I don't expect everyone to like that idea, but it is noticeable that those on here bleating the loudest are those that often have the biggest "anti" against the railways or don't actually work on them.
It seems rather unfair that anyone who has a legitimate complaint to make is immediately branded as anti-railway.
Most people here seem to be making suggestions for how the system could be improved. This doesn't strike as as particularly anti railway. If anything it seems to be a pro-railway attitude by making the system work more effectively for all involved. Indeed I love the railways and I use them a lot. I think they're great and so too are the majority of staff I come across. I'm not a member of railway staff, but I'd like nothing more than to see fare evaders face the consequences of their actions. Who knows if everyone paid their way I wouldn't have to pay so much! Or more money could be put into the infrastructure. I do think, however, the current system is ineffectual and needs to be changed, for everyone's benefit. I don't understand the logic of people's objection to this.
The only "anti" attitude I observe here is the vociferousness of some posters who appear oppose this constructive criticism. It seems to me such criticism is not deemed legitimate unless one works for the railway, despite the fact many of those critics happen to have real life experience in dealing with these issues as passengers. For example I have, over the last five or so years, been issued two £80 fines by Northern, been pursued for prosecution by Northern and been issued six penalty fares by other TOCs. In all cases no offence occurred, no criminality committed, no tickets terms and conditions broken on my part. Does my extensive experience of dealing with the railway industry's approach to revenue protection count for nothing?
What has the CPS got to do with it?
There are thousands of prosecutions made every month by many bodies that are never seen by the CPS. They do not need to be involved.
You've clearly misunderstood what I thought was an incredibly clear point. Allow me to rephrase for the purpose of greater clarity. Currently the railway industry can bring private prosecutions (thousands every month by many bodies, as you put it). This leads to a number of criticisms which we regularly see on this forum. These include the fact that prosecution is sought against some passengers who have not actually committed an offence, the fact prosecutions are sought against those who made an 'honest mistake' and are thus a heavy handed approach, the accusation that railway legislation is being used by TOCs not as a punishment or deterrent, but as a means of revenue generation ... (the list goes on).
You seem to be quite angry about people making such accusations (despite there being some basis to them), so I assume you would clearly like to see a system put in place that punishes fare evaders but in which these accusations could never be made.
Such a system could entail preventing railway companies from pursuing private prosecutions for railway offences and handing the case over to a statutory prosecuting authority (such as the CPS). This would ensure prosecutions only proceed in the public interest and so nullifies many of the existing argument presented against the current practice in railway prosecutions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have considered the other option as a possibility - that fare evasion should be decriminalised and the Penalty Fare set sufficiently high that it covers the costs of all evasion. Serious fraud cases could be pursued through the Courts as a regular fraud charge.
This is how it works with car parks - penalties are a civil matter, but if you faked a ticket you could be taken to court for fraud.
This isn't a bad idea at all. The use of fraud legislation happens already on the railway does it not? Some of the most high profile fare evasions cases we see in the media are indeed prosecuted as fraud.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hate to point out the obvious, but it's not the Byelaws but how they are used. Not all technical breaches have to be (or deserve to be) prosecuted.
And herein lies the problem. Many technical breaches are sent for prosecution when they could have been more appropriately dealt with by a stern word and/or a penalty fare issued according to a well regulated scheme. The approach taken by some TOCs means there is no "public interest" test and this only serves to fuel criticism against the industry.