Girl thrown off bus for the sake of 30p (possibly)

[WillPS]

Does anybody who pays London taxes actually agree with teenies getting free rides when in any other town they pay their way? I do not live in London myself, I'm just curious.

What do you mean by 'pay their way'?

Most Teenagers under 16 will be eligible for a Child fare which is usually around half the normal fare - in SY the fare is a flat 60p and even 16, 17 and 18 year olds can get it if they're in Further Education.

A 15 year old is going to use no less space on a bus/tram/train than a full-paying Adult, so it's hard to argue they're paying their way at half or less the fare.

Childhood in London is very different to Childhood elsewhere and generally much 'tougher' for both parents and children. Far fewer families will have a car, and so will be far more reliant on the public transport network. Offering free travel for children is essentially a break for parents.

There's also an argument that not offering such a pass would leave children in poorer areas 'ghettoed' within these areas - which is not something anybody wants.

 

[IanXC]

But surely this would cost more to administer then just giving them free travel or even means testing it. At least with means testing it its already on people declarations through their tax and credits system is it not?

There was a point (from memory just after the introduction of Pension Credit) where if all of the age and income related benefits for Pensioners had been abolished, and the total saving added to the state pension, no single pensioner would have been worse off. Means testing is not always cheaper than just giving a benefit to everyone!

 

[185]

Discretion & Common Sense.

Seperates human beings from those that aren't.

In 15 years of checking tickets for a living, I found there's a time and a place use discretion.

 

[jon0844]

Far fewer families will have a car, and so will be far more reliant on the public transport network. Offering free travel for children is essentially a break for parents.

As you're right about a lot of people in London (at least more central) not having a car, surely the fact that there's no VED, (high) insurance, parking permits, petrol, servicing etc puts many people at an actual advantage? I'm not sure there are that many people who have THAT low an income that they can't afford to get around, any more than they can afford to eat or enjoy a certain level of creature comforts. I can't recall the last time I saw people living in Hackney, Edmonton or Tottenham (my old haunts - and some pretty poor areas in comparison to some) walking around in rags.

Here you have a 24 hour transport system with very low costs (even less if you're so reliant that you'd buy a season ticket) - so I am not quite sure why you then give not just a 50% reduction for children but a 100% reduction?

What about those people giving up their cars? Should they get free public transport usage?

I am not saying the idea is totally wrong, but it does still raise a few questions in my head. Certainly the increased burden on the tax payer, as well as the over crowded services at certain times of the day, isn't something you can just ignore. That free travel is NOT free.

 

[WillPS]

I'm not going to explain the difference in costs of living in London compared to anywhere else in the UK. Suffice to say it's 'different'.

 

[BestWestern]

What do you mean by 'pay their way'?

Most Teenagers under 16 will be eligible for a Child fare which is usually around half the normal fare - in SY the fare is a flat 60p and even 16, 17 and 18 year olds can get it if they're in Further Education.

A 15 year old is going to use no less space on a bus/tram/train than a full-paying Adult, so it's hard to argue they're paying their way at half or less the fare.

Childhood in London is very different to Childhood elsewhere and generally much 'tougher' for both parents and children. Far fewer families will have a car, and so will be far more reliant on the public transport network. Offering free travel for children is essentially a break for parents.

There's also an argument that not offering such a pass would leave children in poorer areas 'ghettoed' within these areas - which is not something anybody wants.

Public transport in London is, as I understand things, already artificially cheap - considering the cost of everything else in the city - due to massive subsidy. There is a limit as to what can be given away for nothing at the expense of the wider population, particularly in these hard times.

I would be very interested to see the real figures for crime and anti-social behaviour attributable to allowing teenagers, in a city with firmly established and well documented crime issues among it's youth, to travel about all day as they please on public transport.

As for 'paying their way', some contribution is preferable to none.

 

[WillPS]

Very few teenagers will choose to sit around on buses, and I'd suggest that those which do are generally no harm whatsoever.

Perhaps if you were a parent or child in London you would feel differently. It is a very different place to live than anywhere else in the UK, it has a different ecosystem and largely speaking a different way of life. The fact that neither of the major Mayoral candidates has objected to it (and in fact, from what I can tell, none of the minor ones have either). It's proper that such decisions are made internally.

 

[34D]

Very few teenagers will choose to sit around on buses, and I'd suggest that those which do are generally no harm whatsoever.

Perhaps if you were a parent or child in London you would feel differently. It is a very different place to live than anywhere else in the UK, it has a different ecosystem and largely speaking a different way of life. The fact that neither of the major Mayoral candidates has objected to it (and in fact, from what I can tell, none of the minor ones have either). It's proper that such decisions are made internally.

Having lived in London and other big cities, I don't see the difference between London Leeds Birmingham etc.

 

[BestWestern]

Very few teenagers will choose to sit around on buses, and I'd suggest that those which do are generally no harm whatsoever.

Perhaps if you were a parent or child in London you would feel differently. It is a very different place to live than anywhere else in the UK, it has a different ecosystem and largely speaking a different way of life. The fact that neither of the major Mayoral candidates has objected to it (and in fact, from what I can tell, none of the minor ones have either). It's proper that such decisions are made internally.

Well no, they won't do will they?! In the same way that the main political parties won't openly object to concessionary travel for OAP's. It's all about votes, nothing else.

 

[WillPS]

Well no, they won't do will they?! In the same way that the main political parties won't openly object to concessionary travel for OAP's. It's all about votes, nothing else.

Then we don't disagree - the majority are in favour.

 

[jon0844]

I was born in London and have lived in London.. Now I don't - but I'm merely 20 minutes away by train, or 40-120 minutes away by car (!).

While I can live in a bigger house with a garden than my tiny flat in London (which is the main reason we moved), I really can't see what is so much cheaper out here. I am not sure Londoners get special treatment - especially those at the edges where it's nothing like the same cost as going central - or to areas like Kensington and Chelsea.

Still, for whatever reason, London has voted for this and so it is what it is - but I can still air an opinion that it isn't necessarily correct as it is. I've never suggested everyone pays full price, and accept means testing is costly and open to abuse. I did however come up with some ideas about how technology could help, but I guess Joe Public (and any potential mayor) isn't likely to care or understand about that.

As I don't live in London, I can't vote - even if I travel into London and use the transport system.

 

[bb21]

Then we don't disagree - the majority are in favour.

I won't go so far as to say the majority, but a significant proportion of the population.

 

[island]

Discretion & Common Sense.

Seperates human beings from those that aren't.

In 15 years of checking tickets for a living, I found there's a time and a place use discretion.

And would you have applied discretion here to someone who apparently didn't touch in despite having £2.00 on her Oyster card?

 

[SS4]

I won't go so far as to say the majority, but a significant proportion of the population.

That's a majority in politics

 

[tbtc]

The fact that neither of the major Mayoral candidates has objected to it (and in fact, from what I can tell, none of the minor ones have either). It's proper that such decisions are made internally.

Well no, they won't do will they?! In the same way that the main political parties won't openly object to concessionary travel for OAP's. It's all about votes, nothing else.

Then we don't disagree - the majority are in favour.

The fact that no politician dares speak out against it doesn't mean they are in favour, it may be that they are too scared to question the expense of such a policy.

For example, everybody knows that pensioners get significantly more (once you add all the various benefits together) than the Welfare State was set up to provide but no politician is going to dare question whether we should be as generous to the likes of Paul McCartney as we are to poorer pensioners - it'd be a vote loser to suggest pensioners suffer (whilst you can easily slash the benefits that under 25s get)

 

[Clip]

Has anyone read the comments in the original story!! Turns out her dad has posted on there..

 

[jon0844]

I don't get this story at all. For one, she wasn't left stranded (or even left alone) and secondly - if she had enough money on her Oyster, I have to wonder if she simply refused to scan because she believed she should be allowed free travel.

A total non-story, but one that actually highlights the abuse of power by journalists.

I've had the ability to wave a press card or threaten poor coverage to companies for years, but it's not something I'd ever do because it's wrong. Unless of course it is a genuine story that you'd run if it happened to anyone else - and this obviously isn't.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't get this story at all. For one, she wasn't left stranded (or even left alone) and secondly - if she had enough money on her Oyster, I have to wonder if she simply refused to scan because she believed she should be allowed free travel.

It's amazing how many people have read it and believed that she was though.

 

[BestWestern]

Then we don't disagree - the majority are in favour.

The fact that a majority of politicians are (in public at least) in favour of something because it wins votes, is hardly a sound base for deeming it to be good policy!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The fact that no politician dares speak out against it doesn't mean they are in favour, it may be that they are too scared to question the expense of such a policy.

Quite.

 

[Mojo]

Research by TfL into providing free travel to the under 16s, and 16-18 year olds in full time education which was carried out in the time of Ken Livingstone's Mayoralty showed that there were significant benefits in changing the attitudes of young people towards public transport with a higher age at which young people want to buy their first car, support from parents in that they found themselves having to drive around after their kids less, and support from service operators in that they find behaviour an easier problem to manage.

 

[tbtc]

I don't get this story at all. For one, she wasn't left stranded (or even left alone) and secondly - if she had enough money on her Oyster, I have to wonder if she simply refused to scan because she believed she should be allowed free travel.

A total non-story, but one that actually highlights the abuse of power by journalists

Totally agreed - she lost her first pass, didn't validate her second pass (despite having sufficient money to pay for her fare), she wasn't left stranded anywhere and was allowed to continue her journey.

Robert Coles seems to think that this minor family thing constitutes "news" - must be nice if you abuse the media to put these things in the headlines - I have dozens of trivially minor things that I could put in the papers, we all do, but he can abuse his position. Nice one Robert...

(I hope anyone googling Robert Cole journalist will realise how shoddy this is)

It's amazing how many people have read it and believed that she was though.

Yup - even on here there are people who've formed an instant opinion based on the headline (and not bothered to even read more than a paragraph).

Multiply that across the population and you can understand why people are so judgemental/ wrong on subjects.

It could be frightening how easily people will accept bias (and not read further to get to the truth).