TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

Sagitt · 19-03-2019 10:33pm

So I rang TV Licencing office today ready to do the 'battle' and argue my case. Customer service rep was on the ball and got things sorted within minutes. 'If you don't have TV then you don't pay TV Licence' - this is direct quote from the guy.
'Observed evidence' which letter was referring to was satellite dish and letter is a standard one that follows. He will send me statutory declaration form which needs to be signed and send back to update their records.
Call ended within 2-3 minutes, I could not be surprised more.

Johnboy1951 · 20-03-2019 1:27am

Sagitt wrote: »

So I rang TV Licencing office today ready to do the 'battle' and argue my case. Customer service rep was on the ball and got things sorted within minutes. 'If you don't have TV then you don't pay TV Licence' - this is direct quote from the guy.
'Observed evidence' which letter was referring to was satellite dish and letter is a standard one that follows. He will send me statutory declaration form which needs to be signed and send back to update their records.
Call ended within 2-3 minutes, I could not be surprised more.

They badly need to make changes internally.
Their letter is incorrect which is easily corrected ... by using TV Service rather than TV ...... but great to hear the Customer Service rep was easy to deal with.

Bob24 · 20-03-2019 11:49am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

They badly need to make changes internally.
Their letter is incorrect which is easily corrected ... by using TV Service rather than TV ...... but great to hear the Customer Service rep was easy to deal with.

Could also be rep which didn’t fancy a long argument and sent a form to end the call, well knowing that form will be ignored once returned.

Sorry for the negativity, but I’d be skeptical in these situations and only consider it fixed once I know they have definitly removed me from their list of people to chase.

Harry Palmr · 10-06-2019 3:57pm

The BBC has taken a stand and will repeal the automatic right of over 75's to a free licence.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/10/bbc-confirms-plans-to-make-over-75s-pay-licence-fee

The BBC has confirmed plans to make most over-75s pay the TV licence fee, arguing that it is the only way to avoid closing channels and making substantial cutbacks.

Millions of households will have to start paying £154.50 a year from June 2020 for the right to watch live television and access the BBC’s iPlayer service.

Research from the House of Commons Library found that 3 million households would lose their free TV licence as a result of the decision. The BBC has said it will continue to provide TV licences to over-75s who can provide evidence that they claim pension credit, a means-tested benefit designed to help older people.

However, up to 1.3 million families who are entitled to receive pension credit do not claim the benefit, according to official government figures, suggesting many poor households will be hit hard by the change.

The corporation argued that the £745m annual cost of maintaining the status quo would have taken up a fifth of its budget, equal to the total amount it spends on all of BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, the BBC News channel, CBBC and CBeebies. The BBC estimates that the new proposal will cost it £250m a year, requiring some cuts but no channel closures.

dulpit · 10-06-2019 5:17pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The BBC has taken a stand and will repeal the automatic right of over 75's to a free licence.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/10/bbc-confirms-plans-to-make-over-75s-pay-licence-fee

Don't see an issue with this. If there is to be a relief given to the older people, then it should be paid for by the government to cover the difference...

Capt'n Midnight · 12-06-2019 11:12pm

dulpit wrote: »

Don't see an issue with this. If there is to be a relief given to the older people, then it should be paid for by the government to cover the difference...

ay, there's the rub

Labour gave the over 75's a free licence
Conservatives took it away

So the Beeb had been using part of the licence free from younglings to subsidise the OAP's for a time to soften that blow

paleoperson · 15-06-2019 8:39pm

I have a question... I'm expecting a visit from the friendly tv licence inspector some day and it's giving me a bit of anxiety. I keep hearing this thing about "can he look through the front window and see a tv", and the answer is not from a public area no. But could he reasonably walk around the side of the house and peer in?

I've heard of them being very persistent and aggressive, but he wouldn't have the gall to come up to the front window on my property and look inside with me and the tv in there would he? There is absolutely no public area such as the road he can see a tv from.

He would have to willfully go past the front door and walk along the side of the house until he came to the front window. Alternatively he could park in the driveway, get out of the car and look in. But if you're in a driveway uninvited you're already trespassing right?

Can they get a warrant to search the house on probable cause?

Cody montana · 15-06-2019 8:40pm

I’m not paying it.

Johnboy1951 · 15-06-2019 9:48pm

paleoperson wrote: »

I have a question... I'm expecting a visit from the friendly tv licence inspector some day and it's giving me a bit of anxiety. I keep hearing this thing about "can he look through the front window and see a tv", and the answer is not from a public area no. But could he reasonably walk around the side of the house and peer in?

I've heard of them being very persistent and aggressive, but he wouldn't have the gall to come up to the front window on my property and look inside with me and the tv in there would he? There is absolutely no public area such as the road he can see a tv from.

He would have to willfully go past the front door and walk along the side of the house until he came to the front window. Alternatively he could park in the driveway, get out of the car and look in. But if you're in a driveway uninvited you're already trespassing right?

Can they get a warrant to search the house on probable cause?

Just pay the dang licence if you have a TV!

Bob24 · 15-06-2019 11:42pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Just pay the dang licence if you have a TV!

+1

I don’t really get that post about being stressed.

Either the poster has a TV and pays the licence and there is nothing to worry about as they won’t inspect and address for which a licence is registered.

Or they don’t have a TV nor a licence in which case an inspector is likely to come at some point but there is nothing to fear either as it is a perfectly legitimate situation. I would agree not to 100% trust the inspector and personally I would record the whole exchange with them just in case they make some dodgy claim about seeing a TV further down the line. But that’s no reason to be worried.

Apogee · 01-08-2019 11:25pm

From tomorrow's Examiner, Bruton resurrects broadcasting charge:

runawaybishop · 01-08-2019 11:39pm

Apogee wrote: »

From tomorrow's Examiner, Bruton resurrects broadcasting charge:

Not a chance of that happening.

Johnboy1951 · 02-08-2019 12:09am

I fail to understand why a private firm is required to be a collection agency.
We surely have many ways of collecting a 'tax' such as this without getting into such deals.
A fee could be added to the LPT for instance ....

Bob24 · 02-08-2019 8:23am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

A fee could be added to the LPT for instance ....

Good idea in theory to make the collection process easier.

However that would make the owner responsible for the licence rather than the occupier which could cause issues. For exemple if a landlord doesn’t have a TV in their rented property and thus rightfully elects not to pay the licence on the LPT website, but subsequently a tenant brings a TV to the place without notifying the landlord, who’s responsible when an inspector finds the unlicensed TV?

I agree with you that a private agency seems strange though and they should find a way for Revenue or another public body to collect it. There are countries where filling out an online tax return every year is mandatory for everyone, and the tax return form includes thick box to declare whether a TV is present at your residence address (the licence being collected from you by tax authorities if you answer yes and no one else has a licence for that address).

Johnboy1951 · 02-08-2019 10:11am

Bob24 wrote: »

Good idea in theory to make the collection process easier.

However that would make the owner responsible for the licence rather than the occupier which could cause issues. For exemple if a landlord doesn’t have a TV in their rented property and thus rightfully elects not to pay the licence on the LPT website, but subsequently a tenant brings a TV to the place without notifying the landlord, who’s responsible when an inspector finds the unlicensed TV?

I agree with you that a private agency seems strange though and they should find a way for Revenue or another public body to collect it. There are countries where filling out an online tax return every year is mandatory for everyone, and the tax return form includes thick box to declare whether a TV is present at your residence address (the licence being collected from you by tax authorities if you answer yes and no one else has a licence for that address).

It will no longer be a 'TV' licence, but a tax on the ability to receive the content ....... hence if there is a smart phone, tablet, laptop etc. on the premises then it will be subject to this new 'tax'.
So it might appear that the vast majority of premises in the country (close to 100%?) will require this licence.
The LPT seems a suitable method, if I am correct in this .... with reductions for those few who are entitled to avoid paying it.

The above is based on what I presently understand the proposal to be.

Bob24 · 02-08-2019 10:46am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It will no longer be a 'TV' licence, but a tax on the ability to receive the content ....... hence if there is a smart phone, tablet, laptop etc. on the premises then it will be subject to this new 'tax'.
So it might appear that the vast majority of premises in the country (close to 100%?) will require this licence.
The LPT seems a suitable method, if I am correct in this .... with reductions for those few who are entitled to avoid paying it.

The above is based on what I presently understand the proposal to be.

I’d say 2 things:
- from what I understand the plan to move to a private collection agency is separate from the new licence/fee structure and could go ahead independently. So it shouldn’t be assumed that the private agency path isn’t being considered alongside the current TV licence model.
- even assuming the new licence/fee goes ahead, the plans are still vague but from what I gather the that fee would apply to anyone watching television programmes regardless of the device (ie including an iPad). It means that while most people have those devices, not everyone will technically be liable for paying the fee and there will still need to be a way to control who is and isn’t liable and treat the two groups separately. With that in mind I don’t really see how a landlord could be forced to pay the licence on their LPT bill given that 1) they are not a resident of the property and hence are not personally liable for a fee related to that property and 2) they have no easy way to check if any resident is liable for the fee.

NuttyMcNutty · 02-08-2019 10:56am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It will no longer be a 'TV' licence, but a tax on the ability to receive the content ....... hence if there is a smart phone, tablet, laptop etc. on the premises then it will be subject to this new 'tax'.
So it might appear that the vast majority of premises in the country (close to 100%?) will require this licence.
The LPT seems a suitable method, if I am correct in this .

If they use this method then the revenue will be collecting it and would be then classed as a tax, but they don't want you to think of it like that so they get some firm to collect it so it's not seen as a tax but only a debt collector calling to your door.:mad:

Sam Russell · 02-08-2019 11:14am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It will no longer be a 'TV' licence, but a tax on the ability to receive the content ....... hence if there is a smart phone, tablet, laptop etc. on the premises then it will be subject to this new 'tax'.
So it might appear that the vast majority of premises in the country (close to 100%?) will require this licence.
The LPT seems a suitable method, if I am correct in this .... with reductions for those few who are entitled to avoid paying it.

The above is based on what I presently understand the proposal to be.

Another method of collecting the charge is by using ESB Networks - If there is an ESB connection, then the charge is on the bill. €160 per year is €13.34 per month, which is not huge. If the customer gets the SW electricity allowance, then the charge would be waived.

It is simple, the ESB charge rests with the resident, be it an owner or a tenant, and payment is difficult to avoid.

Simples.

Johnboy1951 · 02-08-2019 11:25am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Another method of collecting the charge is by using ESB Networks - If there is an ESB connection, then the charge is on the bill. €160 per year is €13.34 per month, which is not huge. If the customer gets the SW electricity allowance, then the charge would be waived.

It is simple, the ESB charge rests with the resident, be it an owner or a tenant, and payment is difficult to avoid.

Simples.

Yes, that too would work, as would several other methods of collection.

@Bob24 ... yes having received a little more information about the plans I agree that apparently the tender for collection is for the present scheme and not for the proposed future scheme.
In that case it could possibly be An Post winning the tender again, which will be active until the new scheme is introduced (if it is done on time).

Stop moaning ffs · 02-08-2019 1:16pm

Sorry if it’s been answered or if it’s a stupid question but how are they going to prove you have a smartphone or laptop? I know plenty of people who have neither. Doesn’t seem enforceable

Bob24 · 02-08-2019 1:34pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Sorry if it’s been answered or if it’s a stupid question but how are they going to prove you have a smartphone or laptop? I know plenty of people who have neither. Doesn’t seem enforceable

No one as the answer a for now it is a vague project. But I would assume if this goes forward (i am not sure it will) they will word the law in a vague enough way and with easy catch-all clauses. Just one exemple (although I am not saying they would necessarily do exactly this): the rule could say that anyone with an active mobile data plan is by default deemed to have a device capable of watching online public video broadcast, and that the onus is on each these individuals to explain why if they feel they should not be be paying the fee).

dulpit · 02-08-2019 3:11pm

There would realistically be very very few people without a TV, smart phone, computer, laptop or tablet. So the basis would (presumably) be an assumption that you have one, but have some sort of opt-out (e.g. self-declaration) or similar. But then there could be higher penalties if found out after opting out that you do indeed have some device.

Sagitt · 02-08-2019 7:25pm

I'm not happy at all. I don't have TV and currently don't pay TV licence legally. Now, here is this assumption that tv is such great thing desired by all and nobody can't live the life without it. What if I genuinely don't watch tv programs through my mobile phone nor my laptop, would I still be liable and if so, for what at exactly?

Johnboy1951 · 02-08-2019 7:29pm

Sagitt wrote: »

I'm not happy at all. I don't have TV and currently don't pay TV licence legally. Now, here is this assumption that tv is such great thing desired by all and nobody can't live the life without it. What if I genuinely don't watch tv programs through my mobile phone nor my laptop, would I still be liable and if so, for what at exactly?

Nothing is yet decided ...... so any 'what ifs' are pointless.

Sam Russell · 02-08-2019 8:25pm

Sagitt wrote: »

I'm not happy at all. I don't have TV and currently don't pay TV licence legally. Now, here is this assumption that tv is such great thing desired by all and nobody can't live the life without it. What if I genuinely don't watch tv programs through my mobile phone nor my laptop, would I still be liable and if so, for what at exactly?

It is proposed as a broadcasting charge, not a TV licence.

OK, the current licence provides funding for RTE and others to provide certain services including news, current affairs, drama, two orchestras, TG4, plus many cultural events. The new proposal, as far as is known, is to cover those who consume media using devices not covered by the current legislation.

You may currently not travel by public transport, but that does not stop some of the taxes being spent on subsidising it. You may not speak Irish, but there you go. Not everything is directed just for you.

Just one of the terms and conditions of living in Ireland.

paleoperson · 02-08-2019 8:34pm

Sagitt wrote: »

I'm not happy at all. I don't have TV and currently don't pay TV licence legally. Now, here is this assumption that tv is such great thing desired by all and nobody can't live the life without it. What if I genuinely don't watch tv programs through my mobile phone nor my laptop, would I still be liable and if so, for what at exactly?

Actually if that were the case then they would just take it from tax money. They do this for lots of things - for example libraries, education, radio. It doesn't matter if you personally use them or not. Maybe they should just do that for the tv licence to be honest, it would put an end to a regressive tax and stop this inspector game of grab-ass that I don't even want to think about how much it costs, to send people out all the time.

Sagitt · 02-08-2019 9:40pm

Call it broadcasting tax and I'd have no problem paying it. But then detatch RTÉ from it and distribute to other content providers. Government wants to capture all households but is afraid to call it 'tax'.

YFlyer · 02-08-2019 9:50pm

dulpit wrote: »

There would realistically be very very few people without a TV, smart phone, computer, laptop or tablet. So the basis would (presumably) be an assumption that you have one, but have some sort of opt-out (e.g. self-declaration) or similar. But then there could be higher penalties if found out after opting out that you do indeed have some device.

If you have neither of those devices yet have a radio. Wonder would you still be expected to pay?

Apogee · 03-08-2019 12:24pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Another method of collecting the charge is by using ESB Networks - If there is an ESB connection, then the charge is on the bill. €160 per year is €13.34 per month, which is not huge. If the customer gets the SW electricity allowance, then the charge would be waived.

Dee Forbes also pushing for this approach.

Dee Forbes RTE wrote:

"This has happened in other markets. Italy had a very positive collection rate. They linked it to electricity and compliance was at such a level they ended up reducing the licence fee."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/add-new-broadcast-charge-onto-household-utility-bills-rt-chief-dee-forbes-38370891.html

Bob24 · 03-08-2019 12:31pm

Apogee wrote: »

Dee Forbes also pushing for this approach.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/add-new-broadcast-charge-onto-household-utility-bills-rt-chief-dee-forbes-38370891.html

Saw that in the morning - she’s trying to get as much cash as she can and to turn this into a levy everyone pays no matter what but which is not a tax or a licence and goes straight to RTÉ. Only advantages from her perspective: it would expend the collection base but also limit any type of government/public oversight on what is done with the money.

Sam Russell · 03-08-2019 12:37pm

Apogee wrote: »

Dee Forbes also pushing for this approach.

Originally Posted by Dee Forbes RTE
"This has happened in other markets. Italy had a very positive collection rate. They linked it to electricity and compliance was at such a level they ended up reducing the licence fee."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/add-new-broadcast-charge-onto-household-utility-bills-rt-chief-dee-forbes-38370891.html

Well, if you do the sums:

Current collection by An Post: cost =5%.
Current (est) non liability = 5%
Current evasion rate (est) = 15 to 25%

So current yield = €160 - 5% -5% -15% = €122.74.

So a Household Broadcasting Charge on the region of €12/month would be less for those that pay, and for the few that are not liability, it is only a small imposition, but they get some benefits from other aspects of broadcasting.

Remember, the Gov are proposing €3 billion be spent on bringing fibre broadband to the rural areas not covered currently (but not spending anything for the urban dwellers that do not have it). Perhaps they should add a charge to this proposed levy to help pay for that.

Why should the general taxation be liable to provide Netflix, social media access and Twitter feeds for rural dwellers? Surely a decent mobile signal should be enough.

Stop moaning ffs · 03-08-2019 12:51pm

Not to derail but in no universe are the salaries of hosts and presenters in RTÉ justified. It’s not like there’s competition that can offer them competitive rates of pay. There isn’t.

If you saw the salaries cut to realistic levels you’d see a huge amount of people more willing to pay.

And can we drop the advertising on RTÉ after this? The iplayer is abysmally bad for constant ads in particular.

the dark phantom · 03-08-2019 12:52pm

The fear is big on this thread

Stop moaning ffs · 03-08-2019 1:23pm

the dark phantom wrote: »

The fear is big on this thread

Not really.
RTÉ isn’t fit for purpose on any single front. Maybe parts of radio 1.
The rest of it?
If we’re going to be forced to pay for something it’s completely reasonable to expect it be worthwhile and value for money. It isn’t at all currently and has never been.
If and when this charge happens it really has to be.

Bob24 · 03-08-2019 1:35pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Not really.
RTÉ isn’t fit for purpose on any single front. Maybe parts of radio 1.
The rest of it?
If we’re going to be forced to pay for something it’s completely reasonable to expect it be worthwhile and value for money. It isn’t at all currently and has never been.
If and when this charge happens it really has to be.

Agree and I think this is why the new fee structure will be scrapped.

Management at RTÉ and politicians will quickly realise that discussions on the new fee structure inevitably bring scrutiny and criticism of the public service RTÉ delivers (or fails to deliver), which opens a can of worms for them.

political analyst · 03-08-2019 1:36pm

Why won't the government provide an exemption from the new charge for those people who can prove they have neither TV nor the internet?

political analyst · 03-08-2019 1:38pm

YFlyer wrote: »

If you have neither of those devices yet have a radio. Wonder would you still be expected to pay?

If they were still expected to pay then what about those people abroad who listen to RTÉ radio on the internet?

political analyst · 03-08-2019 1:41pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is proposed as a broadcasting charge, not a TV licence.

OK, the current licence provides funding for RTE and others to provide certain services including news, current affairs, drama, two orchestras, TG4, plus many cultural events. The new proposal, as far as is known, is to cover those who consume media using devices not covered by the current legislation.

You may currently not travel by public transport, but that does not stop some of the taxes being spent on subsidising it. You may not speak Irish, but there you go. Not everything is directed just for you.

Just one of the terms and conditions of living in Ireland.

The difference is that those things are funded by income tax, aren't they?

By the way, people who chose to use public transport buy tickets to be able to use it. So that comparison doesn't apply to the broadcast charge discussion.

Sam Russell · 03-08-2019 1:51pm

political analyst wrote: »

The difference is that those things are funded by income tax, aren't they?

By the way, people who chose to use public transport buy tickets to be able to use it. So that comparison doesn't apply to the broadcast charge discussion.

Nothing is exclusively funded by income tax. All taxation goes into a big pot and is doled out by various ministers and agencies as decided by the budget and various votes in the Dail. Some things are funded from ring fenced 'taxes' or charges, but most is just from general taxation.

Public transport is funded by the fare box and by various subsidies, just as RTE is funded by their share of the TV Licence and by advertising revenue. Not a lot of difference.

Bob24 · 03-08-2019 2:11pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Public transport is funded by the fare box and by various subsidies, just as RTE is funded by their share of the TV Licence and by advertising revenue. Not a lot of difference.

I think it does make a significant difference: in one case funding partly depends on members of the public directly and voluntarily paying to access the service, and thus actively and strongly confirming they see value in it. This does give the service more direct legitimacy from the public in terms of the value it delivers.

Now not all public services need that direct legitimacy (essential services such as policing, education, fire protection, justice, etc don’t) and people can argue RTÉ falls in that category (which I would disagree with), but in any case that is a clear difference.

Another obvious difference is that if you take two otherwise similar taxpayers with one using public transport everyday and the other one never using it, while both are chipping in through general taxation the person who is using the service everyday is expected to make a significantly larger financial contribution towards it than the one never using it (by buying tickets). Whereas if the first person never watches RTÉ and the second one watches it everyday, they are still both expected to contribute equally so as opposed to public transport the total contribution amount doesn’t depend on usage whatsoever.

Sam Russell · 03-08-2019 2:49pm

Bob24 wrote: »

I think it does make a significant difference: in one case funding partly depends on members of the public directly and voluntarily paying to access the service, and thus actively and strongly confirming they see value in it. This does give the service more direct legitimacy from the public in terms of the value it delivers.

Now not all public services need that direct legitimacy (essential services such as policing, education, fire protection, justice, etc don’t) and people can argue RTÉ falls in that category (which I would disagree with), but in any case that is a clear difference.

Another obvious difference is that if you take two otherwise similar taxpayers with one using public transport everyday and the other one never using it, while both are chipping in through general taxation the person who is using the service everyday is expected to make a significantly larger financial contribution towards it than the one never using it (by buying tickets). Whereas if the first person never watches RTÉ and the second one watches it everyday, they are still both expected to contribute equally so as opposed to public transport the total contribution amount doesn’t depend on usage whatsoever.

Well, that is one view.

However, if the funding of RTE was by general taxation, how many Governments would tend to cut RTE funding when they showed the Gov in a bad light? RTE funding must be ring fenced to protect democracy.

Already the Gov have reduced RTE funding by diverting licence fee money to TG4, independent producers, BAI, etc. They have also refused to increase the Licence fee for a decade.

Whether yo watch RTE or not is irrelevant as far as the legislation is concerned, and in fact the TV licence predates RTE. If you own a TV, then you must pay the licence fee.

By the way, I have no personal interest in RTE or the licence fee, just I do not want undemocratic interference in the media. The 'stars' in RTE are paid way over what is reasonable and are 'stars' just because they are on RTE. How hard is it to read the news?

Bob24 · 03-08-2019 2:58pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, if the funding of RTE was by general taxation, how many Governments would tend to cut RTE funding when they showed the Gov in a bad light? RTE funding must be ring fenced to protect democracy.

I agree with this in principle. However I don’t think it is currently working in practice in Ireland.

The problem being that while RTÉ should not be accountable to any government, it still should be accountable to the public.

And currently the need to be independent of government influence is actually used as an excuse to operate with public money and without any accountability to the overall public (one exemple: the editorial team should include people who thing very differently from each other and represent the variety of opinions in the country, but since everyone in there tends to come from the same social and ideological circles this is not the case whatsoever).

Sam Russell · 03-08-2019 3:05pm

Bob24 wrote: »

I agree with this in principle. However I don’t think it is currently working in practice in Ireland.

The problem being that while RTÉ should not be accountable to any government, it still should be accountable to the public.

And currently the need to be independent of government influence is actually used as an excuse to operate with public money and without any accountability to the overall public.

Well, that is where the BAI comes in. If there is a lack of accountability, then beef up the BAI. But RTE is not the only broadcaster or media producer to benefit from Licence Fee income.

Bob24 · 03-08-2019 3:11pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, that is where the BAI comes in. If there is a lack of accountability, then beef up the BAI.

I’d be very happy with a public consultation to clearly redefine RTÉ’s mission statement in terms of what type of programmes it should favour and how it should represent the variety of opinions in the country within its editorial staff, with then strong power and public accountability for the BAI to enforced these. In exchange of broadening the TV licence collection.

But I honestly doubt RTÉ would be happy with that deal (or that many politicians would dare pushing it forward given the can of worms it would be).

And until this is happening, RTÉ still does have the legitimacy issue I was talking about. And as I was saying I think this is why the new fee will never happen (the more people talk about it, the more RTÉ’s legitimacy will be questioned with no good answers to those questions).

Sam Russell · 03-08-2019 3:20pm

Bob24 wrote: »

I’d be very happy with a public consultation to clearly redefine RTɒs mission statement in terms of what type of programmes it should favour and how it should represent the variety of opinions in the country within its editorial staff, with then strong power and public accountability for the BAI to enforced these. In exchange of broadening the TV licence collection.

But I honestly doubt RTÉ would be happy with that deal (or that many politicians would dare pushing it forward given the can of worms it would be).

And until this is happening, RTÉ still does have the legitimacy issue I was talking about.

Well, that is a political view. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who would guard the guards?) It does not work like that.

Bob24 · 03-08-2019 3:34pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, that is a political view. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who would guard the guards?) It does not work like that.

How is it a political view?

Sam Russell · 03-08-2019 4:49pm

Bob24 wrote: »

How is it a political view?

Politics is based on a question of legitimacy. If you agree with me, then that is legitimate and that is fine, otherwise, you are being political.

See what I did there?

Bob24 · 03-08-2019 5:34pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you agree with me, then that is legitimate and that is fine, otherwise, you are being political.

See what I did there?

Agree this is indeed what you did in your previous post - but isn’t it more personal disagreement that public legitimacy you are referring to here?

There is such thing as being legitimate to the general public and it is separate from personal agreements and political opinions. For exemple a TD is legitimate because they have won an election and are only handed power for a limited time until they need to either leave or renew that public vote of confidence. It doesn’t mean everyone politically agrees with that particular TD, but people accept all TDs as legitimate because overall they feel the Dail is representative of the diversity of opinions in the country. To say it simply: there might be TDs in the Dail I always disagree with and which I even consider my political enemies, but I still find them completely legitimate because I know that 1) they do represent a good chunk of voter’s opinions and 2) there are other TDs in the Dail which broadly represent my opinions (assuming a few percents of voters do share those opinions).

Now with that in mind, to be legitimate to me RTÉ certainly doesn’t need to only hire journalists I agree with or to always say things I agree with (doing that who actually ruin their public legitimacy as many people who think differently from me would feel their views are never represented by the public broadcaster). What matters for public legitimacy is not that a member of public always agrees with what RTÉ says or with the politic opinion of all RTÉ journalist. What matter is that most people feel RTÉ is representative of the diversity of opinions across the county, including their own opinion. And as I said I think we are far from it. To be fair this is not an issue specific to Ireland though.

Sam Russell · 03-08-2019 6:09pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Agree this is indeed what you did in your previous post - but isn’t it more personal disagreement that public legitimacy you are referring to here?

There is such thing as being legitimate to the general public and it is separate from personal agreements and political opinions. For exemple a TD is legitimate because they have won an election and are only handed power for a limited time until they need to either leave or renew that public vote of confidence. It doesn’t mean everyone politically agrees with that particular TD, but people accept all TDs as legitimate because overall they feel the Dail is representative of the diversity of opinions in the country. To say it simply: there might be TDs in the Dail I always disagree with and which I even consider my political enemies, but I still find them completely legitimate because I know that 1) they do represent a good chunk of voter’s opinions and 2) there are other TDs in the Dail which broadly represent my opinions (assuming a few percents of voters do share those opinions).

Now with that in mind, to be legitimate to me RTÉ certainly doesn’t need to only hire journalists I agree with or to always say things I agree with (doing that who actually ruin their public legitimacy as many people who think differently from me would feel their views are never represented by the public broadcaster). What matters for public legitimacy is not that a member of public always agrees with what RTÉ says or with the politic opinion of a specific RTÉ journalist. What matter is that most people feel RTÉ is representative of the diversity of opinions across the county, including their own opinion. And as I said I think we are far from it. To be fair this is not an issue specific to Ireland though.

Or even this thread.

Bob24 · 03-08-2019 6:32pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Or even this thread.

Sure it could also be discussed on other threads, but it is relevant here and has been recurrent on the TV licence thread (I remember multiple discussions over the past few years) because when you are asking people to contribute to a public broadcaster through a TV licence, it is natural for the public to then question how legitimate that broadcaster is and what value it is delivering to the overall population.

This stuff usually goes under the radar most of the time because people have other things to think about, and then tends to resurface when anything related to TV licences appears in the media (such as the proposed new broadcasting charge this week, but 2 years ago we had the same type of discussions when the head of RTE suggested the TV licence cost should be increased).

TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

Comments