TV Licence

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
 
Re: TV Licence Spongers

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

But why would you want to pay for 10 days of TV?
 
Re: TV Licence Spongers

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

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?
 
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
 
..

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 ?
 
!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
.

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.
 
This kind of attitude makes me very angry, typical knee jerk
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Rubbish - Those who sit back and do nothing to get the legislation changed are responsible.
 
?

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...
 
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!!
 
.

From the State
LOL! - poor undernourished state! :D

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.
 
never home,

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

'never home' never actually stated whether or not they had a TV. A good policy for when the TV inspector calls.
 
A law which contravenes our human rights.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
.

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).
 
.

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.
 
Hi No Licence

if people cant afford it, then they should be taken as genuine.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
.

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.
Click to expand...

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! :D )

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top