nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

TV Licence Inspectors

..Brian..

So without getting to into the whole TV Licence thing, what's the furthest its ever gone with some of ye?

I've never bought one, had loads of the letters and post cards saying inspectors etc have called to the door, I've even had a face to face with one of em once and just blatantly lied about not living there. He knew I was lying, I knew he knew, I gave an obviously fake name and in the end he left, what else could he do really?

Go a few more letters addressed to the fake name, even got a solicitors letter, ignore em all, nothing happened as far as I'm aware.

That was about 3 years ago at a different address. Living in current address about 1.5 years, no licence, got the letters and post cards etc, the sneaky ****er even got my name off the bins this time but have ignored all correspondence.

Up until now ... came home today to find a letter saying they were "applying to the District Justice for a search warrant and to ask for a member of An Garda Siochana to accompany our inspector to your premises."

It goes on to rattle off all the potential fines etc before finished with,

"There will be no further communication from us before such action is taken yada yada..."

Has anyone got this letter before? If so, what did ye do? I wonder is it time to bit the bullet and buy the piece of ****e?

:EDIT: Also has anyone ever had their house searched as per above? Or know anyonw its happened to? Or even been brought to court?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bruthal

JustinDee wrote: »

BBC have an agreement with BSkyB. So do RTE. Tenets of these contracts differ from each other however.

And this has what to do with watching BBC? You suggest that someone that pays a tv licence here is more entitled to watch a BBC programme than someone that does not?

The fact is, if a person has no tv, but a monitor or projector, they do not need a licence. If they then also have a lidl satellite system which can tune BBC, but not RTE, why shoud they pay a tv licence when they do not have a tv? They will be asked to though.

Hey, if you don't want to pay your TV licence, don't at your own risk. Myself and thousands of other licence-holders have got you covered whether or not, we want to.

I pay my licence fee, but you assume i dont. Obviously you believe if there was 100% payment by everyone, the fee would reduce. If you dont believe this then you would not say you have others covered. If you do believe it, well then your irish indeed.

JustinDee

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I believe it was in fact you sir who started with the generalisms when you said

I said I wouldn't believe someone telling me they don't tune RTE ever.
Thats not a generalism.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The legality of neglecting to pay ones protection money licence fee is not under debate here

I'm allowed to comment further on this subject and thats why I said such a claim wouldn't wash.
This is just an internet chat site, fella. Not a circuit court.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Again even if correct how is this relevent ?

It is correct. One channel allows certain access as does another. Neither contract agreement with BSkyB is the same.

Bruthal

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm allowed to comment further on this subject and thats why I said such a claim wouldn't wash.
This is just an internet chat site, fella. Not a circuit court.

Funny you say the above, when you posted whats below earlier.

JustinDee wrote: »

Not a very credible defence before a judge if ever taken to court over dodging these mandatory dues

JustinDee

robbie7730 wrote: »

And this has what to do with watching BBC? You suggest that someone that pays a tv licence here is more entitled to watch a BBC programme than someone that does not?

No, I'm saying that somebody who pays their licence fee is entitled to watch what is available. Somebody who doesn't would have one hell of a job convincing that they do not once tap into the broadcasting system here.

robbie7730 wrote: »

The fact is, if a person has no tv, but a monitor or projector, they do not need a licence. If they then also have a lidl satellite system which can tune BBC, but not RTE, why shoud they pay a tv licence when they do not have a tv? They will be asked to though

The projector point is certainly a good one.
If a person has no TV, they'd have to prove without any doubt that that is the case. The satellite dish on the house would be the reason, I would think, that the inspector calls to the household.

robbie7730 wrote: »

I pay my licence fee, but you assume i dont. Obviously you believe if there was 100% payment by everyone, the fee would reduce. If you dont believe this then you would not say you have others covered. If you do believe it, well then your irish indeed.

My issue isn't with some fictional 100% payup or not. Its with the excuses people that I see as freeloaders give. Call me old-fashioned but thats the way I feel about bludgers.

JustinDee

robbie7730 wrote: »

Funny you say the above, when you posted whats below earlier.

Yes, thats funny indeed.
I talked about somebody taking an internet thread as seriously as a court and happened to post about what happens to TV spongers if caught.

Mike 1972

JustinDee wrote: »

I said I wouldn't believe someone telling me they don't tune RTE ever. Thats not a generalism...

Yes it is. You claim that everyone in the Republic who has a TV watches RTE and Im calling BS on your claim.

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm allowed to comment further on this subject and thats why I said such a claim wouldn't wash. This is just an internet chat site, fella. Not a circuit court..

internet chat sites do become somewhat tiresome when the "its the laaaawwww" line gets trotted out for the 62934th time

JustinDee wrote: »

It is correct. One channel allows certain access as does another. Neither contract agreement with BSkyB is the same.

You still havent answered my question

JustinDee wrote: »

No, I'm saying that somebody who pays their licence fee is entitled to watch what is available. Somebody who doesn't would have one hell of a job convincing that they do not once tap into the broadcasting system here. .

Are you a judge or a TV licence inspector ? If not then nobody needs to convince you anything. Especially if you insist on repeatedly branding them a liar in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

JustinDee wrote: »

The projector point is certainly a good one.
If a person has no TV, they'd have to prove without any doubt that that is the case. The satellite dish on the house would be the reason, I would think, that the inspector calls to the household.

Legally the reciever box would count as TV apparatus.

Bruthal

JustinDee wrote: »

No, I'm saying that somebody who pays their licence fee is entitled to watch what is available. Somebody who doesn't would have one hell of a job convincing that they do not once tap into the broadcasting system here.

It should be up to them to prove you do. Not people to prove they dont, thats why they call it a tv livence, so as to ensure everyone is in the net even if the tv is stored in the attic.

The projector point is certainly a good one.
If a person has no TV, they'd have to prove without any doubt that that is the case. The satellite dish on the house would be the reason, I would think, that the inspector calls to the household.

I was nearly 2 months in the house here before i got a tv, and was hounded week after week by inspectors as it was a new estate. I dont see sky hounding me, or NTL etc.

My issue isn't with some fictional 100% payup or not. Its with the excuses people that I see as freeloaders give. Call me old-fashioned but thats the way I feel about bludgers.

You said you are supporting others who did not pay, well if you say that then you obviously think you are paying for them.

Can you not see the point some are making, that if a person genuinely never ever used the tv for tuning anything but only as a large pc monitor, they still have to pay a licence fee. You cant see that point? Never mind about whether individuals are telling the truth or not, just as example, someone who will never use the tv except on a pc.

I guess if they bring in needing the licence for a pc, you will then say well people who dont pay a pc licence are bludgers? Because i bet they will try bring it in sometime. RTE is already available live on the broadband, so its a matter of time before just owning a PC will require a licence. And then you will call PC owners bludgers just because you believe every fee in this country is correct.

Bruthal

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, thats funny indeed.
I talked about somebody taking an internet thread as seriously as a court and happened to post about what happens to TV spongers if caught.

Not everyone brought to court for not having a licence are tv spongers. There is a very simple solution, scramble rte, and let the non spongers like yourself that want the service pay for it. Simple.

mikom

robbie7730 wrote: »

I guess if they bring in needing the licence for a pc, you will then say well people who dont pay a pc licence are bludgers? And then you will call PC owners bludgers just because you believe every fee in this country is correct.

The whole thing is laughable when you see it laid out like that.
A swap of the term PC for a TV and the whole thing looks even more ludicrous than before.

Bruthal

mikom wrote: »

The whole thing is laughable when you see it laid out like that.
A swap of the term PC for a TV and the whole thing looks even more ludicrous than before.

It was fine a few years ago, as just about the only reason anyone would have a tv was to avail of tv broadcasts. These days there are a lot more uses for them. The will not really change to the term PC licence, as a tv licence is now needed for more than just having a tv. Use a projector as i said earlier and you still need a tv licence if you have a way of tuning broadcasts.

Lemsiper

fúck you?

JustinDee

robbie7730 wrote: »

It should be up to them to prove you do. Not people to prove they dont, thats why they call it a tv livence, so as to ensure everyone is in the net even if the tv is stored in the attic

They can and do.

robbie7730 wrote: »

You said you are supporting others who did not pay, well if you say that then you obviously think you are paying for them

When a tax is raised, there are a number of reasons for it. One of these is to raise intake. One of the reasons to raise intake is to cover a shortfall. A shortfall mainly arises by people not paying or by target tax base being too small. People who do not pay can either be an avoider (legally not having to pay through exemption) or they can be an evader, without exemption, not paying.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Can you not see the point some are making, that if a person genuinely never ever used the tv for tuning anything but only as a large pc monitor, they still have to pay a licence fee. You cant see that point? Never mind about whether individuals are telling the truth or not, just as example, someone who will never use the tv except on a pc

Yes, I see the point they are making. Its irrelevant to being liable to pay a licence fee though.

robbie7730 wrote: »

I guess if they bring in needing the licence for a pc, you will then say well people who dont pay a pc licence are bludgers? Because i bet they will try bring it in sometime. RTE is already available live on the broadband, so its a matter of time before just owning a PC will require a licence. And then you will call PC owners bludgers just because you believe every fee in this country is correct.

Any device (as stated on the licence itself) that potentially is used as a TV signal decoder (analogue or digital) is the key point here.

Mike 1972

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, I see the point they are making. Its irrelevant to being liable to pay a licence fee though. .

Nobody is debating liability to pay the licence I dont know why you insist on repeatedly bringing it up.

Stinicker

Nobody should bother paying a TV licence all it does is pay for Fianna Fail propaganda machine RTE. A chap in Killarney went to jail rather than pay a tv licence to these scumbags, his reason (a very valid one) they deliberately censored Sinn Fein and RTE is a propaganda rag for fianna fail, its tv stations and studios should all be shut down and privatised and keep RTENL (the infrastructure) under state control.

Anne Doyle
Brian Dobson
Charlie Bird
Tubridy
Brendan O'Connor - He is to FF what Goebels was to the Nazis.

All should be sacked and never again left near any media source.

Dodd

rugbyman wrote: »

hello there, do you recall how much the individual fines were,did any of them produce a l icence(clearly bought between the first visit and the court date, if so ,did that not make any difference. if not did the people who bought a licence in the meantime and those who bought f.a. get the same fine?

Regards Rugbyman

Yes if you get a license after the summons and bring it to court you get a lesser fine.

Our man in Havana

They are just failed postmen that failed to get into the guards and think they are Columbo.

Bruthal

JustinDee wrote: »

They can and do.

Do they indeed? Well all they try to prove is you have a tv, not that you use it as a tv. You almost sound like an inspector, because they are pre programmed to absolutely conform in their beliefs with the licence requirements. As in the licence is for possession of a tv tuner, and not a tax for payment of rte as i heard more than one of them say. No thinking outside the box, literally.

When a tax is raised, there are a number of reasons for it. One of these is to raise intake. One of the reasons to raise intake is to cover a shortfall. A shortfall mainly arises by people not paying or by target tax base being too small. People who do not pay can either be an avoider (legally not having to pay through exemption) or they can be an evader, without exemption, not paying.

No doubt when it went from 100 euro up to 150 euro in a single increase a couple of years back, it was to cover the shortfall? Cover the 10k a week wages of some of them more like.

Yes, I see the point they are making. Its irrelevant to being liable to pay a licence fee though.

Again you missed the point. They are liable, without ever using the service they are paying for in the example i gave. Earlier you said its hard to believe people would never watch rte. I put up an aerial in december. Up until then, i had no way of watching irish channels here for 3 years as i cancelled the sky sub, yet i payed the licence. Why should i be liable. I am in fact subsidising you, who does use the service, so you are leeching off people who never do use it, but pay for it.

You can not argue against that, because if you believe you subsidise non payers, then people who do pay but dont use the service are subsidising you now.

Any device (as stated on the licence itself) that potentially is used as a TV signal decoder (analogue or digital) is the key point here.

So, when someone has no tv, no aerial, no satellite, but goes to pc world and buys a notebook, they should pay the tv licence you think? After all, it can be used to watch live tv through broadband. But somwehow i think someone buying one wont be doing so to use as a tv. Yet could be liable.

And of course, once our governmment says a licence is needed for a pc, you will stand to attention and agree, and call pc users leechers if they dont run to the post office and but a licence along with their new hewlet packard notebook.

Bruthal

JustinDee wrote: »

It is correct. One channel allows certain access as does another. Neither contract agreement with BSkyB is the same.

We are not bothered if its correct, just how its relevant.

Another point about it all, a hotel with 150 tv`s pays the same as a single bedroom flat, a bit silly. So the fee should be reduced for homes. And the ridiculous wages of the RTE `talent` should be slashed. As it is their huge wages we are really covering, not the non fee payers, many of who are struggling to buy food, never mind a licence fee.

Jimmy Garlic

I am proud to say that I have never paid for a tv licence. Mass non-payment is what is needed in Ireland, starve RTE to death.

JustinDee

robbie7730 wrote: »

Do they indeed? Well all they try to prove is you have a tv, not that you use it as a tv. You almost sound like an inspector, because they are pre programmed to absolutely conform in their beliefs with the licence requirements. As in the licence is for possession of a tv tuner, and not a tax for payment of rte as i heard more than one of them say. No thinking outside the box, literally

No "thinking outside the box" or any other marketing/management slush required. Got a TV? Then you're liable.

robbie7730 wrote: »

No doubt when it went from 100 euro up to 150 euro in a single increase a couple of years back, it was to cover the shortfall? Cover the 10k a week wages of some of them more like

Thats an whole other subject surely (salaries of 'celebs')? I don't agree with them either. They are not the only recipient of funding though. You should know well what I meant by 'shortfall' ie. falling short of a projected figure.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Again you missed the point. They are liable, without ever using the service they are paying for in the example i gave. Earlier you said its hard to believe people would never watch rte. I put up an aerial in december. Up until then, i had no way of watching irish channels here for 3 years as i cancelled the sky sub, yet i payed the licence. Why should i be liable

If you had a TV, you were able to receive an analog signal and therefore required to pay up. Them's the rules, baby.

robbie7730 wrote: »

I am in fact subsidising you, who does use the service, so you are leeching off people who never do use it, but pay for it

Absolutely contorted twaddle.

robbie7730 wrote: »

You can not argue against that, because if you believe you subsidise non payers, then people who do pay but dont use the service are subsidising you now

I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing here. If somebody has an apparatus on their premises that receives the signal, they're liable.

robbie7730 wrote: »

So, when someone has no tv, no aerial, no satellite, but goes to pc world and buys a notebook, they should pay the tv licence you think? After all, it can be used to watch live tv through broadband. But somwehow i think someone buying one wont be doing so to use as a tv. Yet could be liable

There's no way of decoding a digital or analog signal in a PC as there is no tuner. You are receiving a secondary signal over the web.

robbie7730 wrote: »

And of course, once our governmment says a licence is needed for a pc, you will stand to attention and agree, and call pc users leechers if they dont run to the post office and but a licence along with their new hewlet packard notebook.

As I said already, somebody who doesn't pay a due is a bludger. The dip left by bludgers is covered by those who pay it.
Good luck to you if there is a due you don't want to pay and you take the route of refusal as a stance against it. Easier than getting off your keyster, away from a keyboard, I suppose.

the groutch

imo a tv licence should be gradually phased out and be replaced by a tax that all retailers must charge on top of the price of a new tv,
and the bigger the tv, the higher the tax (eg 19"-24" = €50, 26"-38" = €100, 40"+ = €150), so there's a greater burden on those who can obviously afford it
and there won't be the same room for evasion, or the garda/courts time wasted trying to enforce it

Our man in Havana

Just append the charge to the electricity bill.

Vicxas

the groutch wrote: »

imo a tv licence should be gradually phased out and be replaced by a tax that all retailers must charge on top of the price of a new tv,
and the bigger the tv, the higher the tax (eg 19"-24" = €50, 26"-38" = €100, 40"+ = €150), so there's a greater burden on those who can obviously afford it
and there won't be the same room for evasion, or the garda/courts time wasted trying to enforce it

Brilliant idea actually!

Yawns

How is that a brilliant idea? Are the retailers gonna go around collecting money each year?

Plan A: €160 per annum

Plan B: €160 Once off.

Now you tell me, which one do you think they'll go with?

Yawns

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Just append the charge to the electricity bill.

We already pay tax on electricity. So you want a 2nd tax on it?

What if you don't own a tv. How fair is it you get charged a tv licence fee/tax on your electricity bill?

Bruthal

JustinDee wrote: »

No "thinking outside the box" or any other marketing/management slush required. Got a TV? Then you're liable.

I see your reverting back to the pre programmed mind set. your right of course, but because its a rule, we must obey and never question of course, or argue the negative points, just obey like a good citizen.

TV and your liable? I already said a person with a projector is liable if they have a sky box but no subscription, thus absolutely no way to watch any irish channels, and the money is for RTE, yet they must pay, i ask you again, why should they? They have no tv, and yet must pay a licence. If you can not see why the above scenario is wrong, then you are indeed of the tv licence inspector mindset. You just agree with it because its there, no thinking on your own.

Thats an whole other subject surely (salaries of 'celebs')? I don't agree with them either. They are not the only recipient of funding though.

Its not a whole other subject when many familys would find 160 euro a lot of money, and they must contribute to the above salaries. It does not matter if it goes to other areas also. You see kenny talking to people in his audience about their hardships, they in tears, and they are paying towards his salary. If they dont, its court.

You should know well what I meant by 'shortfall' ie. falling short of a projected figure.

As for a shortfall of a projected figure, as i already said, there are licence fees collected from premises that dont use the service, but thats twaddle you say. You believe if 100% compliance happpens this year, we will see a fee reduction next year?, not a chance.

If you had a TV, you were able to receive an analog signal and therefore required to pay up. Them's the rules, baby.

Whats with the baby shite? Too many hollywood films on rte lately?

Absolutely contorted twaddle.

Yes the answer to anything you cant argue with, its either
A: Them`s the rules baby

B: Twaddle

I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing here. If somebody has an apparatus on their premises that receives the signal, they're liable.

No, you said you are subsidising non payers, well payers but non users are subsidising you. Again, a company with 5 employees has a tv for showing safety videos, they never ever use the tv except for safety videos in work, but they contribute to RTE, you can not say they dont. Therefore, they subsidise you who does use the service. ,,,,,Predicting the use of the words "twaddle" again, or "rules baby"

There's no way of decoding a digital or analog signal in a PC as there is no tuner. You are receiving a secondary signal over the web.

Have you seen magnet tv yet? I guess not. Live RTE on the net. But the question was, if they bring it in as a licence requirement, will you then instantly without thinking or reasoning, agree with it? Of course you will. Because you need a licence for tv aparatus of course.

As I said already, somebody who doesn't pay a due is a bludger. The dip left by bludgers is covered by those who pay it.

Yes, and someone who pays it without actually ever using the tv as a tuner is subsidising you, but you dont get that, you just revert back to quoting rules at this point and call it twaddle. A company using a tv for safety videos and absolutely nothing else ever, why should they be liable? O wait, its the rules i forgot. And because its the rules, any premises paying for a service without ever using it does not count as subsidising those that do use the service in your belief i guess.

It does not matter they are contributing to the service without ever using it in your eyes, because its called a tv licence and they have a tv. But again, you wont get that concept because the word rules is there again, even though its simple. But the fact its called a tv licence has worked on making you believe they should pay for a service they are never going to use in the above example of the 5 employee company. So the original government that called it a tv licence were ingenius, as many still believe you pay the fee to own a tv, not to subsidise a tv broadcaster.

Earlier you said people would have to prove they dont avail of the service, and you would find it hard to believe they would never watch it. Well there is an example of a scenario where it would not be used to tune any channels. But, well your view on this is predictable. Back to the quoting rules, even though you used the "prove" point earlier, and i present a scenario here, you will still now say its the rules.

Good luck to you if there is a due you don't want to pay and you take the route of refusal as a stance against it. Easier than getting off your keyster, away from a keyboard, I suppose.

Well there is not much point in asking you for suggestions as to the best way to put up a stance against it, it sounds like we are more likely to see you knocking doors inspecting licences

Bruthal

Scramble it like sky do, and if you want to avail of the service, pay for it.

Yawns

^^ That would prob be the best idea. With it going digital it should be straight forward enough to implement too. Might cost a bit in beginning but in long run would ensure anyone who wants to avail of any state broadcasts would have to pay licence fee.

Sure there would prob be work a rounds but it will catch most people who want to watch it. Stops the waste of guards time and no need for tv inspectors.

ilovesleep

Bought a tv last summer for dvds and computer games. broke after two months when the power went out. Apparently, i am required to have a tv license for it even though its broken and sitting on a shelf like a mug. That would be like spending 160 euro a year for a mug. they can fcek off.

Vicxas

Surely the amount they pay licence inspectors vs actual revenue from inspections cant be profitable...