Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
False claim by TV licence inspector
Comments
-
Of course he would because there is no risk. He can just maintain that he saw a TV.
There is a risk, if he lies under oath in a court then he is liable for serious penalties.
You missed the point - the TV inspector doesn't make the declaration that uou don't have a TV, you do. I haven't been through the procedure but even if he says I don't see a TV here you may be asked to declare that yourself as a fact in writing to him/her.So it is in your own interest to record/video the conversation so that you have proof.
Great.You can buy a security light that mimics a television.This must be why some people have their aerial in the loft
Perhaps so but many people put an aerial in their loft to avoid having to pay an installer to go up on their roof or that they don't like a big aerial sitting on their roof.And they can be very difficult to get corrected if the inspector insists that you have a TV. How can you prove that you don't have something - apart from an illness ?
The simple answer to a lot of these problems like unwelcome callers is either automatic gates (expensive) or a simple PIR alarm to alert you if someone enters your property (cheap).
At the end of the day far less people would avoid the license if they thought that it was fair. Just as we can buy various Sat & Cable receivers you should be able to buy a unit that cannot receive RTE & then be excused the license fee.
As previously said, the purpose of TV inspector is to inspect. They are not a court of law. They can still write to you and require a declaration if you decide to turn your house into Fort Knox.
As regards the licence being fair, that's another arguement but Ireland is not unique in having one.ayla wrote:If we don't want RTE, we shouldn't have to pay for it.
I have to pay sick smokers and alcos in hospital through taxes. I'd rather not, how do I opt out?This smacks of "guilty until proven innocent" and could easily be avoided if the inspector tried to do their job properly (i.e. establish first hand if a TV set is in use on the premises by speaking with and/or inspecting the premises in the correct way)
Irish people are always funny with their legal melodramas. There's no guilty until proven guilty as it's an inspector that has called. That's what they are doing inspecting and by the sounds of it they seem to get it more right than wrong. What would be the right way of inspecting an premises?0 -
-
-
-
Ms Minnie Mouse wrote: »Hmmm. I do get your point but I'm sure the inspectors are intelligent enough to realise what a serious offence lying under oath is - lets face it, I'm not sure that anyone would happily place themselves at risk of prosecution just to please their employers (well, okay, maybe some would but not most average wage workers!)
...you could always say, when asked to prove that you didn't have a TV, "show me the evidence that I did!"
He doesn't have to show evidence - that is the whole point. His word is taken as the truth. All he has to do is say that he saw a TV so how is he taking any risk by lying ? Unless there was a witness with him at the moment he viewed the TV he cannot be accused of lying.
The only possibility might be if one could produce witnesses that were in your house at the time the inspector called. Or perhaps a repair man who says that he took the TV away for repair - but even then you could of got another one.
Another possibility would be to argue that he saw you watching a computer monitor but I can guess who's version of event the Judge is going to believe.
One amusing aside is that they have never taken anyone to Court in the UK on the basis of a detector van because they would have to reveal how the system works & it's a closely guarded secret - does it really work at all ?
0 -
-
Ms Minnie Mouse wrote: »How many cases have there been where innocent members of the public have been falsely prosecuted due to false evidence provided by licence inspectors? Is there any case law or does anyone have any direct experience (and not my friend's auntie's lover's cat's brother...)? I'd be interested to see just how often licence inspectors give false evidence in a court and whether this is as prevalent a problem as this thread seems to suggest.
There won't be any because as I have already said it would be virtually impossible to prove that the inspector lied. I am sure that, if you asked people leaving Court, some would say that they were innocent ...... but they could be lying
0 -
I am also sure there'd be something in the press. Or, in fact, someone on here would know of someone.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is all theoretical and hasn't happened? Unless someone provides me with the proof that it has...
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
He doesn't have to show evidence - that is the whole point. His word is taken as the truth. All he has to do is say that he saw a TV so how is he taking any risk by lying ? Unless there was a witness with him at the moment he viewed the TV he cannot be accused of lying.
The only possibility might be if one could produce witnesses that were in your house at the time the inspector called. Or perhaps a repair man who says that he took the TV away for repair - but even then you could of got another one.
Another possibility would be to argue that he saw you watching a computer monitor but I can guess who's version of event the Judge is going to believe.
One amusing aside is that they have never taken anyone to Court in the UK on the basis of a detector van because they would have to reveal how the system works & it's a closely guarded secret - does it really work at all ?
This is really going around in circles.
Inspectors target premises that have no licences. They look for signs or evidence of the possible presence of a TV set. They then ask the owner to make a declaration one way or the other. This is pretty straightforward stuff and a no brainer. They are not prosecuting just inspecting.
Once you are asked to declare then that's when you can land yourself in bother.
I would point out that if a case goes to court it is a serious matter. The inspector may be called as a witness to the prosecution. If the inspector knowingly tells a lie then he/she is committing perjury. The penalties for this are potentially greater than the penalty for not having a licence. No right thinking inspector will risk that. Nor is a case going to be taken where there is insufficient evidence.
The TV detector vans are regarded as a PR stunt. However, if they did work as advertised they were probably picking up the electromagnetic signature of the set when it was switched on. Legal standards (CE marking) and the proliferation of TV's means that detection via a van is probably nigh on impossible these days. Plus I'd say the signature from plasma/lcd/leds are very low. If you recall that in Dublin, there used to be a system of detectors picking up what radio stations were being listened to by passing cars in the 90s early '00s. Probably a more sensitive version of this.
Don't know if RTE ever had one or pretended to have one a detector van? Or was that Wanderly Wagon?0 -
-
One amusing aside is that they have never taken anyone to Court in the UK on the basis of a detector van because they would have to reveal how the system works & it's a closely guarded secret - does it really work at all ?
Reminds me of the old joke about the TV licence inspector who calls to a home just as the lady of the house is going out to the shops. She tells him as she passes that the licence is behind the clock on the mantlepiece and to ask her husband to show it to him.
He rings the bell and the husband comes to the door:
"May I see your TV licence please sir? It's behind the clock on the mantlepiece"
"Bloody hell, how d'you know that?? What have you got in that van??!!"0 -
-
I wouldn't bother replying any more. I'd wait for them to issue a summons. When that comes, off you trot to court. Hit them with the evidence. When that happens, An Post will look seriously stupid. The case will then be struck out (I assume!).
Then make an application to have your costs paid!
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Advertisement