Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud - Discussion of wider issues/rights/wrongs/etc

[Tazi Hupefi]

I think you may need to read / re-read this thread to understand that whilst you are happy to say “they can’t do this” and “they need evidence” that the actual real world facts show quite clearly that they do can and do do this and they need no evidence. That’s one of the key reasons this thread has gone on as long as it has, going around in the same circles people saying they can’t do something followed by evidence of them doing it.

Exactly. There is no point giving advice about what 'should' happen or how unfair or fair a situation is or isn't.

The reality is what it is, and it isn't going to change, because these types of processes are typical within England, and not just within the rail industry.

You only have the rights you're prepared to actually go to court and argue over, (which will probably cost you more than what you win!) Justice!

 

[sefton]

Exactly. There is no point giving advice about what 'should' happen or how unfair or fair a situation is or isn't.

The reality is what it is, and it isn't going to change, because these types of processes are typical within England, and not just within the rail industry.

You only have the rights you're prepared to actually go to court and argue over, (which will probably cost you more than what you win!) Justice!

Have you found in the Delay Repay T&Cs where it proves your ‘next train‘ claim, or are you still looking?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Have you found in the Delay Repay T&Cs where it proves your ‘next train‘ claim, or are you still looking?

What you think, or what you want to believe is totally irrelevant, as other posters have indicated. Nobody cares what the conditions or legislation says, and there's almost nothing you can do about it without incurring great cost and hassle! Please read the pages extensively on this forum? You'll see all of my posts on the matter.

However you have a common law obligation to minimise your losses in any event.

If a train operator can get you to a destination 13 minutes late, but you choose to deliberately delay yourself for a more comfortable or more direct journey, and you then arrive 17 minutes late, triggering eligibility for compensation, you aren't seriously proposing you're entitled to compensation, as a result your own choices? Unless you have a very good reason, like a protected characteristic preventing you from travelling on the next alternative service, the delay is of your own making.

 

[SteveM70]

However you have a common law obligation to minimise your losses in any event.

What does that mean in practical terms? I’m genuinely intrigued. Financial loss? Quality of life loss? Something else?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

What does that mean in practical terms? I’m genuinely intrigued. Financial loss? Quality of life loss? Something else?

It's called "mitigation".

The rule of mitigation requires a claimant to take steps to minimise its loss and to avoid taking unreasonable steps that increase its loss. An injured party cannot recover damages for any loss (whether caused by a breach of contract or breach of duty) which could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps. The claimant is said to have a "duty to mitigate". However, this is not a duty enforceable by anyone, rather it is a recognition that if the claimant fails to do so its damages recovery will be affected by that failure.

Doesn't necessarily have to be financial, but as most people are suing for a financial value, doing (or not) something that makes the situation worse is likely to be held against you, probably partially, but possibly fully. Just because someone else breaches the contract, doesn't mean you can exploit that or put yourself in a "better" position.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a *general* principle, you cannot intentionally delay yourself further without a compelling reason, in order to increase the rail company’s liability to you. It’s not that hard to grasp.

 

[sefton]

What you think, or what you want to believe is totally irrelevant, as other posters have indicated. Nobody cares what the conditions or legislation says, and there's almost nothing you can do about it without incurring great cost and hassle! Please read the pages extensively on this forum? You'll see all of my posts on the matter.

However you have a common law obligation to minimise your losses in any event.

If a train operator can get you to a destination 13 minutes late, but you choose to deliberately delay yourself for a more comfortable or more direct journey, and you then arrive 17 minutes late, triggering eligibility for compensation, you aren't seriously proposing you're entitled to compensation, as a result your own choices? Unless you have a very good reason, like a protected characteristic preventing you from travelling on the next alternative service, the delay is of your own making.

I have never suggested that you could claim for the time that you actually arrived at your destination, but simply the delay based on the least delay caused by the cancelled train, irrespective of what subsequent train you actually caught.

So 17.30 cancelled, trains every half an hour, stay in office, catch 19.00. Claim for 30 minute delay even though you arrive home 90 minutes later than expected.

You cannot minimise the delay below 30 minutes whatever train you catch.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I have never suggested that you could claim for the time that you actually arrived at your destination, but simply the delay based on the least delay caused by the cancelled train, irrespective of what subsequent train you actually caught.

So 17.30 cancelled, trains every half an hour, stay in office, catch 19.00. Claim for 30 minute delay even though you arrive home 90 minutes later than expected.

You cannot minimise the delay below 30 minutes whatever train you catch.

I think you'd be on very dodgy ground.

18:00 fine. 18:30 in the right circumstances. 19:00, you're going to get a letter from BTP if it happens a few times.

Arguably you can't be compensated for a train you were not physically present to catch in the first place, even if it was cancelled.

There's another thread I believe to discuss all of this. This thread is for advice only for people with letters from GA. I've asked a mod to move it.

 

[SteveM70]

Arguably you can't be compensated for a train you were not physically present to catch in the first place, even if it was cancelled.

Really? So by providing good quality information to its customers, and preventing those customers arriving at the station for a train that isn’t running, the railway somehow absolves itself of liability? That’s absolute nonsense. Surely you must see the utter insanity of that argument?

 

[sefton]

I think you'd be on very dodgy ground.

18:00 fine. 18:30 in the right circumstances. 19:00, you're going to get a letter from BTP if it happens a few times.

Arguably you can't be compensated for a train you were not physically present to catch in the first place, even if it was cancelled.

There's another thread I believe to discuss all of this. This thread is for advice only for people with letters from GA. I've asked a mod to move it.

And as before, please post the evidence for your assertion that this is not acceptable.

You were delayed as the 17.30 you intended to catch was cancelled.

Why on earth do you think you need to be physically present? You are presumably aware the rail companies have websites that inform their customers of cancellations and delays?

Once the train company had delayed their customer, then to use your language, the customer is free to mitigate the impact of the delay. And if that mitigation is spending time productively followed by a reasonable journey home, rather than kicking their heels in a cold train station followed by an unpleasant overcrowded journey, then so be it.

So please either quote the evidence that backs up your assertion, or stop making up nonsense.

And as for getting a letter from BTP. Well I and my colleagues made thousands of claims on that exact basis over many years - and nothing.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

And as before, please post the evidence for your assertion that this is not acceptable.

You were delayed as the 17.30 you intended to catch was cancelled.

Why on earth do you think you need to be physically present? You are presumably aware the rail companies have websites that inform their customers of cancellations and delays?

Once the train company had delayed their customer, then to use your language, the customer is free to mitigate the impact of the delay. And if that mitigation is spending time productively followed by a reasonable journey home, rather than kicking their heels in a cold train station followed by an unpleasant overcrowded journey, then so be it.

So please either quote the evidence that backs up your assertion, or stop making up nonsense.

The other thread covers all of this from both perspectives in great detail and analysis.

And again, what you're not understanding, is that your assertion or interpretation is meaningless, even if you're right. The industry does not believe that you are, and can make life very uncomfortable for you as a result, and not just in an inconvenient manner. Hence why these threads were opened in the first place.

Unless you're prepared to drag yourself through a police investigation, court hearing and almost certainly a legal appeal, your rights are what you are told they are, not what you think they should be. That said, vast majority (but not everyone) of people being caught had been up to no good on at least a couple of occasions, so they can't really grumble.

 

[sefton]

The other thread covers all of this from both perspectives in great detail and analysis.

So it will be easy for you to quote your evidence…

Waiting.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

So it will be easy for you to quote your evidence…

Waiting.

I suspect you have no idea what has triggered all of this in the first place. You need to read EVERYTHING and then ask questions.

And, if you use Greater Anglia, stop making claims in the manner you describe!

 

[MikeWh]

And, if you use Greater Anglia, stop making claims in the manner you describe!

Please cite the authority for that very specific instruction. And please confirm what your role is in the company.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Please cite the authority for that very specific instruction. And please confirm what your role is in the company.

The fact that there's been forum members join for doing similar things like that and are now facing charges of fraud! The very reason the thread you have just posted in was required!

I'm surprised you haven't taken the time to read the appropriate thread yourself.

How any reasonable person thinks a train being cancelled at 17:00, with another half an hour later, allows them to simply waltz up and travel 2 hours or some other time of their choosing, later, by their own free will AND claim compensation baffles me beyond belief. It's illogical, and it would be to many of my professional, learned colleagues. How about travelling at 22:00 after a few pints too? The next morning perhaps?

At the extreme, are you saying it's acceptable for a train at 06:30 am to be cancelled, with another one 15 mins behind, but you decide to stay in bed after checking online, and travel 12 hours later at 18:30, and still claim 15 mins worth of compensation? Do you believe a rule allows this?

As usual, you and several others are making the error that I am condoning what the operators are doing, or some are doing. I have absolutely no view either way, it makes no difference to me! But some of you are totally blinded by your enthusiasm for the rail industry, and a love of rigid terms and conditions, and consumer rights- which I'm sure you are largely quite correct about. But most people who matter in resolving these issues, including the judiciary, police and investigators, simply do not share your enthusiasm or beliefs, and default to their own perceptive test in reasonableness, without any real legal basis. That is the reality, which is why private (and some public) businesses can act however they like without real consequences.

The test in crime should be beyond reasonable doubt. In reality, for summary offences it is simply not. That is our justice system, and even if you did get found not guilty, you're not usually entitled to anything for your troubles.

 

[MikeWh]

The fact that there's been forum members join for doing similar things like that and are now facing charges of fraud! The very reason the thread you have just posted in was required!

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the main driver is excessive claims.

I'm surprised you haven't taken the time to read the appropriate thread yourself.

Oh trust me, I have.

How any reasonable person thinks a train being cancelled at 17:00, with another half an hour later, allows them to simply waltz up and travel 2 hours or some other time of their choosing, later, by their own free will AND claim compensation baffles me beyond belief.

Really? Well actually, if they claim 120 minutes delay then yes, that is beyond belief. But if they claim 30 minutes delay, that to me is sensible and it's beyond my belief that anyone would think otherwise.

At the extreme, are you saying it's acceptable for a train at 06:30 am to be cancelled, with another one 15 mins behind, but you decide to stay in bed after checking online, and travel 12 hours later at 18:30, and still claim 15 mins worth of compensation? Do you believe a rule allows this?

That is clearly taking the mickey, and I think you know that.

As usual, you and several others are making the error that I am condoning what the operators are doing, ...

And, if you use Greater Anglia, stop making claims in the manner you describe!

Well the blunt instruction you made a few minutes ago suggests you are condoning what they are doing.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the main driver is excessive claims.

Oh trust me, I have.

Really? Well actually, if they claim 120 minutes delay then yes, that is beyond belief. But if they claim 30 minutes delay, that to me is sensible and it's beyond my belief that anyone would think otherwise.

That is clearly taking the mickey, and I think you know that.


Well the blunt instruction you made a few minutes ago suggests you are condoning what they are doing.

If it's taking the Mickey, on what basis? It's simply stretching your concept to the maximum. Where is there an "acceptable" threshold defined that makes a later 19:00 train ok, but not 23:00? What rule prevents or allows it? Returns us back to what I have told you, it's likely about what someone ELSE perceives as reasonable. A Magistrate or member of the public not versed in railway matters will likely see things quite differently to you.

As for condoning, it's common sense to dissuade anyone from making a claim on the basis suggested by @sefton , after this forum has various examples of real people in very serious trouble for doing the exact same thing being suggested. It's not condoning, it's realistic, pragmatic advice, which is applicable to Greater Anglia (to which this thread is dedicated to).

 

[pelli]

I have never suggested that you could claim for the time that you actually arrived at your destination, but simply the delay based on the least delay caused by the cancelled train, irrespective of what subsequent train you actually caught.

So 17.30 cancelled, trains every half an hour, stay in office, catch 19.00. Claim for 30 minute delay even though you arrive home 90 minutes later than expected.

You cannot minimise the delay below 30 minutes whatever train you catch.

Recall the following case from TJ12345 (you can click the headings for each quote to see it in context in this thread), where if we take their word for it, their 16:30 was cancelled and they decided to take the next direct train at 17:30 instead of a connecting train at 17:03 that would arrive 10 minutes earlier, and then only claimed for what the delay would have been with the earlier train. It's not clear whether GA would consider this to be fraud on its own, or only if the passenger has a significant pattern of more dodgy claims, but the fact remains that (if I understood correctly) when the passenger emailed to ask which claims were dodgy this instance was one of the ones pointed out.

Just to clear this up - I've had the letter too and the evidence in the follow up emails is based on cross referencing the claims against the gate data.

An example:

xxth date you claimed the 16:30 from xx to xx, you entered the automatic ticket gates at London Liverpool Street at 17:13.

This is an interesting one though - why would I have entered the barriers when the train was cancelled? I clearly went through the barriers in time for the next direct train to my station. Is it not acceptable to claim for a cancelled train when I had intended to travel on it?

This is the first direct train to my destination, yes. There is another where I'd have to change trains just before that, but I prefer not to bother with that hassle, especially as the time saving over waiting for the 5.30 is minimal and the connecting train is more often than not cancelled itself.

But if you decide to not get the next train and wait a bit for a less packed one or a direct one you forfeit your right to claim. At least that appears to me what GA think. I was pulled up on claiming for a 4.30 train, and not getting the packed next train (5.03) that requires a change, and which only gets me into my station 10 mins or so before the direct train (5.30) that follows shortly afterwards.

To be clear I only claimed for the delay had I chosen to get the first train, not for an additional delay caused by my catching the following train

I note that this passenger chose to pay up in the end, although unlike some others they were not asked to pay back all of their claims - only a subset of them.

Don't worry too much. I was also worried sick initially but I responded by email saying that my claims were clearly not without error given the evidence they provided with gate entry times etc, and then asking what my options were in terms of repaying. I received an email after a few days with a settlement figure which was nowhere near the 2 years worth of claims and an admin fee which was also lower than many have suggested here. It does make me believe that the fees charged are somewhat at the discretion of the admin person at GA though as it looks like those who have argued their cases are getting charged a lot more...

(Edit: Adjusted times, inserted "one of the ones".)

 

[Wolfie]

Sorry but that is absurd and probably illegal.

Firstly there is the straightforward issue that you have been delayed and now the railway company is compounding the issue by insisting that if you want some pitiful compensation for that delay that you need to inconvenience yourself further by cramming yourself onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour!

Then there is the illegality of that position as it doesn’t reflect the fact that not every customer is able to force their way onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour, so would need to wait until for a following less overcrowded train - but obviously only being able to claim for the delay on the original cancelled train not the choice to wait.

And before someone suggests that such people should make themselves aware to rail staff, aside from the issue of finding staff during cancellations who have the time or training to deal with this type of issue, would you fancy describing your private medical history to a random person on a crowded platform or information desk?

If the train companies have a problem with people falsely claiming for delays by claiming that they intended to catch a train they never intended to catch, then the train companies need to firstly make it explicitly clear what you are expected to do following a cancellation (which the current guidance doesn’t) and secondly create a mechanism so those who cannot suffer a long stand on an overcrowded train are not penalised.

Absolutely. How GA's stated position would or even could comply with the Equality Act is a very interesting question. It would be "entertaining" if they find themselves the subject of an inquiry by the Equality Commission.

Really? So by providing good quality information to its customers, and preventing those customers arriving at the station for a train that isn’t running, the railway somehow absolves itself of liability? That’s absolute nonsense. Surely you must see the utter insanity of that argument?

Indeed. In any event if passengers are advised to stay on the concourse how the heck do they know if you were physically present at the station or not.

 

[35B]

But you don’t need to “make that case”.

It is the job of the prosecutor to prove you didn’t intend to catch that train, so even harder for them to do that if you caught all sorts - the accused does not need to prove anything.

Fact 1 - train A was cancelled
Fact 2 - the next train B was excessively busy as a result
Fact 3 - the train company’s scanners show you caught the next less crowded train C

Where is their evidence to show that you were not intending to catch train A?

Their “but, but, but…” isn’t evidence, but common sense to avoid standing on an overcrowded train for an hour.

But, as this thread shows, I would have to deal with the cost, effort and uncertainty of the investigation before it got to that stage - regardless of my guilt or innocence.

If it's taking the Mickey, on what basis? It's simply stretching your concept to the maximum. Where is there an "acceptable" threshold defined that makes a later 19:00 train ok, but not 23:00? What rule prevents or allows it? Returns us back to what I have told you, it's likely about what someone ELSE perceives as reasonable. A Magistrate or member of the public not versed in railway matters will likely see things quite differently to you.

As for condoning, it's common sense to dissuade anyone from making a claim on the basis suggested by @sefton , after this forum has various examples of real people in very serious trouble for doing the exact same thing being suggested. It's not condoning, it's realistic, pragmatic advice, which is applicable to Greater Anglia (to which this thread is dedicated to).

You are conflating two ideas - the time of travel, and the claim made. If I am told that the train will not run, then it is reasonable for me to mitigate my losses by delaying my travel to the station or making other productive use of my time. It is, IMHO, also entirely reasonable to claim for the delay on the planned and intended journey for the difference between the time it was sold as being due to my destination, and the next train that would have made that journey. As @MikeWh says, what is not reasonable is to load the entire time difference on the operator, beyond that which they are directly responsible for and can take action to address. That includes allowing for the possibility that, having chosen not to be at the station at the time of delay, I may have my claim declined because the operator implemented an alternative option that I was, due to my absence, unaware of - for example a special stop order.

I also accept that the moment the claim becomes at all confused, especially where the operator is using data like barrier records beyond what they can actually prove, the onus is on me as the claimant to explain the situation to the operator, and that this may involve me in more effort than a "straightforward" claim.

 

[Anglian Drift]

As with just about every time someone suggests checking CCTV on this forum, that will be of no help. The journeys being investigated are over a year in the past, well beyond the length of time CCTV is kept for.

Is it likely that GA have selected old delay claims for investigation knowing that CCTV evidence ( supporting either party ) can't be obtained ? If yes, it kind of supports the 'fishing trip ' possibility of the whole exercise.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it likely that GA have selected old delay claims for investigation knowing that CCTV evidence ( supporting either party ) can't be obtained ? If yes, it kind of supports the 'fishing trip ' possibility of the whole exercise.

No.

 

[Anglian Drift]

We're at risk of going off topic but I can assure you that is the attitude of many police forces. Around 10 years ago I was an area manager for a large chain on convenience stores. The local police inspector asked to meet with me and the conversation went along these lines:

'Your stores are reporting too much theft of alcohol and making my crime stats look bad. You need to sort it out or we'll take your alcohol licenses off you....'

I used to work for a major airline & we suffered significant fraud from Internet bookings, where travellers made bookings for immediate ( or close to ) travel using dodgy credit cards. When I contacted the police I was told it was the airlines fault for not checking the cards sufficiently ( or at all ) prior to travel. Basically it was our fault & they wouldn't get involved, just told us to tighten online booking process. Case closed as far as police concerned, or probably no case ever opened.
Police probably correct but still.....
Cynic would say as Internet fraud so hard to chase down , locate suspects etc, it would negatively impact their clear up rate so best ignored.
Gone a bit off message but a bit of context to the super drug story.

As with previous posts on here, they sent me a list of times of barrier entry exits and questioned why I had claimed.

They always tell you to wait in the main concourse and not other side of barrier at big stations, so that's what you do.
Their argument of, how do we know you intended to get the cancelled train? Is basically your word against theirs and unfortunately without solid proof it's impossible to prove and the big companies always win that fight.

They also ignore the fact barriers are open so no tap when cancellations for extended period of time and the station is overflowing.

24 months is the period is the period I've switched to a smart card.

The amount they asked to settle for over the 24 months, I won't give specifics, but was in low 3 figures but the admin fee bumped it up a lot.

For me I can't be bothered with the hassle and aggro just paid up and moved on

But not against anyone with a hand full of aces.

Neither side knows the others hand truely. I find it hard to believe though that if it went to court , the court would be impressed by GA stance of looking at journeys well over a year ago and expecting the defendant to justify his movements on that day. Also in full knowledge that cctv evidence to support the defendant is unobtainable. Just by having an 'above average' nbr of claims wouldn't impress either, as it's well known that most travellers never claim anyway , deterred by the hassle. Suspect GA banking on the ' I just want it to go away' stance , expecting most ( or all ) of the selected travellers will cave in before any court appearance regardless of DR claims being genuine or not.

 

[NotGreaterA]

I used to work for a major airline & we suffered significant fraud from Internet bookings, where travellers made bookings for immediate ( or close to ) travel using dodgy credit cards. When I contacted the police I was told it was the airlines fault for not checking the cards sufficiently ( or at all ) prior to travel. Basically it was our fault & they wouldn't get involved, just told us to tighten online booking process. Case closed as far as police concerned, or probably no case ever opened.
Police probably correct but still.....
Cynic would say as Internet fraud so hard to chase down , locate suspects etc, it would negatively impact their clear up rate so best ignored.
Gone a bit off message but a bit of context to the super drug story.



Neither side knows the others hand truely. I find it hard to believe though that if it went to court , the court would be impressed by GA stance of looking at journeys well over a year ago and expecting the defendant to justify his movements on that day. Also in full knowledge that cctv evidence to support the defendant is unobtainable. Just by having an 'above average' nbr of claims wouldn't impress either, as it's well known that most travellers never claim anyway , deterred by the hassle. Suspect GA banking on the ' I just want it to go away' stance , expecting most ( or all ) of the selected travellers will cave in before any court appearance regardless of DR claims being genuine or not.

Agree, I don't see how GA have any chance of winning if it goes to court.

 

[Haywain]

I find it hard to believe though that if it went to court , the court would be impressed by GA stance of looking at journeys well over a year ago and expecting the defendant to justify his movements on that day. Also in full knowledge that cctv evidence to support the defendant is unobtainable. Just by having an 'above average' nbr of claims wouldn't impress either, as it's well known that most travellers never claim anyway , deterred by the hassle.

If that’s your defence you’d do well to avoid having to deal with the matter in court.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Agree, I don't see how GA have any chance of winning if it goes to court.

Because people like you, who understandably are not familiar with our conveyor belt justice system, still live in a fantasy world where the prosecution need compelling evidence and the defendant has to do nothing at all.

Save for a jury trial at Crown Court (which have their own bias and issues), if you get as far as a hearing in the Magistrates Court, you're as good as convicted the moment you enter the dock, unless the prosecutor does something especially outrageous or you as a defendant prove your innocence beyond doubt (yes, you prove!). The Magistrates aren't dodgy, they just take their own pragmatic view and experience into account more than they should, so the "beyond reasonable doubt" element is substantially lower than you may expect.

This isn't the fault of any railway company. It's generally the same regardless of who's prosecuting.

 

[WesternLancer]

I used to work for a major airline & we suffered significant fraud from Internet bookings, where travellers made bookings for immediate ( or close to ) travel using dodgy credit cards. When I contacted the police I was told it was the airlines fault for not checking the cards sufficiently ( or at all ) prior to travel. Basically it was our fault & they wouldn't get involved, just told us to tighten online booking process. Case closed as far as police concerned, or probably no case ever opened.
Police probably correct but still.....
Cynic would say as Internet fraud so hard to chase down , locate suspects etc, it would negatively impact their clear up rate so best ignored.
Gone a bit off message but a bit of context to the super drug story.

Interesting info ref your experience there. I wonder if the airline is treated differently than on the railway where the BT Police are paid for, IIRC, by a levy on the train operators, so perhaps see it as more of their role to take an interest in cases the train operators want to pursue?
I'm totally speculating here.
Would your airline employer have been taking it up with a county constabulary?

 

[NotGreaterA]

Because people like you, who understandably are not familiar with our conveyor belt justice system, still live in a fantasy world where the prosecution need compelling evidence and the defendant has to do nothing at all.

Save for a jury trial at Crown Court (which have their own bias and issues), if you get as far as a hearing in the Magistrates Court, you're as good as convicted the moment you enter the dock, unless the prosecutor does something especially outrageous or you as a defendant prove your innocence beyond doubt (yes, you prove!). The Magistrates aren't dodgy, they just take their own pragmatic view and experience into account more than they should, so the "beyond reasonable doubt" element is substantially lower than you may expect.

This isn't the fault of any railway company. It's generally the same regardless of who's prosecuting.

Still continuing to scaremonger I see. You really think above average claims is going to swing it, you really have no clue.

Compelling evidence... How about some evidence...

 

[AlterEgo]

Still continuing to scaremonger I see. You really think above average claims is going to swing it, you really have no clue.

Compelling evidence... How about some evidence...

None of us are privy to any of the evidence in any of the cases here. In many cases, the posters have wisely declined to supply answers to incriminating questions in the thread.

This thread is the worst load of hot air on the forum and just refuses to die thanks to a handful of axe grinders.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Still continuing to scaremonger I see. You really think above average claims is going to swing it, you really have no clue.

Compelling evidence... How about some evidence...

I'm not talking about any claims at all. 1 or 100, it likely makes no difference to a court is the point.

The evidence is what the prosecution want it to be, and what they say it is. A bench of Magistrates will read between the lines and reach their own conclusions, but are normally predisposed to side with the prosecution.

Nobody says it's fair, nobody says it's right- it's just how things are. I really do have a clue, probably more than most on here, thank you very much.

Once it's in court, you're going to have an almost impossible battle to be found not guilty. You need to do everything you can, and make all of your arguments to stop it getting there in the first place.

Read a book from any barrister in the last few years. I recommend Fake Law by The Secret Barrister, and you'll have your eyes opened to the realities of life and justice.

If you think this is scaremongering, wait until you read about what REALLY goes on.