In message , at 13:56:04 on 
Sat, 7 Jun 2008, Peter Masson  remarked:
>> Therefore unless you are in circumstances which *are* covered by the
>> bylaws I  would  still say that you do not have to have a ticket.
>
>You take that line if you like, and if you are prepared to argue it to
>magistrates. I will retain my ticket until it is officially collected or I
>am off railway premises. Maybe over cautious, but erring on the safe side.

"Keith" has been given this advice several times now, but fails to 
accept it.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:07:54 on 
Sat, 7 Jun 2008, keith  remarked:
>>>> Therefore unless you are in circumstances which *are* covered by the
>>>> bylaws I  would  still say that you do not have to have a ticket.
>>>
>>>You take that line if you like, and if you are prepared to argue it to
>>>magistrates. I will retain my ticket until it is officially collected or I
>>>am off railway premises. Maybe over cautious, but erring on the safe side.
>>
>>"Keith" has been given this advice several times now, but fails to
>>accept it.
>
>It may be advice - but it was not what I was really looking for.
>
>I would not take issue with Peter - he has offered it as straight
>common sense advice.  You however have offered a point of view
>regarding the actual legal position which I have now asked you to back
>up and you can't.

It's very difficult to prove a negative. I've been doing my best, but 
others have come to my rescue with excellent descriptions of why the law 
is not like physics.

>I was posting in uk.legal as I was looking for a legal point of view.

You've received the same legal point of view from several of us.
-- 
Roland Perry