This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/17/ban-train-fare-dodger-finance-john-paul-burrows

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
It’s right to ban the train fare-dodger from the finance industry for life It’s right to ban the train fare-dodger from the finance industry for life
(about 3 hours later)
When a multimillionaire City executive dodges an estimated £43,000 of rail fares and escapes without prosecution, he can’t expect much public sympathy. And he won’t get it. If poorer workers have to pay their rail fares while earning salaries that are a fraction of his, why should someone on £1m a year be exempt or, worse, consider himself above paying for his ride?When a multimillionaire City executive dodges an estimated £43,000 of rail fares and escapes without prosecution, he can’t expect much public sympathy. And he won’t get it. If poorer workers have to pay their rail fares while earning salaries that are a fraction of his, why should someone on £1m a year be exempt or, worse, consider himself above paying for his ride?
This seems symptomatic of the sense of entitlement of the 1%. But is it fair that John Paul Burrows has been barred from any senior role in the financial services industries?This seems symptomatic of the sense of entitlement of the 1%. But is it fair that John Paul Burrows has been barred from any senior role in the financial services industries?
This isn’t the first time someone has lost a career over fare dodging. Back in 1948 the popular philosopher Cyril Joad, one of the original panel on BBC radio’s The Brains Trust, and famous for the intensely irritating catchphrase “It depends what you mean by …”, was caught riding for free on the Waterloo to Exeter train and fined £2. In an age when high moral standards were obligatory for those in public positions, the BBC sacked him and he lost all hope of a university lectureship. He was broken by the experience.This isn’t the first time someone has lost a career over fare dodging. Back in 1948 the popular philosopher Cyril Joad, one of the original panel on BBC radio’s The Brains Trust, and famous for the intensely irritating catchphrase “It depends what you mean by …”, was caught riding for free on the Waterloo to Exeter train and fined £2. In an age when high moral standards were obligatory for those in public positions, the BBC sacked him and he lost all hope of a university lectureship. He was broken by the experience.
As Immanuel Kant once remarked: “Out of crooked timber of humanity nothing straight was ever made”. We are all fallible, all capable (and guilty) of immorality, all have moments of weakness. Public humiliation and loss of his job on the airwaves seemed a harsh price for Joad’s stupid action, though his authority on moral issues had been damaged. As Immanuel Kant once remarked: “Out of crooked timber of humanity nothing straight was ever made”. We are all fallible, all capable (and guilty) of immorality, all have moments of weakness. Public humiliation and loss of his job on the airwaves seemed a harsh price for Joad’s stupid action, though his authority on moral issues had been damaged.
The scale of Burrows’ recent deception was far greater: it might even be the biggest exposed fare dodge in UK history. It is incompatible with managing large amounts of other people’s money. It’s quite reasonable to require those who work in the financial sector to be of good character in relation to money. This isn’t akin to a minor speeding ticket; it’s a form of fraud, a deliberate opportunist deception motivated by greed. It seems that day after day, since 2008, Burrows rode the train from a barrier-free station in East Sussex, and used his Oyster card to dupe the barriers in London, so avoiding the full fare. It would have been worrying if his employer and the authorities had treated this as a minor misdemeanour.The scale of Burrows’ recent deception was far greater: it might even be the biggest exposed fare dodge in UK history. It is incompatible with managing large amounts of other people’s money. It’s quite reasonable to require those who work in the financial sector to be of good character in relation to money. This isn’t akin to a minor speeding ticket; it’s a form of fraud, a deliberate opportunist deception motivated by greed. It seems that day after day, since 2008, Burrows rode the train from a barrier-free station in East Sussex, and used his Oyster card to dupe the barriers in London, so avoiding the full fare. It would have been worrying if his employer and the authorities had treated this as a minor misdemeanour.
Cynics will no doubt feel that dubious morality is not such a rare phenomenon in the City, so Burrows just stands out for having been caught. That may conceivably be so. But where someone is known to have defrauded a company of tens of thousands of pounds they cannot expect to carry on as if nothing had happened, even if they pay back the money. For the Financial Conduct Authority to have ignored this deception would have been morally culpable. Cynics will no doubt feel that dubious morality is not such a rare phenomenon in the City, so Burrows just stands out for having been caught. That may conceivably be so. But where someone is known to have defrauded a company of tens of thousands of pounds they cannot expect to carry on as if nothing had happened, even if they pay back the money. For the Financial Conduct Authority to have ignored this deception would have been morally culpable.
It could even be argued that the FCA had a duty to inflict a severe punishment so as to deter anyone in the industry who might be tempted to follow suit, even if it caused suffering to an individual. The presumed deterrent effect could then be seen as the main justification for a lifetime ban, rather than any serious concern that Burrows would continue to behave inappropriately. It could even be argued that the FCA had a duty to inflict a severe punishment so as to deter anyone in the industry who might be tempted to follow suit, even if it caused suffering to an individual. The presumed deterrent effect could then be seen as the main justification for a lifetime ban, rather than any serious concern that Burrows would continue to behave inappropriately.
I have two worries about this approach. First, it seems to be irrevocable. Like a genuine life sentence, there doesn’t seem to be any route back to propriety and employment in the financial world for Burrows. You don’t have to be a Christian to think that some opportunity for redemption should remain. I have two worries about this approach. First, it seems to be irrevocable. Like a genuine life sentence, there doesn’t seem to be any route back to propriety and employment in the financial world for Burrows. You don’t have to be a Christian to think that some opportunity for redemption should remain.
Second, and perhaps more worrying, there is every chance that the harsh punishment will play well to a public thirsty for revenge against the excesses of the City and thus deflect attention from greater inequalities that some in the square mile perpetuate. To that extent Burrows may be a scapegoat, while the larger questions of social fairness – taxation, bonuses – are ignored. John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice made an excellent case for fairer income distribution: the only justification for increasing salaries at the high end, he argued, is if there is a direct benefit to those who are least well off.Second, and perhaps more worrying, there is every chance that the harsh punishment will play well to a public thirsty for revenge against the excesses of the City and thus deflect attention from greater inequalities that some in the square mile perpetuate. To that extent Burrows may be a scapegoat, while the larger questions of social fairness – taxation, bonuses – are ignored. John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice made an excellent case for fairer income distribution: the only justification for increasing salaries at the high end, he argued, is if there is a direct benefit to those who are least well off.
The economist Thomas Picketty has predicted increasing inequality. Compared with the wider questions of fairness in society, the fate of Burrows is just a sideshow. The economist Thomas Piketty has predicted increasing inequality. Compared with the wider questions of fairness in society, the fate of Burrows is just a sideshow.
• This article was amended on 17 December because Thomas Piketty’s name was misspelt.