Whilst I wholly disagree with encouraging the actions in the penultimate paragraph for a number of reasons (not finishing with the issue of vandalism), if it were not there it would be a much more plausible article. For this reason it is a shame it was included, and whatever the reputation of the author, I wonder how it slipped through the net at all.
Despite what one may say about political bias within the press, and I will not aim to defend either end of the spectrum, the rest of the article is better than what I have read from a variety of outlets, and immensely more satisfactory when assessing the erosion of onboard staff job roles to the point of total extinction. The overall possibility of a lack of onboard staff in the medium-term appears to be something which the author is not happy with, and is a point she seems to encourage her readers to realise. Other outlets, for all their pros and cons, seem far less willing to acknowledge this.
(As a side note, though, I would comment that it is still always amusing when I see the inaccurate mentions of "opening the doors". All such Southern routes where conductors currently do this will retain their services. This is because none of those routes will be suitable for DOO for quite some time. Closing the doors would be rather more apt.)
As for the particular modes of vandalism, encouraging fare evasion is also likely to encourage anti-social behaviour, and if you really can't guarantee staff onboard more trains from January onwards, that is not a good thing. You would also find that auditors would be less than happy at the lack of functionality within station equipment, and it would be flagged up for remedying extremely quickly. It would also be of no actual benefit whatsoever in trying to improve the service, and would require such consistency around the network to ensure "free travel" for the dissatisfied that it would be bound to have no practical benefit for them either.