Does anyone know if ignoring ticket inspector actually works?

Alan_H_1991

I always firmly believe in paying my fair share to use public transport, but I'm just curious if when the inspector asks you for your ticket and you don't have one, what will ahppen if you just ignore him / her and get off at the next stop, ie, on Luas, bus and train / dart ???
Can they legally drag you back and force money out of you? Can they forcefully drag you out the door? Can / will they check CCTV to see who ignored the inspector ???

To reitterate, I'm just curious.

MonkieSocks

Not in Scotland anyhow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJBUNOG8kw

L1011

Alan_H_1991 wrote: »

I always firmly believe in paying my fair share to use public transport, but I'm just curious if when the inspector asks you for your ticket and you don't have one, what will ahppen if you just ignore him / her and get off at the next stop, ie, on Luas, bus and train / dart ???
Can they legally drag you back and force money out of you? Can they forcefully drag you out the door? Can / will they check CCTV to see who ignored the inspector ???

To reitterate, I'm just curious.

As far as I know they don't have powers to physically detain you, however: If train or luas and they're in the area, they'll get the rather scary STT blokes to effectively do so, Guards will be called if required and they will check CCTV.

Methinks you've heard some "freeman" loon claiming you can just ignore them - if so, I advise you to take a look at the Gorey Guardian online to see what's happened to one of their heros down there, couple of stints in prison for contempt of court and he's shut up.

foggy_lad

MYOB wrote: »

As far as I know they don't have powers to physically detain you, however: If train or luas and they're in the area, they'll get the rather scary STT blokes to effectively do so, Guards will be called if required and they will check CCTV.

Methinks you've heard some "freeman" loon claiming you can just ignore them - if so, I advise you to take a look at the Gorey Guardian online to see what's happened to one of their heros down there, couple of stints in prison for contempt of court and he's shut up.

The scary stt guys can't detain you unless you are being abusive or in any way interfering with other passengers or damaging the tram etc but afaik they can't touch you if you are simply walking away fron the inspector as they would then be assaulting you.

wonderfulname

That's like asking if you can blatantly take something from a shop and walk out with it, ignoring the cashiers calls for you to pay up. Can a security guard legally restrain you in this instance? Will CCTV be reviewed? Will the guards be called? What is the likelihood you'd regret acting in this manner once you had already been found out?

It's not rocket science.

corktina

:rolleyes: awful thread but worth it for the Scottish Rambo.

howiya

Only way to avoid the ticket inspectors on the Luas is if they are either intimidated by you or you look like they haven't a snowballs chance of getting the fine paid.

Watch how they will never issue fines to young groups of lads, junkies on the red line or Roma gypsies for not having a ticket but will issue a fine to the ordinary decent commuter

Ash.J.Williams

Alan_H_1991 wrote: »

I always firmly believe in paying my fair share to use public transport, but I'm just curious if when the inspector asks you for your ticket and you don't have one, what will ahppen if you just ignore him / her and get off at the next stop, ie, on Luas, bus and train / dart ???
Can they legally drag you back and force money out of you? Can they forcefully drag you out the door? Can / will they check CCTV to see who ignored the inspector ???

To reitterate, I'm just curious.

i observed a knacker doing just that recently. "what are you gonna do" he said while standing in fighting position....

i must hnad it to him, he did come back with a great answer to the ticket man..

"why don't you have a ticket?"
"i don't have any money"
"then why are you on the luas, get the bus"
"how could i get the bus if i have no f*cking money"

ArphaRima

ordinary decent commuter

Fare dodging knacker

BrianD

If they believe that you are providing false information, they can legally arrest you and detain you pending arrival of the Gardai. I presume that to do so would require them to physically touch you.

(Source: Railusers.ie)

charlemont

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i observed a knacker doing just that recently. "what are you gonna do" he said while standing in fighting position....

i must hnad it to him, he did come back with a great answer to the ticket man..

"why don't you have a ticket?"
"i don't have any money"
"then why are you on the luas, get the bus"
"how could i get the bus if i have no f*cking money"

Ha..That's real traveller wit, It can't be beat..

AlekSmart

BrianD wrote: »

If they believe that you are providing false information, they can legally arrest you and detain you pending arrival of the Gardai. I presume that to do so would require them to physically touch you.

(Source: Railusers.ie)

I believe the guiding principle is the use of whatever level of force is reasonably necessary to detain the individual whilst awaiting the Gardai.

The entire thing hangs on the word...REASONABLE,and I do believe that several legal tomes exist which delve in great deatil into just what is and is'nt reasonable...;)

foggy_lad

AlekSmart wrote: »

I believe the guiding principle is the use of whatever level of force is reasonably necessary to detain the individual whilst awaiting the Gardai.

The entire thing hangs on the word...REASONABLE,and I do believe that several legal tomes exist which delve in great deatil into just what is and is'nt reasonable...;)

Is the level of force not reasonable with respect to the alleged offence? So if you believed a person guilty of murder then detaining them by knocking them down and sitting on them would be reasonable but for civil issues I don't think any force at all is considered reasonable by anyone apart from an Gardai.

BrianD

foggy_lad wrote: »

Is the level of force not reasonable with respect to the alleged offence? So if you believed a person guilty of murder then detaining them by knocking them down and sitting on them would be reasonable but for civil issues I don't think any force at all is considered reasonable by anyone apart from an Gardai.

But actually physically restraining you or removing you from a carriage could hardly be considered inappropriate force. It's appropriate force. Ultimately, it is how the individual behaves dictates what happens next. Comply and the matter is dealt as a fine. If asked to leave they can walk through the exit themselves "unaided".

opti76

Making off without payment.

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

(3) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an offence under this section.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence under this section has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant any person whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(5) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may be effected by a person under subsection (3) only where the person, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(6) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred by that person into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.

AlekSmart

BrianD wrote: »

But actually physically restraining you or removing you from a carriage could hardly be considered inappropriate force. It's appropriate force. Ultimately, it is how the individual behaves dictates what happens next. Comply and the matter is dealt as a fine. If asked to leave they can walk through the exit themselves "unaided".

Correct BrianD,much of this has already been through the judicial process,particularly in the UK.

The nature of the alledged crime is largely irrelevant,it is the behaviour of the suspect when advised of the requirements which dictates the level of "Force" required.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/About-Us/Dublin-Bus-Bye-Laws/Enforcement-Procedures/

(b) The person aforesaid shall on the request of the authorised person remain in the company of the authorised person pending verification of the name and address.

(a) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an authorised person of contravening or of attempting to contravene these Bye-Laws may be removed from the vehicle by an authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána acting on the request of such authorised person.
(b) In the exercise of the power conferred on him under paragraph (a) of this Bye-Law an authorised person or member of the Garda Síochána may use such reasonable force as is necessary.

The Dublin Bus Bye-Laws of 1996 are amongst the most up-to-date of their kind in this State and allow a great deal of scope for the Company to effectively manage its problematic routes.

However,since their inception during what was a very fraught time indeed,successive management groupings have retreated somewhat from enforcing their requirements.

However it is worth noting,in the context of the OP's enquiry that simply ignoring an Authorised Person's request is of itself a contravention of the Bye-Laws,an attitude which will generally lead to a confrontation with a Garda,whereupon the stakes rise considerably.....:)

howiya

fluffer wrote: »

Fare dodging knacker

I accept your point in quoting me. Nobody should dodge fares. What I meant was that they won't approach these people I have mentioned to even see whether they have a ticket or not.

I have a taxsaver ticket so I will never be in danger of getting a fine but it really pisses me off to see the inspectors not even approach the people I have mentioned in my post

Victor

howiya wrote: »

Watch how they will never issue fines to young groups of lads, junkies on the red line or Roma gypsies for not having a ticket but will issue a fine to the ordinary decent commuter

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i observed a knacker doing just that recently. "what are you gonna do" he said while standing in fighting position....

fluffer wrote: »

Fare dodging knacker

Less with the bigoted comments please.

---

howiya wrote: »

Watch how they will never issue fines to ... junkies on the red line ... for not having a ticket but will issue a fine to the ordinary decent commuter

Many drug addicts are on a disability payment and are entitled to free travel passes, so while behaviour may at times be boisterous, they are travelling legally. The "ordinary decent commuter" you mention is travelling without a ticket. Who should be fined?

10% of people will always obey the rules

5% of people will do their damnedest to not follow the rules

Everyone in between will strike a balance between the rules and what suits them, depending on where they are in the spectrum, the need to break the rules, the likelihood of being caught and the punishment if caught.

ArphaRima

Less with the bigoted comments please.

Fair enough. I didn't intend for my words to translate as the common meaning. I meant in personality only.

I dont travel on public transport enough to notice inspector's treatment of different groups but I would agree that everyone without a ticket should be fined. Without exception.

blatantrereg

MYOB wrote: »

As far as I know they don't have powers to physically detain you, however: If train or luas and they're in the area, they'll get the rather scary STT blokes to effectively do so, Guards will be called if required and they will check CCTV.

Methinks you've heard some "freeman" loon claiming you can just ignore them - if so, I advise you to take a look at the Gorey Guardian online to see what's happened to one of their heros down there, couple of stints in prison for contempt of court and he's shut up.

here is the article

http://www.goreyguardian.ie/news/sludds-back-at-court-to-take-judge-to-task-2855642.html

KILMUCKRIDGE MAN OLIVER SLUDDS, who was remanded in custody after a standoff with a judge, was back at Wexford District Court last week with a group of supporters.

Mr. Sludds (29) of Tinteskin, Kilmuckridge, arrived at the court to serve an affidavit seeking to establish his legal identity as a person called Oliver Sludds.

This followed a recent decision by Judge David Anderson to remand him in custody to Clover Hill after he argued with the Judge about his oath and rejected the name given to him in court documents.

Mr. Sludds was released from custody on foot of a High Court order which was issued after the Judge heard that the State 'did not intend to seek to justify' his continued detention.

Five days after he was freed, Mr. Sludds went back to Wexford District Court at a special sitting last Wednesday.

Outside in the car park of the court building, surrounded by supporters, a few of whom had travelled from Dublin, Cork and Waterford to be there, he announced that he had handed the court clerk an affidavit for the presiding Judge, who happened to be Judge Anderson.

The matter was not listed and was not mentioned during the court sitting.

Asked who his supporters were, Mr. Sludds said, ' They are all members of a society we deem to be The Freeman Society.'

One of the group explained their presence, 'We're all here to see justice,' he said.

Mr. Sludds thanked his legal team for getting him out of Clover Hill and also his brother Kenny for all his help.

During the High Court hearing, his senior counsel Colman Fitzgerald questioned the legality of his detention.

Mr. Sludds had appeared before the District Court on motoring offences.

When his case was called, he dismissed the name given to him in court documents - Bobby Oliver Sludds - as 'a fiction made up by the gardaí'.

He said he had been brought to the court against his will and demanded to see Judge Anderson's oath of office.

' This is not a quiz,' the Judge told him, pointing out that he asked the questions, not the other way around.

Judge Anderson said the Constitution did not require him to carry his oath around.

He said that if Mr. Sludds couldn't come up with an alternative identity and didn't have a name, he would be unable to grant him bail. He then remanded him in custody to Clover Hill.

Mr. Sludds is charged with a number of motoring offences including driving without insurance, licence or NCT and failing to stop his vehicle after being asked to do so by a garda at The Ballagh on April 28, 2010.

Frank Black

wonderfulname wrote: »

That's like asking if you can blatantly take something from a shop and walk out with it, ignoring the cashiers calls for you to pay up. Can a security guard legally restrain you in this instance? Will CCTV be reviewed? Will the guards be called? What is the likelihood you'd regret acting in this manner once you had already been found out?

It's not rocket science.

Funnily enough, I had a friend who worked as a security guard for a deparment store in the UK - they were specifically told not to physically stop or give chase to someone who had shoplifted.

They were there as window dressing really.

Victor

black francis wrote: »

Funnily enough, I had a friend who worked as a security guard for a deparment store in the UK - they were specifically told not to physically stop or give chase to someone who had shoplifted.

They were there as window dressing really.

That will be context-related. Doing it in a sweet shop will be done differently to a jewellery shop.

Terrontress

Revenue Protection on CIE is only to catch out those people who have either made a mistake or thought they'd chance it and hope for the best. Otherwise respectable people.

Serious evaders are never dealt with. If you were a ticket checker, would you put yourself in danger to restrain someone who won't have the money to pay a fine and will end up doing another revolving door appearance at court?

steve-o

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Not in Scotland anyhow

The passenger who removed the fare dodger from the train has been charged with assault

Terrontress

steve-o wrote: »

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Not in Scotland anyhow

The passenger who removed the fare dodger from the train has been charged with assault

apparently the kid he chucked off is a diabetic and was thrown off without his bag which contained his medication. Anyone who gets physically involved over a train fare is an idiot. Especially when it is a private company such as First Group who would make the loss of evasion. I am sure if the train company offiical were to be seriously assaulted there would be a company scheme to look after him. Not so the passenger.

Hotblack Desiato

Victor wrote: »

Many drug addicts are on a disability payment and are entitled to free travel passes

The longer this sort of crap goes on, the more the ordinary decent person who believes in earning their own living will abandon Dublin Bus. I choose not to take a daily fare-paid journey accompanied by free-riding junkies.

L1011

Terrontress wrote: »

apparently the kid he chucked off is a diabetic and was thrown off without his bag which contained his medication. Anyone who gets physically involved over a train fare is an idiot. Especially when it is a private company such as First Group who would make the loss of evasion. I am sure if the train company offiical were to be seriously assaulted there would be a company scheme to look after him. Not so the passenger.

The initial news report I saw stated that his bag was thrown out after him.

Not that that detracts from the person who threw him out being a tool, mind. The ticket inspector should have requested police (he may have) instead.

AlekSmart

MYOB wrote: »

The initial news report I saw stated that his bag was thrown out after him.

Not that that detracts from the person who threw him out being a tool, mind. The ticket inspector should have requested police (he may have) instead.

There is another aspect to this incident,which few have bothered to note.

We are basing our judgement on a short camera video U-Tube clip which does not show the lead in to the confrontation.

I see little to be huffy about in the "Big-Fella's" actions as he can clearly be heard asking the Ticket-Checker if he wants the pasenger (now seemingly getting younger by the day,ie: "kid")
removed.

This indicates to me that he was acting at the Authorised Officials request and with his consent.

I'm also noting that our university student (kid) was well able to direct a couple of well placed Fcxuk-off's to the checker.

All that being said,I believe the Checker should have simply requested this gent to leave the train,then just walked of to summon assistance.

However,this may well have resulted in our passenger being dealt with even more harshly by a greater number of passengers...put it bluntly,perhaps he got off lightly.

I do hope the Train Operator puts up a spirited defence of it's actions and also supports its legitimate pasengers who,just as in Dublin,are paying a premium to support freeloaders and panhandlers.

After making two highly charged Luas journeys last evening on the Red Line I was left wishing for a "Big Fella" of some sort willing to sort out the substantial number of abusive exapmles of human nature,for whom the Red Line is now operated.

Terrontress

AlekSmart wrote: »

MYOB wrote: »

The initial news report I saw stated that his bag was thrown out after him.

Not that that detracts from the person who threw him out being a tool, mind. The ticket inspector should have requested police (he may have) instead.

There is another aspect to this incident,which few have bothered to note.

We are basing our judgement on a short camera video U-Tube clip which does not show the lead in to the confrontation.

I see little to be huffy about in the "Big-Fella's" actions as he can clearly be heard asking the Ticket-Checker if he wants the pasenger (now seemingly getting younger by the day,ie: "kid")
removed.

This indicates to me that he was acting at the Authorised Officials request and with his consent.

I'm also noting that our university student (kid) was well able to direct a couple of well placed Fcxuk-off's to the checker.

All that being said,I believe the Checker should have simply requested this gent to leave the train,then just walked of to summon assistance.

However,this may well have resulted in our passenger being dealt with even more harshly by a greater number of passengers...put it bluntly,perhaps he got off lightly.

I do hope the Train Operator puts up a spirited defence of it's actions and also supports its legitimate pasengers who,just as in Dublin,are paying a premium to support freeloaders and panhandlers.

After making two highly charged Luas journeys last evening on the Red Line I was left wishing for a "Big Fella" of some sort willing to sort out the substantial number of abusive exapmles of human nature,for whom the Red Line is now operated.

The student has maintained since that it was an error on the part of Scotrail that led to him not being in possession of a valid ticket. If that is true and I were to be in the same boat then I would not be so quick to get off either. Could he not have been given a penalty fare and given the opportunity to appeal it?

I think over a disputed fare issue a member of the public is mad to get involved. If he had been vandalising the train or engaged in some other black and white issue then buck him off with the assistance of a size 12 boot.

"I've been issued the wrong ticket, have no other way home and no money" does not warrant physical intervention, even if it is littered with cursing and petulant criticisms.

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

Many drug addicts are on a disability payment and are entitled to free travel passes, so while behaviour may at times be boisterous, they are travelling legally.

Do you that not to carry it as proof though...

black francis wrote: »

Funnily enough, I had a friend who worked as a security guard for a deparment store in the UK - they were specifically told not to physically stop or give chase to someone who had shoplifted.

They were there as window dressing really.

Here they cannot touch the person until they leave the shop in case of false accusation, but once have left with stolen goods they are entitled to detain someone until the guards arrive, with reasonable force if need be. Have seen it happen on occasion when working in Tesco

n97 mini

Terrontress wrote: »

"I've been issued the wrong ticket, have no other way home and no money" does not warrant physical intervention, even if it is littered with cursing and petulant criticisms.

The cursing and petulant criticisms destroyed any credibility the little toe rag had.

Physical intervention was clearly required as he wasn't going to leave by himself, but the ticket inspector would have been better off calling the local constabulary to provide the necessary force, preferably with truncheons and whatever other legal physical methods they had at their disposal.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Do you that not to carry it as proof though...

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Terrontress

n97 mini wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

"I've been issued the wrong ticket, have no other way home and no money" does not warrant physical intervention, even if it is littered with cursing and petulant criticisms.

The cursing and petulant criticisms destroyed any credibility the little toe rag had.

Physical intervention was clearly required as he wasn't going to leave by himself, but the ticket inspector would have been better off calling the local constabulary to provide the necessary force, preferably with truncheons and whatever other legal physical methods they had at their disposal.

We are sort of in agreement here. The passenger appears to have been an awful little git and the police should have been called to rectify the situation but the bottom line is that train company intransigence following their mistake will invariably lead to anger. Those people chancing their arm who get caught, that I have seen, become very polite and apologetic. Have you ever seen the start of the film "The Lives of Others" with the interrogation? And no, I don't think it's too severe to compare First revenue inspectors to Stasi interrogators.
Carriage upon the railway depends on an indecipherable set of terms and conditions.

n97 mini

Terrontress wrote: »

We are sort of in agreement here.

I know, it's one of those rare times on boards.ie!

-Chris-

I think I should lock this thread and sticky it as proof that it can actually happen!

AlekSmart

But,but,but.....Chris,The Fat Lady ain't sung yet......there's several day's in court yet to come...:D

SHOVELLER

Dublin Bus wouldnt need inspectors if they had a proper fare system. One standard fare and one standard fare for kids.

Losty Dublin

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Dublin Bus wouldnt need inspectors if they had a proper fare system. One standard fare and one standard fare for kids.

And they wouldn't need them either if people didn't try to travel for free on fake passes, underpaid tickets, sneaking on older kids as being underage etc etc

SHOVELLER

Losty Dublin wrote: »

And they wouldn't need them either if people didn't try to travel for free on fake passes, underpaid tickets, sneaking on older kids as being underage etc etc

All true.

Free passes to alcos and junkies should be revoked.

LXFlyer

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Dublin Bus wouldnt need inspectors if they had a proper fare system. One standard fare and one standard fare for kids.

Have you got the extra (appx) €50m that would be required to fund such a system?

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

Have you got the extra (appx) €50m that would be required to fund such a system?

How do you work that out? Setting the standard fare to the current median fare would be revenue neutral.

LXFlyer

But the median would in all likelihood not be politically acceptable.

It would be too high for the lower fare groups.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

But the median would in all likelihood not be politically acceptable.

It would be too high for the lower fare groups.

There would obviously be some losers. My usual fare is €1.20. I would expect that to rise. My alternative is to walk or get a taxi. I won't be getting any taxies.

You still haven't explained your €50m figure?

LXFlyer

Antoin came up with that elsewhere on C & T.

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

Antoin came up with that elsewhere on C & T.

I believe Antoin based this figure on what he described as the "Politically Acceptable" level of Flat Fare would be

LXFlyer

AlekSmart wrote: »

lxflyer wrote: »

Antoin came up with that elsewhere on C & T.

I believe Antoin based this figure on what he described as the "Politically Acceptable" level of Flat Fare would be

Which frankly is the only one that could happen.

Terrontress

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Dublin Bus wouldnt need inspectors if they had a proper fare system. One standard fare and one standard fare for kids.

London still has them in spite of a flat fare system. There are so many people getting on the buses at once that the driver can't keep track of stray wrists protruding between the torsos of others to tap their oyster on the validator.

It is essentially an honour system in London now. Some buses do have rear doors for entry as well and I think they are patrolled more vigourously.

I once got on the bus in London and my card did not read properly and gave the two loud beeps. I tried again and once more got the loud beeps. The driver waved me on. Apparently if I had been checked, I would most likely have been prosecuted as I entered the bus knowing I had not paid. Penalty fares are just for where there is a mix up or confusion. When you are aware of your unpaid travel it is straight to court.

AlekSmart

Terrontress wrote: »

London still has them in spite of a flat fare system. There are so many people getting on the buses at once that the driver can't keep track of stray wrists protruding between the torsos of others to tap their oyster on the validator.

It is essentially an honour system in London now. Some buses do have rear doors for entry as well and I think they are patrolled more vigourously.

I once got on the bus in London and my card did not read properly and gave the two loud beeps. I tried again and once more got the loud beeps. The driver waved me on. Apparently if I had been checked, I would most likely have been prosecuted as I entered the bus knowing I had not paid. Penalty fares are just for where there is a mix up or confusion. When you are aware of your unpaid travel it is straight to court.

London is indeed a place one should never tire of,however it's public transport system,excellent as it is,does come at a cost...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Item05-Board-30-03-2011-Business-Plan-and-Budget.pdf

Page 51 gives some rather impressive figures,actual and precicted....

c. £400 MILLION in Bus Subsidy alone for 2011/12...one gets what one pays for,and Londoners DO pay for their services....:)

Pages 71,72,73 and in the light of Leap's introduction to Ireland page 78 have interesting elements too