'Free' bus swizz fined
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Blackpool-based PSV operator who turfed six-yearold children off his so-called "free" bus services, miles from home, was fined £582.54 last week at Blackpool Magistrates Court. His actions were described as "disturbing" and "deplorable."
Jack Mather's Easyway Bus firm was convicted by the Magistrates for running a service which had previously been banned by the late North Western Traffic Commissioner Roy Hutchings.
Mather claimed that he had been operating a "free" service with a box at the front of the bus for voluntary contributions by passengers. The magistrates, however, accepted prosecution allegations that traffic assistant Jonathan Leach had turned children off the bus because they were unable to pay.
Evidence was given by a 12year-old girl that when she and her brother, sister and some friends boarded the bus — to get home from Blackpool's Pleasure Beach funfair — Leach had said that unless they had about 20p each they would have to get off.
Traffic examiner Ian Webster said that when interviewed, Leach had said he had refused to allow about 14 children, aged between six and 14, to board the bus. He told them they were expected to make a contribution if they wished to travel. One child had put 2p in the box which Leach said was not enough. The children had said that it was a free bus and when Leach asked them what it would cost them to travel on a Corporation bus, they replied 24p, Leach then said they should use that instead.
In evidence, Mather said that he had instructed all his drivers not to demand a contribution but agreed that Leach was responsible for the day to day running of the firm.
Leach told the court that Easyway's "free" bus offer had encouraged children to travel on a "joy ride" basis. He agreed that he had been quoted in the local newspaper as saying that it was not a farepaying bus but it still had to be funded from somewhere and that people who did not make a significant contribution would not be allowed on. He said he could not afford to be inundated with kids having a free ride.
He denied asking the children for a contribution on the day in question. He said he had asked the children where they were going, making some reference to the contribution box. He had pointed out to them that a similar journey on a corporation bus would cost them a lot of money and had suggested it might be better if they travelled on a corporation bus on that occasion. It had been a question of moral guidance. In the newspaper interview, he had not been implying that they were making demands for a significant contribution, but that people choosing to ride had a moral responsibility. On this particular occasion, his major consideration had been that there were 14 children and he could see the potential for unruliness, rowdyism and vandalism.