Spirit or letter, the OP got through the turnstile with a ticket that should have been canceled.

Since it wasn't, OP could have taken it to a ticket window the next day and exchanged it for a good one. I'm not suggesting that s/he <i>would</i>, only that s/he <i>could</i>, and that's the RATP's analysis of the situation. It may seem a little hard-nosed, but in the company's view, OP could have been trying to cheat the system.

What I find SO ironic about the Metro police is this: They can spot someone going through the turnstile illegally yet they aren't able to see the pick pocket thieves that are working every day right before their eyes. We sat at the Charles DeGaul station the day after we were hit and easily picked out the culprits. We had reported it immediately at the nearest station and they couldn't have been less interested. In the middle of our story, the officer taking notes, rushed out of the station. We thought he was going to look for the thieves and 20 minutes later he walked in with a pizza!! C'est la vie!
Sorry for the long story. mcmrjm

Ticket checkers are not police.

LOL , this is a funny thread,.

Some of you were nerdy hall monitors in school ,, weren't you?

And others were standing on the toilets sneaking smokes,, LOL

I had to laugh when someone said they regularily have &quot; people pushing up against their butt&quot; to sneak in the metro... I am sorry, this whole thread is just funny.

I do think metro police could give tourists warning tickets. It would be enough to scare a dishonest tourist, but it would spare hapless tourist ( say the ones who throw their ticket stubb away before exiting) a break.

From a transport authority's point of view, the &euro;50 <i>is</i> the warning ticket - it's an administrative fine for passing the clearly defined entry point without a valid ticket. Why or whether the ticket is invalid is neither here nor there.

If they had the evidence to prove you were deliberately cheating, you could (at least in London, but I imagine it's the same elsewhere) it could be treated as a criminal offence.

bozama wrote: &quot;I do think metro police could give tourists warning tickets.&quot;

That would be especially offensive to those tourists who take great pains to blend in and look like locals. Their self-respect would require that they pay the full penalty.

Meanwhile, kids from Sartrouville who vault the barriers will be arguing that they are heading to St. Michel for purposes of tourism

Don't defraud the system, and you won't have to pay a fine. Being a tourist is no excuse.

Kerouac, thanks for the visual.

Anthony,, we are so nice here in Victoria B.C. we don't give tourists parking tickets,, can't help it, just think we are doing the right thing, and think other places should do the same thing.

Myabe Paris has so many tourists they don't care,, I mean, I can see their point. LOL

I don't think &quot;scam&quot; is a fair thing to say.

wjg did not use the ticket in the way you're supposed to, and basically snuck in behind another person. and I'll guess did not speak French to be able to clear this up?

I do believe the copes maybe were etrying to fulfill their quote of fines, but I don't see particularly they were &quot;intrapping tourists&quot;.

&quot;Seriously? This shocks me way more than the OP's original post.&quot;

Yes, seriously. I don't like cheaters. But a confused tourist with a non-working ticket accepting a spontaneous offer to pass the turnstiles, I couldn't care less.

Frankly, there are worst crimes.

Ho! And what PatrickLondon wrote is mostly correct. The fine is theoretically what you get for not having acted in bad faith. If you take the time to read the fine prints on the detailed metro-riding regulations posted on metro platforms (say, you're really bored), you'll see that in theory deliberately riding the metro without a ticket is worth an appearance in court and much higher fines (IIRC, there are some examples of actual sentences mentioned there).


In practice, of course, I'm yet to hear of anybody who got more than the standard fine, good faith or not. I assume, though, that if you're really a major pain, they could call the real police and organize a visit of a French court for you.


And indeed, as someone mentioned, they don't belong to the police (there's an actual subway police, but they're normally in plaincloth), they're just employees of the RATP. So, reporting a pickpocketing should rather be done at a police station. I assume they should be more helpful at the window when you complain about that, or orient you, or something, but if you want the theft to be actually reported, you'd rather see the police.

It happens that they arrest somebody and find stuff on him, so there's a (very, very slim) chance that you'll get back your stuff. It might also help to prove that said stuff or document, or wallet, has actually been stolen rather than found as the thief might pretend &quot;Oh yes, I always have 3 cameras on me, and I found 2 wallets on the floor, today&quot;. The lack of complaints is one of the many reasons why pickpockets target tourists rather than locals.

clairobscru, after stating that you think the OP is a &quot;horrible thief who richly deserved to be fined&quot;, you than said &quot;...I couldn't care less&quot; and &quot;frankly, there are worst [sic] crimes&quot;. Obviously, there are lots of points of view expressed here (mine is that he shouldn't have done it, there's no police scam, but he should have been given some leeway under the circumstances, since he did have and tried to use a valid ticket), it's just that I can't tell what your point of view is, since these statements seem so contradictory to me.

dmlove:

You totally misread clairobscur's first remark. Her point was she DID NOT think the OP was &quot;a horrible thief who richly deserved to be fined.&quot;

St.Cirq - I reread the post and still don't read it that way, but you're probably right, given the second post.

Anybody who adopts the nom de clavier &quot;clairobscur&quot; seems likely to convey some thoughts that are pellucid and some that are impenetrable.

&quot;clairobscru, after stating that you think the OP is a &quot;horrible thief who richly deserved to be fined&quot;, you than said&quot;


As St-Cirq mentioned, I meant the contrary.

Then my apologies for my first post (&quot;Are you serious?...) I obviously completely misunderstood what you were saying.

The thieves: A group teenage girls, about 13-14 years old. (I've since read that many pickpocketers are teens or children because you cannot be legally prosecuted in France if you are under 18).&gt;&gt;

I though this looked funny so I googled it. the consensus of opinion is that 13 is the age of criminal responsibility in France. it may be of course that they try to avoid prosecuting juveniles in France as they do in the UK unless they have to. and of course, they have to catch them first!

regards, ann