If this had been a single mum or a nurse, the focus would be on the greed of the train company, both for pursuing the case and for having such extortionate fares in the first place. The fact is it could have easily have been a care-worker who discovered this wheeze. He allegedly dodged £42,000 worth of fares for 5 years and he was still paying £7.20 for each journey. Surely someone should flag that it doesn't even cost £42,000 to give someone a lifetime of train journeys, let alone 5 years of partial journeys.
A season ticket between Stonegate and London Bridge has an average journey price of £9.20, so if people are going to get angry with the fare-dodger, why aren't they also getting angry at the massive scam that train companies are getting away with. Can't say I sympathise with the man but I despair that it is he and not the greedy train companies who are the subject of people's anger. Maybe the people of Stonegate should wonder why it costs them far more to travel to London than it does a similar person in, say, France or Germany.
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.
So perfect skillset for a fund manager then?
Rank decision, completely disproportionate to the crime and unprecedented compared to past miscreants. Populist agenda from the FCA, easy win for them but let's see if that level of punishment is maintained.
Smacks of an "emperor's clothes" approach from FCA. The law doesn't regard fare dodging as equivalent to Theft no matter the value so to suddenly say it's the same as shop-lifting is not on. You can't justify a life-ban just because someone who steals a pair of trainers can potentially by jailed.
This fella could probably cost the tax payer millions appealing this and he would probably win at some stage. Hopefully he just walks away.
I don't have any sympathy for him but two wrongs do not make a right and banning him for life from any FCA regulated activity is definitely wrong IMO.
With respect I think you are missing the point. This is not a punishment. It is not about proportionality. The judgement is that he simply isn't fit to do his former job or to work in an industry where trust and integrity is paramount?
The FCA clearly concluded that he had precisely the wrong skillset to be a Fund Manager.
Perhaps anyone caught speeding should be kicked out of the profession too.
If you are going to be reckless with yours and other peoples lives, imagine how reckless they would be with money.
I cannot speak for now but 40 odd years ago ANY criminal conviction was sufficient to debar you from the Institute of Chartered Accountants and probably the legal profession and other professions too.
MPs used to resign if caught having had an affair. The rationale being that if they act dishonourably in their personal life then they cannot be trusted not to act dishonourably in their professional life.
These days we are told that MP's personal and professional lives are separate. Could there be a correlation with the parasitical leeching of expenses by so many of them I wonder?
I thought he wasn't convicted though (i.e. he settled out of court)? I also thought the settlement guaranteed his anonymnity so how has his name been leaked and how did the FCA get their hands on it?
I thought he wasn't convicted though (i.e. he settled out of court)? I also thought the settlement guaranteed his anonymnity so how has his name been leaked and how did the FCA get their hands on it?
his name was 'leaked' to a Sunday by a fellow commuter who was rightly pee'd off. Once in the public domain the FCA had no other choice than to act. Should count himself lucky he hasn't got a criminal record and that, I believe, is because South Eastern recovered all their monies, plus a fine, and deemed it not in their interest to do so.
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.
So perfect skillset for a fund manager then?
Rank decision, completely disproportionate to the crime and unprecedented compared to past miscreants. Populist agenda from the FCA, easy win for them but let's see if that level of punishment is maintained.
Smacks of an "emperor's clothes" approach from FCA. The law doesn't regard fare dodging as equivalent to Theft no matter the value so to suddenly say it's the same as shop-lifting is not on. You can't justify a life-ban just because someone who steals a pair of trainers can potentially by jailed.
This fella could probably cost the tax payer millions appealing this and he would probably win at some stage. Hopefully he just walks away.
I don't have any sympathy for him but two wrongs do not make a right and banning him for life from any FCA regulated activity is definitely wrong IMO.
He can't appeal, it's too late. The process is: he would have received the FCA's draft enforcement report. He would have had the opportunity to provide any corrections to "the facts". The matter would then have gone to the FCA's Regulatory Decisions Committee which is a separate group of appointees from the great and the good and slightly distinct from the FCA - it's hard work getting your reports and recommendations through that stage, believe me. You can see the depth of experience of the various members here fca.org.uk/about/structure/committees/rdc-biographies He would have had the opportunity to make written and/or oral representations to that committee and they would have issued him with a decision notice. Upon receipt of that document he could have used the appeals process through the Tribunal up to the Court of Appeal. He presumably chose not to do that otherwise the ban would not yet be in the public domain.
@Mundell Fleming - yes the skillset reference was tounge in cheek and I am glad to see moves being taken against that mentality. But you also may accept that during the 1990s and 2000s the notion of some clever dick turning lead into gold with some dodgy or agressive scheme was highly rewarded in the fund management sector.
He wont appeal because he would have to front up a million or two to see it through.
It's a high water mark in terms of the fact the fraud wasn't in anyway related to his professional activities.
My over-riding thoughts on this is that but for the media coverage, the decision wouldn't have been so severe. I would also counter that any form of regulated or common law adjudicatory process is based on the proportionality of punishment to the misdemeanor.
I look forward to the day when trust and integrity rather than profit are indeed paramount for the type of fund management he was involved in.
Thanks. I was imagining an appeal beyond FCA tribunal system and into the mainstream Court system where issues such as proportionality, non-retroactivity and previous precedent would be relevant
I am in no way condoning his actions - he is a plum - but I see a clear distinction between fraud relating to fund management and fraud in his personal life. That's from a rule of law perspective rather than a moral one. Equally, people who say actions in a personal capacity speak volumes for your attitude to professional conduct do have a point.
I thought he wasn't convicted though (i.e. he settled out of court)? I also thought the settlement guaranteed his anonymnity so how has his name been leaked and how did the FCA get their hands on it?
Whatever the media released, the FCA would have found out - eventually. Its rules require an approved person to inform his employer of any such matters and the employer would have been obliged to inform the FCA. Non-disclosure or, maybe, even late disclosure, of itself, would have been construed as being sufficiently serious for the FCA to ban him. (In any event the Transport plod would have had an opportunity to use the "gateways" in the legislation to pass the results of their otherwise confidential investigation to the FCA.)
I've just read Mr Burrows final notice. Here's an extract: "Mr Burrows agreed to settle at an early stage of the Authority’s investigation." In other words, he knew it was a fair cop. The guts of the notice which is surprisingly quite short (and signed off by a Brighton supporter) includes a paragraph on his original non-disclosure which was taken into account in the decision.
I thought he wasn't convicted though (i.e. he settled out of court)? I also thought the settlement guaranteed his anonymnity so how has his name been leaked and how did the FCA get their hands on it?
his name was 'leaked' to a Sunday by a fellow commuter who was rightly pee'd off. Once in the public domain the FCA had no other choice than to act. Should count himself lucky he hasn't got a criminal record and that, I believe, is because South Eastern recovered all their monies, plus a fine, and deemed it not in their interest to do so.
I think we are on the same page. The system needs cleaning up big time and a lot of that is to do with behaviours and culture. It's true that practices which were tolerated or even encouraged pre GFC are viewed as unacceptable today. The financial sector is getting the regulation it deserves.
I'm not at all surprised by the FCA's decision. In the circumstances and given the environment they had little alternative. I don't honestly think that in this case the publicity would have influenced them.
I too would prefer to see a financial services sector where trust and integrity were the key drivers of behaviour. I'm not holding my breath, but change is taking place. Funnily enough, fund management businesses, as fiduciaries, have typically been "cleaner" than other parts of the system, but they too are under pressure.
If this had been a single mum or a nurse, the focus would be on the greed of the train company, both for pursuing the case and for having such extortionate fares in the first place. The fact is it could have easily have been a care-worker who discovered this wheeze. He allegedly dodged £42,000 worth of fares for 5 years and he was still paying £7.20 for each journey. Surely someone should flag that it doesn't even cost £42,000 to give someone a lifetime of train journeys, let alone 5 years of partial journeys.
A season ticket between Stonegate and London Bridge has an average journey price of £9.20, so if people are going to get angry with the fare-dodger, why aren't they also getting angry at the massive scam that train companies are getting away with. Can't say I sympathise with the man but I despair that it is he and not the greedy train companies who are the subject of people's anger. Maybe the people of Stonegate should wonder why it costs them far more to travel to London than it does a similar person in, say, France or Germany.
I disagree with both your points. I don't believe for one moment anyone on here would come out and condone fare dodging based on the circumstances of the individual*.
Whatever your thoughts on whether the train company "deserved it", absolutely everyone knows that it is those who do pay, which is most of us, who ultimately suffer. So we (this board and society in general) are hardly likely to be supportive of a fare dodger whatever their job. It is not a social standing or money issue at all imo.
For the other point about getting angry at the train companies instead, there are regular threads on this very subject. It's hardly like they are a beloved institution is it?
Why dont SouthEastern just put Ticket Barriers at every Station stopping people from just waltzing onto the train, am sure they can bloody afford it what with the constant price hikes
Of course at unmanned Stations people could just jump over them but just make them high enough so people cant!!
If he were a lawyer, he would definately be barred from the profession for exactly the same reason. Pretty sure the same is true of accountancy If you are in charge of other people's money and you are found to be dishonest then the regulatory authority must ban you. It doens't matter how much you earn or how big the offence is. If the regulator failed to do so they would open themselves up to lawsuits if the guy later cheated one of his clients.
Why dont SouthEastern just put Ticket Barriers at every Station stopping people from just waltzing onto the train, am sure they can bloody afford it what with the constant price hikes
Of course at unmanned Stations people could just jump over them but just make them high enough so people cant!!
But you'd have to man them as well. If the barrier wasn't working, no one would be able to access the platform :-)
He got away with it for 5 years and that is travelling Monday to Friday. Take away about 4 weeks for annual leave each year, a week for Christmas, 5 bank holidays a year, say an average of 3 days in a year being off sick. I work that out as about 1140 days of commuting and that is just one way so multiply that by 2 and that’s 2280. So let's say 2300 journeys and in all 2300 journeys he did not once come across a single inspector until that one time 5 years on. Maybe it's worth a go a couple of times
After nearly 30 years of shame I'm gonna cough....................in 1985 I once bunked through Albany Park station on my way home without a ticket.
But I was very, very drunk, and a few days earlier I had been given "that" piece of paper informing me that my beloved Charlton were going to play their home games at Sellout Park in future.
He got away with it for 5 years and that is travelling Monday to Friday. Take away about 4 weeks for annual leave each year, a week for Christmas, 5 bank holidays a year, say an average of 3 days in a year being off sick. I work that out as about 1140 days of commuting and that is just one way so multiply that by 2 and that’s 2280. So let's say 2300 journeys and in all 2300 journeys he did not once come across a single inspector until that one time 5 years on. Maybe it's worth a go a couple of times
A season ticket from Stonegate to London is somewhere around £4,000. However the amount he paid back was the journey at maximum cost plus a fine. So for the sake of 20k eh. The inspector point is a good one. I have been getting on four stations beyond Stonegate every day for three years. My ticket is checked about 95 out of every hundred journeys into London. I'm amazed he wadnt caught earlier but can only assume he locked himself in the toilet each and every journey.
He got away with it for 5 years and that is travelling Monday to Friday. Take away about 4 weeks for annual leave each year, a week for Christmas, 5 bank holidays a year, say an average of 3 days in a year being off sick. I work that out as about 1140 days of commuting and that is just one way so multiply that by 2 and that’s 2280. So let's say 2300 journeys and in all 2300 journeys he did not once come across a single inspector until that one time 5 years on. Maybe it's worth a go a couple of times
A season ticket from Stonegate to London is somewhere around £4,000. However the amount he paid back was the journey at maximum cost plus a fine. So for the sake of 20k eh. The inspector point is a good one. I have been getting on four stations beyond Stonegate every day for three years. My ticket is checked about 95 out of every hundred journeys into London. I'm amazed he wadnt caught earlier but can only assume he locked himself in the toilet each and every journey.
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.
I think if we put it to a vote you'd probably be surprised. You're telling me that throughout your life, on every single bus, train, tube journey you've ever made you've always had a valid ticket? If so, you are a saint.
Even Charlton station on a match day is rarely manned by a ticket collector, you can't tell me that everyone passing through there for a home game before or after a match has a ticket.
I work in the care sector and if I were found guilty of abuse in any way shape or form I would be barred from my profession for life. This man has committed a financial crime and works in the financial sector surely the same rules should apply. He deserved what he has got
I remember being at Sidcup station years back and the queues were long at the ticket office and the machine to get a ticket to travel wasn't working and the next train was 20 odd minutes so I had to travel without a ticket The inspector ,at the other end , who I approached to explain the situation to wouldn't have any of it and a £10 fine was duly issued I had the right needle that I had gone out of my way tbh rather than attempt to slip past and wore a fine Do you think I looked to pay when the same problem arose in the future , like fook did I
Just caught up with this discussion, from the beginning - fascinating!
Some random thoughts: Sanctions dependent on severity of offence and means to pay: the (Swedish?) multi-millionaire caught in Switzerland doing 300kph - confiscation and fine approaching a million francs; the Dutch driver doing 114kph in a 30 zone, confiscation and a meaty fine Justice for Bernie Ecclestone? A hundred million reasons to prove him innocent .... Honesty: simple - you're honest or you're not. You can't be mostly honest. The railway company - still too easy to evade fares, still too much dependence on the "honour" system Access to the railway - private property - should be by permit. Was there not a system yonks ago where, in the unavailability of a working ticket office/machine you had to take a little token to prove where you boarded and your right therefore to be on the railway? The serial offender himself - a little test of nerve each morning, a little challenge to set him up for the day? Ritual complaints about public transport/service/cost - in these 24/7 and connected times why does a large chunk of the population continue to work daylight hours Mon-Fri, in the process commuting into city-centre offices? Best we can manage for the 21st Century? The intolerable strain on transport resources could at least be alleviated by an element of flexible hours - does anyone remember Flexitime?
Access to the railway - private property - should be by permit. Was there not a system yonks ago where, in the unavailability of a working ticket office/machine you had to take a little token to prove where you boarded and your right therefore to be on the railway?
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.
I think if we put it to a vote you'd probably be surprised. You're telling me that throughout your life, on every single bus, train, tube journey you've ever made you've always had a valid ticket? If so, you are a saint.
Even Charlton station on a match day is rarely manned by a ticket collector, you can't tell me that everyone passing through there for a home game before or after a match has a ticket.
Someone tell the Pope because I've never dodged a fare in my life thanks. Once or twice the ticket office may have been shut but I've never hid in the bogs or lied about where I got on to the conductor onboard and always paid what was due. Two reasons mainly - it's the right thing to do and if I didn't and I got nicked I would lose my job...just like this bloke.
This wasn't a one off. It was a plan to defraud every single day. Not just the institution but every commuter who does pay and ultimately has to make up the shortfall through increased fares.
So, with that evidence to hand, would you trust him with your money? You have your life savings of £40K and you want someone to invest. You know that this guy has been nicking money over a period of years. Hand on heart, would you hand that cheque over?
If you aren't going to trust him, how do you expect the Regulatory body who is acting on our behalf to do so?
He knew exactly what he was doing. He was earning millions and probably still has millions. Sympathy? I'll be saving it for those that deserve it and frankly I think he's lucky he didn't get a custodial sentence.
Access to the railway - private property - should be by permit. Was there not a system yonks ago where, in the unavailability of a working ticket office/machine you had to take a little token to prove where you boarded and your right therefore to be on the railway?
I'm pretty sure this still exists.
I remember those, but I think they got phased out when oyster came into play.
Comments
A season ticket between Stonegate and London Bridge has an average journey price of £9.20, so if people are going to get angry with the fare-dodger, why aren't they also getting angry at the massive scam that train companies are getting away with. Can't say I sympathise with the man but I despair that it is he and not the greedy train companies who are the subject of people's anger. Maybe the people of Stonegate should wonder why it costs them far more to travel to London than it does a similar person in, say, France or Germany.
The FCA clearly concluded that he had precisely the wrong skillset to be a Fund Manager.
I'll be amazed if he appeals.
MPs used to resign if caught having had an affair. The rationale being that if they act dishonourably in their personal life then they cannot be trusted not to act dishonourably in their professional life.
These days we are told that MP's personal and professional lives are separate. Could there be a correlation with the parasitical leeching of expenses by so many of them I wonder?
The process is: he would have received the FCA's draft enforcement report. He would have had the opportunity to provide any corrections to "the facts". The matter would then have gone to the FCA's Regulatory Decisions Committee which is a separate group of appointees from the great and the good and slightly distinct from the FCA - it's hard work getting your reports and recommendations through that stage, believe me. You can see the depth of experience of the various members here fca.org.uk/about/structure/committees/rdc-biographies
He would have had the opportunity to make written and/or oral representations to that committee and they would have issued him with a decision notice. Upon receipt of that document he could have used the appeals process through the Tribunal up to the Court of Appeal. He presumably chose not to do that otherwise the ban would not yet be in the public domain.
He wont appeal because he would have to front up a million or two to see it through.
It's a high water mark in terms of the fact the fraud wasn't in anyway related to his professional activities.
My over-riding thoughts on this is that but for the media coverage, the decision wouldn't have been so severe. I would also counter that any form of regulated or common law adjudicatory process is based on the proportionality of punishment to the misdemeanor.
I look forward to the day when trust and integrity rather than profit are indeed paramount for the type of fund management he was involved in.
@cafcfan
Thanks. I was imagining an appeal beyond FCA tribunal system and into the mainstream Court system where issues such as proportionality, non-retroactivity and previous precedent would be relevant
I am in no way condoning his actions - he is a plum - but I see a clear distinction between fraud relating to fund management and fraud in his personal life. That's from a rule of law perspective rather than a moral one. Equally, people who say actions in a personal capacity speak volumes for your attitude to professional conduct do have a point.
(In any event the Transport plod would have had an opportunity to use the "gateways" in the legislation to pass the results of their otherwise confidential investigation to the FCA.)
The guts of the notice which is surprisingly quite short (and signed off by a Brighton supporter) includes a paragraph on his original non-disclosure which was taken into account in the decision.
:-)
I think we are on the same page. The system needs cleaning up big time and a lot of that is to do with behaviours and culture. It's true that practices which were tolerated or even encouraged pre GFC are viewed as unacceptable today. The financial sector is getting the regulation it deserves.
I'm not at all surprised by the FCA's decision. In the circumstances and given the environment they had little alternative. I don't honestly think that in this case the publicity would have influenced them.
I too would prefer to see a financial services sector where trust and integrity were the key drivers of behaviour. I'm not holding my breath, but change is taking place. Funnily enough, fund management businesses, as fiduciaries, have typically been "cleaner" than other parts of the system, but they too are under pressure.
Whatever your thoughts on whether the train company "deserved it", absolutely everyone knows that it is those who do pay, which is most of us, who ultimately suffer. So we (this board and society in general) are hardly likely to be supportive of a fare dodger whatever their job. It is not a social standing or money issue at all imo.
For the other point about getting angry at the train companies instead, there are regular threads on this very subject. It's hardly like they are a beloved institution is it?
*with the possible except of one poster IIRC...
Of course at unmanned Stations people could just jump over them but just make them high enough so people cant!!
But I was very, very drunk, and a few days earlier I had been given "that" piece of paper informing me that my beloved Charlton were going to play their home games at Sellout Park in future.
I think if we put it to a vote you'd probably be surprised. You're telling me that throughout your life, on every single bus, train, tube journey you've ever made you've always had a valid ticket? If so, you are a saint.
Even Charlton station on a match day is rarely manned by a ticket collector, you can't tell me that everyone passing through there for a home game before or after a match has a ticket.
The inspector ,at the other end , who I approached to explain the situation to wouldn't have any of it and a £10 fine was duly issued
I had the right needle that I had gone out of my way tbh rather than attempt to slip past and wore a fine
Do you think I looked to pay when the same problem arose in the future , like fook did I
Some random thoughts:
Sanctions dependent on severity of offence and means to pay: the (Swedish?) multi-millionaire caught in Switzerland doing 300kph - confiscation and fine approaching a million francs; the Dutch driver doing 114kph in a 30 zone, confiscation and a meaty fine
Justice for Bernie Ecclestone? A hundred million reasons to prove him innocent ....
Honesty: simple - you're honest or you're not. You can't be mostly honest.
The railway company - still too easy to evade fares, still too much dependence on the "honour" system
Access to the railway - private property - should be by permit. Was there not a system yonks ago where, in the unavailability of a working ticket office/machine you had to take a little token to prove where you boarded and your right therefore to be on the railway?
The serial offender himself - a little test of nerve each morning, a little challenge to set him up for the day?
Ritual complaints about public transport/service/cost - in these 24/7 and connected times why does a large chunk of the population continue to work daylight hours Mon-Fri, in the process commuting into city-centre offices? Best we can manage for the 21st Century? The intolerable strain on transport resources could at least be alleviated by an element of flexible hours - does anyone remember Flexitime?
I'm pretty sure this still exists.
So, with that evidence to hand, would you trust him with your money? You have your life savings of £40K and you want someone to invest. You know that this guy has been nicking money over a period of years. Hand on heart, would you hand that cheque over?
If you aren't going to trust him, how do you expect the Regulatory body who is acting on our behalf to do so?
He knew exactly what he was doing. He was earning millions and probably still has millions. Sympathy? I'll be saving it for those that deserve it and frankly I think he's lucky he didn't get a custodial sentence.