Irish Rail extortion

partyatmygaff

Richard Logue wrote: »

I think we need to get away from the notion that because we are Ireland we're special and we shouldn't follow legal practices as used elsewhere.

You're confusing legal with just and sensible.

Robust revenue protection policies aren't "stupid" they are there to protect the public transport network from fraud.

They also make an easy way for monopolies to request €100-150 from people under threat of legal action.

In monetary terms, how much exactly would Irish Rail lose if they didn't fine him for this recent issue. (Obviously not including the fine itself)

Of course there are genuine people who leave their tickets at home, but there's plenty of chancers who will swear black and blue they have left their ticket at home but at the same time are sharing their tickets with others.

How exactly would he have been sharing his ticket in this case?

It ain't pretty and sweet, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If some people think that's "stupid" well, it's a harsh world out there. Sorry.

A harsh world full of stupid semi-state monopolies.

bk

Again I would simply come back to it being very poor way to run a business to "punish" your top paying customers for making a mistake.

When he went to the RPU office and showed him his annual ticket, what they should have said is "strictly speaking your fine should still stand *, but since you are such a good customer we will let you off this time."

* Arguable if actually true or not.

And he would have left being a happy customer, thinking how great Irish Rails customer service is.

Instead IR want to "punish" him and it might end up going to court, obviously wasting every ones time and money (the customers, IR's legal costs, court time and costs) and generating bad publicity for IR and pissing off a loyal customer who might end up not using them anymore and switching to car instead and who ends up telling all his family and friends about his awful experience with IR.

Now do you see why this is such a poor business decision?

No private company in a competitive market would treat their customers this way.

I deal daily with customers of my company, who constantly make stupid mistakes, but I don't berate or "punish" them for these mistakes, instead I fix the problem, smile and ask if there is anything else I can help with. I do this because the customers are paying my company a lot of money for the service and treating them well is expected.

If we started treating our top customers like criminals, forcing them to go to court, we would be out of business very quickly.

I can't understand how any one could defend actions like this. Even if you are a fan of Irish Rail, you should want them to be treating their customers better, not worse. If Irish Rail has a culture of treating customers badly, eventually even their protected business will suffer.

BTW the only reason I can think of that IR might be doing this, is because the RPU office has certain goals to meet in terms of number of fines issued and therefore they don't want to do the right thing here.

That would by typical of bad stats driven management.

partyatmygaff

Hit the nail right on the head there with that post.

trellheim

Paragraph 2 only applies to paragraph 1 which requires a passenger to pay a fare upon request of the officer or employee when he cannot produce a valid ticket. If he refuses to buy a valid ticket at that point he can be fined

Correct, and so guilty of an offence. Which he was, and thus fined. There seems to me no evidence of deliberate fare evasion as for Point 3 and I'd say the OP would react strongly if such was put forward.

Con Logue

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Hit the nail right on the head there with that post.

Yes Richard certainly did. Pack your ticket and tag on, junior libertarians!

intellectual dosser

Gatling wrote: »

That little piece of paper a "valid Ticket" also a proof of purchase he can say how he's spent thousands on Irish rail tickets ,
I've spent tens of thousands on weekly shopping So if I walk out with a shop with Loaded trolley without paying would I be stealing ,
He lost his ticket and boarded a train therefore he wasn't in passion of a valid ticket

The shopping comparison isn't the same, the OP has paid for a service in advance, not in arrears.

Whatever about the argument of whether he paid or not, I think IE are crazy not to waive the fine of someone who proved later on that he had paid for his ticket, and is a high yielding customer. If I was the OP I'd be considering alternative transport arrangements. If this is standard process for IE then no wonder usage is going down while fares go up.

thebigbiffo

trellheim wrote: »

Correct, and so guilty of an offence. Which he was, and thus fined. There seems to me no evidence of deliberate fare evasion as for Point 3 and I'd say the OP would react strongly if such was put forward.

Yep - just to clarify as there's been some speculation.

I had not evaded the fare. I am an annual ticket holder and happened to have lost it prior to this journey and was on my way to the Taxsaver office to get a replacement ticket issued (€10 charge).

The problem for me is twofold: A: the fine was not quashed immediately when they did a simple systems check and found out I'm a current paying customer. B: they actually INCREASED the fine by €50 because I was fined for having no ticket (my own fault, no problem with it) about 3-4 years ago - this fine was paid in full by the way.

The more I've thought about it, the more pissed off I am about B. It would be different if i actually hadn't paid again, but just lumping on €50 on top of an already outrageous fine simply because you can is b'ollox. I've already paid the fine for that! It's like double jeopardy!

Also, to clarify the price, that's the cost of an annual Taxsaver ticket from Kildare to Heuston is what I quoted in the OP.

Basically, BK seems to have grasped my argument in full.

Richard Logue

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Basically, BK seems to have grasped my argument in full.

Bk is simply agreeing with you, I think we have all grasped your argument.

You did not present your ticket. I am sure you are genuine, however the RPI will have met many others who will have sworn black and blue they left their ticket at home. How does the RPI know for sure your partner or mate down the pub isn't using your ticket? They don't. Yes it's frustrating having to pay again for something you have already paid for but supposing you hadn't printed out your Ryanair boarding pass before getting on a plane? All of your pleading that you have already paid for the ticket will fall on deaf ears.

Supposing you lock your keys into your house? Is it unfair that a locksmith charges you to open your door? Think of your train ticket as the same as your house keys. You can't get into your house without your keys. You can't board a train without a ticket.

thebigbiffo

Richard Logue wrote: »

Bk is simply agreeing with you, I think we have all grasped your argument.

You did not present your ticket. I am sure you are genuine, however the RPI will have met many others who will have sworn black and blue they left their ticket at home. How does the RPI know for sure your partner or mate down the pub isn't using your ticket? They don't. Yes it's frustrating having to pay again for something you have already paid for but supposing you hadn't printed out your Ryanair boarding pass before getting on a plane? All of your pleading that you have already paid for the ticket will fall on deaf ears.

Supposing you lock your keys into your house? Is it unfair that a locksmith charges you to open your door? Think of your train ticket as the same as your house keys. You can't get into your house without your keys. You can't board a train without a ticket.

I'm not disputing the issuing of the fine but the fact it stands (+€50) after it's appealed and been been proven that I am actually a paid for traveller.

Losty Dublin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So what you're saying is he didn't have a ticket on him hence he was fined.

Strangely enough, I think we surmised that quite early on.

You're just stating what happened without actually getting to the crux of the matter which is "Is what happened reasonable?" and whether or not it is acceptable for a company to behave in such a manner towards paying customers.

It is the core issue, though and let's not escape from it. OP seems to think he is a special case by way of paying for a pass yet be exempt from traveling without a ticket and also exempt from a penalty fare when caught having done so. The reality is that he isn't exempt and hasn't shown any reason why he should be on. As a holder of an annual pass myself I don't think his treatment here is unreasonable nor can I see why it is.

But to go back to a post I made last night, OP should get professional legal advice if he wishes to not pay and to take it to court.

Duggys Housemate

noodler wrote: »

What a fantastic way to throw your toys out of the pram when somebody puts forward a point you disagree with.

Everyone who disagrees with you must be a Irish Rail employee, clearly.

Lol, its clear from his posts he is, or is related to one. He has "insider" knowledge on pay and conditions in IE. AlekSmart is Dublin Bus. So both protagonists at the time were employees of public transport.

And is asked the question? With a ?

namloc1980

Richard Logue wrote: »

Bk is simply agreeing with you, I think we have all grasped your argument.

You did not present your ticket. I am sure you are genuine, however the RPI will have met many others who will have sworn black and blue they left their ticket at home. How does the RPI know for sure your partner or mate down the pub isn't using your ticket? They don't. Yes it's frustrating having to pay again for something you have already paid for but supposing you hadn't printed out your Ryanair boarding pass before getting on a plane? All of your pleading that you have already paid for the ticket will fall on deaf ears.

Supposing you lock your keys into your house? Is it unfair that a locksmith charges you to open your door? Think of your train ticket as the same as your house keys. You can't get into your house without your keys. You can't board a train without a ticket.

Did you read the thread? The fine was correctly issued but it should have been quashed immediately on presentation of the valid ticket, which he did on the same day!! The customer service here is appalling for a good customer who had paid dearly for use of the service. Oh and they add on another €50 fine just for the craic as well.

I would hope this story ends with the judge throwing it out due to Irish Rails idiocy AND OP takes his business elsewhere worth thousands of euro in lost revenue for IR.

Duggys Housemate

Richard Logue wrote: »

Bk is simply agreeing with you, I think we have all grasped your argument.

You did not present your ticket. I am sure you are genuine, however the RPI will have met many others who will have sworn black and blue they left their ticket at home. How does the RPI know for sure your partner or mate down the pub isn't using your ticket? They don't. Yes it's frustrating having to pay again for something you have already paid for but supposing you hadn't printed out your Ryanair boarding pass before getting on a plane? All of your pleading that you have already paid for the ticket will fall on deaf ears.

Supposing you lock your keys into your house? Is it unfair that a locksmith charges you to open your door? Think of your train ticket as the same as your house keys. You can't get into your house without your keys. You can't board a train without a ticket.

You're not following this at all, are you? The problem is not the original fine, but the non squashing of the fine when the valid annual ticket was presented.

He paid to use a service, he didn't get the service, and now the service providers are suing.

Losty Dublin

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You're not following this at all, are you? The problem is not the original fine, but the non squashing of the fine when the valid annual ticket was presented.

He paid to use a service, he didn't get the service, and now the service providers are suing.

He pays €2k for a ticket and loses it. He didn't have a ticket on the train the next day to avail of travel and was stopped for it. No matter who or how its paid for, not having a ticket is the core problem and you are neglecting to address this simple yet vital fact. He also has a track record of being stopped for traveling without a ticket and he was not granted expungement; this obviously didn't help his case. Lets be honest, his case isn't snow white.

I don't recall mention of anybody suing anybody else though he may end up in court and at risk of prosecution if not dealt with by him.

namloc1980

Losty Dublin wrote: »

He pays €2k for a ticket and loses it. He didn't have a ticket on the train the next day to avail of travel and was stopped for it. No matter who or how its paid for, not having a ticket is the core problem and you are neglecting to address this simple yet vital fact. He also has a track record of being stopped for traveling without a ticket and he was not granted expungement; this obviously didn't help his case. Lets be honest, his case isn't snow white.

I don't recall mention of anybody suing anybody else though he may end up in court and at risk of prosecution if not dealt with by him.

He had already paid for the travel in advance. He was correctly fined for not having a valid ticket on the day. He presented his annual paid up ticket on the same day to the RPU. Any normal company would immediately quash the fine for a good paying customer who contributes thousands of Euro to the company annually. Of course IR are not normal, instead of chasing fare evaders they pursue good customers who have paid for travel and had no intention of evading any fares. It seems however that the concept of good customer service is alien to IR and many posters on this thread.

Grolschevik

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The problem is not the original fine, but the non squashing of the fine when the valid annual ticket was presented.

namloc1980 wrote: »

He presented his annual paid up ticket on the same day to the RPU.

He didn't present a valid ticket. He was reissued with a ticket that he had lost, after he was fined for travelling that day without a valid ticket. The issue of prepayment is not relevant to the principle here: if he had lost a weekly or daily or single ticket, the principle would be the same.

However, given the fact that he was able to prove that he was an annual ticket user, I think the sensible and customer-friendly thing to do would have been to quash the fine. Though, from IR's point of view, I suppose they could argue that he might have sold or given away his annual ticket.

My other half has on occasion forgotten her annual ticket, but has been let through without a fine as long as she promises to fax in a photocopy of it the next day. Of course, she gets off the same time, same station every day. And she's gorgeous...:pac:

namloc1980

Grolschevik wrote: »

Though, from IR's point of view, I suppose they could argue that he might have sold or given away his annual ticket.:

What? How could they argue that? That's just making stuff up and insinuating negatively about the character of the OP.

AlekSmart

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Lol, its clear from his posts he is, or is related to one. He has "insider" knowledge on pay and conditions in IE. AlekSmart is Dublin Bus. So both protagonists at the time were employees of public transport.

And is asked the question? With a ?

Steady on Old Boy...Alek Smart is Alek Smart who just happens to be employed by DB in a non-boardroom capacity.

I'm far from being Niall Quinn,I can assure y'all...:D

I'm not quite certain myself,that I'm a protagonist for any CIE company per se,but if it helps,then that opinion is fine by me...;)

Grolschevik

namloc1980 wrote: »

What? How could they argue that? That's just making stuff up and insinuating negatively about the character of the OP.

No, it's just a hypothetical about their possible thought process, and it's the least important thing that I said.

seb65

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It is the core issue, though and let's not escape from it. OP seems to think he is a special case by way of paying for a pass yet be exempt from traveling without a ticket and also exempt from a penalty fare when caught having done so. The reality is that he isn't exempt and hasn't shown any reason why he should be on. As a holder of an annual pass myself I don't think his treatment here is unreasonable nor can I see why it is.

The core issue is that Irish Rail has attempted to pursue the OP with a fine without, it appears, the legal power to do so.

The power of Irish Rail to issue fines is given by statute. Under statute, the OP must have had intent to evade his fare. OP had already paid his fare, so it is impossible to show intent. The courts only have this statute to determine the matter. Personal opinions on what you think is fair, warm fuzzies or a coin toss do not apply.

What is disconcerting is that people have an issue with the OP not shelling out for a double fare, yet have no issue with Irish Rail using the threat of court to force people to pay a fine, even when it seems they have no power to fine him in this instance.

The purpose of allowing Irish Rail to fine people is to prevent fare evasion by punishing those who act criminally and evade fares. The intent provision is to protect innocent people.

Fining someone who pays an annual fee does not fulfill the purpose of the act.

The purpose of the Act is NOT to ensure everyone who travels on the dart has a piece of paper in their pocket because pieces of paper are of special benefit to society.

Losty Dublin

seb65 wrote: »

The core issue is that Irish Rail has attempted to pursue the OP with a fine without, it appears, the legal power to do so.

The power of Irish Rail to issue fines is given by statute. Under statute, the OP must have had intent to evade his fare. OP had already paid his fare, so it is impossible to show intent. The courts only have this statute to determine the matter. Personal opinions on what you think is fair, warm fuzzies or a coin toss do not apply.

What is disconcerting is that people have an issue with the OP not shelling out for a double fare, yet have no issue with Irish Rail using the threat of court to force people to pay a fine, even when it seems they have no power to fine him in this instance.

The purpose of allowing Irish Rail to fine people is to prevent fare evasion by punishing those who act criminally and evade fares. The intent provision is to protect innocent people.

Fining someone who pays an annual fee does not fulfill the purpose of the act.

The purpose of the Act is NOT to ensure everyone who travels on the dart has a piece of paper in their pocket because pieces of paper are of special benefit to society.

Irish Rail and their contemporary companies issue no fines; what they can issue are penalty or standard fares notices alleging that an offense has been committed by a passenger. Nobody receiving one gets them for the gas or a laugh; there is a good chance that anybody who gets one has been found to not have a valid ticket on them for their journey in some shape or form.

You are more than welcome to not pay one of these penalty/standard fares. That said, as there is a good chance that a prosecution may follow, anybody issued with one is informed that it may happen to you should you decide to not pay. It's only then when it goes to court and it goes in front of a judge where intent needs to be shown or defended against and fines, if guilt is found, may be levied.

AlekSmart

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I wanted to relate back my story and see what everyone in here thinks or whether you've ever gone to court against Irish Rail.

I am a yearly taxsaver ticket holder and pay IR about €2136 per year - I suppose double that when tax is taken into account.

I lost my wallet and smart card at a wedding a few weeks ago and on my return to work I decided to get the train, head straight to Connolly and get a replacement. I couldn't produce my ticket when asked and was fined. Which is actually fair enough - that's how it should be. But this is what I am disgusted by: I appealed immediately, in person that day at the RPU office behind Connolly with my renewed ticket and was told to e-mail them, which I did.

My argument is simple: a system check tells them I have paid for my journey and am a valid yearly ticket holder. Should this not be enough to have the fine quashed? Apparently not as the €118 euro fine stood AND they added another €50 because I was fined (rightly) 3-4 years ago for having no ticket.

I think this is a complete injustice. It is very clear I had paid for a valid ticket and it's a matter of record - how can they allow the fine stand?

I have no intention of paying as to me it's a matter of principle, but how will I get on in court? Anyone any experience of this kind of thing?

I wonder,thebigbiffo,what the timeline was between the loss of your wallet/taxsaver and your return to work ?

You quite rightly point to IE's ability to do a system-check on Smart-Cards,which prompts me to wonder what they found in that process ?

It's a learning curve for me too,despite being regarded as a CIE protagonist....

http://www.taxsaver.ie/commuters/annual-ticket-conditions/annual-ticket-conditions/

* Customers failing to produce their tickets or Smart Cards should purchase a daily ticket before travelling to cover the travel journey and subsequent claims for refund will not be entertained. If you are found on board a train or arrive at a station without a valid ticket, and have boarded where facilities where provided, you will then be issued with a fixed penalty notice.

Loss or theft of your Annual ticket / Smart Card should be reported to us as soon as possible by contacting the Sales Department on 01-7034639 (Rail Tickets) , 01-7033021 (Dublin Bus Tickets) or 01-7033435 (Bus Éireann Tickets) . In addition, theft of your ticket should be reported to the Gardai. Lost or Stolen Annual tickets require a letter on headed paper from your company administrator stating the ticket has been lost or stolen. Iarnród Éireann/Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann will normally only issue one replacement Annual ticket in any twelve-month period and you will be charged the following replacement fees up to a maximum of €100.00.

Ticket Type Replacement Charge

DART/Commuter Rail
DART/Commuter Rail & Dublin Bus
Dublin Bus Only
Dublin Bus & Luas
Bus Éireann City & Suburban Tickets
€10.00 per month on
the remaining months left.


Iarnród Éireann Intercity Point-Point
Bus Éireann Point-Point.
€10.00 - €20.00 per month
On the remaining months left
(Depending on Fare Zone)

Iarnród Éireann All Services
€20.00 per month on the
remaining months left

Iarnród Éireann/Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann will refund any replacement fee less a standard administration charge once the original ticket / Smart Card is returned with a cover letter to the Sales Department, Connolly Station, Dublin 1 (Rail Tickets) , The Sales Office, Dublin Bus, 59 Upper O'Connell Street, Dublin 1 (Dublin Bus Tickets) or Regional Managers Office, Bus Éireann, Busáras, Store Street, Dublin 1 (Bus Éireann Tickets).

It's worth noting that none of the penalties in dispute are "Fines",which are penalties only available to a Court.

I am curious also about the €50 added "Fine" relating to the previous infringement,that does sound highly irregular ?

Penalty Fares,Replacement Fees,Administration Charges,all fair enough,but the Fine if it comes at all,can only come from a (Customer Friendly ) Judge.

In spite of the widespread assertions on thread as to IE's lack of "Customer Focus" and assorted other perceived failures,is there a possibility that there are other elements not,as yet apparent which are informing IE's decisions ?

In reality,the OP's principled stance prevents him from paying the penalties,so unless IE relents and cancels those penalties,It's off to a Solicitor for GOOD advice ?

seb65

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Irish Rail and their contemporary companies issue no fines; what they can issue are penalty or standard fares notices alleging that an offense has been committed by a passenger. .

Semantics

AlekSmart

seb65 wrote: »

Semantics

Until you get to court,then suddenly one starts to look for dotted i's and crossed t's with the best of them.

Grandeeod

AlekSmart wrote: »

Until you get to court,then suddenly one starts to look for dotted i's and crossed t's with the best of them.

Have you ever been in a District Court and felt you had a case? Districts Courts are really funny places. I quoted one example earlier in the thread. I could quote many more. Even the law men laugh! Cases like the OPs are typically fecked out because they are a complete waste of time. And rightfully so.

Grandeeod

Hilly Bill wrote: »

What advice has been given on this thread by the so called pro Irish Rail contributors that needs criticizing?

Read the thread now.

trellheim

The core issue is that Irish Rail has attempted to pursue the OP with a fine without, it appears, the legal power to do so.

The power of Irish Rail to issue fines is given by statute. Under statute, the OP must have had intent to evade his fare. OP had already paid his fare, so it is impossible to show intent. The courts only have this statute to determine the matter. Personal opinions on what you think is fair, warm fuzzies or a coin toss do not apply.

What is disconcerting is that people have an issue with the OP not shelling out for a double fare, yet have no issue with Irish Rail using the threat of court to force people to pay a fine, even when it seems they have no power to fine him in this instance.

The purpose of allowing Irish Rail to fine people is to prevent fare evasion by punishing those who act criminally and evade fares. The intent provision is to protect innocent people.

Fining someone who pays an annual fee does not fulfill the purpose of the act.

The purpose of the Act is NOT to ensure everyone who travels on the dart has a piece of paper in their pocket because pieces of paper are of special benefit to society.

This is completely incorrect.

I posted the correct section of the Railway Safety Act earlier. We already established the OP had no intent to evade but did not have a valid ticket with him to be delivered up at the time he was requested to do so, therefore as per the act, liable to pay a "fare for non-paymet of a fare" - difficult to say ! . Irish Rail do not issue fines; the courts do. There is only a "fare for non-payment of a fare" if you don't pay that or give name and address, then you are guilty of an offence, without any requirement to show intent to evade. Feel free to re-read the act.

BTW though I completely agree they should have let him off on production of the ticket for goodwill later on but no obligation to do so.

Grandeeod

trellheim wrote: »

This is completely incorrect.

I posted the correct section of the Railway Safety Act earlier. We already established the OP had no intent to evade but did not have a valid ticket with him to be delivered up at the time he was requested to do so, therefore as per the act, liable to pay a "fare for non-paymet of a fare" - difficult to say ! . Irish Rail do not issue fines; the courts do. There is only a "fare for non-payment of a fare" if you don't pay that or give name and address, then you are guilty of an offence, without any requirement to show intent to evade. Feel free to re-read the act.

BTW though I completely agree they should have let him off on production of the ticket for goodwill later on but no obligation to do so.

Explain the differences between the railway safety act and Irish Rail bye laws. Which one are we to believe?

monument

Everybody please relax a bit!

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Irish Rail and their contemporary companies issue no fines; what they can issue are penalty or standard fares notices alleging that an offense has been committed by a passenger. Nobody receiving one gets them for the gas or a laugh; there is a good chance that anybody who gets one has been found to not have a valid ticket on them for their journey in some shape or form.

You are more than welcome to not pay one of these penalty/standard fares. That said, as there is a good chance that a prosecution may follow, anybody issued with one is informed that it may happen to you should you decide to not pay. It's only then when it goes to court and it goes in front of a judge where intent needs to be shown or defended against and fines, if guilt is found, may be levied.

trellheim wrote: »

This is completely incorrect.

I posted the correct section of the Railway Safety Act earlier. We already established the OP had no intent to evade but did not have a valid ticket with him to be delivered up at the time he was requested to do so, therefore as per the act, liable to pay a "fare for non-paymet of a fare" - difficult to say ! . Irish Rail do not issue fines; the courts do. There is only a "fare for non-payment of a fare" if you don't pay that or give name and address, then you are guilty of an offence, without any requirement to show intent to evade. Feel free to re-read the act.

BTW though I completely agree they should have let him off on production of the ticket for goodwill later on but no obligation to do so.

Acting as mod, I'm also calling semantics.

It's perfectly fine for people to call a standard fare 'a fine' -- it's what most people call it and we're not going getting caught up in an argument about what is semantics.

This isn't up for debate here and any attempt to debate it will be followed with an infraction.

Hilly Bill

Grandeeod wrote: »

Read the thread now.

Ive read up to here but i asked you a few pages ago.

Grandeeod

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Ive read up to here but i asked you a few pages ago.

I'm still not going to take your bait Hilly Bill. Unfortunately this forum is too prone to the oul reported posts, infractions, bans etc. The evidence is in the thread. I can't make you grasp it. That's entirely up to you.

Hilly Bill

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm still not going to take your bait Hilly Bill. Unfortunately this forum is too prone to the oul reported posts, infractions, bans etc. The evidence is in the thread. I can't make you grasp it. That's entirely up to you.

What bait?
All i asked back in post 50 or so was for you to show what advice from the "Pro Irish Rail " contributors up to then that you thought needed criticizing.
Its no big deal.

"Contributing to this thread does not preclude me from criticizing the advice given by the more "pro Irish Rail" contributors."

Grandeeod

Hilly Bill wrote: »

What bait?
All i asked back in post 50 or so was for you to show what advice from the "Pro Irish Rail " contributors up to then that you thought needed criticizing.
Its no big deal.

"Contributing to this thread does not preclude me from criticizing the advice given by the more "pro Irish Rail" contributors."

If you can't see it Hilly Bill......

Hilly Bill

Grandeeod wrote: »

If you can't see it Hilly Bill......

Thats why i asked the question a few pages back. If you want to avoid it then fair enough. Lets move on shall we.

Grandeeod

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats why i asked the question a few pages back. If you want to avoid it then fair enough. Lets move on shall we.

We'll move on and meet again.;)