Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Woman who failed to pay TV licence fine taken to jail in five-hour taxi trip

1…1011131516…18

Comments

  • #362
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Gerry T wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with the new legislation but is it open for abuse. If someone has a fine say €400 and pay €20 does that mean they get an extension for a period of time or can they string things along for months & years.
    It will only allow for instalments over a period of 12 months.

    If the fine or instalments are unpaid when they fall due, the relevant court can make an attachment order (for earnings) or a recovery order, or a community service order in lieu of a fine.


  • #363
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Seems simple really, she had a TV and didn't have a Lisc. She was caught and fined. Failed to pay in time and got brought to court. All very simple. Can't see how people can debate for 24 pages.

    its not simple at all. it was to costly, and it was to labour and resource intensive, for no benefit. in short, a waste of time and money. just not cost effective at all.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    The change here is she should have to pay the costs also. So the original fine balance plus her contempt fee and also costs for taxi's, guards time, courts time. Lets round it all up to an even €5k. Lock her up till its paid.

    no, she shouldn't have to pay any costs. the state has decided she should have been in jail so its the states job to pay.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Now watch what happens when someone else gets a fine and says I'm not paying. They will think, hang on If I waste peoples time by being stupid then I will get hit with a massive bill...best put this fine on top of the priority list and make sure its paid in time.

    no, nothing will happen. it doesn't work like that. its idealistic nonsense. the deterrent factor doesn't work. either people will pay in full, try pay in part, or not at all.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #364
    Generic Dreadhead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,870 ✭✭✭✭Generic Dreadhead


    I thought the angry face was at the sheer disgraceful thought of the poor woman having to spend 5 hours with a taxi/cab driver...... 5 hours of it.....
    "Now I'm not racist but...."
    "Do you follow the rugby...."
    "Terrible about the household charge..."
    "I have 3 sons myself...."
    "Much harder to get Taxi Work nowadays...."
    "I usually work till 4am most...."
    Etc


  • #365
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Gerry T wrote: »
    I don't think so, add up all the time, fines and you probably would come to 5k, or 4k but whatever it is she should pay.

    no she shouldn't. its the states job and societies job to pay if this is what society wants. if not, those who want it should stump up, or the state/society should pay anyway, or just abolish jailing for fines and allow installments. not her job to pay.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    What's wrong is this woman can waste the time of all these people, spend the day going to court.

    no, it was the state and the law who wasted the time of the gards, going to court when she had payed off some of it, which installments should be an option.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Truth be known she had a number of reminder notices and didn't contact anyone to say she was having difficulty

    truth not be known at all. there is nothing to say she got a load of reminders. she was paying it off in installments and wasn't aware that she couldn't, and she didn't know she had to contact someone to get an extension.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    in my opinion the original fine wasn't excessive and should have been paid in time.

    self righteous bull****tery. it was very excessive. she couldn't afford to pay it. if she could afford to pay it on time she would have.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Yes the Guards and Courts should spend their time with "real criminals", but how can they when this sort of nonsense is clogging the system up.

    well, look for the law to be changed to remove all this from it. either allow installments, or remove jailing people for fines.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #366
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Gerry T wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with the new legislation but is it open for abuse. If someone has a fine say €400 and pay €20 does that mean they get an extension for a period of time or can they string things along for months & years.
    This sounds nuts, small fines say under €800 should only be paid in single payments, larger fines I do thing a payment plan should be offered but any failure should have very strict repercussions.
    Its near impossible to separate those that can't pay to those that won't pay, this unfortunately is hard on those strapped for cash.
    your system is unworkable. a fine of 800 cannot be payed in a one off payment unless you can actually afford it. so a payment plan is the only option unless its proved you can afford to pay off in full.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #367
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Taken from the irish penal reform thrust http://www.iprt.ie/prison-facts-2

    85% of fine defaulters are back in custody within four years.

    There were 8,304 committals for non-payment of court-ordered fines in 2012, including 242 imprisoned for failing to pay fines imposed for not having a tv licence.

    The average cost of imprisonment per prisoner was €65,542 in 2013, not including education expenditure.

    Going by that a prisoner costs approx €180 a day and 242 were TV lisc non payments and if each were no more than a day in prison that cost the state approx €43k. That's a lot of money on these time wasters.

    That's nearly 15% of Marian's pay or 18 hr's studio time !! ;)
    well, removing jailing for this nonsense is the way to go, and pyment plans unless it can be proved one can afford a one off payment

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #368
    Pie Eater
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭Pie Eater


    end of the road wrote: »
    self righteous bull****tery. it was very excessive. she couldn't afford to pay it. if she could afford to pay it on time she would have.
    Hmm, anyone know if she still has a TV and if it is now licenced?


  • #369
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    end of the road wrote: »
    its not simple at all. it was to costly, and it was to labour and resource intensive, for no benefit. in short, a waste of time and money. just not cost effective at all.
    It would be cost effective if she had to pay the costs whatever that was i.e. the 5k. Bet she would have found the money to pay the fine.

    end of the road wrote: »
    no, she shouldn't have to pay any costs. the state has decided she should have been in jail so its the states job to pay.
    Another days topic but prisoners should get billed for stays in prison.


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, nothing will happen. it doesn't work like that. its idealistic nonsense. the deterrent factor doesn't work. either people will pay in full, try pay in part, or not at all.
    What deterrent ?? there is none, a fine that you don't have to pay because you just waste the courts time and it gets thrown out. Put in a real deterrent--pay the 400 or its 5k if you don't, you won't see many people not paying.


  • #370
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    end of the road wrote: »
    no she shouldn't. its the states job and societies job to pay if this is what society wants. if not, those who want it should stump up, or the state/society should pay anyway, or just abolish jailing for fines and allow installments. not her job to pay.
    You have a funny way of looking at things. So person A breaks the law and person B and C has to pay to keep them in prison, where's the logic. YOu should have to pay to goto prison, its a different topic.

    end of the road wrote: »
    no, it was the state and the law who wasted the time of the gards, going to court when she had payed off some of it, which installments should be an option.
    The state and Guards were doing their job, this woman was wasting their time

    end of the road wrote: »
    truth not be known at all. there is nothing to say she got a load of reminders. she was paying it off in installments and wasn't aware that she couldn't, and she didn't know she had to contact someone to get an extension.
    Her fault, she should know. Its like saying "oh I didn't know I couldn't take that persons wallet, its not my fault, someone should have told me". That's pure crap, she has to make sure she knows when to pay, how much to pay. Her responsibility alone.

    end of the road wrote: »
    self righteous bull****tery. it was very excessive. she couldn't afford to pay it. if she could afford to pay it on time she would have.
    How do you know she couldn't afford to pay or that she would have ? 400 over a 12 month payment plan is 34 a month. I don't know her situation but if its that tight she shouldn't have a tv because she can't pay the fine.


    end of the road wrote: »
    well, look for the law to be changed to remove all this from it. either allow installments, or remove jailing people for fines.
    No we need to increase the fine if the person agrees a payment plan and fails to honour it. And if someone refuses to pay then take it whatever way they can, including state costs for all the messing.


  • #371
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Gerry T wrote: »
    It would be cost effective if she had to pay the costs whatever that was i.e. the 5k.

    no it wouldn't. if she wasn't able to pay what is the states job to pay she would be back in jail costing more money. much cheeper to change the law to allow a payment plan
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Bet she would have found the money to pay the fine.

    bet she wouldn't have otherwise she would have payed it off in full in the first place.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Another days topic but prisoners should get billed for stays in prison.

    no they shouldn't. unworkable. would never be payed and would lead to an even bigger revolving door system because of a cycle of debt and crime to try pay it off.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    What deterrent ?? there is none, a fine that you don't have to pay because you just waste the courts time and it gets thrown out.

    with the new system of a payment plan, there would be no court. after the original court appearence. it can be deducted at source, all though whether that would cause more problems i don't know. under the current law, the courts time isn't wasted.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Put in a real deterrent--pay the 400 or its 5k if you don't, you won't see many people not paying.

    delusianel. there is no deterrent and never will be as the deterrent factor doesn't work. your deluded unworkable suggestion would lead to a huge cycle of debt and crime to try pay off the 5k. the deterrent doesn't work and its to costly to implement. a payment plan is the cheepest most cost effective option.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    You have a funny way of looking at things. So person A breaks the law and person B and C has to pay to keep them in prison, where's the logic.

    that is how society works. society wants people jailed, society has to pay for it.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    YOu should have to pay to goto prison

    you shouldn't. it has never been tried as it would never work. impossible to implement and would lead to an even bigger revolving door system and more crime.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    The state and Guards were doing their job, this woman was wasting their time

    no, the state was wasting their time by not changing the law to allow payment plans for struggling people.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Her fault, she should know.

    not her fault, she attempted to pay. she shouldn't know, she should have been told at the original court date via a lieflet.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Its like saying "oh I didn't know I couldn't take that persons wallet, its not my fault, someone should have told me".

    its not.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    That's pure crap

    its not pure crap, its pure truth.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    she has to make sure she knows when to pay, how much to pay.

    she knew how much she had to pay. she knew how to pay it, she didn't know that she couldn't pay in installments. very easy to give a little lieflet with the information on it.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Her responsibility alone.

    no, the states for continuing with a law that doesn't allow a payment plan
    Gerry T wrote: »
    How do you know she couldn't afford to pay or that she would have

    how do you know she could afford to pay and wouldn't have
    Gerry T wrote: »
    400 over a 12 month payment plan is 34 a month. I don't know her situation but if its that tight she shouldn't have a tv because she can't pay the fine.

    of course she should have a tv because she can't pay the fine. once the broadcasting charge comes in even if she has a little radio she will have to pay the charge. you would rather her sit in silence with nothing rather then change the law to implement a payment plan that can be afforded?
    Gerry T wrote: »
    No we need to increase the fine if the person agrees a payment plan and fails to honour it.

    we don't. it will lead to a cycle of debt and potential crime, meaning a whole load more costs and problems. not worth the bother.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    if someone refuses to pay then take it whatever way they can, including state costs for all the messing.

    no, state costs are state costs. your ideas are a bunch of self righteous nonsense which are, unworkable, not cost effective, and to labour and resource intensive. they will lead to even more problems, just not worth the hassle. no messing at all. the state has decided the law, so there is no messing involved, only on the part of the state for bringing someone to court who made an effort to pay, not knowing the law didn't allow her to.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    end of the road wrote: »
    no /QUOTE]

    Too many quotes there. We should agree to disagree. If there are laws and penalties then if people break those laws they have to pay. Post 362 outlined that there is a means of paying over 12 months and in this case I think most people can afford 21e a month to pay the 250e fine. So no excuse. And if you can't afford that then don't have a TV.
    I do appreciate some people get in a jam and say have a large unpaid tax bill, I know of one guy in this situation. He's now selling his home to pay that bill. I wouldn't regard what he did was a deliberate attempt to break the law but poor business sense.
    What difference is it here, she has to pay. sell her iPhone, CAr or House--just pay the poxy fine.

    Now if you don't agree with the lisc fee then go protest and have it removed. Not paying fines is not the right way to go.
    If you won't pay the lisc fee then don't have a TV. It really is very simple and doesn't warrant all this debate.


  • #373
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Gerry T wrote: »
    If there are laws and penalties then if people break those laws they have to pay.

    yes, the law can be changed to allow a payment plan that is affordible ensuring the fine gets payed
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Post 362 outlined that there is a means of paying over 12 months and in this case I think most people can afford 21e a month to pay the 250e fine. So no excuse.

    yes excuse.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    if you can't afford that then don't have a TV.

    self righteous bull again. when the new broadcasting charge comes in she will have to pay tv or not. even if one has a little radio. so people should sit in silence with nothing all for a broadcasting charge.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    What difference is it here, she has to pay.

    well, looks like she doesn't have to pay
    Gerry T wrote: »
    sell her iPhone, CAr or House--just pay the poxy fine.

    more self righteous bull again. sell her house or car for a ****ing fine? get a grip. better to implement a payment plan or even go to jail then do that. infact, how do you know she has a car, owns her house, or even has an iphone.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Not paying fines is not the right way to go.

    who said it was. this woman made an attempt to pay it off by paying some of it off and was going to pay the rest when she could, not her fault the law doesn't allow her to do it.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    If you won't pay the lisc fee then don't have a TV.

    again, broadcasting charge when it comes in
    Gerry T wrote: »
    It really is very simple and doesn't warrant all this debate.

    it really isn't one bit simple and does warrent the debate

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #374
    Hans Bricks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hans Bricks


    Gerry T wrote: »
    I don't think so, add up all the time, fines and you probably would come to 5k, or 4k but whatever it is she should pay.

    What's wrong is this woman can waste the time of all these people, spend the day going to court. Truth be known she had a number of reminder notices and didn't contact anyone to say she was having difficulty, but in my opinion the original fine wasn't excessive and should have been paid in time. Yes the Guards and Courts should spend their time with "real criminals", but how can they when this sort of nonsense is clogging the system up.

    I still don't know why the judiciary waste they're time following up on TV license warrants. Some smary, useless idiot who gets a salary to peek around living room windows to see if there is a TV in the household is the one who adds this pointless exercise to they're workload too.

    The law's the law and all that, but when I hear these type of stories I can't help but think "why bother" ?


  • #375
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    end of the road wrote: »
    .....

    Well I don't have an issue with someone agreeing a payment plan over 1, 3 or 5 yr's, once they pay it, with interest and administration costs obviously.
    Your lacking in some fundamental principals...if you want a TV you have to pay the lisc fee. If you disagree with the fee then don't get a TV. That's the law and yes you sit in silence if you don't want to pay. It's like saying I think that broadband should be free so I'm not paying UPC any more and I'm so entitled that they should keep the service running.
    Where do you think all the money comes from to pay for TV and Radio ? thin air ?
    So you say its better to go to jail than pay the fine. Great example you set. So this is how it works...just get what you can in life, don't pay, you get 4 hrs in jail and you don't have to pay..this is the life :rolleyes: The examples of iphone, car, house are that, examples. Surely she has some material goods that can be sold to pay for the TV lisc fine.
    If anyone is self righteous its you, just because you disagree with the law or lisc fee you feel its right to not pay if you deem you can't afford it, nonsense. My position is very different, if you don't agree with the lisc fee then don't use the service.
    You talk of the state as if its a separate entity. The state is you and me. The cost for the broadcasting authority is split out and people pay their share, say 160e. The public paid 180 million and commercial revenue was 127million.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raidi%C3%B3_Teilif%C3%ADs_%C3%89ireann

    So we all stop paying the 180million. How will this work ??? the state (YOU and ME) will have to pay more income tax to pay this or we switch off TV and Radio in Ireland.
    So how do you want it, no Lisc fee and more income tax ?


  • #376
    Grays Sports Almanac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 113 ✭✭Grays Sports Almanac


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Well I don't have an issue with someone agreeing a payment plan over 1, 3 or 5 yr's, once they pay it, with interest and administration costs obviously.
    Your lacking in some fundamental principals...if you want a TV you have to pay the lisc fee. If you disagree with the fee then don't get a TV. That's the law and yes you sit in silence if you don't want to pay. It's like saying I think that broadband should be free so I'm not paying UPC any more and I'm so entitled that they should keep the service running.
    Where do you think all the money comes from to pay for TV and Radio ? thin air ?

    It's more like:

    Hi, we've created a service nobody asked for and even if you use it or not, you're going to pay a licence fee for it.

    Seems fair.

    I wish the same legislation applied to whatever rubbish I decided to broadcast from my shed. What a money spinner.

    Let people pay for it if they want. Of course, even RTE aren't dumb enough to fall for that.

    Oh, and did someone say 'ad revenue'!?


  • #377
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Well I don't have an issue with someone agreeing a payment plan over 1, 3 or 5 yr's, once they pay it, with interest and administration costs obviously.

    interest for what. you honestly think adding on pointless interest and admin costs which the state would be paying anyway is going to encourage people to pay it? no, it will lead to debt and potential crime. your ideas aren't workable.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Your lacking in some fundamental principals...

    i'm not. i'm telling it as it is, and how it works.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    if you want a TV you have to pay the lisc fee.

    and? the woman was trying to pay off the fine, she made an effort.

    Gerry T wrote: »
    If you disagree with the fee then don't get a TV.

    until the broadcasting charge comes in and you will have to pay tv or not, even if you have anything in the house that you can listen to radio or tv? why should people not have access to this because they can't afford to pay an unjust charge? whatever about the tv licence, this charge is unjust
    Gerry T wrote: »
    That's the law

    not for much longer, the broadcasting charge.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    yes you sit in silence if you don't want to pay. It's like saying I think that

    no, you don't
    Gerry T wrote: »
    broadband should be free so I'm not paying UPC any more and I'm so entitled that they should keep the service running.

    what has that got to do with anything. UPC is a private service
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Where do you think all the money comes from to pay for TV and Radio ? thin air ?

    ehh, advertising? thats how private stations survive, i'm not suggesting RTE should be forced to do the same but nobody should be jailed because they can't afford their contribution via a tv licence/broadcasting charge.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    So you say its better to go to jail than pay the fine.

    i said nothing. i'd understand if one feels that way because they really can't afford to pay, which if we went with your idea of adding every single cost, thats exactly what would happen.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Great example you set.

    tough, i couldn't care a less. its not my job to set any example to anyone, so i don't.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    So this is how it works...just get what you can in life, don't pay, you get 4 hrs in jail and you don't have to pay..

    well, thats how the current law works, and how your ideas would work.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    this is the life The examples of iphone, car, house are that, examples. Surely she has some material goods that can be sold to pay for the TV lisc fine.

    obviously she didn't. of course a payment plan that allows installments would be the way to go.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    If anyone is self righteous its you, just because you disagree with the law or lisc fee you feel its right to not pay if you deem you can't afford it

    i don't think i said anyone should not pay. i don't believe in sitting in silence or seling your house or car over it though.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    nonsense.

    thats what your talking
    Gerry T wrote: »
    if you don't agree with the lisc fee then don't use the service.

    you don't get a choice though, you have to pay for the service whether you receive it or not. the service being RTE.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    You talk of the state as if its a separate entity. The state is you and me. The cost for the broadcasting authority is split out and people pay their share, say 160e.

    the money goes to RTE . the broadcasting authority gets separate funding, mind you they are a waste of space and time.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    The public paid 180 million and commercial revenue was 127million.

    and?
    Gerry T wrote: »
    So we all stop paying the 180million. How will this work ??? the state (YOU and ME) will have to pay more income tax to pay this or we switch off TV and Radio in Ireland.

    ah jesus your really talking nonsense now. only RTE is publically funded in terms of stations. the broadcasting authority aren't needed and they get funding from income tax anyway.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    So how do you want it, no Lisc fee and more income tax?

    whats income tax got to do with it. RTE should try for more commercial revenue. there is a lot of things they can do to bring in revenue.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #378
    Hans Bricks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hans Bricks


    end of the road wrote: »
    interest for .... revenue.

    Good lord that multi-quote function will be visiting the rape crisis center at this rate


  • #379
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    Hollis Hurlbut wrote: »
    It's more like:

    Hi, we've created a service nobody asked for and even if you use it or not, you're going to pay a licence fee for it.

    Seems fair.

    I wish the same legislation applied to whatever rubbish I decided to broadcast from my shed. What a money spinner.

    Let people pay for it if they want. Of course, even RTE aren't dumb enough to fall for that.

    Oh, and did someone say 'ad revenue'!?
    You could say the same thing about a lot of state services. Many people don't use museum's, library's, land telephones, CIE but we all pay for them through taxes. As a society we have to collectively pay for things that possibly a minority of the population use. If only those people were asked to pay for these services then they couldn't afford it. It requires all of us together.
    So when people decide unilaterally to not pay and try justify their actions it does annoy me.

    This woman didn't have a TV lisc, she didn't pay the fine and wasted so much valuable resources that you, me and everyone pays for. There's no excuse for this and I think she got off very lightly.

    I can't be bothered to reply to end of the road, I've come to the end of the road there (sorry!) he/she just doesn't get it or chooses to ignore the points.


  • #380
    riclad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    They brought in a law property tax can be taken from your salary ,
    can they not same with fines,
    this probably goes on 100,s of times every year.
    But we don,t hear about it .
    Most of the time.
    You should not go to prison for fines ,
    and in practice they let you go after a few hours.
    Cos the prisons are full of real criminals ,drug dealers etc

    They should sell off 2fm,
    we have loads of music stations,
    a pop music station run from the license fee is a relic from the 70,s .
    in 2014 ,with spotify ,youtube, the web, it makes no sense.

    They shut down the pirate radio stations ,
    so they had to provide a government funded pop music station.


  • #381
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    riclad wrote: »
    They should sell off 2fm

    to who. to someone which will make it even more bottom of the barrel then it is? sorry, but no they shouldn't. they should sort it out and make it like the station it once was. back around 1998 2fm was a great station. plenty of options for it, lots of potential to be a great music station.
    riclad wrote: »
    we have loads of music stations

    which if they went tomorrow would be no real loss bar the jobs lost. as they have little to offer bar the talk based programs.
    riclad wrote: »
    a pop music station run from the license fee is a relic from the 70,s .

    its not. many countries have such.
    riclad wrote: »
    in 2014 ,with spotify ,youtube, the web, it makes no sense.

    clearly the fact we still have music radio at the moment says otherwise. things may change though in our life time.
    riclad wrote: »
    They shut down the pirate radio stations ,
    so they had to provide a government funded pop music station.

    untrue. 2fm launched a few years before the super pirates came on air. all be it pirate broadcasting was around before it launched.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #382
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    is anyone even reading those endless one-liners?


  • #383
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    conorh91 wrote: »
    is anyone even reading those endless one-liners?
    I gave up :)


  • #384
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes it is . the media industry needs to cater to all sorts of tastes. RTE rightly has an obligation to cater for as much of those as possible, all be it they need to improve and actually do it.

    What programs cater to this market now?

    What are the affects of this programming being removed? Other than getting a netflix account or something.


  • #385
    riclad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Someone would buy it,
    just because some countrys do it does not mean its right to continue doing so.
    I do,nt listen to it,
    but as far as i know it provides very little in terms of content, that say 104 fm can provide.
    From what i remember ,i lived in dublin at that time,
    it took them a few years for them to shut down all the pirate radio stations.
    radio nova etc
    But the point of 2fm was it was to provide a legal national alternative to pirate radio ,
    eg pop music for young people .
    YES i agree ,at one time it was a great station .
    but i don,t think it needs government funding to exist.

    RTE tv is different,
    it makes arts programs, documentarys ,drama,s etc
    that a private company like tv3 would not make .


  • #386
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,967 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Hans Bricks wrote: »
    I still don't know why the judiciary waste they're time following up on TV license warrants. Some smary, useless idiot who gets a salary to peek around living room windows to see if there is a TV in the household is the one who adds this pointless exercise to they're workload too.

    The law's the law and all that, but when I hear these type of stories I can't help but think "why bother" ?

    Because government value money over people.


  • #387
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    riclad wrote: »
    Someone would buy it

    yeah. but what would be the point? it has more chance of offering little bar the same old same old in private hands.
    riclad wrote: »
    just because some countrys do it does not mean its right to continue doing so.

    well, it is . 2fm has the chance to be a proper music station comparible to the BBC and other state broadcasters. just because it isn't doing it at the moment doesn't mean it can't do it if the right person was put in charge with the freedom to make decisians.
    riclad wrote: »
    I do,nt listen to it

    neither do i apart from the dance music shows. but that doesn't mean it should be got rid of. it should be sorted out, bring in good management and give them the freedom to make decisians and allow 2fm to become a decent music station.
    riclad wrote: »
    but as far as i know it provides very little in terms of content, that say 104 fm can provide.

    and that shows how boaring radio in this country is . just because 104 can provide the same little content means nothing. the private sector is not perfect or the answer in this regard.
    riclad wrote: »
    From what i remember ,i lived in dublin at that time,
    it took them a few years for them to shut down all the pirate radio stations.
    radio nova etc

    yes, nova and sunshine radio among others launched a few years after 2fm
    riclad wrote: »
    But the point of 2fm was it was to provide a legal national alternative to pirate radio ,
    eg pop music for young people .

    to the offshore pirates maybe. not to the super pirates of the 80s. they went on air in responce to 2fm.
    riclad wrote: »
    YES i agree ,at one time it was a great station .
    but i don,t think it needs government funding to exist.

    i don't believe it gets any government funding
    riclad wrote: »
    RTE tv is different,
    it makes arts programs, documentarys ,drama,s etc
    that a private company like tv3 would not make .

    yeah, and that is the same with rte radio. and it would be the same with 2fm if management were given the freedom to make decisians in the best interests of the station

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #388
    BBJBIG
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 277 ✭✭BBJBIG


    Is she still in the slammer or did the Kunts let her out .... ?


  • #389
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    BBJBIG wrote: »
    Is she still in the slammer or did the Kunts let her out .... ?

    I think she was held for a couple of hr's then she went home.

    So who are the kunts as you so eloquently put it ? would it be the men and women that you and me pay to do a job. Where women like this waste their time with crap about a tv lisc, which I think she should have to pay you and me back. Taxes could be lower if people were able to get on with their jobs without women like this wasting time.


  • #390
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,007 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Gerry T wrote: »
    I think she was held for a couple of hr's then she went home.

    So who are the kunts as you so eloquently put it ? would it be the men and women that you and me pay to do a job. Where women like this waste their time with crap about a tv lisc, which I think she should have to pay you and me back. Taxes could be lower if people were able to get on with their jobs without women like this wasting time.
    she shouldn't have to pay us back, as she doesn't owe us anything. the government on our behalf decided the punishment for people like her, so its our job to pay for it. if we want people jailed, we have to pay for it, and its dead money. taxes would not be lower if such and such happened. taxes don't go down, they go up

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Gerry T wrote: »
    I think she was held for a couple of hr's then she went home.

    So who are the kunts as you so eloquently put it ? would it be the men and women that you and me pay to do a job. Where women like this waste their time with crap about a tv lisc, which I think she should have to pay you and me back. Taxes could be lower if people were able to get on with their jobs without women like this wasting time.

    Same people giving out about the Gardaí executing this warrant most likely complain about the Gardaí enforcing cannabis legislation. Gardaí should show discretion you know. Of course these same people most likely were all over the penalty points issue because, you know, Gardaí should do their job. Complete hypocrisy.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement