A very interesting debate. As most of you know, I have responded to several of those 'plea for help' posts by newcomers to the forum over recent years, and have, in a few cases, continued to offer assistance and advice off-forum in a few of these from here and elsewhere.
So while I will preserve confidentiality, I can add some generalised remarks which might help to understand how these newcomers find the experience.
Firstly, it is true that the majority enjoy an outcome that is some sort of Settlement rather than a Prosecution and it's also true that I tend to keep away from most threads started by the most blatant evaders and the most self-centred OPs.
However, even those who do enjoy an eventual reprieve tend to have a long wait, with uncertainty and the potential of a Criminal Prosecution hanging in front of them. In some cases where I have provided a phone number I can much more easily 'read' the state of mind of a person and can assure you that the persistent delay and uncertainty has a powerful effect on them. By dragging the wait of fear and anxiety on, for more than 6 months, can have a more lasting influence than a quick fine would have. So based on this observation alone, I'm not able to agree that 'help' from the forum actually assists fare dodgers to get off their just punishment - it can actually make it a more memorable lesson and possibly as lucrative an outcome for the TOC.
Secondly, it gives me the opportunity to comment on the 'loophole' argument. There was one matter which was recently concluded without a report back by me or the OP, for fear of 'encouraging' loophole dodgers. But nevertheless, there really was a substantive error by the TOC and despite advice from others to apologise and seek a settlement, we managed to have the Prosecution dropped (with no apology and no suggestion of settlement). There was a similar situation a little over a year ago with a similar outcome. Some of my friends on here may be dissapointed if these really had been genuine 'evaders' and the forum had assisted them in avoiding a penalty, but I'll stand by my view that if there is an error of fact in the prosecution, then the matter should fail, just as an error of fact by a passenger should be considered for triggering an investigation.
On balance, I do not feel that the reputation of the forum is at risk as a consequence of offers of advice, explanation and even assistance to those detected of apparent ticketless travel (or other irregularity). The replies do not appear to give a disproportionate impression of false prospects. I do, however, have strong concerns when I see innappropriate or uninformed 'advice' or opinions being posted, maybe well-intended, maybe based on a personal experience and often wrong; that these will be read by others (including industry professionals) who may well be misled as a consequence. I regret that. The suggestion above of simply not responding to someone who is clearly an unremorseful repeat evader is unlikely to work unless 'locked' by a moderator, as there always appears to be someone who will chip in with a "what stations?" or "write an apology" or innapropriate analogies or views such as "they're all rude".
Finally, the tendency to blame the accuser is surely human nature for many people, very unpleasant as it is. I have often remarked that I could never do the job of a Guard or Inspector, and one of the reasons is just because of that - I would expect to receive abusive and angry retorts from my public when I detect an irregularity and I wouldn't have the disposition to accept it for long. Its how people are, and much as I detest it, I'm not one to deal with it. Which is all the more reason for us on here to show support and understanding to those professionals who are at the front line of revenue duties.
, I would have thought that it was more cost effective for a TOC to extract an out of court settlement. Maybe all the good advice given here plays quite happily with the TOC legal departments.
