the 'racist' tag as they feel it applies if any negative remark is made towards a black person but not a White person.

When phoning BTP re a fare evader they ask for the colour of the persons skin.... Think about it.

I assume all customers have tickets, even those doing the ticket dance, the old, the young, the black, the white. Sometimes the mind starts to assume the person in front of you hasn't got one but you bite your tongue and seconds later they find it.

If anyone who works in revenue, who sees someone who has just boarded asleep then being woken doing the ticket dance will start to assume 'here we go again' and a large amount of the time they will be right (it's a fare dodging scroat) But the key is to hide that assumption until the situation is proved. The fact most of the fare dodging scroats are black on this line is a matter of record. That is fact, not racism.

I'm making the point again because those who simply trot out the "you are being racist" argument are the ones who need to open their minds and stop accusing others so freely when in fact by trotting that out they are proving they are simply unable to face up to the facts. It's often these people who are actually the biggest racist bigots once you scratch the surface because they are so busy trying to work out how to behave in a non racist way they will avoid contact for fear of being accused of racism themselves.

No, there's not even the slightest slur of racism there.
.

Correct. I will label the young white fare evader a scroat as well as the old black fare evader. No racism at all. Glad you have understood.

 

[island]

I really find this "holier than thou" attitude impossible to believe - does everyone here (except first_class, whom I surmise does live in the real world, unlike others) really go to the destination ticket office (bible and common prayer book in hand, no doubt) when this happens? I think not.

I did once (with a permit to travel), but seeing the RPIs who had just gotten off the train at my station may have contributed!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I really don't know how he knew the number of passengers boarding and I have never encountered him again, so don't know if he does this regularly.

I know on Northern Ireland Railways the guard always locks off a door and gets out first, and can observe who gets on at unstaffed stations. No idea if it works this way on XC or whoever.

 

[jon0844]

There's no harm referring to someone as black or white, and you're right in that it would help the police identify (or eliminate) someone. Just as you'd point out anything else that helps you tell one person from another (clothing, scars, shoes, glasses, hair etc).

However, I can't see why there was any need in this case to describe the ethnicity of the people concerned. It didn't help anyone but those who might have racist views and think 'well they were obviously up to no good'.

Now if they were clearly foreign (e.g. tourists) then that would have been relevant, as I've seen people who at least appear to be tourists (from reading foreign maps, carrying huge backpacks, cameras etc) getting 'stopped' in first class without a valid ticket (sometimes without a ticket at all) and then refusing to pay or pretending not to speaking any English. They invariably get let off, as I doubt any TOC will take action against a foreigner.

 

[Stigy]

I hope the abusive passengers were charged with making racist & abusive language (sorry not sure what the exact charge is called), that is unacceptable.

Racially Aggrivated Sec.5 more than likely.

Rather than quoting more posts I'll generalise...If I'm allowed

I always use the term Afro-Caribbean in statements, because that's what the Prosecutions Department wants, although I'd rather just put Black, White or Tanned complexion to be honest, maybe ellaborating on certain ethnicity.

It's apparently not acceptable to say "Coloured" now, as was in times gone by, when saying "black" wasn't good. The Police and other agencies are even phasing out IC codes now, which I find bizar, given that they're probably the most PC one can possibly be!

I have done a lot of work in London, and can say that I found myself reporting a lot more black people than I did white people than I do working out of London, purely because of the diverse communities in the city. It doesn't make me racist, and although obviously I got called it alot, you simply can't report people for an offence if you don't believe they have committed one! There was also alot of fare evasion from people from other countries, too, namely Poland and Lithuania, but that's just how it p[anned out, and unfortunately the figures speak for themselves. It really bugs me when I see people shout racism from the rooftops, when they are being reported for alleged offences, yet it's okay and perfectly acceptable for people to 'suck their teeth' at me as a sign of disrespect and call me white trash.

I think the PC brigade need to take a reality check, and not get confused between racism and the truth. Although the terminology was probably wrong (African-American), calling somebody out because they said that when describing a situation is wrong because it just serves to set the picture. Would the same critisisms occur if it was a white guy being talked about?

 

[jon0844]

I haven't said anyone here was/is racist, but I do stick by the opinion that there was no need to mention the colour or ethnicity unless there was some specific relevance or point.

On the many threads here, we might get a description of someone (e.g. a student or an old person, or that they were suited, or an obvious chav), but I don't see where you'd ever need to say 'two <insert colour here> guys got on the train'.

 

[CHESHIRECAT]

Interesting comment on the above; having worked line as Catering staff; have observed on numerous occasions TM going to Booking Office at Preston and handing in Avantix ; as they taxi CRE-PRE this means that they can get taxi to drop them off home rather than go back to PRE !.. meaning no point in doing ticket check south of PRE as they couldnt sell a ticket anyway..!!

 

[the sniper]

When phoning BTP re a fare evader they ask for the colour of the persons skin.... Think about it.

Think about what? I don't know what you're alluding to here.

BTP control will need to know a description of the person so the Officers attending know who they're looking for/have an initial description of an offender, not because they're curious to know if it's one of those darn black fare dodgers. :roll:

Seeing as no one here is attending the incident, reporting the offender, making a PNB entry or writing up statements, why would we need to know, especially in IPT's example, what race (or nationality they weren't )they were? It was irrelevant to the thread.

Not that I think IPT is racist, I don't think anyone really does. It didn't surprise me that he thought all black people are "African-American" though.

The Police and other agencies are even phasing out IC codes now, which I find bizar, given that they're probably the most PC one can possibly be!

I believe many still use IC codes, though some just advise to 'say it how you see it', i.e. White, Black, Asian, ect. now for PNC checks. Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[1V53]

I haven't said anyone here was/is racist, but I do stick by the opinion that there was no need to mention the colour or ethnicity unless there was some specific relevance or point.

On the many threads here, we might get a description of someone (e.g. a student or an old person, or that they were suited, or an obvious chav), but I don't see where you'd ever need to say 'two guys got on the train'.

Why? It is no more or less relevant to quote their age or label them as a Chav, as it is to comment on their colour! It is an identifier. I would not consider it racist in an area which was populated predominantly by blacks if it was stated "two white guys boarded" so why is it such a problem the other way around?

 

[IanPooleTrains]

It was irrelevant to the thread.

I wasn't trying to make it relevant to the thread, I was using it as a case example

Not that I think IPT is racist, I don't think anyone really does.

I beg to differ, I know some people have vey strong opinions about me but are too chicken to say it out loud.

It didn't surprise me that he thought all black people are "African-American" though.

And that comment gets two words and one of them is you, you can use your imagination to figure out what the other one is

 

[RJ]

I expected the "politically correct" brigade to jump up and down, and amusing those 'holier than thou' types here quick to insult my statements of fact as 'bull****'.

You claimed that your personal views were representative of revenue protection staff collectively. That is BS and as I said, something I wish to distance myself from.

 

[WestCoast]

Reminds me of an incident when I was travelling Birmingham to Sheffield on a fairly crowded train. After Derby the conductor announced 'welcome to the 16 people who have joined this XXXX train to Leeds'. As Derby was being rebuilt at the time, with all manner of obstructions on the platform preventing any sort of clear view, I just thought he was having a laugh. He than came through chcking tickets from Derby.

After Chesterfield the same 'welcome to the 21 people etc ...'. This time though when he reached the end of the front coach he said - 'right, I have only checked 20 passengers from Chesterfield, 21 boarded so where is the person I have missed ?' When there was no response, he asked again - still no response. 'Right then, I will do a full ticket check' and off he went - halfway through the coach he came to a woman without a ticket who had sat tight -'we've found her' he announced.

I really don't know how he knew the number of passengers boarding and I have never encountered him again, so don't know if he does this regularly.

Sounds like a very good strategy to me! Most guards who have a ticketing role must do a rough observation of numbers but getting it so precise is rather impressive!

I do wonder what he said to the woman?

 

[jon0844]

Why? It is no more or less relevant to quote their age or label them as a Chav, as it is to comment on their colour! It is an identifier.

But saying someone was a student, a chav, old or whatever paints a picture of who they were - even if it is a generalised or stereotypical one. What picture do you get in your head if I said 'they were black'? That could mean anything from some wannabe gangster to the president of the USA - with every stereotype in between!

Saying that they were black or white is descriptive, sure, but is as pointless as saying they were wearing clothes or had two eyes and a nose.

You must accept that by simply saying 'they were black' it is quite likely that someone could see that as trying to imply that being black somehow explains what happened. Given how easy it would be for people to think that, it's safer not to mention it unless it's important and relevant.

Now, you could argue the same about saying a bunch of chavs were sitting in first class on your train - with people likely to assume that chavs probably wouldn't have tickets, let alone FC ones.. but the very description of a 'chav' is to portray a particular type of person, and not everyone. How as the reference to the black males broken down? It wasn't - it reads as being they were simply black, and no different to anyone else that is black.

 

[1V53]

But saying someone was a student, a chav, old or whatever paints a picture of who they were - even if it is a generalised or stereotypical one. What picture do you get in your head if I said 'they were black'? That could mean anything from some wannabe gangster to the president of the USA - with every stereotype in between!

Saying that they were black or white is descriptive, sure, but is as pointless as saying they were wearing clothes or had two eyes and a nose.

You must accept that by simply saying 'they were black' it is quite likely that someone could see that as trying to imply that being black somehow explains what happened. Given how easy it would be for people to think that, it's safer not to mention it unless it's important and relevant.

Now, you could argue the same about saying a bunch of chavs were sitting in first class on your train - with people likely to assume that chavs probably wouldn't have tickets, let alone FC ones.. but the very description of a 'chav' is to portray a particular type of person, and not everyone. How as the reference to the black males broken down? It wasn't - it reads as being they were simply black, and no different to anyone else that is black.

Unless everyone is black, which they aren't, then it describes an identifier. Same as saying someone was White, in a group that is predominantly black. True it might only drill it down to a large group but it is still an identifier. Saying someone is a student tells me absolutely nothing, neither does saying someone is a Chav. Saying they had a nose or ears would be pointless as in 99.99% of situations it does not drill it down at all. Saying they had no nose though would do.

Your argument is pretty weak and badly made to be fair.

 

[bnm]

I beg to differ, I know some people have vey strong opinions about me but are too chicken to say it out loud.

So, now we have constructive, well thought out responses, calling those with an opinion on you chicken for not expressing that opinion. Not relevant to the thread is my opinion of you. I have one, I just choose not to express it because it is irrelevant.

And that comment gets two words and one of them is you, you can use your imagination to figure out what the other one is

Again. Most informative, constructive and a useful comment to further the debate. Not. "I disagree with what you are saying, but instead of a reasoned response I'll just say **** you and dress it up as witty repartee by adding a wink."

 

[jon0844]

No, I think your attempt to say that you wouldn't be able to identify or picture a 'student' but can picture someone because they're black shows you have the weak argument.

I agree that we all prejudge others and nothing will ever likely stop that - but how is saying someone was black any different to my point about them being clothed? We didn't need to know they were black to identify them as we're not the police and weren't trying to find them.

If you're of the opinion that all black people are criminals, being told that two fare evaders were black will support and reaffirm your view. For everyone else, they'll say 'so?'.

But if you said that two women were caught trying to use senior railcards, you might expect to be told that they were old, young, middle-aged or whatever as it is relevant to the offence. Being black doesn't automatically make you a fare evader. Nor does wearing a tracksuit make you a fare evader, or indeed a suit (given there are indeed many people in suits that attempt to fare evade).

You know what too? I recently saw a young male in a suit climbing the wall at Hatfield, and he was also black! Shock!

And that comment gets two words and one of them is you, you can use your imagination to figure out what the other one is

And I LOVE you too!

 

[1V53]

You claimed that your personal views were representative of revenue protection staff collectively. That is BS and as I said, something I wish to distance myself from.

No I didn't. If you actually read what I said it was 'many' and I was referring to my colleagues, not people I don't know and don't work with who happen to be in a similar role. I'd thought that was obvious from what I stated but clear to set the record straight for those who interpreted it differently.

 

[Scotrail84]

Maybe this thread should be closed as theres too much childish bickering going on and out of order comments and remarks.

Admin?

 

[IanPooleTrains]

I have one, I just choose not to express it because it is irrelevant.

Again. Most informative, constructive and a useful comment to further the debate. Not. "I disagree with what you are saying, but instead of a reasoned response I'll just say **** you and dress it up as witty repartee by adding a wink."

Says the user who said:

That comment allows me to form an opinion of you rather than the passengers you commented on.

And also, how to you know that that was ther choice of verbage that I wanted to use? How did you know that that is the choice who I wanted to use? Do you know for a fact that I was dropping an F-bomb? Do you know for a FACT Mr. Factual Statement, what that word was going to be?

The answer to your question is no, you don't know for a fact what that was going to be so please don't assume anything about me. it's stupid comments like what you said that blows things out of proportion

 

[1V53]

No, I think your attempt to say that you wouldn't be able to identify or picture a 'student' but can picture someone because they're black shows you have the weak argument.

I agree that we all prejudge others and nothing will ever likely stop that - but how is saying someone was black any different to my point about them being clothed? We didn't need to know they were black to identify them as we're not the police and weren't trying to find them.

If you're of the opinion that all black people are criminals, being told that two fare evaders were black will support and reaffirm your view. For everyone else, they'll say 'so?'.

But if you said that two women were caught trying to use senior railcards, you might expect to be told that they were old, young, middle-aged or whatever as it is relevant to the offence. Being black doesn't automatically make you a fare evader. Nor does wearing a tracksuit make you a fare evader, or indeed a suit (given there are indeed many people in suits that attempt to fare evade).

You know what too? I recently saw a young male in a suit climbing the wall at Hatfield, and he was also black! Shock!



And I LOVE you too!

I didn't say being black makes you a fare evader. You are twisting what I have said, perhaps you should read and digest before posting again? I said it was an identifier.

As for students, if I show you a 50 year old white lady with a folder and a 50 year old black lady with a handbag and tell you that the one you need to talk to is the student, which would you choose?

However if I told you the person you needed to talk to was black, you'd know who to talk to, wouldnt you

(Incidentally the student had the handbag)

 

[jon0844]

Oh dear, I think it's pretty clear there was only one word you were meaning. To try and say otherwise is rather pathetic and unbelievable.

If you're going to tell someone to F-Off (with or without a smiley) at least have the guts to stand by it, not backtrack and imply you really did mean 'love you' or .. erm .. what else?

So, out of interest, what WAS the word you meant then?

As for students, if I show you a 50 year old white lady with a folder and a 50 year old black lady with a handbag and tell you that the one you need to talk to is the student, which would you choose?

However if I told you the person you needed to talk to was black, you'd know who to talk to, wouldnt you

(Incidentally the student had the handbag)

But this is if you were asking me to identify someone from a description.. and it's pretty obvious that if someone said student they'd picture someone around 18-25 (unless you maybe added 'mature' to the start).

We're not trying to identify or find anyone are we? It was a comment about two people and the addition of the fact that they were black, or African-American (except not American?!) which was totally irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, if you had a line-up and 20 people were white and one was black, and someone said 's/he was black' then you've now identified someone in an instant. But, why are we talking about 'finding' anyone here?

There's no racism issue here; just the question as to why anyone thought it necessary to include the ethnicity of the two people.

And I never said you had said that being black made you a fare evader either!