Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Rail - Fine Protocol

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    You could go to court, lose, go to Joe Duffy, appeal to the High Court, go to the Supreme Court and ultimately the EU Court of Justice and possibly make an appeal to the UN war crimes tribunal.

    Or you could send them a photocopy of the passport like they asked.


  • Options
    #63
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    hmmm wrote: »
    You could go to court, lose, go to Joe Duffy, appeal to the High Court, go to the Supreme Court and ultimately the EU Court of Justice and possibly make an appeal to the UN war crimes tribunal.

    Or you could send them a photocopy of the passport like they asked.

    Or

    You could go to court, win, go to Joe Duffy, appeal to the High Court, go to the Supreme Court and ultimately the EU Court of Justice and possibly make an appeal to the UN war crimes tribunal.

    Or you could send them a photocopy of the passport like they asked.

    In either situation sending what they asked is the easier option IMO.


  • Options
    #64
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,159 ✭✭✭plodder


    GM228 wrote: »
    Yes due to data protection laws, to set up such a policy is not as simple as you think and would need to be justified and come under serious scrutiny.
    Agreed. It's not straight forward. Just I have a suspicion that when lawyers give advice on subjects like this, they might tend to be more conservative/cautious than absolutely necessary.
    No unfortunately they could not show the image to the OPs sibling as the image may be of someone else in which case it's a breach of data protection laws. Only the Gardaí could examine it and confirm if the person on the photo is the person suspected.

    Generally only the Gardaí, a court and the person who's picture is taken has a right to view it.
    I'm not sure that it's a breach of data protection laws per-se (if it is, I'd like to see where exactly), though I know there has been cases where completely innocent third parties ended up being wronged in situations like this, but if you think about it, the person in the photo is not an innocent third party. They are the person who didn't have a ticket, and it seems crazy to argue that they would succeed in any action against the company.

    Also, I'm not sure exactly what powers the inspectors have, but I assume they are at least identified in bye-laws as some kind of authorised person for this general function of revenue protection, which would give them some limited ability to investigate these incidents.


  • Options
    #65
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,262 ✭✭✭markpb


    hmmm wrote: »
    You could go to court, lose, go to Joe Duffy, appeal to the High Court, go to the Supreme Court and ultimately the EU Court of Justice and possibly make an appeal to the UN war crimes tribunal.

    Or you could send them a photocopy of the passport like they asked.

    Innocent until proven guilty anyone? :-)


  • Options
    #66
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    GM228 wrote: »
    Or

    You could go to court, win
    Win what exactly? This isn't a great human rights violation they're fighting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    hmmm wrote: »
    Win what exactly? This isn't a great human rights violation they're fighting.

    Win as in prove they are innocent!


  • Options
    #68
    XrayGolf
    Registered Users Posts: 96 ✭✭XrayGolf


    GM228 wrote: »
    Win as in prove they are innocent!

    You can win a court case but still be guilty!


  • Options
    #69
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    kbannon wrote: »
    I didn't say "great lengths".

    However, the OP mentioned two calls to the RPU both of which appear to have earned no understanding fro the RPU of the possibility that they may be wrong.
    The OP also offered a statement from the school and a signed picture both of which were rejected.
    So in effect the RPU seem to be able to accuse anyone of an offence and then refuse reasonable attempts to object to the allegation. In all of this the RPU do not appear to have provided a shred of evidence yet somehow stand firmly in their belief that they are right.

    All they have to do is to go in person and show them that someone used their name instead. They will look at the person at the desk and realise it's not the person that was fined and apologise. Failure to do this comes across as trying to get away with it.


  • Options
    #70
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    markpb wrote: »
    Innocent until proven guilty anyone? :-)

    No such thing when you are accused.


  • Options
    #71
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    XrayGolf wrote: »
    You can win a court case but still be guilty!

    Innocent until proven guilty, if your proven innocent you are innocent, even if your actually guilty :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,126 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    All they have to do is to go in person and show them that someone used their name instead. They will look at the person at the desk and realise it's not the person that was fined and apologise. Failure to do this comes across as trying to get away with it.
    But how? I don't believe that they will have footage from every camera in use by IR available to them. How will the person behind the desk know that the person who comes in is innocent?
    Failure to pander to their demands after offering solutions does not mean that you are trying to get away with it.
    If I was accused wrongly, why should I take a day off work simply to humour their inadequate methods of verifying a person caught breaching their rules?


  • Options
    #73
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,262 ✭✭✭markpb


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    No such thing when you are accused.

    What on earth are you on about?


  • Options
    #74
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,262 ✭✭✭markpb


    kbannon wrote: »
    But how? I don't believe that they will have footage from every camera in use by IR available to them. How will the person behind the desk know that the person who comes in is innocent?

    Shush, it's a secret known only to the CIE coven. You are not one of them so you cannot know.


  • Options
    #75
    howiya
    Registered Users Posts: 3,255 ✭✭✭howiya


    XrayGolf wrote: »
    Firstly, we don't know what proof Irish Rail do or don't have, there could be CCTV footage, a RPO who remembers the incident and person in question etc...

    The difficulty here arises in trying to sort those who are genuinly falsely accused from those who are trying to wriggle their way out of a fine. Irish Rail didn't pluck the OP's sibling's details out of thin air, someone had to supply them to the RPO. Therefore, my advice would be to fully co-operate with them and get the matter resolved and closed.

    That's nonsense. They shouldn't be falsely accusing anybody and should be 100% sure before sending a fine to someone. It's nasty that someone would provide the OP's sibling's details to IR but that doesn't mean it should be their problem.


  • Options
    #76
    howiya
    Registered Users Posts: 3,255 ✭✭✭howiya


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    All they have to do is to go in person and show them that someone used their name instead. They will look at the person at the desk and realise it's not the person that was fined and apologise. Failure to do this comes across as trying to get away with it.

    Trying to get away with something they didn't do??


  • Options
    #77
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    kbannon wrote: »
    why should I take a day off work simply to humour their inadequate methods of verifying a person caught breaching their rules?
    You'd only be taking a day off work if you were stupid. Send them a copy of the passport they were looking for, 5 minutes work maximum.

    I really don't see the problem or the great human rights violation that needs to be fought through the courts here, much as I dislike Irish Rail.


  • Options
    #78
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    markpb wrote: »
    What on earth are you on about?

    I think you know already.


  • Options
    #79
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    kbannon wrote: »
    But how? I don't believe that they will have footage from every camera in use by IR available to them. How will the person behind the desk know that the person who comes in is innocent?
    Failure to pander to their demands after offering solutions does not mean that you are trying to get away with it.
    If I was accused wrongly, why should I take a day off work simply to humour their inadequate methods of verifying a person caught breaching their rules?

    It's not that hard really, They would have made a brief note of what the person looked liked. If it doesn't match then job done happy days. If you are wrongly accused of something wouldn't you want to clear it up as quick as possible? If you are innocent then play they ball with them.. If they still insist they have the right person then do what you have to do but at least you had done what they asked.


  • Options
    #80
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,771 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    instead of fining people, they should just build a little cell on every luas and train platform - caught without a ticket, you get locked into it for an hour. that'd sort out the fare dodging.


  • Options
    #81
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    markpb wrote: »
    kbannon wrote: »
    But how? I don't believe that they will have footage from every camera in use by IR available to them. How will the person behind the desk know that the person who comes in is innocent?

    Shush, it's a secret known only to the CIE coven. You are not one of them so you cannot know.

    A little bit less pisstaking - thanks.

    - mod


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Jem72
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭Jem72


    Personally, I'd be very reluctant to hand over a copy of my daughter's personal details under these circumstances. Who knows what could happen to the information - one hears about office documents ending up in skips and blowing around streets on a fairly regular basis. I also don't see the point at all since they have no picture of the offender. I'd be happy enough to show somebody the passport at my local station but there is no way I'd give Irish Rail a copy.

    I have every sympathy with Irish Rail's revenue protection efforts as I pay them more than 4 grand a year for my pass and I am sick and tired of people getting a free ride. But this kind of pig-headed enforcement is just not on - there is little point in attempting to correct for the original RPU agent's error by getting aggressive on an innocent third party and then end up turning that person's whole family against Irish Rail.

    But practically speaking it does seem as if Irish Rail are prepared to waste everyone's time by taking this to court so if you value your time more than your principles, you probably have little choice but to do as they demand and then take your business elsewhere.


  • Options
    #83
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,159 ✭✭✭plodder


    There's been a few similar threads before on the legal forum like this one:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93076727

    In this case they had a photo (CCTV) and the person "accused" went in to check it out, which is probably what I'd do tbh as I would want to know. It turned out to be a neighbour who gave his name, and probably ended up getting a nasty shock as a result.

    In a way it's understandable that people feel aggrieved, if wrongly accused, but that's the way the system works. I had the same experience with a litter fine (accusation) myself. Ended up going to court over it, where it was thrown out. But, it would be better to avoid the stress of that, if at all possible.


  • Options
    #84
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    What sort of solution are people proposing for the public transport companies? All I see are accusations of big brother, well the only solution for this not to happen is for people to carry ID at all times, that's a bit more big brother than being asked for a copy of a passport. Careful what you wish for etc.


  • Options
    #85
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,126 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    What sort of solution are people proposing for the public transport companies? All I see are accusations of big brother, well the only solution for this not to happen is for people to carry ID at all times, that's a bit more big brother than being asked for a copy of a passport. Careful what you wish for etc.
    Offhand, I don't have a solution. However, I still don't believe that the methods of accusation and the lack of any burden of proof is good enough.


  • Options
    #86
    Jem72
    Registered Users Posts: 167 ✭✭Jem72


    There is real big-brother issue about requiring that you carry ID if you are fare-dodging. If you're not dodging a fare (i.e. committing an offence), there is no problem.

    If you don't have a ticket and have no proof of ID, the RPU agent is well within their rights to detain you until they can clearly establish your identity as you have committed a breach of the bye-laws by not having a ticket to travel. If there is no way of reliably establishing the fare-dodger's identity, then the offender should be handed over the guards. At that stage, the few hours it takes to get the offender identified, processed and released is probably enough to act as a deterrent. This would probably end up being more cost effective than taking an entirely innocent third party to court.

    This is the problem with Ireland, too little action is taken with minor offences and then the law-abiding majority is left having to deal with the consequences of the offences. The stated problem of the OP is that there is a unreasonable burden of proof of innocence being placed upon an entirely innocent party.


  • Options
    #87
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    kbannon wrote: »
    Offhand, I don't have a solution. However, I still don't believe that the methods of accusation and the lack of any burden of proof is good enough.

    As far as I can see on this thread, no-one is providing a solution.

    So, should RPU take photos of person evading fare? How does this actually help unless they then publish photos of these people online for everyone to see when a fake name has been used or payment not made.

    Should RPU just hold the person and call Garda to the next station? Not a good use of Garda resources.

    It seems to me that the current system is the least worst option. It's a pain for anyone whose name and address has been given by some thief (which is what they are) but I'm struggling to see a better option that doesn't involve carrying ID permanently.


  • Options
    #88
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,126 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Jem72 wrote: »
    There is real big-brother issue about requiring that you carry ID if you are fare-dodging. If you're not dodging a fare (i.e. committing an offence), there is no problem.
    I rarely use the train despite living close to the Maynooth line as it tends not to suit me.
    However, to contradict your point above, there could be a problem (for me) if someone who didn't pay gave my details to the inspector.
    I do not want to give IR a photocopy of my passport! If they think I committed an offence, then let them provide proof and not just make an allegation!
    Jem72 wrote: »
    If you don't have a ticket and have no proof of ID, the RPU agent is well within their rights to detain you until they can clearly establish your identity as you have committed a breach of the bye-laws by not having a ticket to travel. If there is no way of reliably establishing the fare-dodger's identity, then the offender should be handed over the guards. At that stage, the few hours it takes to get the offender identified, processed and released is probably enough to act as a deterrent. This would probably end up being more cost effective than taking an entirely innocent third party to court.

    This is the problem with Ireland, too little action is taken with minor offences and then the law-abiding majority is left having to deal with the consequences of the offences. The stated problem of the OP is that there is a unreasonable burden of proof of innocence being placed upon an entirely innocent party.
    The current system obviously doesn't work if people can be accused in the wrong. It's up to IR to change it. If they can't then make it much more difficult to evade the fare in the first place.


  • Options
    #89
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,159 ✭✭✭plodder


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    As far as I can see on this thread, no-one is providing a solution.

    So, should RPU take photos of person evading fare? How does this actually help unless they then publish photos of these people online for everyone to see when a fake name has been used or payment not made.
    If the name is completely fake (as opposed to a real different person) then why not? You would need to have a defined procedure with plenty of opportunity for the person to come clean. But, after a period then a "mugs gallery" on the company website showing fare evaders, would be an excellent idea in my opinion.

    I'm struggling to see the problems with it.


  • Options
    #90
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    kbannon wrote: »
    If they think I committed an offence, then let them provide proof and not just make an allegation!
    As the poster above asked, do you want every suspected fare evader arrested until their identity can be 100% proven, or do you want the public issued with mandatory ID cards?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    plodder wrote: »
    I'm struggling to see the problems with it.
    I'm sure the Legal forum can give a definitive answer, but probably Libel laws - the same reason that shops can't put up photographs of shoplifters.


Advertisement