# TV Licence



## Sile (21 Jul 2003)

What happens when inspector calls if you have no tv licence. 
(A) Are you fined
(B) Given a chance to get a licence, and they will call back to check it.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Jul 2003)

See .

According to :

_Conviction for non-payment of a television licence (first offence) is a fine of 634 euro.

If you are convicted a second time for not paying your television licence, you will be fined 1,269 euro and your television and signal equipment will be confiscated._

My understanding is that the first time offence fine is automatic and mandatory (assuming that there are no mitigating factors) and anybody caught with no license should expect to receive the fine in the post soon after. Obviously a TV license is still also required regardless of whether or not the fine is levied.


----------



## sleebge (22 Jul 2003)

*TV*

just to say that when i was in college and living with a load of lads (about three years ago) the TV license man called, threatened and said he would call back within X days and we better have one.  He called back about five times over a few months and needless to say we didnt get a licence.  He then issued a summons to a made up name we gave him and the whole thing went on for about a year by which time we had moved out.
I wouldnt bother too much about a licence.  If i had a choice i wouldnt want RTE1 and 2 and TV£ or whatever.  Isnt it wrong that you have to pay for these even if you dont want them, and also have to pay for cable/sattelite(which is fair enough)


----------



## ClubMan (22 Jul 2003)

*Re: TV*

*I wouldnt bother too much about a licence.*

Please note that _AAM_ does not condone or facilitate law breaking. I think a more prudent, not to mention legally compliant, approach would be to simply buy the license and avoid the threat of fairly hefty fines - after which one will still need to buy a license anyway! Where somebody disagrees with the law on a point of principal then they might be better off trying to lobby their elected representatives for a change in the relevant legislation.


----------



## daltonr (22 Jul 2003)

*Re: TV*

Or get rid of your TV.   

Interesting to hear that they now want companies to pay the licence fee even if the TV is not used to receive a TV signal.
i.e.  TV and video used for showing in-house Video's etc.

A bit much I think.

As a matter of interest, if the TV guy shows up on your step and you don't have a TV.  Are you obliged to let him into your house to check?

-Rd


----------



## zag (22 Jul 2003)

*Re: TV*

daltonr - it has always been the case that a license is payable if you have a receiving device.  Whether or not you use it to receive anything is up to you.

z


----------



## Tenant (24 Jul 2003)

Daltonr

No you are not obliged to let him in to your house to check and neither are you obliged to give your name.


----------



## Sponger (24 Jul 2003)

*..*



> you are not obliged to let him in to your house to check and neither are you obliged to give your name.



With attitudes like that, no wonder it is estimated that up to 20% of households in Ireland are TV licence evaders.


----------



## rainyday (24 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*



> you are not obliged to let him in to your house to check and neither are you obliged to give your name.



Correct - But they will usually return with a court order & the Gardai within a week or two, in which case you are obliged to let them in, give your name & pay the €600 fine when it goes to court.


----------



## daltonr (24 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*



> But they will usually return with a court order & the Gardai within a week or two, in which case you are obliged to let them in,



By which time you're TV is in the Shed, the Attic, or Next Door.  

It's a ridiculous system which is out of date.  If financing a Public Sector Broadcaster is an important thing then pay for it out of Tax receipts, raising Tax if necessary.  

Fire all the inspectors, and stop wasting the Guards and the Courts time pursuing people.  Stop wasting money administering an indirect tax.  The same could be said about Car Tax.  Stop administering that system, and wasting Guards and Courts time enforcing it, and just bump up the tax on Petrol/Diesel.

Of course the truth is they already are bumping up these other taxes, they just want to keep the other kinds as well.

And there is NO justification in any case for making companies pay this fee for TV's that are used for presentation purposes and which can not receive RTE's broadcasts.

-Rd


----------



## MugsGame (24 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

But don't forget that An Post also have those "detector vans". Besides detecting your wireless telegraphy receiving equipment they can magically distinguish between the TV in your neighbour's house and the computer monitor in your home office. 
:rupert


----------



## rainyday (24 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*



> By which time you're TV is in the Shed, the Attic, or Next Door.



This sounds just a little bit unrealistic, rd. Are you really going to keep your TV in the shed/attic/neighbour from the time the inspector has called indefinitely? Do you really the Gardai have never considered the idea of searching the shed or the attic? Do you think that they just might get a 2nd court order and come back a week later?

You ain't gonna beat the system.


----------



## Shanks1 (24 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

I agree that the TV license should be scrapped and replaced with exchequer funding. If quality TV is for the common good of the nation then we should all pay for it and not just TV owners. Under the current system anyone who uses their TV to provide themselves with mindless entertainment( ie Sky One) is effectively subsidising the TV viewing of those with more "cultured tastes" What's so special about TV anyway? It's just another information/entertainment medium among others.


----------



## daltonr (24 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

Rainyday,

When I lived alone I had no TV, and hopefully I'll get back to that situation soon.  So I have no interest in beating the system. 

But I do disagree with stupid systems, and I would suggest that if everyone refused entry to the inspector and forced him to return with a Court Order (as you are entitled to do) that WOULD defeat the system because it would collapse.

Personally I'd suggest getting rid of the TV.  Well worth doing.  Unfortunately if you are sharing a house with others it's nearly impossible to find people who agree.

Incidently for the few years that I lived without TV (or license) the inspector never called.  If he had I'd have told him I had no TV (which would have been correct) and refused him entry to the house. (Just to see what would happen).

People (including me) have no problem paying for TV, but
additional taxes that need to be administered and policed have always seemed like a waste of resources to me.  Not to mention being unfair to those who don't use the TV as a receiver.

Don't get me started on that Magic Van nonsense.

-Rd


----------



## rainyday (25 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*



> What's so special about TV anyway? It's just another information/entertainment medium among others.



Hi Shanks - I can see where you are coming from. However, I can see the benefit of state fund TV programming. I'd hate to see all our news programming dumbing down, like the TV3 News (with Lorraine giggling inanely at celeb's and Martin badly faking a Dub accent). New Zealand dropped their TV licence a few years ago. I was speaking to a family member in NZ over the weekend who described their TV news as 'the Sun on TV' - Do we really want to go there?


----------



## ClubMan (25 Jul 2003)

*Re: ..*

*and Martin badly faking a Dub accent*

Actually, that is his real accent. Anyway, I won't hear a bad word said against a fellow _Bohs_ supporter! Anybody notice if he wore his _Bohs_ scarf and/or jersey last night as he did when we last won the league? It was funny the time he was on _TV3_ doing the weather while at the same time I could see him standing at the bar in _Dalymount_ drinking pints. The power of technology, eh!? :lol


----------



## Tom (25 Jul 2003)

*Licence mix-up?*

I sent off a cheque for 150 euro a couple of months and got my licence back in the post.However a month later I got another letter asking if I wouldn't mind cancelling my last cheque and sending them another as due to an error in their office they were unable to process my payment.This looked like a form letter sent out to many licence holders but I have no idea what happened (did they accidentally shred a load of cheques?).Anyone else experience this?.
I was going to send them off another cheque until I got another letter (a very sniffy one!),repeating their "error" and pointing out that I had not paid for my licence and how they would appreciate a quick response.


----------



## Curvy (25 Jul 2003)

*Recieving equipment*

Guys, you're required to have a TV licence if you have any signal receiving equipment in or attached to your home. This means that any house with a NTL cable box  or an ariel sticking out of the chimney is required to be licensed, TV present or not. Insane I know, but that's the government for you.

The license is too expensive but I'm not entirely opposed to it, I'd hate to see TV go to the standard of , say, SKY. However channels like C4 seem to be doing okay on advertising revenue only and their have pretty good programs, plus they have the best news service on TV.


----------



## daltonr (25 Jul 2003)

*Re: Recieving equipment*

And what if you don't have any signal receiving equipment.
Just the TV?

How about a PC with a TV Card, but no Arial, Cable, Satellite etc?  I have an old TV Card for a PC out in the shed, it's never used, or even plugged into a PC.  Should I get rid of it in case the inspector calls.

Also what's the story with multiple TV's?  Do you or do you not need a license for each TV in the house?

Personally I think RTE could be dramatically Cut down, run at a much lower cost, One TV Channel, One Radio Channel, and be just as useful.

Prime Time and the News are Good.  Q&A used to be ok.  Occasional Documentaries like State of Fear are excellent.  Radio 1 is good.  And of course the odd Sporting Event.  Apart from that the License fee serves no useful Public Broadcasting function.

It should be possible to fully fund a smaller RTE from the License with no Ads.  Then I'd agree with it.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (25 Jul 2003)

*Re: Recieving equipment*

*And what if you don't have any signal receiving equipment.
Just the TV?*

The TV can receive a signal directly so you need a license.

*How about a PC with a TV Card, but no Arial, Cable, Satellite etc? I have an old TV Card for a PC out in the shed, it's never used, or even plugged into a PC. Should I get rid of it in case the inspector calls.*

I realise that you're probably being facetious while pointing out the potential flaws in the legislation but in this case you still technically need a license as far as I know.

*Also what's the story with multiple TV's? Do you or do you not need a license for each TV in the house?*

Once again, if people bothered to read the links that I and others post (e.g. the  which I posted earlier) they would know that in this case only one license is required:

_"If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have *a* television licence."_

This discussion is going nowhere. At the very least it should be split into two parts (a) those posts dealing with specific queries and factual answers relating to licensing requirements/costs etc. and (b) those posts arguing over the perceived merits/demerits/rights/wrongs of the legislation as it stands.


----------



## zag (25 Jul 2003)

*Mortgaged*

[POSTED BY MORTGAGED, NOT DALTONR]

I refused entry to the TV Licence Inspector about 3 years ago. He called just as I moved into the Estate.  They always call to new estates. Never returned with the Guards etc.

Not because I am a sponger or anything, just simply cant afford it. On my own, big mortgage, one job.  Have just paid €380 bin charges(last year and to the end of this year) off over about 10 months because I have no objection to paying for my rubbish to be taken away.

Will eventually get a TV Licence,  but when I can afford it and it will have to wait at the end of the pile of bills

In the meantime,  I have no problem in refusing entry or to give my name,  no need to be rude to the inspector, just say you would prefer not to give your name.


----------



## Mortgaged (25 Jul 2003)

*TV Licence/Daltonr's comments*

Daltonr,
Sorry the previous post is from me not you,  I have just typed the user name and subject in the wrong order.  Could one of the MOD'S correct it for me please.Sorry

Thanks


----------



## ClubMan (25 Jul 2003)

*Re: Mortgaged*

*Not because I am a sponger or anything, just simply cant afford it. On my own, big mortgage, one job. Have just paid €380 bin charges(last year and to the end of this year) off over about 10 months because I have no objection to paying for my rubbish to be taken away.*

So you're not paying your TV license because (a) you can't afford it and/or (b) you object to paying for it? You could always get rid of the telly in either case.


----------



## fatherdougalmaguire (25 Jul 2003)

*Re: Mortgaged*

Debates aside, I believe there is a fundamental problem with the notion of a TV licence. The fundamental problem being that the fees are not restricted to the provision of a nationwide TV service. The TV licence fees, as far as I am aware, go towards many non-TV related services (but I can't find anything on the Government website that explains how the TV licence kitty is divied up). That's where the problem is.

The thought has just occured to me, that if nobody in the country had a TV then nobody would have to pay a TV licence fee. The result would be that other dependent services suffer. 

Why don't the powers that be face up to it and just introduce a proper tax. If they want to get serious about TV licences then they should enforce some sort of more rigorous controls. For example, a TV licence should be produced when buying a TV. Haven't thought that one through fully but I thought this anomaly should be addressed. It's not enough for people to say that they won't get a licence because RTE is crap. People need to be made aware of what they're paying for when/if they buy a licence. It then becomes clear that 'TV licence' is an unfortunate name.

It reminds me of the time when Bertie was on with Kenny one night and he was challenged on the subject of vehicle registration tax. He was asked what it was for and why is it so expensive. The clincher for me was that Bertie said that if he was to reduce that tax he'd have to up some other tax. Surely you should charge tax for a reason and that tax should be representative and justified for the cause for which it is being collected. Also, I could never understand why stamp duty depended on the value of a house.

I digress.

So should we have some sort of public service tax and bin the licence idea? Or should we have a tax along with a reduced licence?


----------



## Mortgaged (25 Jul 2003)

Clubman,

I think your reply is very smart... given the fact that I was very honest in saying that I couldn't afford a TV Licence.  

For the record,  I was given a second hand portable TV by my mum, which I have in the bedroom, which I hardly watch as I dont really watch TV and it wouldn't bother me either way.

A couple of other users on the site have commented recently how impolite it has become and how posters are often given smart ass replys when their views differ from the norm and I have to say I agree


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jul 2003)

*I think your reply is very smart*

I was trying to clarify if you weren't paying it because you couldn't afford it (as you state) or because you object to paying it (as you imply) or for both reasons. I don't see how suggesting that you get rid of the TV if you can't afford to buy a license and/or object to paying (particularly since you say that you don't watch it that much and wouldn't be bothered without it) it is bad advce given that it is the only way you can really avoid breaking the law and potentially facing the consequences. :rolleyes


----------



## rainyday (26 Jul 2003)

> Not because I am a sponger or anything, just simply cant afford it.



This is contradictory - If you're not paying, you're sponging - plain & simple. No amount of excuses get away from this fact.


----------



## Mortgaged (26 Jul 2003)

No, I am not a sponger and I object to being called one by somebody I dont know from Adam.    When I can afford a TV Licence and a decent TV I will get one along with the cablelink.  Its just not a priority for me at the moment as I have other more important outgoings like mortgage,  food and essential bills. 

Now you both know well that the reply was meant to be smart assed and judging by some recent posts to other people you have taken the same holier than thou attitudes when other queries have been raised.  Example being, the woman last week who raised the query about dry cleaning, when she replied to your "snotty" comments, you shut down the post!!

I hope it keeps well for you. It must be great to be perfect.


----------



## rainyday (26 Jul 2003)

> No, I am not a sponger



Oh yes you are (we can keep doing this all night, if you like)



> I object to being called one by somebody I dont know from Adam



I know you have a TV & you don't have a licence. That's all I need to know. The fact that you don't know me doesn't change the fact.



> Its just not a priority for me at the moment as I have other more important outgoings like mortgage, food and essential bills.



We can all make 'prioritisation' excuses for not paying our taxes, our insurance, our waste charges & our TV licences. The simple fact is - its the law. If you don't like the law, get it changed or get rid of your TV.



> you have taken the same holier than thou attitudes when other queries have been raised



You can call it 'holier than thou'. I call it 'calling it like it is' - As a community, we have generally been too tolerant of excuses for everthing, for violence (oh he had drink taken, your honour), for tax evasion (oh my accountant looked after all that), for speeding (oh I slept it out) and for TV licence sponging (It's not my priority at the moment). 

Don't expect me to salve your clearly edgy conscience about your failure to pay the legally required TV licence.


----------



## Tomas (28 Jul 2003)

Hi all !

    Is the display ( screen) of the computer the
    receiver or not ?

    Thanks for any opinion

    Tomas


----------



## daltonr (30 Jul 2003)

Thomas,



> Is the display ( screen) of the computer the
> receiver or not ?



No it isn't.
The only fair was of interpreting what is published on Oasis, is to say that a computer with a TV receiving card would require a license and a computer with no TV Card would not.

-Rd


----------



## biggerry (31 Jul 2003)

Mortgaged, I remeber reading a while ago that if an inspector calls and you don't have a licence, you CAN claim inability to pay.

I think the article went on to say that the inspector had to work with you to arrange regular payments.


----------



## Ludraman (31 Jul 2003)

As a bit of mediation, may I suggest that if Mortgaged agrees to keep his TV, but promises not to watch RTE, we can all shake hands?


----------



## daltonr (31 Jul 2003)

> As a bit of mediation, may I suggest that if Mortgaged agrees to keep his TV, but promises not to watch RTE, we can all shake hands?



I don't think so since we've already agreed unfair as it may seem, that companies who don't watch ANY TV channels and only use the TV for presentations etc, are obliged to pay.

When I rented a house it had a satellite dish bolted to the front wall, even though I didn't have a TV or a subscription to any service.  But apparently I should have been paying a license.

-Rd


----------



## Observer (1 Aug 2003)

Dalton R, If you weren't paying the Licence when you should have been,  I suppose you could always backdate the Licence if you wanted to.


----------



## daltonr (1 Aug 2003)

*No Intention*

I have no intention of doing any such thing.
If the land lord felt like bolting a satellite dish to the front of his house that's fine.

He can pay the TV license for it too if he likes but if he had any sense he didn't.

But as someone who didn't own or watch tv at the time there's no way I'd be willing to pay a license fee for it.

And if any inspector tried to convince me at the time that I was liable for it I'd have laughed at him.

There's a limit to how much stupidity I'll stand for.

-Rd


----------



## Mortgaged (1 Aug 2003)

*TV Licence Spongers*

Biggerry, I didnt know you could do that.  But I am joining a thing called "home payments".  I dont know if any of you have heard of it.  You pay them a set payment a month, and they arrange all your household bills to be paid including mortgage, car loan, car tax etc., TV Licence in fact all your bills. If there is any money left over, you get it back at Christmas.  Apparently it has been going over 20 years and would suit me to pay just one payment out a month.

Rainyday seems to think that I have a guilty concience over a TV Licence????Not so. Furthest thing from my mind.  As a first time buyer on my own in my house for the first three years, I have to say I got into considerable debt trying to keep the place going at all and my priority was whether the bills/direct debits would bounce or at some stage if I would end up having to sell/rent a room. I was often left with less than €160 per month for food/clothing/socialising and other emergencies, eg. car trouble and thats "telling it like is is" I had actually got to the stage where I would have no money and I mean no actual money for the last week of every month.  I wasnt in the least concerned if I was breaking the law by having no TV Licence. Now I am starting to pay off the VISA bill, credit union, etc. As I said in my previous post, it took my 10 months to pay €380 bin charges, but thats it paid now till the end of the year.  First time buyers will know what I am talking about as I am sure many people have been there.I have no time for people who claim to "tell it like it is"  but havent got a clue. 

Rainyday,  you claim to have no time for "excuses" from people and thats your perrogative.  But I was not making any excuse to you as I dont need to justify myself to you or anybody else for that matter.  Far from having a guilty concience or feeling like a sponger, I have to say I gave myself a pat on the back and said "well girl, you've come a long way in three years, sponger or no sponger"


----------



## rainyday (1 Aug 2003)

*Re: TV Licence Spongers*

Hi Mortgaged - Just a word of friendly advice - I haven't heard any mention of this 'Home Payments' organisation in 3+ years on Askaboutmoney (though I know some of the main banks used to offer a similar service) - Do make sure that they are a reputable, trustworthy organisation before you hand over your money.

I too congratulate you on 'coming a long way' in getting your finances sorted. It is just a pity that you couldn't manage the fairly trivial amount of 50c per day to meet your legal obligations to pay the TV licence.


----------



## daltonr (1 Aug 2003)

*Re: TV Licence Spongers*

Rainyday,

I never bought into that 50c a day nonsense.  Or 23c as at was I think.  TV license isn't the only one to do it.

I reckon if a company wan't to advertise like that they should be willing to accept payment like that too.   Whatever the shortest payment period you accept, that's the shortest advertising period you should be allowed to tout.

BTW Did anyone else find the sound of an apple being munched annoying enough to make You reach for ANY other channel you could find?

-Rd


----------



## rainyday (1 Aug 2003)

*Re: TV Licence Spongers*



> I reckon if a company wan't to advertise like that they should be willing to accept payment like that too.




Hi RD - They do! see details of TV Licence savings stamps


----------



## daltonr (1 Aug 2003)

*Re: TV Licence Spongers*

That's a savings mechanism not a payment mechanism. You save up and pay for the year when you have enough stamps.

You can't pay for 10 days worth of TV with 10 days worth of stamps.

But we're splitting hairs here.  I think we both know what the other means.

-Rd


----------



## rainyday (1 Aug 2003)

*Re: TV Licence Spongers*



> You can't pay for 10 days worth of TV with 10 days worth of stamps.



But why would you want to pay for 10 days of TV?


----------



## rainyday (1 Aug 2003)

*Re: TV Licence Spongers*



> You can't pay for 10 days worth of TV with 10 days worth of stamps.



But why would you want to pay for 10 days of TV? And who is going to pay for the additional time that you are taking of the post-office clerk by paying every 10 days or so?


----------



## daltonr (1 Aug 2003)

*Re: TV Licence Spongers*

I really didn't want to get into a discussion about it.  It was just a throwaway remark.  I was just saying companies shouldn't advertise something on a per day cost if the minimum you can buy is one year.

However you slice it you have to buy a years worth of TV license so it's €150.  It's not something that annoys me enough to get into a big debate about it, it's just something that annoys me slightly when I see it.

Changing the subject,  here's an example of someone with too much time on their hands:  Over 70's are entitled to a free TV license apparently.  But instead of just showing the License inspector proof of their age:  They have to find and fill out the following:

"Department of Social and Family Affairs application form Free Electricity/Natural Gas Allowance, Television Licence and Telephone Allowance for Persons aged 70 or over (FET1)"

That's just the name of the form.  Someone has to be paid to process those forms issue licenses etc.

If we cut out all these made up jobs that are just there to keep people busy until they can retire on a nice pension, we'd have a much more cost effective public service.

Of Course the productivity increases under Benchmarking will no doubt sort this out and greatly reduce the number of civil servants.    :lol    :/

-Rd


----------



## CM (4 Aug 2003)

*..*

Too true, daltonr, too true !

But do you think any of the politicians would risk their seats to stamp out this "jobs for the boys" mentality ?


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (5 Aug 2003)

*!*



> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Not because I am a sponger or anything, just simply cant afford it.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is contradictory - If you're not paying, you're sponging - plain & simple. No amount of excuses get away from this fact.



No, no no no! 

This kind of attitude makes me very angry, typical knee jerk reaction of 'You have a telly, but no licence, therefore you're a sponger'

Consider that this poster is a champion for the cause of axing the TV tax. This tax us unjust, unfair and contravenes our human rights. Don't pay it!

Check out www.tvlicensing.biz
Hopefully, we'll soon have a site for that waste of Ballsbridge real estate known as RTE.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (5 Aug 2003)

*.*

A TV licencing person called to my house. I refused them entry. I got a couple of letters and that's the last I've heard.

I'd also like to point out while I'm on the topic:

*Guys, you're required to have a TV licence if you have any signal receiving equipment in or attached to your home. This means that any house with a NTL cable box or an ariel sticking out of the chimney is required to be licensed, TV present or not. Insane I know, but that's the government for you.*

Well my eyes can receive EM radiation. Do I need I license for them too? What If I tape a wire coat hanger to the outside of my house? - does this incriminate me? I can receive TV via my laptop, without a TV card. I can see a multitude of stations from :wwitv.com/portal.htm or other such internet sites. Maybe if you have a PC with internet access you should have to get a TV license.

I also read that TV3 had to axe loads of jobs because they can't compete with license funded RTE. So all you people that pay and keep this unfair tax alive are probably responsible for these job losses. Well done.


----------



## rainyday (5 Aug 2003)

> This kind of attitude makes me very angry, typical knee jerk


The fact that it makes you angry or that it is 'knee jerk' (which is debateable anyway) does not make it wrong. I respect your right to disagree with the licence. I respect any legal moves you might make to change the legislation to remove the licence. I disrespect anyone who has a TV and doesn't buy a licence - they are sponging, plain & simple.

I can think of one exception to this - If you are a 'conscientious objector', then come out of the closet and start objecting in public - start a campaign, setup a website, march through Dublin, write to the Irish Times - do something public & positive to make this happen. But those who hide behind the door from the inspector and who watch TV but don't have a licence - they are sponging, plain and simple.



> Consider that this poster is a champion for the cause of axing the TV tax.


Nothing could be further from the truth. The original poster didn't pay it because it wasn't a priority for them. She stated her intention to pay it when she can afford to. There was no principle involved here.



> So all you people that pay and keep this unfair tax alive are probably responsible for these job losses. Well done.


Rubbish - Those who sit back and do nothing to get the legislation changed are responsible.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (5 Aug 2003)

*?*

*I disrespect anyone who has a TV and doesn't buy a licence - they are sponging, plain & simple.*

It's this specifically that I take issue with.

Here's one example:

If the person own a TV, but only watches videos on it, how are they sponging? - I don't understand this. From whom are the sponging?

They've paid for their TV, the video and the electricity, so who's being 'left out'?

*Rubbish - Those who sit back and do nothing to get the legislation changed are responsible.*

So you admit responsibility...


----------



## Never home (5 Aug 2003)

If I am never at home during the day until at least 7.00 - 8.00 pm, does the TV licence inspector leave a note to say he knows we have no licence and will call again etc.

I have lived in two houses in last 4 years and I have never got a licence and never got a note etc.

Did anyone get a letter/note in the letter box after a call from inspector?

Never home!!


----------



## rainyday (6 Aug 2003)

> From whom are the sponging?



From the State - They are breaking the law.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (6 Aug 2003)

*.*

*From the State*
LOL! - poor undernourished state!  

*They are breaking the law. *
An unjust law. A law which contravenes our human rights. Some people have more sense than to unquestionably obey others.


----------



## MugsGame (6 Aug 2003)

never home,

if you are never home, why do you have a TV ?


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (6 Aug 2003)

*.*

'never home' never actually stated whether or not they had a TV. A good policy for when the TV inspector calls.


----------



## rainyday (6 Aug 2003)

> A law which contravenes our human rights.



Ah I get it now - you want anarchy. 

So by your logic, if I firmly believe that the Larceny Act contravenes my human rights by depriving me of a 42" plasma screen TV, I presume you have no problem if I just steal your car or your PC or your non-connected TV & Video to fund this. You are in favour of each individual deciding which laws the want to follow - right?


----------



## No Licence (6 Aug 2003)

If never home is never home when the TV Licence inspector calls,  then they have no name to send a summons to.  If they have no name,  then they cant send a summons.  However,  if you have bought a licence last year which has just lapsed, then they can send you a summons. So once you buy one TV Licence you have to buy one forever, or until you move house.

I do think Rainydays attacks on the original poster were out of order, if people cant afford it, then they should be taken as genuine.  By saying its 50c per day,  is stupid,  you cant save your 50c for a year and then buy your licence.  People are entitled to be upset if you call them spongers without knowing their circumstances.

Rainyday states that XXXAnotherPersonXXXX wants to choose what laws they obey.   But some people might think it is you who is choosey.  On one discussion,  you slate people as spongers without a TV Licence,  but on another site you berate people who object to the dirt travellers leave behind them. As dumping is clearly against the law, and you are so into upholding the law,  why no call everyone who breaks the law a sponger or whatever it is.  I know the travellers etc have nothing got to do with TV Licences,  but I am just making the point that it is your views which change when suits.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (6 Aug 2003)

*.*

In addition to Licence's comments:

*Ah I get it now - you want anarchy. *
You are now making unfounded assumptions.

*So by your logic, if I firmly believe that the Larceny Act contravenes my human rights by depriving me of a 42" plasma screen TV, I presume you have no problem if I just steal your car or your PC or your non-connected TV & Video to fund this. You are in favour of each individual deciding which laws the want to follow - right? *

No, this isn't my logic, maybe it's yours. (I do not own a TV - connected or otherwise, so you'd be hard pressed to steal it).


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (6 Aug 2003)

*.*

An inportant point I'd like to add. I'm not breaking any laws. I do not own a TV, or have a TV licence.

If the licencing of TVs is abolished, I may well purchase a TV.


----------



## rainyday (6 Aug 2003)

Hi No Licence



> if people cant afford it, then they should be taken as genuine.



I see your point here. Let's not forget that the original poster pointed out that she had no money to pay her licence after paying for socialising and her car - so I don't think it was a case of somebody on the 'breadline'. However, the fact the remains that the current law re. TV licence does not have any concept of affordability, so anyone who has a TV and does not have a licence is breaking the law.



> By saying its 50c per day, is stupid, you cant save your 50c for a year and then buy your licence.


You can do just that (or very close to it) with the TV Licence saving stamps. And even without the saving stamps, you can save with your credit union or whereever.



> you berate people who object to the dirt travellers leave behind them. As dumping is clearly against the law, and you are so into upholding the law, why no call everyone who breaks the law a sponger or whatever it is.


I didn't berate anyone. I simply pointed out that the travellers don't bear all the responsibility in that case. I did point out that "such behaviour by travellers is pretty dispicable" and I would have problem with travellers facing the full rigour of the law in this case. There is no inconsistency in my views here.



> You are now making unfounded assumptions.


Hi AP - You are reserving the right to pick & choose the laws you wish to comply with - that's pretty close to anarchy in my book.



> No, this isn't my logic, maybe it's yours. (I do not own a TV


My point has nothing to do with whether you have a TV or not. My point is that if you expect me to respect your right to choose the laws you comply with (and put up with the impacts of your non-complaince), then it only seems fair that you respect my right to break the larceny laws and take your property, if that's what I choose.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (6 Aug 2003)

*.*



> Hi AP - You are reserving the right to pick & choose the laws you wish to comply with - that's pretty close to anarchy in my book.
> 
> My point has nothing to do with whether you have a TV or not. My point is that if you expect me to respect your right to choose the laws you comply with (and put up with the impacts of your non-complaince), then it only seems fair that you respect my right to break the larceny laws and take your property, if that's what I choose.



Rainyday, did you even read my last post? - Which laws am I 'picking and choosing' to comply with? 

I object to the system of TV licencing. I do not own a TV. I'm not breaking any laws. I object to the law, but I'm not breaking it. Some people may well take offence at implications that they are deliberately breaking laws (I don't though!  )

There are many laws I object to, but it doesn't mean I break them.

If someone decides to own a TV without a licence, I would have absolutely no objection to them doing that.


----------



## rainyday (6 Aug 2003)

*Re: .*



> Rainyday, did you even read my last post? - Which laws am I 'picking and choosing' to comply with?


Hi AP - Yep, I read all your posts. I'm not saying that you personally are doing anything illegal. However, you did encourage all readers to "Don't pay it!" and you told us that "Some people have more sense than to unquestionably obey others." - To me, this is encourage others to break the law, i.e. have a TV & not pay the licence.



> Some people may well take offence at implications that they are deliberately breaking laws


The 'mortgaged' poster made it clear that she was fully aware that she was breaking the law, and she continued to do so until she could 'afford' the licence.


----------



## fatherdougalmaguire (6 Aug 2003)

*Re: Up North*

Out of curiosity does anyone know what the situation is in Northern Ireland? Do they need to have TV licenses? Do they have TV license people from south of the border knocking on their doors looking for subs? Or does part of their UK license fee get handed over to our Dept of Comms?

Just curious ...


----------



## Ludraman (6 Aug 2003)

*Re: Recieving equipment*

Does anybody know if we should still have a wireless licence?..........I've done me searches, but to no avail.


----------



## Mortgaged (7 Aug 2003)

Rainyday,
I want to correct you on something.  Your "hardly on the breadline" comment is a bit much.    I did not say that I could not afford a TV Licence after socialising and car.

Firstly,  my car is a necessity as I do not work on any direct bus route.  What I said was that I was left with €160 per month to cover food for the month, socialising, holidays, lunches, and any other incidental expenses,  such as car trouble. Would it surprise you to know that there were no holidays or luxury items or socialising for that matter.   Have you been to a Supermarket lately?  I call having €160 per month left to live on for a whole month, having just paid essential bills, big time on the breadline.  Maybe you are just better budgeting than me.  

I am sure there are people out there who would spend that much on a nice meal out on one night.


----------



## Observer (7 Aug 2003)

*Being able to afford a TV Licence*

Sorry Rainyday,  but I agree.  If I was left with  €160 per month to live on I don't think I would be buying a TV Licence either.  Sure you would spend that on food alone.  Even by shopping in Lidl/Aldi, and even just shopping for one, youd find it tough going.


----------



## rainyday (7 Aug 2003)

*Re: Being able to afford a TV Licence*

Hi Observer & Mortgaged - As it happens, I still don't believe that it was not possible to save the €7-€8 per month (as it was up to last year) to pay a TV licence. And of course, if you can't afford a TV licence, you should just not have a TV.

But that is not the real issue. The real issue is *'Are we going to allow each individual to pick & choose which laws they comply with?' *

Would you accept the 'I couldn't afford it' arguement from an uninsured driver? Presumably not. I can't see why anyone would accept the 'I couldn't afford it' arguement for a TV licence, or for a tax payment or for any other money due to the state.


----------



## US (7 Aug 2003)

I find your whining pious tone to be very irritating and condescending rainyday.

It's all very easy to be a smoked salmon socialist sitting in a posh Dublin suburb in D16 lecturing others on what they should and shouldn't pay.


----------



## Penny Foolish (7 Aug 2003)

*.*

Rainyday, I think the TV license is a bit more than that. AFAIK it is now 150 p/a which is 12.50 p/m.
I can't afford that either. Nor can I afford the bin charges. A lot of people just trying to start out in life, buying homes etc, are forced to push themselves to the financial limit, and they cannot cope with license charges that suddenly rise at a higher rate than wages, and new taxes that they didn't predict and therefore couldn't budget for. All of a sudden they find themselves being called spongers or criminals.

I don't think taking a black and white view of this issue is a very realistic one. People have different circumstances. You are lucky enough to be comfortably off, but not everybody is. That's why people are taxed differently. Large companies, huge banks, the state itself will listen to and sometimes accept the "I can't afford it" argument from people, why won't you?


----------



## Dearg Doom (7 Aug 2003)

*Re: .*

In fairness Rainyday is only stating what the legal position is. If you have a TV you must pay your TV license. If you can't afford to pay for the license then you can't afford television. It *is* black and white - the law is a rather blunt instrument and doesn't deal in shades of grey. You either have a TV or not and hence you are either obliged to pay the TV license or not. It's similarly black and white that if you commit a crime (for whatever reason) you're a criminal. Remember the laws are made by the government you elected. It's not rainyday's fault you don't like some of the laws. It's up to you to get them changed. 

Ditto for bin charges - if you wan't your rubbish removed you pay for it, if not you can keep it.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (7 Aug 2003)

*.*

*It is black and white - the law is a rather blunt instrument and doesn't deal in shades of grey. *

The law most certainly does deal in shades of grey! That is why there are courts, solicitors, judges & juries etc.

*Remember the laws are made by the government you elected. It's not rainyday's fault you don't like some of the laws. It's up to you to get them changed.*

This is a bit of a joke. 'The government I elected'? Every few years I go through the farce of filling in my voting slip, so that the same, mediocre parties can get re-elected. People voting for whomever their families voted for, or whoever's picture looks nicest, without reading the first line of a manifesto.

Remember that the Government are simply a group of people who want power, and have ceased control of the country.

*Ditto for bin charges - if you wan't your rubbish removed you pay for it, if not you can keep it.*

This apparently isn't the case. You are (quite rightly) not allowed to have rubbish strewn around your premises. The county council makes the assumption that people wish to use their service, even though a contract hasn't been signed.

I notice too that some bright spark civil servant has decided to give away a Merc in the most recent attempt to get people to pay. A Merc! Could they have thought of anything less environmentally friendly? It's also a foreign product. Not good for the economy.


----------



## zag (7 Aug 2003)

*Re: .*

I'm pretty sure (can't find the official wording) that the relevant charge is a Service Charge, not a "bin" charge or tax.

It relates to more than the cost of removing rubbish.

Apparently.

z


----------



## Ceist Beag (7 Aug 2003)

*Re.*

In fairness to RainyDay, he is only stating the law and that you cannot pick and choose which ones you want to abide by. To Penny Foolish, I too am a first time buyer and in all fairness, if you have the money to buy a tv in the first place then you should make sure you can afford the license, simple as that. You can try and justify it all you want but it is really that simple. There are plenty of things you can hold off on when moving in to a new house but I have to agree with RainyDay in that law breaking is not one of them (and I'm not trying to be pious or anything).


----------



## Dearg Doom (7 Aug 2003)

*Re: .*

*The law most certainly does deal in shades of grey! That is why there are courts, solicitors, judges & juries etc.*

They are deciding whether the grey is in fact black or white; you commited murder or you didn't, you stole something or you didn't, etc. The judges, juries etc. are there to decide what is applicable (i.e. did you have a television and not have a license for it?) - they don't get to decide that it applied, but let them off because they don't watch RTE, are never at home, or whatever excuse there might have been. 

*This is a bit of a joke. 'The government I elected'? *

OK, the government you and I elected. I was impying (poorly I admit) that we are all to blame if the coutry is not run properly. 

I couldn't agree more with your view on how we vote in this country. That's what has us in this mess. There is no link between running the country well/poorly and being (re-)elected. Hence a government who doesn't raise income tax, but adds another inefficient stealth tax gets re-elected. A government with the balls to raise revenue through the (probabbly) most efficient and fairest means at their disposal (income tax) will be hounded from office.

*Remember that the Government are simply a group of people who want power, and have ceased control of the country.*

Or rather, we have given it to them...


----------



## First Time Buyer (8 Aug 2003)

*Attitude*

I am sure there are plenty of people out there who cannot afford TV Licences,  bin charges, etc.  That type of money is a lot to pay out, especially like the first time buyers, you are trying to furnish a house and probably have loans everywhere.  

Saying not to get a car or a TV is just simply unrealistic.

Rainyday's "I do not believe you cant afford it"  comments are unfair and after all,  its not what about you believe,  if people are saying they cant afford it,  I am sure most people are being genuine and should be given a bit of space,  not spoken to like they had just committed high treason.  After all,  if people are trying to make ends meet, I am sure they couldn't give a hoot about what you think,  and more power to them.

Its not the points Rainyday is trying to make that I object to, like the other posters, its the condescending attitude.


----------



## rainyday (8 Aug 2003)

Hi US



> I find your whining pious tone to be very irritating and condescending rainyday.


Thanks for the feedback - I'll give it all the attention it deserves.



> It's all very easy to be a smoked salmon socialist sitting in a posh Dublin suburb in D16 lecturing others on what they should and shouldn't pay.


I'm not sure I see the relevance of my food preferences, my political views or my house location on this one. Do you have anything constructive to add to the debate, or do you just confine yourself to barbed comments?



> Rainyday, I think the TV license is a bit more than that. AFAIK it is now 150 p/a which is 12.50 p/m.


Hi Penny Foolish - You are correct, but I was referring to the last three year period for which 'Mortgaged' has not paid her licence.



> A lot of people just trying to start out in life, buying homes etc, are forced to push themselves to the financial limit


No-one is forced to do anything. We all make choices in life and we have to live with the impact of those choices. I simply find it unreasonable & unacceptable that others choose to break the law and deprive the state of funding at their own discretion.



> I don't think taking a black and white view of this issue is a very realistic one.


Ah but the black & white view is cheaper than the colour view :rollin    Sorry, couldn't resist.



> You are lucky enough to be comfortably off, but not everybody is. That's why people are taxed differently.


Exactly, but there are no provisions in the TV licence scheme for low income persons. If there was, or if Mortgaged & AP & others were out on the streets trying to make this happen, I would have some respect for their approach. But they are not - they are choosing to have a TV & not pay the licence - therefore, they are sponging off the rest of us.

Hi Dearg Doom/Ceist Beag-It's nice to see that I'm not totally isolated out here. Thanks for your comments.

Hi First Time Buyer


> Saying not to get a car or a TV is just simply unrealistic.


This is sheer rubbish-Get a bike or get a moped or get a bus -Don't expect me to subsidise your TV viewing while you enjoy spending the licence fee on your furniture.



> should be given a bit of space, not spoken to like they had just committed high treason.


The *high treason* comment is pure exaggeration. I'm not suggesting that spongers should be locked up & throw away the key. I am suggesting that we clearly & directly call it like it is - it's sponging.



> After all, if people are trying to make ends meet, I am sure they couldn't give a hoot about what you think, and more power to them.


I think their reaction to my comments contradicts this, as they seem to be quite concerned about being labelled as a sponger. But sometimes the truth hurts - it is still the truth. I seem to detect a touch of denial as the spongers want to have their lawbreaking excused & swept under the carpet. But I'm not prepared to do that.


> Its not the points Rainyday is trying to make that I object to, like the other posters, its the condescending attitude.


I really don't think I have been condescending or patronising. I have been clear & direct, something which we Irish don't seem to be very used to - we prefer to be vague & hypocritical (breaking the laws that we don't like ourselves while expecting others to hold to a different standard).


----------



## Observer (8 Aug 2003)

*Rudeness*

No,  Rainyday, I dont think you have hit a nerve with the people who dont buy a TV Licence,  it  looks like its you who is trying to justify over and over again being downright rude to people,  which there is no need for.    They are simply stating their case in point,  which they are perfectly entitled to do.  

You objected to the "smoked salmon" comment. Maybe it is  too near the knuckle for you. ??

Everyones opinion is just as valid as everybody elses.  I have no problem with anybody expressing their view,  but there seems to be an increasing amount of direct rude comments to people.  

This is just my opinion,  but trying to put someone down is far more serious than no TV Licence.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (8 Aug 2003)

*.*



> If there was, or if Mortgaged & AP & others were out on the streets trying to make this happen, I would have some respect for their approach. But they are not - they are choosing to have a TV & not pay the licence - therefore, they are sponging off the rest of us.



*I DO NOT OWN A TELEVISION!!!!!*

I am pleased to be able to voice my objection to the TV licence via Ask About Money. Maybe at a later date, when I have more time, I will use other channels.


----------



## 1stTimeBuyerToo (8 Aug 2003)

*TV license*

Interesting debate,

I too am a firsttimebuyer, have bought on my own and all of a sudden am and will be for the foreseeable future very broke.  So Mortgaged I trueily sympathise with you and am going through pretty much the same thing.  Unfortunately the simply truth is:

If you cant afford a tv license, then dont buy a tv or pack your current one away until you can budget for it.

While cars might be necessary for work, picking up kids etc a TV isnt. We have all gotten used to having a TV and its an everyday thing now (wasnt it Joey from Friends who said "no TV?  But where does all you furniture point???") it is still though a luxury item especially, Mortgaged, for the likes of you and me. 

I know its boring but that is the answer.


----------



## Inzane (8 Aug 2003)

*Rudeness*

I don't know why you guys even entertain the 's s socialists' comments. Ignore him, and he might do some productive work for his employer for a change.


----------



## fatherdougalmaguire (8 Aug 2003)

*Re: .*

Folks,
I think the fundamental problem here is that the TV license was introduced way back in the stone age when the only people who owned a TV were the posho's on the corner who had a black and white where we'd all go around and watch the Eurovision but only after the TV had been turned on the previous September in order to give it time to warm up after which we'd all go home with radiation sickness this is a really long sentence.

I don't think there's any need to debate the fundamental point that we need to fund a public service broadcaster (TV and Radio). I don't know the exact details of where the money goes. For instance, I don't know if the RTE Concert or Symphony orchestras get any of it. I presume RTE pays them. But maybe that aspect should be dealt with in a separate thread.

My point is, should we abolish the TV license altogether and introduce a new (or increase an existing) tax? The TV license method of collection is unfair. There's no denying that. Isn't it straightforward that if everyone paid, it would be lower?

What about those people who don't watch/have a TV? Well I'm sure the taxes that we pay go towards all sorts of things. And I'm sure that we, as individuals, may not benefit from everything that the state provides. I'd rather have a proper, up-front tax rather than a half-hearted attempt to collect fees from selected people (they seem to like houses with satellite dishes) and not others. Whatever your stance, that just isn't fair. Imagine if taxes were treated this way. Another truth is that the TV license is a tax. It's money collected by the government to fund a public service.

So I think the whole situation should be brought up to date as it's currently being exercised on the basis of TV ownership trends of a bygone age.


----------



## rainyday (9 Aug 2003)

*Re: Rudeness*

Hi Observer - Yes, I'm a socialist (though probably not a traditional one) and yes, I enjoy smoked salmon, so the statement is accurate. I just wonder why people seem to feel so threatened by the concept of a socialist who is reasonably comfortable financially that they come out with personalised barbs which add nothing to the debate.

Fr Dougal - Just for the record, I recognise that there is a valid arguement for removal of the TV licence altogether. However, as should be clear from my previous comments, I feel very strongly that until such time as the law is changed, there is no excuse for anyone who has a TV & does not have a current TV licence.

AP - Apologies for the inaccuracy in including you in my earlier comment.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (9 Aug 2003)

*.*



> AP - Apologies for the inaccuracy in including you in my earlier comment.



Thanks for the apology.

(You didn't clarify if you actually lived in D16 or not  )


----------



## Dowee (9 Aug 2003)

*Re: .*

I wouldn't class D16 suburbs as posh. I grew up there and am far from posh.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (9 Aug 2003)

*.*

Dowee - maybe you are posh and don't realize it!

If you have an indoor toilet, talk proper and been to Superquinn in the last year, chances are that you're posh


----------



## Dowee (10 Aug 2003)

*Re: .*

Believe me I'm not posh neither are my family or the friends I grew up with. Maybe you need to get to know D16 better. As for:
Indoor Door toilet: ye have one of those
Been to Superquinn in the last year: I think I've been there twice.
Talk Proper: That's not for me to decide

So a definite 2 out 3, maybe I 66.66% posh. Or maybe your criteria needs to be revised.

All the above is meant in jest btw


----------



## CM (11 Aug 2003)

*..*

Balinteer is in D16, and it's a right s**t hole, even worse than most of the Northside.


----------



## US (11 Aug 2003)

*Ballinteer*

Oh, I don't know. . .  .I've often marvelled at the fine architectural minds that designed the circa 1967 parade of shops, and the wonderful grey spinning top that they have for a church there.

:rollin


----------



## rainyday (14 Aug 2003)

*Re: Ballinteer*

Hi US - Drop by soon so you can ooh & aah at the --- wait for it --- 2nd floor extension to the beautiful row of shops - Celtic Tiger & all that ....


----------



## jonit42 (14 Aug 2003)

*tv license*

I cannot believe the outcry the many posters have about rainyday's comments. All he has done has stated the facts and I wholeheartedly agree with ALL of them. If you can't afford a T.V license then don't buy a T.V. People have a choice to wait until they can afford it, if not they are spongers that are braking the law! Simple.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (14 Aug 2003)

*.*

*if not they are spongers that are braking the law!*

I disagree. I do not believe that this is a fact, as you so eloquently put it.

You might like to read about Ghandi's efforts with the British imposed salt tax. (I think that there are some striking parallels.)


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (14 Aug 2003)

*.*

Television is like a drug. 

What would be the reaction if television was taken away?
Uproar?

I've successfully weaned myself off this (via cold turkey!) I do have the odd relapse when I visit friends.


----------



## Dub (14 Aug 2003)

*TV Licences*

I can understand why people would not be impressed with the comments. There is no need to launch personal attacks on anyone and that appears to have been done in this case.  The TV Licence is one of those outdated laws which needs to be amended and some of the comments are interesting about how it should be done. How many people that have dogs have dog licences?  Are they all spongers too?  I find it odd that in this day and age that you need a Licence to have a dog or a TV and yet and idiot can have a child.


----------



## Idiot (14 Aug 2003)

*Childer*

How did you know I have a child ?

Dub, are you the one that took away my children's allowance once they all reached 32 ? 

:rollin


----------



## Dub (15 Aug 2003)

*Childer*

Thanks idiot,  I enjoyed that one!!!!


----------



## Dub2 (15 Aug 2003)

*Childer*

But are you not supposed to get the allowance for the childer for all their life???


----------



## George Thomas (25 Aug 2003)

*TV law*

Here's the legislation, with all the Bull!
www.dcmnr.gov.ie/files/brsi6082002.DOC


----------



## nogser (27 Aug 2003)

*Re: TV law*

Wow - I've been avoiding this forum and look at all the ranting I've been missing out on.

To answer a previous question posted on page 2 - you don't need a radio (wireless) liscense any more.

For what it's worth I've no TV but agree with Rainyday's point - Have TV - get liscense.

Nogser


----------



## shnaek (2 Sep 2003)

*I just thought I'd mention*

that it takes around 4000 tv licenses to pay Pat Kenny. Now that's value for money.


----------



## daltonr (4 Sep 2003)

*Re: I just thought I'd mention*

To be fair, Bill Cullen probably picks up most of Pat's wage bill.

And every Minute that Pat is on screen it's another minute that Derek Mooney, Linda Martin, Louis Walsh, and the entire cast of Fair City are not.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

-Rd


----------



## piggy (4 Sep 2003)

*Re: I just thought I'd mention*

I dunno daltonr...there was somethin sexy bout Floyd's half sister who he had the illicit affair with. I miss her :rollin


----------



## daltonr (4 Sep 2003)

*Re: I just thought I'd mention*

I have seen a total of 1 scene of Fair City in the past 2 or 3 years and it was the most cringemaking TV I have ever seen. it was a couple of weeks ago, some girl parked her car and got out to talk to some guy.  I think it might have been a car dealers, can't be sure.

I felt a bit queezy so I had to turn it off.  We're not just talking Bad Soap here.  We're talking Weapon of Mass Destruction Bad.  If they beam it into every Home in Iraq, Saddam will come out begging to be taken to America.

-Rd


----------



## piggy (4 Sep 2003)

*Re: I just thought I'd mention*

Yeah...RTE make some classy programmes alright :|


----------



## ClubMan (26 Sep 2003)

*Re: I just thought I'd mention*

www.rte.ie/news/2003/0926/licence.html


----------



## daltonr (27 Sep 2003)

*Re: I just thought I'd mention*

Interesting report.

Does RTE carrying a story like that count as News or Advertising???  It's certainly less annoying and more informative than any of the ads I've seen/heard.

 

-Rd


----------



## Ishmael Whale (30 Sep 2003)

The Minister for Communications was quoted recently as saying “there is really is no excuse for not having a TV Licence for your home”. Except, apparently, if you pay your fee by direct debit and An Post don’t bother to send one out to you.

Last year I started a direct debit arrangement from my credit card to pay the TV licence. My licence expired at the end of August and they deducted payment from my credit card on 2 September but as yet no licence has arrived.

A phone call a number in Birr two weeks ago, provided as the contact point on the confirmation of our direct debit arrangement, yielded a response to the effect of 'It'll just be going out in the post now, there's a bit of a delay in getting them out.' I emailed An Post and RTE last week but got no replies from either. A phone call to a different part of the An Post sponge yesterday got a reply to the effect that ‘they don’t seem to be getting them out’ and a promise that a duplicate licence would issue by Wednesday (No, I don’t care what happened to the original although maybe someone should. After all it is a document with a value of  €150. )

Naturally it is a tad annoying that one hundred and fifty euro has been added to my credit card bill without delivery of the licence. I have other direct debit arrangements for phone and electricity and can think of no instance where a charge was made before written notification was received. Obviously direct debit arrangements are more efficient for everyone, but if the goods are not delivered then trust in the system breaks down. And bear in mind that An Post are promoting themselves as a bill pay service. At this stage I’m sorry I gave them my credit card details.

Has anyone else had problems with direct debit payments to An Post?


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (1 Oct 2003)

*.*

I refuse to click on the above RTE link, such is my disgust at the TV licence.

They still haven't returned my email enquiring if I needed a licence for my wire clothes hangers. The legislation suggests that this is the case.


----------



## ajapale (5 Oct 2003)

*TV tax and An Post*

I see that An Post are to refuse to collect the TV tax because it is inconsistent with their stated aim to become more consumer focused. Well done An Post! Better late than never.

AJA Pale


----------



## Stocking (16 Oct 2003)

*Tv license*

After I've read 5 pages of this posting I think I've understood. Basically the law about TV license incorrectly formulated. In other words it should look something like this:
The state would like to get some amount of money as a new tax on every device capable to receive radio signal (presumably TV), every year of course.
Which means if buy/have  such a device you must agree to pay a tax afterward on it no mater that is it a TV set or VTR. They've made it wrong in explanation on how it'll be used (mentioning RTE and everything else, if they say that it’s going to be money for better road infrastructure it’ll not make any diff). Tax is introduced, we need to pay, or else it's breaking a law. Stupid but true. 
Good example would be cigarettes. Cigarettes a way expensive here but tax included in the price and that’s the end of story. If I’d be excluded and then somebody will go around  to collect the tax you haven’t paid for each carton you bought then the State would get anything back. 
I don’t pay TV license myself. I think this law just stupid. It needs to be reviewed. Thanks.


----------



## Convicted (25 Nov 2003)

*Summons for no TV License*

After reading all the debate about whether you should pay a TV license or not. Is irrelevant when you have been summons.  I was at a lost what to do at the time. So I’m going to share my experience with you.

Last February I received a summons through registered post. I was disgusted. The inspected called round in the previous August, we had only moved into the house that month. I stupidly gave my correct name and explained I'm in a house share and I'll get one as soon as possible. It was November for one reason or the other by the time my housemates cough up. So I was disgusted to get summons a few months later.  I thought it was mistake. As the inspector did say I would have time. But wasn’t too specific. 

Being a law abiding citizen I fretted and worried about my court date.  I didn't know if I would need representation. I had to take a time off work. Sick at the prospect of having to pay a 600 euro fine.  I search the internet for help.  All there was the recurrent debate on what a waste of money it was and how to avoid getting detected. No use to someone going to court. I had read a case study where this is one crime that women out do men on.

So I turned up for court in my suit.  Working in IT I’m used to casual attire, so it is a shock to the system wearing a suit.  It was TV license day in court. There was a wall of names of people summons for that day. I guess 600 names from the D7 area.  About 50 % or more of the cases were struck out as the summons could not be served. Guess people did not collect the registered post or used false names or had moved on.  Again of the remaining cases quite a number the people didn’t bother to turn despite being served.  They were fined 100 euros plus 15 euros costs.  I think An Post had a bulk discount with the legal team.  The 100 euro was based on revenue lost by the TV License. Not bad! Remember I was worried about the 600 euro fine.  I had my defence all rehearsed in my head.

So, most of the other people who did turn up were people who were from ‘disadvantage’ areas, judging by their appearance, accent and ‘sob’ stories. That could be unfair, but that was my impression.  I would have more fitted in sitting with the solicitors.  Of the people who did turn up and only managed to get the TV license a week before. This was May. They were only fined 50 euros plus cost.  The judge was good to be giving a discount to people who had no TV license for 10 months.

One guy’s case was thrown out because he said he was refused to renew his license at the PO because he has told by the post mistress that he couldn’t do it without renewal form.  The judge accepted this.

So by time my name was called, I wasn’t too worried.  Judge took one look at me and realised I could afford fine and didn’t want to hear any defence.  For the period of not having a TV license 3 months I was fine 30 euro plus costs or 5 days default.  Only afterwards did I find out that meant you end up in the Joy if you don’t pay it.

Moral of story.  Give false names! So it’s that time of the year again and I will be making sure it is paid up. As I don’t want to be off again to court.


----------



## heinbloed (25 Nov 2003)

*Summons*

Good report- Convicted- it tells us a lot about the system . I imagine the judge and the other fellows , was that the career they dreamed about ?!


----------



## ajapale (25 Nov 2003)

*Moral of story. Give false names!*

Hi Convicted,

Thanks for sharing your story with us.

I agree with the moral of your story. When I was sharing a house in the eighties and nineties we ALWAYS bought a tv licence. However, we NEVER used our own name on the licence. We learned from bitter experience that the summons goes to the last poor sod who had the decency to pay. We always got a little pleasure out of making up anagrams of our names when it came to tv licence time. We never got to win the car in the late late draw.

ajapale


----------



## monk (25 Nov 2003)

*Re: Moral of story. Give false names!*

Convicted,

You could have used this defence:

www.unison.ie/irish_indep...e_id=10079


----------

