I think you're rather over-reacting. It's pretty well established that there is a link between poverty and crime levels.
For example
You can argue about which way the causation goes and what the reasons are (though, preferably, in a different thread) but I don't think you can dispute that poorer areas tend to see more crime in general - from which you can surmise that implies likely greater incidence of fare evasion. None of that implies that poor people (the vast majority of whom are likely to be honest) have any lesser right to be on a train.
The original poster claimed
People from poorer backgrounds who need to travel are likely to evade a fare, especially if they know they can get away with it from an ungated station. As stated upthread, the most poor and the most rich are most likely to dodge their fares - obviously for differing reasons
I don't see any evidence from him linking fare evasion to poverty.
the link you provides is very interesting and sparked a lot of thought for me. Thank you.
First, the LM press release is about violent crime, and the issue here is not violent crime but fare evasion (it would, I think be similar to the difference between theft and robbery).
Second, you need to prove there is a link between fare evasion and poverty and then also to prove that Thamesmead is an area of poverty.
My prejudice tells me you are right, there is a link between fare evasion and poverty. But it's just my opinion, and I think your opinion and mine would have much more weight if there was evidence to support them.
I have to go out now, sorry not to be able to write down all my thoughts on this. I'll return later.