What happens if you cant afford the tv licence

Sell your TV?

haulagebasher wrote: »

Moaning about why you have to have a TV is pointless. Regarless as to the whys the fact is that it is a legal requirement. . If you have a TV get a liscence. The cost fo the liscense shoudl be factored into the cost of owning a TV. If you cannot afford a liscnese then you cannot afford a TV so sell the TV set.

and another thing that really grinds my gears is (like on this thread) where people claim "oh i need a TV.....I need my SkyBox.... I need an iPhone"

No you bloody don't need them. All those things, whether it's the bog channels or 23,465 channels of trash Free to Air are luxuries.
You need food, water, clothing and a roof o'er your head.

FWIT, I don't own a TV or a computer and have a really old phone.
The world is gone mad with all these luxuries that people have convinced themselves that they need. My mother lived in the countryside near clonmel and I remember my mother tellign me that she used to walk around 7 miles each way to school and that was considered as an OK walk. Kids nowadays wouldn't walk 7 feet.

So you're basically in the business of telling people to live luxury free?!
What would be the point in that? People pay for Sky because...wait for it.....
THEY WANT TO.
They don't want to pay for "entertainment" where the "entertainers" on show are feeding out of the public trough wouldn't be allowed to sweep the floor in a private company ffs. Our "betters" on TV that have the cheek to tell us what is morally right and wrong (Joe Duffy) has the audacity to earn hundreds of thousands a year. Tubridy is on half a million for christ sake. Privatise RTE and let these leeches swim in the private word. They won't last 5 minutes....such is their "talents".

haulagebasher wrote: »

Moaning about why you have to have a TV is pointless. Regarless as to the whys the fact is that it is a legal requirement. . If you have a TV get a liscence. The cost fo the liscense shoudl be factored into the cost of owning a TV. If you cannot afford a liscnese then you cannot afford a TV so sell the TV set.

and another thing that really grinds my gears is (like on this thread) where people claim "oh i need a TV.....I need my SkyBox.... I need an iPhone"

No you bloody don't need them. All those things, whether it's the bog channels or 23,465 channels of trash Free to Air are luxuries.
You need food, water, clothing and a roof o'er your head.

FWIT, I don't own a TV or a computer and have a really old phone.
The world is gone mad with all these luxuries that people have convinced themselves that they need. My mother lived in the countryside near clonmel and I remember my mother tellign me that she used to walk around 7 miles each way to school and that was considered as an OK walk. Kids nowadays wouldn't walk 7 feet.

And we used live in caves carved into the sides of mountains, till somebody discovered the curious properties of mixing clay with water and started building mud houses, other cavemen pointed out- "didn't have those in MY day!" :rolleyes:

haulagebasher wrote: »

I'm not saying to live luxury free, I'm saying live within your means. If you cannot afford entertainment or TV you shoudl not expect a hand out from the goverment for it FFS. ]

Have your luxuries if you want, provided that you can pay for it.

TV or entertainment is not a right. it is a luxury in fairness.


That's all besides the point. Irrelevant.

I agree with you that the government shouldn't give you a handout. But what they could do is get rid of the TV license. And the last point is not irrelevant - it's a pisstake of the highest order.

haulagebasher wrote: »

Moaning about why you have to have a TV is pointless. Regarless as to the whys the fact is that it is a legal requirement. . If you have a TV get a liscence. The cost fo the liscense shoudl be factored into the cost of owning a TV. If you cannot afford a liscnese then you cannot afford a TV so sell the TV set.

and another thing that really grinds my gears is (like on this thread) where people claim "oh i need a TV.....I need my SkyBox.... I need an iPhone"

No you bloody don't need them. All those things, whether it's the bog channels or 23,465 channels of trash Free to Air are luxuries.
You need food, water, clothing and a roof o'er your head.

FWIT, I don't own a TV or a computer and have a really old phone.
The world is gone mad with all these luxuries that people have convinced themselves that they need. My mother lived in the countryside near clonmel and I remember my mother tellign me that she used to walk around 7 miles each way to school and that was considered as an OK walk. Kids nowadays wouldn't walk 7 feet.

Ah, A bit of Clonmel in your family tree so, that explains a lot...**** I hope we ain't related...:D

If you cant afford the TV license you need to get rid of your TV.

jar_of_coins wrote: »

You won't have to pay. You may get reminders addressed to "the resident" or perhaps to a previous occupant, but an inspector has no way of gaining access to your front door, or taking pictures of a television.

3 years of living in an apartment and not one day had we a licence. You'll be fined.

fixed now

jar_of_coins wrote: »

In my experience, which is all I can go on, s/he certainly won't be fined as an inspector cannot get access to the property to find out whom to issue a fine to.

TV license inspectors are visiting apartment complexes all over the country, it would be a pity if your advice resulted in a heafty fine for this gentleman?

I remember when I was selling a house in a slow market back in the late 80's and the licence came up for renewal.

I got rid of the telly and stated so on a letter to the Fuhrer inspector of TV licences.

I got letter back stating that cable apparatus aerials and other signal receivers were considered receiving apparatus for the purposes of the wireless telegraphy act.

I had to remove all cables, aerials etc in order to steer clear of trouble with these leeches, putting blank plates up where the aerial socket used to be.....

The trouble with arguing about the high wages of RTE's "stars" is that the authorities will claim that advertisers are willing to pay for these high salaries and that the licence goes for the public service aspect of TV broadcasting such as news, broadcast infrastructure especially in remote areas, cultural stuff like ochestras etc not to mention weather forecasts, traffic reports and other stuff that people would not pay big money to watch but are nonetheless socially useful.

The hybrid nature of RTE, being neither private or public is what is galling and confusing. I'd guess that the "stars" are self employed and have to fund everything out of what they get and depend on a convincing agent to leverage their fees up a notch. They should not be confused with cameramen, producers etc who receive a wage for what they do and are probably on good wages and pensions but not the 1/4 to 1/2 MILLION that the "stars" get.

The big villians in all this are the program managers who relent to this level of payout without enforcing some form of reduction in fees to these overrated and overpaid "stars".

Let them go abroad to get better if they can. Ireland 2012 cannot afford them.

My sister had to also forego TV for a year or two at her lowest ebb due to shortage of money, it didn't do her or her family any harm.........

They will eventually get everyone with a broadcasting charge. Even those without a tv set.

The snakey barstewards.