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

timetogo wrote: »

OK, you're showing that you don't really know how the country (or any country) works.

We don't vote for every law the government brings in. I don't really want a referendum every week. If you want a law changed get a group of people and lobby your TD. Keep this moving until the law is debated in the Dail and they (our representatives) vote on it.

You've said above that some laws deserve to be broken. Do you have a list of laws that deserve to be broken? Who decides what gets put on this list? You? Did we ever vote for you? What if most people don't agree with you?

lol that would work :rolleyes:

I'll give you an example of how that doesn't work, the recent legalise/decriminalise cannabis debate motioned by Ming, less than 10 TD's were in the Dail for the "debate" the rest were in the bar smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol - after the "debate" all the TD's returned to the dail and voted against it, that's what TD's do, So to say to lobby your TD to get things changed is a joke IMO

dickwod1 wrote: »

I'll give you an example of how that doesn't work, the recent legalise/decriminalise cannabis debate motioned by Ming, less than 10 TD's were in the Dail for the "debate" the rest were in the bar smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol - after the "debate" all the TD's returned to the dail and voted against it, that's what TD's do, So to say to lobby your TD to get things changed is a joke IMO

Lobby the more effective one you vote in. Stop voting for the same old guard.

Better yet, get ye self on the ballot.

The "you own a TV / equipment, pay the license" is like having the mindset that anyone who owns a car declared off road should be paying motor tax.
Do any clever people want to suggest the reason why those with a car declared off road don't pay motor tax ? That's right, they don't use the infrastructure or services that motor tax faciliates. An idle, stationary car isn't causing wear and tear or contributing to the costs of maintaining said infrastructure. Jee, I wonder which other "public service" could work under the same model ? :rolleyes:

Any correlation between TV owners not using RTE's services I wonder ?

I agree, this "system" does not work, it is not representative of the people,

Vote for independents, or people running that you know have a feeling will change things,

I got pulled by the TV license inspector during the week while cutting the grass in the front garden,

Tv inspector shows his badge
Me - "I dont have a tv, I have no subscriptions to UPC SKY etc"
Him "whats your name"
Me "I dont have to tell you my name"
Him "so I presume your denying me access"
Me "Yeah of course, I only watch RTE on the RTE player and thats sh!te, it doesn't work at least 75% of the time I try to use it"
Him "fair enough I'm just doing my job, I have to ask these questions"

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Any correlation between TV owners not using RTE's services I wonder ?

Apples and oranges.

If the roads would fall apart without contributions from cars off the road then cars off the road would be paying the tax. The TV licence is there to facilitate a national broadcaster, simple idea nicked from the UK, replicated in one form or another in many countries. PBS in the US for example.

There is an associated public good with having a broadcaster that is not completely profit driven. In RTE's case they do their best to disprove this assertion but yet again, this is a democratic country, change it if you don't like it. In the mean time no point in giving out about the law being enforced.

end of the road

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Apples and oranges.

If the roads would fall apart without contributions from cars off the road then cars off the road would be paying the tax. The TV licence is there to facilitate a national broadcaster, simple idea nicked from the UK, replicated in one form or another in many countries. PBS in the US for example.

There is an associated public good with having a broadcaster that is not completely profit driven. In RTE's case they do their best to disprove this assertion but yet again, this is a democratic country, change it if you don't like it. In the mean time no point in giving out about the law being enforced.

yes point in giving out about the waste of money trip this woman was taken on. it was not cost effective. the bcr was -0

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Apples and oranges.

If the roads would fall apart without contributions from cars off the road then cars off the road would be paying the tax. The TV licence is there to facilitate a national broadcaster, simple idea nicked from the UK, replicated in one form or another in many countries. PBS in the US for example.

There is an associated public good with having a broadcaster that is not completely profit driven. In RTE's case they do their best to disprove this assertion but yet again, this is a democratic country, change it if you don't like it. In the mean time no point in giving out about the law being enforced.

Well then why isn't every single citizen liable to taxation not paying for a license ? What is the practical difference between a TV owner who uses their TV for other digital subscription and web services (doesn't use RTE) and those without a TV, a monitor without an Aerial, basically falls under the category of not being liable for the license ? What is this arrogance that all TV owners must be using RTE ? Therein lies how archaic and ludicrous it is to a lot of TV owners, evaders. Those wishing to avail of RTE can pay a subscription if they want. No reason every single owner of TV equipment should be subsidizing a semi private organisation.

RTE have commercial revenue. Some of their entities like 2fm, Aertel and RTE.ie are all exclusively commercial. Slash the bloated wages, international programming, RTE Two, introduce a subscription model etc. It's a national public service, yet plenty of people don't have to even pay for it.

end of the road wrote: »

yes point in giving out about the waste of money trip this woman was taken on. it was not cost effective. the bcr was -0

Enforcing the law isn't cost effective in the vast majority of cases. The cost of prosecution and imprisonment is huge. We don't stop locking up burglars because it costs the guts of €60-70K a year to lock them up.

Yet another good reason to pay the TV licence and engage with the democratic process, the prosecutions take money away from other areas where it's needed more.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Apples and oranges.

If the roads would fall apart without contributions from cars off the road then cars off the road would be paying the tax. The TV licence is there to facilitate a national broadcaster, simple idea nicked from the UK, replicated in one form or another in many countries. PBS in the US for example.

There is an associated public good with having a broadcaster that is not completely profit driven. In RTE's case they do their best to disprove this assertion but yet again, this is a democratic country, change it if you don't like it. In the mean time no point in giving out about the law being enforced.

When you look at the ridiculous wages that RTE are paying their "stars" this argument does not stand up

How much money does RTE actually get in net profit when you take out the cost of implementing the charge by An post and including every person brought before the courts and any after effect of being brought before the courts -like this case in this thread and all the other 400 odd people who spent a few hours/days locked up?

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Well then why isn't every single citizen liable to taxation not paying for a license ? What is the practical difference between a TV owner who uses their TV for other digital subscription and web services (doesn't use RTE) and those without a TV, a monitor without an Aerial, basically falls under the category of not being liable for the license ? What is this arrogance that all TV owners must be using RTE ? Therein lies how archaic and ludicrous it is to a lot of TV owners, evaders. Those wishing to avail of RTE can pay a subscription if they want. No reason every single owner of TV equipment should be subsidizing a semi private organisation.

RTE have commercial revenue. Some of their entities like 2fm, Aertel and RTE.ie are all exclusively commercial. Slash the bloated wages, international programming, RTE Two, introduce a subscription model etc. It's a national public service, yet plenty of people don't have to even pay for it.

You're getting your wish with the incoming broadcast charge.

dickwod1 wrote: »

When you look at the ridiculous wages that RTE are paying their "stars" this argument does not stand up

How much money does RTE actually get in net profit when you take out the cost of implementing the charge by An post and including every person brought before the courts and any after effect of being brought before the courts -like this case in this thread and all the other 400 odd people who spent a few hours/days locked up?

I think you'll find I alluded to the point that RTE are a shower even in the quoted post.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You're getting your wish with the incoming broadcast charge.

You think they're gonna have the balls to implement a broadcast charge after the Irish water debacle ? Can't wait to see the reaction to that.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You're getting your wish with the incoming broadcast charge.

I can guarantee you this will not be brought in by this government this term, They may aswell get a rope and tie a noose

Hans Bricks wrote: »

You think they're gonna have the balls to implement a broadcast charge after the Irish water debacle ? Can't wait to see the reaction to that.

I don't see much roll back on Irish water.

Frankly I'd get rid of the water charges and the TV licence, probably the property tax too, although I'd keep a NPPR tax and reduce the dole to c. €80 a week, but that's just me.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I don't see much roll back on Irish water.

Frankly I'd get rid of the water charges and the TV licence, probably the property tax too, although I'd keep a NPPR tax and reduce the dole to c. €80 a week, but that's just me.

Apart from a standard charge per household irrespective of how much water you actually use or how many people are in the house,

dickwod1 wrote: »

Apart from a standard charge per household irrespective of how much water you actually use or how many people are in the house,

TV licence doesn't ask how much RTE you're watching :pac:

Meh, tbh they're either going to charge it or they not anything in between is still going to cause riots. (Re water charge)

MarkAnthony wrote: »

TV licence doesn't ask how much RTE you're watching :pac:

Exactly there just like "gimme your fooking money" :pac:

I just dont know why in this day and age of oppression and austerity they just dont figure out the net profit gained from the charge and give it direct as a grant to RTE (which would have to be seriously re-organised) and abolish the charge, Take the deficit from the USC which was supposed to be scrapped, or even just make TD's accountable for their expenses which would suffice.

Anyway thats just my 2 cents, I really dont like the tv license

end of the road

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Enforcing the law isn't cost effective in the vast majority of cases. The cost of prosecution and imprisonment is huge. We don't stop locking up burglars because it costs the guts of €60-70K a year to lock them up.

Yet another good reason to pay the TV licence and engage with the democratic process, the prosecutions take money away from other areas where it's needed more.

not a good reason to pay at all. engaging with the democratic process is irrelevant here, not that you will get it anyway. the bcr was -0. burdlers are irrelevant also as their crime harms people. not paying the tv licence harms nobody.

end of the road wrote: »

not a good reason to pay at all. engaging with the democratic process is irrelevant here, not that you will get it anyway. the bcr was -0. burdlers are irrelevant also as their crime harms people. not paying the tv licence harms nobody.

No democratic process, and you're judge and jury as to what causes harm and what doesn't? Thankfully we're not all like you or it really would be the end of the road.

There are good social reasons for a national broadcaster, you're not in a position to say not paying the TV licence hurts no one. It hurts no one directly and immediately it may or may not hurt people indirectly and over a longer term.

end of the road

MarkAnthony wrote: »

No democratic process, and you're judge and jury as to what causes harm and what doesn't? Thankfully we're not all like you or it really would be the end of the road.

There are good social reasons for a national broadcaster, you're not in a position to say not paying the TV licence hurts no one. It hurts no one directly and immediately it may or may not hurt people indirectly and over a longer term.

its common sense. who died or got injoured because someone didn't have a tv licence? seriously, go away.

end of the road wrote: »

its common sense. who died or got injoured because someone didn't have a tv licence? seriously, go away.

Look at the US. No national broadcaster (well PBS but not in the Anglo-Irish 'tradition'), news channels essentially running propaganda. Look at the UK, until recently a World Class impartial news service.

RTE is neither, it's not the worst either.

You don't know what you're talking about, misinformed and short sighted. You're the perfect argument for a national broadcaster.

Can a national broadcaster be funded in a different way? Yes, is it? No.

Guess how you change that. Guess what my suggestion would be until you do, guess why I think that.

Democratically¦Pay it or don't have a TV¦It's the Law

How dare you tell me to go away :pac:

MarkAnthony wrote: »

There are good social reasons for a national broadcaster, you're not in a position to say not paying the TV licence hurts no one. It hurts no one directly and immediately it may or may not hurt people indirectly and over a longer term.

I don't see how RTE is really relevant to informing the public in 2015 or if the US example of CNN, PBS vs Fox News is just paranoia. One could say it was heavily and still has a strong influence from the Catholic church. I also see no reason the state cannot retain ownership and have RTE adhere to the BAI just because the organisation has gone fully commercial.

My only real gripe is that people should be free to attain private digital TV services subscriptions or use one for Smart TV purposes without being subservient to RTE. Encrypt the signal I say. TV license ownership unlocks it. Fair negotiation I think.

Tony EH

...and no Irish govt. will even entertain such a notion, because at the end of the day, it isn't really about "the law" and it certainly isn't anything to do with "democracy" (:pac: FFS). It's simply about gouging and unjust charge out of people.

They're looking to broaden the unjust charge across a greater number of the public.

How "democratic".

Tony EH wrote: »

...and no Irish govt. will even entertain such a notion, because at the end of the day, it isn't really about "the law" and it certainly isn't anything to do with "democracy" (:pac: FFS). It's simply about gouging and unjust charge out of people.

They're looking to broaden the unjust charge across a greater number of the public.

How "democratic".

Do you ever have an original thought or like the majority of the political establishment do you just close your eyes and repeat the same crap over and over again? Are you sure you can't be convinced to run?

Tony EH

Oh please...

:rolleyes: