TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Procrastastudy

Our man in Havana wrote: »

This chap.

What's Alan Shatter got to do with any of this

Carawaystick

phatdolfin wrote: »

I'd love to but I rand and rang and they won't come back to check. I have photo's of the monitor and its connections to bring to court....hope the judge isn't too old and knows the difference.

I was thinking for the court. if you've a picture of a 27" tv and a 27" monitor, and I'd guess they'll look remarkably similar from the front, it'd be hard for the inspector to say with confidence what he saw was a tv.

Bebo stunnah

ResearchWill wrote: »

The Act says

"(3) An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place."

Our government absolutely love that word! Reasonable to who? It's a non definitive phrase, which give them the power to decide for themselves. One of the many reason for the grey areas in Irish law.

phatdolfin

Carawaystick wrote: »

I was thinking for the court. if you've a picture of a 27" tv and a 27" monitor, and I'd guess they'll look remarkably similar from the front, it'd be hard for the inspector to say with confidence what he saw was a tv.

Thanks Carawaystick, that's a really good idea.

Our man in Havana

Indeed. Reasonable doubt is all you need.

Procrastastudy

Bebo stunnah wrote: »

Our government absolutely love that word! Reasonable to who? It's a non definitive phrase, which give them the power to decide for themselves. One of the many reason for the grey areas in Irish law.

Reasonable is legally defined, if you had to explain it every time it was used statues would run to a gazzillion pages. Its the same reason Latin phrases are used because they avoid confusion and convey a precise concept. If a working class lad who went to a bog standard school can be taught the meaning by a private college and a few barristers making a few quid on the side; any enterprising person, armed with google and wikipedia, can learn for themselves.

The legal profession has no more jargon in it than any other.

Pat Mustard

Procrastastudy wrote: »

If a working class lad who went to a bog standard school can be taught the meaning by a private college and a few barristers making a few quid on the side; any enterprising person, armed with google and wikipedia, can learn for themselves.

Is that you on the left?

Procrastastudy

The Mustard wrote: »

Is that you on the left?

LOL

phatdolfin

HI EVERYONE,

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY A HUGE THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO OFFERED ADVICE AND SUPPORT.
I WENT TO COURT TODAY REGARDING MY TV LICENCE AND ....... I WON.
THEY ARE NOT PURSUING ME FOR A TV LICENCE.....YIPPPPEEEEEEEE.
THANKS AGAIN!!!!!! :)

Our man in Havana

What did the judge say?

Ken.

phatdolfin wrote: »

HI EVERYONE,

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY A HUGE THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO OFFERED ADVICE AND SUPPORT.
I WENT TO COURT TODAY REGARDING MY TV LICENCE AND ....... I WON.
THEY ARE NOT PURSUING ME FOR A TV LICENCE.....YIPPPPEEEEEEEE.
THANKS AGAIN!!!!!! :)

If there's any justice the inspector should be made pay your costs. Might make him think twice when someone tries to show where he's wrong in future.

MariMel

I simply phoned up, I think it was a Kells number, and told them I didnt have a tv licence even though there was an old satellite dish attached to the wall from tenants before me. They just put me on the list of not having a tv. When I moved house I just let them know where i'd moved to and Ive never received any licence letters since.

kilkennyuser

a friend of mine recently seperated from his partner an moved into a rented property.he is not a big tv person nor could he afford to hav sky/upc installed but knew that he would need a tv for the weekends while the kids were over.so he bought a tv from a well known tv retailer an had it installed in his front room in full view of the tv inspector:)...so the inspector knocks a few days later an my friend invites him in to explain his situation that yes he has a tv but no he doesn't hav any channels and won't be gettin any in...he explains that the tv is simply there wit a playstation 3 to play dvds for the kids while there over at weekends...my questions are should he let it go to court an explain this to a judge?an why isn't there any legal obligation on the stores that sell tv's be made ask for proof of a tv licence before they sell tv's to whoever walks in the door?and because everythin is digital surly AN POST can link up wit the tv companies to see who is really using the services an not payin for them?surly we are not been fined for owning a television????

Paulw

If you have a TV, you must have a TV license. Has your friend never seen the ad?

The law is clear. If you have a device capable of receiving a signal, then you must have a license.

kilkennyuser

but his laptop also is a device capable of receiving a signal and we dont need a licence...i'm sure he has seen the ads or probably not as he doesnt watch tv but i'm talkin about common sense obviously he can't recieve a signal if he doesn't have a dish out on the roof and if your theory is right then why do the tv retailers get anyway with selling as many as they want to whoever they want without any comeback...surly it would save the state taxpayers money if a licence had to be shown in all tv retailers before a tv was bought...

frozenfrozen

His laptop doesn't have a tv tuner, does it? If it does then he has needed the license the whole time. Just pay the license, everyone has to.

The children need their playstation 3? Boo hoo. Pay up, it's the law.

bhamsteve

How do they distinguish between a TV and a computer monitor, as with the digital switchover neither is able to pick up a TV signal?

kilkennyuser

His point is that why should he pay for somethin that he doesnt get anything in return for.a couple of years ago at least ya got RTE1 RTE2 TV3 and TG4 for your money now ya get zippo nada not a single thing only ta have some rte staff on some serious bucks ......it's obviously the law that's the only way they could get people to pay it i'm not disputin that fact but i believe he is right why should he buy a licence if he doesnt watch television..the law makers are great at makin sure every loophole is covered when it comes to laws for the whole country but seem ta miss the boat everytime it's to do with there our...the likes of the wealthy builders of this country,the bankers,the senior civil servants....

Paulw

bhamsteve wrote: »

How do they distinguish between a TV and a computer monitor, as with the digital switchover neither is able to pick up a TV signal?

Wrong. A TV is capable of receiving a signal, it's just that none is being broadcast.

A monitor does not have a receiver in it, so can't receive any signal, even if one was being broadcast.

A technicality, but that's the law.

Paulw

kilkennyuser wrote: »

His point is that why should he pay for somethin that he doesnt get anything in return for.....it's obviously the law that's the only way they could get people to pay it i'm not disputin that fact but i believe he is right why should he buy a licence if he doesnt watch television...

As you said, he must get a license, since it's the law.

Unfortunately, that is how the country is.

whomitconcerns

The definition of a Television set (Section 140 (1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009)

"television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception ( whether or not its used for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it ) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

Just bought mine

kilkennyuser

Paulw wrote: »

As you said, he must get a license, since it's the law.

Unfortunately, that is how the country is.

i understand that but surly that doesn't make it right...who makes the laws of the land an who do they consider when they make these laws surly when they taught about a law about a tv licence they considered where the money would end up and how some people would benefit massively from been given the power to increase the license fee whenever they saw fit...and what has changed within RTE that the fee has massively increased over the years other then the wages they pay there staff???why is it costing so much more to run??

frozenfrozen

kilkennyuser wrote: »

i understand that but surly that doesn't make it right...who makes the laws of the land an who do they consider when they make these laws surly when they taught about a law about a tv licence they considered where the money would end up and how some people would benefit massively from been given the power to increase the license fee whenever they saw fit...and what has changed within RTE that the fee has massively increased over the years other then the wages they pay there staff???why is it costing so much more to run??

It's costing more to run because they've become bigger. The few people on ridiculously high money is only the tip of the ice berg for the costs of running RTE.
Lots of programs so lots of sets, cameras and other equipment, and then paying people to operate it all. The programs may be ****e but it's better than there being no national tv stations.

Ken.

Australia,Belgium(Flemish region),Cyprus,Gibraltar,Hungary,Iceland,India, Malaysia,Malta,Netherlands,New Zealand,Portugal,Singapore,Andorra,Estonia, Liechtenstein,Luxembourg,Monaco,Spain,Canada,United States,China,Hong Kong,Iran,Vietnam,Philippines and Nigeria.

This is a list of all the countries without T.V. licences.

Tails142

Tell him to get rid of the tv if he cant afford the licence, take the kids for a walk instead of playing PS3

kilkennyuser

whomitconcerns wrote: »

The definition of a Television set (Section 140 (1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009)

"television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception ( whether or not its used for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it ) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

Just bought mine

i'm not disputing what the law says i have read it i know the law makers would leave no loopholes when it comes to a law that is for every single person in this country i jus can't understand then that they would leave the law up to RTE on how much it should cost surly there's a conflict of interest there somewhere

Paulw

kilkennyuser wrote: »

i understand that but surly that doesn't make it right...who makes the laws of the land ?

Laws are made by the elected politicians. If you don't like the law, then talk to your local TD, and see about having the law changed. Simple.

enda1

Tell him to sell his tv and get a computer screen for the ps3. Then there's no issue.

kilkennyuser

Tails142 wrote: »

Tell him to get rid of the tv if he cant afford the licence, take the kids for a walk instead of playing PS3

thats what he has done but do u wait until u get summosed to tell a judge or do u try contact AN POST to get them back out to his house to prove there's no tv?

frozenfrozen

Well if he doesn't have a television he doesn't need a television license now.. i'd say a friendly call to whoever in charge just explaining that he bought the tv just for the playstation, and that it has been since sold and replaced with a monitor which can't receive a tv signal