Tv Licence Inspectors going house to house

Pawwed Rig

It is only a crime if a court decides it is a crime. Until then the onus is on An Post to 1) Find out my name and 2) Determine whether or not I have a TV in the house. When they ascertain both of these things I will contribute my portion of Pat Kenny's wages. Until then I will not.
Show me any other country (other than Uk) where a private corporation is allowed to collect taxes under the threat of fines and imprisonment. It is an unjust charge for a below standard product.
If I pay bin charges and am not happy with my provider I can switch, if I get Sky and am not happy I can switch to UPC etc etc

RTE is the last of the government/private monopolies and the sooner it is brought down the better. What is there on RTE you admire so much? They don't fulfill their public interest mandate. All the hard talking shows (like Questions & Answers and Prime Time) are gone or a shadow of what they used to be. The evening slots are dominated by below standard presenters. The sports can be viewed elsewhere. The News is completely sanitised and if I want the real story I need to access a broad sheet or another (foreign) news channel. RTE is a creaking relic of a 1060's Ireland where people had 1 or 2 channels.

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is only a crime if a court decides it is a crime. Until then the onus is on An Post to 1) Find out my name and 2) Determine whether or not I have a TV in the house. When they ascertain both of these things I will contribute my portion of Pat Kenny's wages. Until then I will not.
Show me any other country (other than Uk) where a private corporation is allowed to collect taxes under the threat of fines and imprisonment. It is an unjust charge for a below standard product.
If I pay bin charges and am not happy with my provider I can switch, if I get Sky and am not happy I can switch to UPC etc etc

RTE is the last of the government/private monopolies and the sooner it is brought down the better. What is there on RTE you admire so much? They don't fulfill their public interest mandate. All the hard talking shows (like Questions & Answers and Prime Time) are gone or a shadow of what they used to be. The evening slots are dominated by below standard presenters. The sports can be viewed elsewhere. The News is completely sanitised and if I want the real story I need to access a broad sheet or another (foreign) news channel. RTE is a creaking relic of a 1060's Ireland where people had 1 or 2 channels.

again...in your opinion.

To be honest I think they do serve the public good. Yes I agree that maybe they pay some of their stars too much but overall they provide a decent public service. A hell of a lot better then most of the "for profit" organisations.
I for one would not like the US model which is what you seem to favour. No?

Pawwed Rig

For example...........

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

For example...........

Look if all we have is private TV organisations like TV3 then we could end up getting our news based on their owners political persuasions ala the USA where the three main networks are privately owned and PBS has to do a lot to fundraise. We're a big country with a small population (in proportion) and look at how our print and radio media is dominated by only a few players. You will disagree but I prefer the current status quo to a complete over hall where RTE must fend for themselves. It's not perfect but no system is.

Pawwed Rig

That would be fine if RTE actually gave a different point of view to the other media outlets, however their news reporting is always pro establishment and never really questions the fundamentals which (although I am not a fan) Vincent Browne does on TV3. For example the Brian Dobson interviews with Bertie Aherne were a disgrace. Also as the national broadcaster they should have been warning people about the crisis coming but instead we got Pat Kenny on frontline asking nice little questions not making the guests too uncomfortable.

1 example even?

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That would be fine if RTE actually gave a different point of view to the other media outlets, however their news reporting is always pro establishment and never really questions the fundamentals which (although I am not a fan) Vincent Browne does on TV3. For example the Brian Dobson interviews with Bertie Aherne were a disgrace. Also as the national broadcaster they should have been warning people about the crisis coming but instead we got Pat Kenny on frontline asking nice little questions not making the guests too uncomfortable.

1 example even?

Pro establishment? Whenever they've screwed up (as any news organisation can) the "establishment" you say they support end up gunning for them. Funny how the establishment heads did not roll when they faced similar screw ups. On the crisis did you not here George Lee warning for years?

Good article here too: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0830/1224323261440.html

Pawwed Rig

Not sure what point you are trying to make with that article. It seems like a good argument for closing down RTE 2.
“RTÉ Two is a pure entertainment channel – it is our direct competitor in TV3,” he noted, arguing that this loss-making competitor “destroys the market”, and threatens to undermine TV3, which would be “absolutely flying” in any other European market.
Here, TV3 turns a profit but, along the way, there have been compulsory redundancies, pay cuts and an effective €81 million write-off on a loan from the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation – or what McRedmond references as “the pragmatic view” of its lenders. For TV3’s venture capitalist owners Doughty Hanson, regulatory reform is a dish best served immediately.


Compare the amount of airtime they gave the naysayers compared to to the FF/FG establishment.


1 example???

cookie1977

1 eaxmplae of what. Selectively quoting sections of the article from a competitors point of view don't really support your arguements.

cookie1977

I've heard more of sinn fein on both the TV and radio then I ever have before. Why because they're a large opposition now. We're not going to agree on this but it still boils down to the fact that if you have a tv that can receive a signal and don't pay the licence fee you're robbing from the rest of us that do (as mentioned previously). Your position would receive more support from within then outside.

Pawwed Rig

cookie1977 wrote: »

1 eaxmplae of what.

Of where they serve the public good.

cookie1977 wrote: »

Selectively quoting sections of the article from a competitors point of view don't really support your arguments.

I read the whole article and it seems to come down in favour of getting rid of RTE 2 citing over runs on expenditure and heavy losses, stunting competition etc etc. You posted the article but it seems to go against your point completely???

Using emotive phrases like "robbing the rest of us" is easy to do but it is a fee I don't agree with for the reasons I listed. And it is not a tax as you keep saying, it is a licence fee which is completely outdated and irrelevant in a modern communications environment.

I have no problem with you paying the charge as you are getting a service you feel is worth the money (with zero examples to date as to why). So why would you have an issue with me NOT paying for a service which I do not want to receive (and don't receive).

cookie1977 wrote: »

Fine with me. But until then how about everyone just pays their legally mandated taxes like me.

I do pay my taxes. All of them, including the ones many don't pay and tbh there are few people in this state if really investigated would be found to be wholly tax compliant when considering the subjective nature of many issues in tax legislation, I am thinking here of declaration of gifts received, the money in the hand that many have gotten at one time or the other, the people who bought houses during the boom who declared a certain price but actually paid a different price. TV licence is NOT a tax in that it has nothing to do with Revenue. It is a charge by a private corporation given mandate by govt.

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Of where they serve the public good.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0110/rafterym1.html

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I read the whole article and it seems to come down in favour of getting rid of RTE 2 citing over runs on expenditure and heavy losses, stunting competition etc etc. You posted the article but it seems to go against your point completely???

I dont believe it does as all those that are calling for RTE 2 to close is their direct competition. Of course, a reliable source.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Using emotive phrases like "robbing the rest of us" is easy to do but it is a fee I don't agree with for the reasons I listed. And it is not a tax as you keep saying, it is a licence fee which is completely outdated and irrelevant in a modern communications environment.

It's not an "optional" licence fee if you have a TV that receives a signal. So those that dont pay it and are supposed to are stealing from the state which includes me.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I have no problem with you paying the charge as you are getting a service you feel is worth the money (with zero examples to date as to why). So why would you have an issue with me NOT paying for a service which I do not want to receive (and don't receive).

I wish we could all opt out of what we're supposed to pay like some do. As I said if people dont like it pay it in the mean time and then they should fight for what they want until they get it. Otherwise it's just plain wrong. Others are subsidising those that dont pay, unfairly so.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I do pay my taxes. All of them, including the ones many don't pay and tbh there are few people in this state if really investigated would be found to be wholly tax compliant when considering the subjective nature of many issues in tax legislation, I am thinking here of declaration of gifts received, the money in the hand that many have gotten at one time or the other, the people who bought houses during the boom who declared a certain price but actually paid a different price. TV licence is NOT a tax in that it has nothing to do with Revenue. It is a charge by a private corporation given mandate by govt.

Did I say you dont pay your taxes? The state uses An Post to collect the licence fee. Neither the state, An Post nor RTE are private corporations.

Pawwed Rig

cookie1977 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0110/rafterym1.html

Thank you. Yes that was once instance where they did something decent. Surely they should be doing this on an ongoing basis. Where are the current affairs programmes, consumer rights programmes, the political analysis etc etc. We see all of these on the BBC

cookie1977 wrote: »

I dont believe it does as all those that are calling for RTE 2 to close is their direct competition. Of course, a reliable source.

Irish Times is a reliable source (generally anyway). The printed facts

Some €31.21 out of each licence fee paid goes on RTÉ Two – it costs more than all of RTÉ’s radio services put together. It accounts for 24 per cent of RTÉ’s share of the licence fee, receiving €43.7 million last year.
However, it spends almost €63 million on making programmes, with outlays including €11.4 million on imports and €10.1 million on transmission costing a further €25.2 million.
This results in a deficit on its public service activities of €44.5 million. But with just a commercial contribution of €26.9 million, the channel wound up with a net deficit of €17.6 million last year, making it the single largest reason that the broadcaster recorded an overall net deficit of €16.8 million.

This is the author writing. Not TV3's opinion. I would say it is not a great article but it is your source.

cookie1977 wrote: »

It's not an "optional" licence fee if you have a TV that receives a signal. So those that dont pay it and are supposed to are stealing from the state which includes me.

That is a contradictory statement. It is not optional IF you have a TV that receives a signal. So it is optional IF I do not have a TV that receives a signal. Or in my case until An Post inform me (by name) that I need to pay this. I am under no obligation to read letters that are not addressed to me.

cookie1977 wrote: »

I wish we could all opt out of what we're supposed to pay like some do.

You can. Don't pay and accept the consequences like I am doing.

cookie1977 wrote: »

As I said if people dont like it pay it in the mean time and then they should fight for what they want until they get it. Otherwise it's just plain wrong. Others are subsidising those that dont pay, unfairly so.

In your opinion. You want me to subsidise RTE for you to watch? And you talk about it being unfair?

cookie1977 wrote: »

Did I say you dont pay your taxes? The state uses An Post to collect the licence fee. Neither the state, An Post nor RTE are private corporations.

Both semi State in that the employees are not civil servants. You keep talking about licence fee as a tax and saying those that don't pay are breaking the law so Yes you did say I don't pay my taxes.

cookie1977

This is getting pointless. Final thoughts. If you have a TV you have to pay the licence. If you dont you're breaking the law. In your case you choose to plead ignorant and that's your prerogative and what ever happens will happen. Maybe you'll be caught maybe you wont but it still means you're breaking the law. Your arguments are very weak on this whole topic. You continually point to semantics while avoiding the glaringly obvious problems with your views. You asked for one example I gave it to you. If I gave you another 20 (which to be honest I could) you'd have lots of fun nitpicking. There's absolutely nothing I could say that you would acknowledge as right. But you did ask for a consumer show, well surprise surprise RTE have one:

http://www.rte.ie/tv/theconsumershow/index.html

foggy_lad

I will take and accept rte2 and their expensive schedule any day over the absolute sh1te that passes for broadcasting on tv3!

How do they get away with stuff like that awful Irish psychics live show or the other phone-in gambling programs they used to show? We're they not slapped down recently because that psychics show was breaking the broadcasting rules, discussing people's health and other breaches?

Pawwed Rig

cookie1977 wrote: »

This is getting pointless. Final thoughts. If you have a TV you have to pay the licence. If you dont you're breaking the law. In your case you choose to plead ignorant and that's your prerogative and what ever happens will happen. Maybe you'll be caught maybe you wont but it still means you're breaking the law. Your arguments are very weak on this whole topic. You continually point to semantics while avoiding the glaringly obvious problems with your views. You asked for one example I gave it to you. If I gave you another 20 (which to be honest I could) you'd have lots of fun nitpicking. There's absolutely nothing I could say that you would acknowledge as right. But you did ask for a consumer show, well surprise surprise RTE have one:

http://www.rte.ie/tv/theconsumershow/index.html

1) I never plead ignorant
2) I said I will pay it when An Post ask for it.
3) I have made arguments on this topic which you ignored whereas I addressed all of your arguments.
4) I thanked you for your 1 example. (I had to ask 4 times for this 1 example from 2009)
5) And I am aware of that consumer show which has the following feedback
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056551060

A TV licence inspector was out here earlier (Fairview) - they left a calling card for two of the apartments in the building. So it seems they're around, though I didn't get the leaflet mentioned in the OP.

yosser hughes

Karsini wrote: »

A TV licence inspector was out here earlier (Fairview) - they left a calling card for two of the apartments in the building. So it seems they're around, though I didn't get the leaflet mentioned in the OP.

These leaflets were in all the letterboxes of my apartment building this morning.
Kilmainham area.
What's the point in warning people you're coming?

Pawwed Rig

yosser hughes wrote: »

These leaflets were in all the letterboxes of my apartment building this morning.
Kilmainham area.
What's the point in warning people you're coming?

It is a campaign of harrassment similar to what is done in UK (look up youtube). They will keep calling and leaving letters getting progressively more threatening.
When An Post got their licence to continue the collection of the TV licence money renewed it was on condition that they reduce the non compliance rate by 1% per annum (it is currently running at circa 12% nationally). To reduce this non compliance rate requires greater enforcement and a much more aggressive approach to collection.

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is a campaign of harrassment similar to what is done in UK (look up youtube). They will keep calling and leaving letters getting progressively more threatening.
When An Post got their licence to continue the collection of the TV licence money renewed it was on condition that they reduce the non compliance rate by 1% per annum (it is currently running at circa 12% nationally). To reduce this non compliance rate requires greater enforcement and a much more aggressive approach to collection.

How is it a campaign of harassment? If you've a TV and a TV licence you're are compliant with the law. If you dont you are not compliant with the law. Period.

You're posts are beginning to sound a little crazy.

cookie1977

I for one applaud the efforts of the Government via An Post to collect what's owed to them. Why should I have to pay higher TV licence fees because of people like you deciding what laws you abide by and what ones you choose to ignore? If you pay your TV licence and the law requires there's no "harassment" (your words not mine).

As I said before, if you paid the licence and moaned about it I could probably agree with a some of your points but plain and simple you are breaking the law. You can spin it what ever way you like to make yourself more comfortable with the decision but it doesn't matter. You're still breaking the law.

Pawwed Rig

Not really. Did you check out the youtube clips I suggested? An Post have to reduce non compliance by 1% per annum. To do this they need to be more aggressive with people who are not complying whether that be notes, knocking on doors, letter threatening court, snooping around houses. How else can they reduce the non compliance?

We get it. You are happy to pay the licence and think everyone should. I accept your point but do not agree with it. I believe people should stand up where they see injustice whether that be the household charge, bin charges or whatever new charges will be on us after the budget. Maybe you think people who stand up for themselves are crazy whereas I see it as a matter of principle.

Lantus

160 per year to keep 1,900 people in full time employment. Some of them incredibly well paid indeed. Its more like a union that provides some light entertainment when you think about it.

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not really. Did you check out the youtube clips I suggested? An Post have to reduce non compliance by 1% per annum. To do this they need to be more aggressive with people who are not complying whether that be notes, knocking on doors, letter threatening court, snooping around houses. How else can they reduce the non compliance?

We get it. You are happy to pay the licence and think everyone should. I accept your point but do not agree with it. I believe people should stand up where they see injustice whether that be the household charge, bin charges or whatever new charges will be on us after the budget. Maybe you think people who stand up for themselves are crazy whereas I see it as a matter of principle.

If the people obeyed the law there would be no harrassment.

No I dont people who stand up for themselves are crazy at all. I disagree with lots of things but I feel that while they are law they should be obeyed and that by working from within the law you may convince more people of the wrongs of what ever the issue is and thus get it over turned. But how can you convince people a law is bad by not obeying it. You'll always get opposing views on things. Just look at the household charge. You mention bin charges which are another divisive issue.

If we all stop paying for things we just disagree with then we'll never get out of this rut.

I actually agree with the tv licence law and think it's actually value for money. Ok I think RTE do pay a lot of money to some of their staff (Stars) but overall it's not the worst law out there.

trumi

quick question:

I don't have TV. I have and use Radio. Should I pay TV license?

foggy_lad

trumi wrote: »

quick question:

I don't have TV. I have and use Radio. Should I pay TV license?

No, there was a time that radios had to be licenced and there was a different rate for colour and monochrome television sets but afaik the requirement to have radios licenced was dropped the last time the leglislation was updated.

charlemont

shane. wrote: »

just pay the bloody licence fee................

no never

syklops

foggy_lad wrote: »

No, there was a time that radios had to be licenced and there was a different rate for colour and monochrome television sets but afaik the requirement to have radios licenced was dropped the last time the leglislation was updated.

The last time my dad went down to get the dog license, he asked them could he pay less as it was a black and white dog. It didnt go down too well.

Pkiernan

They stopped coming round here for some reason...

monkeysnapper

At my work I was told by law everyone has to fill in the form when buying a tv, NOW... I was also told their name can be bloody mickey mouse , that's not our job to fight it over with customer, ...

Quandary

Had another visit from the TV licence inspector a knock knocking on my door. Once again, refusing to answer the door has defeated him

Living in an apartment has some advantages!

By not answering the door over the last 5 years, we have saved between 800 and 900 Euros!

Not by the hairs on my chinny chin chin Mr TV licence inspector, not by the hairs on my chinny chin fcuking chin