One rule for the rich?

I wonder if they wanted to really keep quiet about this as the system has been open to misuse for some considerable time and there must be others using the same method of none payment very embarassing if you ask me,but I do think he should have been named and shamed.

I wonder how s/he became a 'high flying executive'.. was it by finding loopholes and taking advantage of situations? Unethical but not illegal...

Am I missing something here.

"all customers have the option to pay up and settle out of court".

What difference does it make as to his status?.

He was totally wrong, got caught and abided by the rules. I don't think I care whether or not he was a supposed 'High Flyer' or not. He was a chancer who thought he could get away with it, same as those who don't even pay a penny for their rail journey knowingly are defrauding the system

That's like saying Joe Bloggs should get off because he wasn't a High Flyer.

If it is a loophole then he is a knowing shafter of the system but obviously cannot be prosecuted under the current system. It is obvious the loophole has to be shut down and it should be made a prosecutable offence, whatever your status.

This has been in other papers. The commuters from Stonegate are trying to find out who he is and out him.
MPs have been seen doing it, George Osborne being the most famous one, I believe, paying economy, then travelling first class. They were named, so why should this person not. It's fraud, just as much as defrauding the tax payer.
I think getting away with not paying £43000 is slightly worse than paying economy, then joining your friends in first class. This man did not pay for five years.
Has this happened to anyone on here? I thought usually if you were caught not having a ticket, you had to pay the maximum possible, not just the standard fare.
I agree with you Eloethan, he should have had to go to court for this.

Pogs- are you not being slightly disingenuous? This was over a 5 year period and a large amount of money. The 'pay up and settle' option should never have been applied in this case. It wasn't a loophole - it was deliberate, fraudulent behaviour which could and should have been prosecuted.

If true that customers can use this loophole then it needs to be closed or rewritten. Otherwise if he truly cannot be prosecuted under current law there's no more to say.

I want to know how they found out he'd been doing this so long? Couldn't he just have said this was a first offence?

It's not that he couldn't be prosecuted. If he hadn't been able to pay back the amount he had evaded in fares, he would have been prosecuted. This is from the link:

"... But on November 25 last year a ticket inspector standing next to the barriers spotted he had paid £7.20 and not the £2.30 for a single ticket.

After being challenged, the passenger later admitted to dodging the correct fare on five journeys between London Bridge and Cannon Street.

However, suspicious investigators for Southeastern discovered that the man had for a number of years up until 2008 been purchasing an annual ticket from Stonegate. ...."

You see - it's how the rich get rich. Well, some of them.

Not totally sure I blame him.

But I think there should be a fine, to suit the scale of the offence, payable whether or not you can afford to pay up when caught.

Yes, paying up only what you have swindled them out of is not enough. there should be a fine on top of that.

GrannyTwice.

NO

I don't think my post was 'for' the person involved. Surely calling him/her a Chancer knowingly defrauding the system was a pointer.

I also did not defend the current legislation, I said the 'loophole' should be shut down and it made a prosecutable matter.

If you don't agree with my thought that a person's status/wealth should have no bearing on the core question as to whether or not the infringement and the level of action should be dealt with more harshly, then I will gladly be called disingenuous by yourself as I am firmly of the opinion we should all be given equal rights, irrespective of class/wealth. If that meant she/he could opt to repay the money then that is what the system at this moment in time requires.

It is the failure of the system that is at fault and I don't care if it was defrauded by a person of wealth or not, I am sure there are plenty doing it. I hope this will be looked at and made a prosecutable offence.

Calling somebody disingenuous is I suppose is a thought of the person who makes the allegation, not the thought of the person on the receiving end. I would like to leave it at that.

I'm hoping GrannyTwice actually meant 'ingenuous', otherwise it is rather a strange accusation.

Ana

It only made the news because it was a large amount and because he was highly paid. Other people do it regardless of how wealthy or not they are and are all treated the same. No story here IMO

A cheat is a cheat whatever their social status. Cheating to such an extent indicates to me that this person has poor ethics. It makes me question how ethical his business dealings have been...if it is OK to cheat the rail company out of a chunk of cash then perhaps he is also tax avoiding, treating employees poorly etc etc...it makes you lose trust in a person. It would be the same if he was deliberately using a loophole to gain benefits.

I suppose the 'story' is that some people may have more empathy for a person with very little income who dodges a fare whereas someone who, so the report implies, did not have any problem affording the fare but still found a way to reduce his expenditure. Therefor he gets less empathy.