Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
would you want a thief managing your pension money or your savings ? .. I certainly would not want that .. there are plenty of jobs about for a hard working banker (ex)
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
would you want a thief managing your pension money or your savings ? .. I certainly would not want that .. there are plenty of jobs about for a hard working banker (ex)
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
No you're not - if the background of most of his colleagues were investigated, let alone the industry as a whole, then avoiding / evading train fares would see him well.
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
No you're not - if the background of most of his colleagues were investigated, let alone the industry as a whole, then avoiding / evading train fares would see him well.
How can I put this politely, I know, that is utter bollocks. The vast majority of individuals in "approved persons" roles are decent hard-working and honest.
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
There is an argument that it is harsh perhaps but that dissipates when you consider that his job, theoretically anyway, involves honesty and integrity with finances.
There's £42 k reasons why he is no longer qualified.
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
No you're not - if the background of most of his colleagues were investigated, let alone the industry as a whole, then avoiding / evading train fares would
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
I just think this case really leaves a bitter taste in people's mouths. You are right when you say he hasn't killed anyone, but it's the greed, the arrogance, the nonchalant way he decided he could carry on doing it for a number of years etc.
And the whole financial sector in this country has undergone a massive transformation since the bail out of the banks etc, that the FCA have to make sure they are being seen to implement the highest possible standards.
If they didn't act in the way they have done, it's basically making a mockery of what they are there for in the first place. Yes, he's done anything linked directly to corporate crime etc, but if he just paid the fine and legal costs, has he really been punished? After all he's just paying back the money he owed the train company.
And as I said, his statement about the size of the fine swerving public opinion as to the level of his wrongdoing???? He's still an arrogant prat. Even has the cheek to have a swipe at the FCA by saying he's sorry their time got taken up with his case when they could be working on other more important matters???? Again arrogant. No mate, your actions were as important and as bad as some other stuff that goes on.
From what I read he's got loads of money and various properties worth millions so I'm pretty sure he won't lose any sleep over any of this
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
would you want a thief managing your pension money or your savings ? .. I certainly would not want that .. there are plenty of jobs about for a hard working banker (ex)
Why would him dodging his train fare affect his ability to advise me on my savings or investments? He's obviously been pretty successful in his career.
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
Are you for real?
Yes. Quite.
Why shouldn't he work again?
I get the fact that he's got loads of money and a couple of expensive properties so may not actually need to work and i accept that he's been pretty arrogant with his comments since but i still don't think he should be deprived of the chance to work in his industry any more. Let's face it his crime is something that probably 90% of people on this forum have done at some point in their life, he just did it over a long period. It's only because he's rich that people are in any way bothered
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
Are you for real?
Yes. Quite.
Why shouldn't he work again?
I get the fact that he's got loads of money and a couple of expensive properties so may not actually need to work and i accept that he's been pretty arrogant with his comments since but i still don't think he should be deprived of the chance to work in his industry any more. Let's face it his crime is something that probably 90% of people on this forum have done at some point in their life, he just did it over a long period. It's only because he's rich that people are in any way bothered
I'd be very surprised if anyone on here has defrauded the railway companies or anyone else of 40K - that's a lot of money and a very serious offence for which he could easily have done time. A lot of people would have done time for stealing a lot less than 40K.
As someone else has posted above, how can anyone trust him with their money in the future if he is so flagrantly willing to steal from the railway company? Why is fare evasion any less of a crime than, for example, stealing 40K worth of groceries from Sainsburys? Would you expect to be allowed back into financial services if you had been pinged for that?
It's got nothing to do with the fact that he is "already rich" - the fact is he has proved himself to be an unscrupulous and untrustworthy individual who therefore - by default - should not be allowed to deal with other peoples money again - if he could even find someone to employ him.
Given that he was a Director of a Fund Manager I somehow doubt that he will suffer to make ends meet in the same way as most other unemployed people do.
I would also suggest that he probably has massive pension/savings built up and with his knowledge and experience could comfortably make a living day trading.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the guy. The whole thing smacks as arrogance and is on a par with all the banks who have been so consistently found guilty of profiteering from the miss-selling of products.
It would also be interesting to learn how much of the money fare dodgers "save" actually affects the profits of the likes of South Eastern. And how much of it is actually passed on by South Eastern to the rest of commuters.
That thought is now going to consume and overwhelm me for the rest of the day. Who should I hate more? The thief or the thieving institution. It's going to be a long day that's for sure.
And let that be a lesson to the our very own CL fare dogger. I wont name and shame but he was quite proud of the fact on a thread a couple of years back.
And let that be a lesson to the our very own CL fare dogger. I wont name and shame but he was quite proud of the fact on a thread a couple of years back.
I've just spent 10 minutes looking through old fare related threads to see who this was. God this forum takes up a lot of my time
If he'd been a plumber who swerved train fares because the service was crap and the cost too high would people still want him jailed ?
Yep. Why should myself and the thousands of others using and paying for that crap, expensive service every day subsidise some toe rag who thinks they can get away with it. The tw@t would probably even have a seat when I'm standing!!!
Winds me up when I sense some little fare dodger trying to squeeze through the barriers after I have tapped out. I always make a point of standing there and letting the barriers close on them.
I don't condone theft but equally not everyone should be hung up by their nuts for doing something wrong - and don't kid yourself, if this had been a social worker fare evading then the sanctimonious on here would be a lot less verbose.
We have plenty of Sheriffs of Nottingham logged in.
Am i the only one who thinks it's harsh the bloke has lost his job as well and can never work in that industry again? Seems way over the top. Make him pay it back - yes, fine him as well - yes, ban him from getting the train if you want, but stopping him from working in the industry he's always worked in seems ridiculous. He's bunked the train fare, he hasn't killed anyone.
Are you for real?
Yes. Quite.
Why shouldn't he work again?
I get the fact that he's got loads of money and a couple of expensive properties so may not actually need to work and i accept that he's been pretty arrogant with his comments since but i still don't think he should be deprived of the chance to work in his industry any more. Let's face it his crime is something that probably 90% of people on this forum have done at some point in their life, he just did it over a long period. It's only because he's rich that people are in any way bothered
Chris, you really shouldn't judge everyone by your own standards. No way would 90% of people on this forum have fare dodged at some time or another. This guy was earning 1m a year but still thought he could fare dodge and get away with it. He paid back the fares he cheated and the fine immediately in return for not being named and shamed and prosecuted otherwise he should be serving a prison sentence. However, a fellow commuter outed him to a national newspaper and well done to him. Thankfully the FCA are more scrupulous than the PFA. There is no way this guy is a fit and proper person to work in the finance sector. If you think otherwise then that's your perogative but most right minded people would say he can't be trusted and has abused that trust previously.
You may also think differently if you were using his route, paying £5,300 a year for the previledge, knowing he was getting away with not paying his fare and that people who do that are conning YOU and responsible for part of YOUR fare increase every year.
When I moved into my last place, a new development and the site had been unoccupied I would guess for some years before, I started receiving letters regarding an unpaid fare notice. The date of the offence was from before I had moved in and the gentleman(?) the correspondence was addressed to had given his name as Armut Rageshi. I ignored the first two letters. I opened the third and on reading that Armut was just about to be taken to court attempted to phone the contact number and was redirected through about half a dozen automated options until I basically gave up and threw all the letters in the bin. Armut then received a fourth letter summoning him to court. It was then that I wrote and sent a letter explaining that I was in fact not Armut and pointing them in the direction of my letting agent if they wanted proof of who I was and when I had taken up residence. This all has a cost in time and effort of course and one person who will definitely not be losing any sleep over it is old "Armut" himself. This must be happening to such a scale and I suppose it keeps plenty of people in a job. But, would it not of been much simpler for the Revenue Officers to have the legal right to have got this little piss taking twat "Armut" by the scruff of the neck and thrown him bodily from the train whilst going at a great speed, sort of like a refuse chute? There are plenty of places between Gravesend and Higham where the miscreants can be ejected so as not to harm innocent passers by and it would be great entertainment for the law abiding put upon fare paying passengers left on the train.
The punishment is well OTT, losing his job and banned from working in his chosen career. I think he should be applauded for not paying the ridiculous rail prices, the unlucky buggers who regularly use the rail service should take a leaf out of his book. Solidarity brothers and sisters....solidarity.
The £42k was more than the amount he had underpaid, effectively he agreed to pay South Eastern trains extra on top.
Of course if South Eastern trains just employed someone to check tickets at Stonegate station in the first place, then he wouldn't have been able to fiddle this in the first place.
The only decision the FCA could have made. A functioning financial system cannot simply rely on the letter of the law and its ability to catch those who break its rules. It needs to operate within a culture and set of values which ensures firms and their employees seek to do "the right thing", treating their counterparties and customers with respect and behaving with integrity, rather than one in which it is seen as acceptable to do what you can get away with, regardless of whether it is "right".
The financial system has failed this live up to that requirement and expectation and is facing significant pressure from regulators and society to change the way it operates.
This individual was guilty of the wrong sort of behaviour. He is a very good example of everything that became rotten about the financial system. The FCA needed to demonstrate that his lack of judgement, honesty and blatant disregard for what is right and wrong is completely unacceptable.
He doesn't have a leg to stand on. No reputable firm would have employed him anyway. As for those that might have ....
I can sometimes sympathise with people who make a mistake, in the heat of the moment, under pressure or even under the influence of drink, even if it leads to serious consequences. They need to be punished, but might deserve a second chance. This individual did not make a mistake. He made a premeditated decision to defraud society over a prolonged period. He knew exactly what he was doing and probably thought he was "terribly clever". A smart arse who thought he was entitled to develop a "scheme" or "strategy" in the pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others.
Sacking him from his job is one thing but banning him from all financial services is a dangerous precident, in my view.
The numbers shouldn't matter. If it was a cashier in a retail bank that managed to avoid paying his fares at a time when he was struggling to feed his family then taking away his career would, almost certainly, destroy that family financially. Does this decision make it mandatory for anyone who has a job in financial services that requires trust to be banned if caught stealing?
If the punishment is due to the total value of the fares then that suggests that he has been banned because he lives on an expensive train route.
If the punishment is due to him earning so much money then that suggests that he has been banned because he is rich.
I don't think either of these reasons, if they were why he was banned, are justification.
The other, potential, reason was to equal out the 'injustice' of him only having to pay back the fares that he would have paid if he has bought a single ticket everyday. I don't know how his line works but I suspect that had he bought a season ticket he would have realised a discount on what he paid, so he was punished, financially, (even if it was insignificant based on what he earns - again we can't punish him for being rich). The train line did what was best for them financially. As was mentioned higher up in the thread, had he been prosecuted they might have got nothing.
What worries me the most about decisions like this is that I fear that, sometimes, public opinion plays a part in the outcome. The rich bankers are still blamed for a lot of the pain that the UK is still suffering, and I'm not sure that everyone in Investment Banking was in on the act of bundling up mortgage securities - even though, clearly, some were.
Even if this chap is getting what the general public believe he deserves, and I suspect that is the case as wealth seems to be very unpopular, even though most people would like it, the lifetime ban could have to be applied to someone that is not as wealthy.
Stopping a very rich man from getting much richer is one thing but stopping a hard working husband and dad from being able to provide for his family is different and that is why I worry about the precident that this sets.
Comments
There's £42 k reasons why he is no longer qualified.
Why would him dodging his train fare affect his ability to advise me on my savings or investments? He's obviously been pretty successful in his career.
Yes. Quite.
Why shouldn't he work again?
I get the fact that he's got loads of money and a couple of expensive properties so may not actually need to work and i accept that he's been pretty arrogant with his comments since but i still don't think he should be deprived of the chance to work in his industry any more. Let's face it his crime is something that probably 90% of people on this forum have done at some point in their life, he just did it over a long period. It's only because he's rich that people are in any way bothered
As someone else has posted above, how can anyone trust him with their money in the future if he is so flagrantly willing to steal from the railway company? Why is fare evasion any less of a crime than, for example, stealing 40K worth of groceries from Sainsburys? Would you expect to be allowed back into financial services if you had been pinged for that?
It's got nothing to do with the fact that he is "already rich" - the fact is he has proved himself to be an unscrupulous and untrustworthy individual who therefore - by default - should not be allowed to deal with other peoples money again - if he could even find someone to employ him.
Got what he deserved, or maybe not; should have been locked up too.
Just kidding.
I would also suggest that he probably has massive pension/savings built up and with his knowledge and experience could comfortably make a living day trading.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the guy. The whole thing smacks as arrogance and is on a par with all the banks who have been so consistently found guilty of profiteering from the miss-selling of products.
It would also be interesting to learn how much of the money fare dodgers "save" actually affects the profits of the likes of South Eastern. And how much of it is actually passed on by South Eastern to the rest of commuters.
That thought is now going to consume and overwhelm me for the rest of the day. Who should I hate more? The thief or the thieving institution. It's going to be a long day that's for sure.
I wont name and shame but he was quite proud of the fact on a thread a couple of years back.
Winds me up when I sense some little fare dodger trying to squeeze through the barriers after I have tapped out. I always make a point of standing there and letting the barriers close on them.
Why do you think that theft is OK?
We have plenty of Sheriffs of Nottingham logged in.
You may also think differently if you were using his route, paying £5,300 a year for the previledge, knowing he was getting away with not paying his fare and that people who do that are conning YOU and responsible for part of YOUR fare increase every year.
I think he should be applauded for not paying the ridiculous rail prices, the unlucky buggers who regularly use the rail service should take a leaf out of his book.
Solidarity brothers and sisters....solidarity.
Of course if South Eastern trains just employed someone to check tickets at Stonegate station in the first place, then he wouldn't have been able to fiddle this in the first place.
The financial system has failed this live up to that requirement and expectation and is facing significant pressure from regulators and society to change the way it operates.
This individual was guilty of the wrong sort of behaviour. He is a very good example of everything that became rotten about the financial system. The FCA needed to demonstrate that his lack of judgement, honesty and blatant disregard for what is right and wrong is completely unacceptable.
He doesn't have a leg to stand on. No reputable firm would have employed him anyway. As for those that might have ....
I can sometimes sympathise with people who make a mistake, in the heat of the moment, under pressure or even under the influence of drink, even if it leads to serious consequences. They need to be punished, but might deserve a second chance. This individual did not make a mistake. He made a premeditated decision to defraud society over a prolonged period. He knew exactly what he was doing and probably thought he was "terribly clever". A smart arse who thought he was entitled to develop a "scheme" or "strategy" in the pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others.
The numbers shouldn't matter. If it was a cashier in a retail bank that managed to avoid paying his fares at a time when he was struggling to feed his family then taking away his career would, almost certainly, destroy that family financially. Does this decision make it mandatory for anyone who has a job in financial services that requires trust to be banned if caught stealing?
If the punishment is due to the total value of the fares then that suggests that he has been banned because he lives on an expensive train route.
If the punishment is due to him earning so much money then that suggests that he has been banned because he is rich.
I don't think either of these reasons, if they were why he was banned, are justification.
The other, potential, reason was to equal out the 'injustice' of him only having to pay back the fares that he would have paid if he has bought a single ticket everyday. I don't know how his line works but I suspect that had he bought a season ticket he would have realised a discount on what he paid, so he was punished, financially, (even if it was insignificant based on what he earns - again we can't punish him for being rich). The train line did what was best for them financially. As was mentioned higher up in the thread, had he been prosecuted they might have got nothing.
What worries me the most about decisions like this is that I fear that, sometimes, public opinion plays a part in the outcome. The rich bankers are still blamed for a lot of the pain that the UK is still suffering, and I'm not sure that everyone in Investment Banking was in on the act of bundling up mortgage securities - even though, clearly, some were.
Even if this chap is getting what the general public believe he deserves, and I suspect that is the case as wealth seems to be very unpopular, even though most people would like it, the lifetime ban could have to be applied to someone that is not as wealthy.
Stopping a very rich man from getting much richer is one thing but stopping a hard working husband and dad from being able to provide for his family is different and that is why I worry about the precident that this sets.