Tv Licence Inspectors going house to house

Yawns

They've heard all the excuses and none of them work. So I've stopped opening the door to give an excuse, that seems to be working.

rubadub

Quandary wrote: »

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

They reckon the evasion/theft rate is 12%. So only 88% of people are paying, this is one reason the fee is so high, they charge more to cover the thieves.

This €800 you effectively stole from the public purse can be broken down. Take 100 people, only 88% pay so thats €70,400 which covers the 100 people. If everybody paid it would need only be €704. So you have effectively stolen €96 from some decent person who does pay their, and your, share.

I find it confusing how people are seemingly proud of this.

cookie1977

rubadub wrote: »

They reckon the evasion/theft rate is 12%. So only 88% of people are paying, this is one reason the fee is so high, they charge more to cover the thieves.

This €800 you effectively stole from the public purse can be broken down. Take 100 people, only 88% pay so thats €70,400 which covers the 100 people. If everybody paid it would need only be €704. So you have effectively stolen €96 from some decent person who does pay their, and your, share.

I find it confusing how people are seemingly proud of this.

Dont forget, many of them are the same people giving out about our thieving politicians and greedy developers/banks etc...ad infinitum... Oh the hypocrisy.

Yawns

rubadub wrote: »

They reckon the evasion/theft rate is 12%. So only 88% of people are paying, this is one reason the fee is so high, they charge more to cover the thieves.

This €800 you effectively stole from the public purse can be broken down. Take 100 people, only 88% pay so thats €70,400 which covers the 100 people. If everybody paid it would need only be €704. So you have effectively stolen €96 from some decent person who does pay their, and your, share.

I find it confusing how people are seemingly proud of this.

If everybody paid for a tv licence and we achieved a 100% rate, do you honestly think they will decide to reduce the licence fee? If your answer is yes, I think you are wee bit naive. They would most likely decide to celebrate by giving Tubridy & co a pay rise imo.

admiralofthefleet

i keep getting letters for my house that im in the process of selling, there is no tv or electricity (the meter has been de-energised) so i presume im ok

handlemaster

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

i keep getting letters for my house that im in the process of selling, there is no tv or electricity (the meter has been de-energised) so i presume im ok

If you write to them and just say the house is vacant presently and is for sale this will suffice

Quandary

rubadub wrote: »

They reckon the evasion/theft rate is 12%. So only 88% of people are paying, this is one reason the fee is so high, they charge more to cover the thieves.

This €800 you effectively stole from the public purse can be broken down. Take 100 people, only 88% pay so thats €70,400 which covers the 100 people. If everybody paid it would need only be €704. So you have effectively stolen €96 from some decent person who does pay their, and your, share.

I find it confusing how people are seemingly proud of this.

I don't use RTE or any of the Irish broadcast channels therefore I refuse to pay this draconian fee. Why the hell should I??? because its the law???? Bollox to that. It is ridiculous to suggest that someone should have to pay for something that they don't want and will never use.

And for anyody to suggest that the licence fee would be reduced if payment avoidance was reduced to 0% is simply laughable.

Forcing the people to pay for things they do not want/need is despicably wrong. When I decide to start using the service I will purchase a licence, but until then I will continue to feel fine and dandy about avoiding it for as long as I possibly can.

cookie1977

People not paying their licences under the "I don't use it so I shouldn't have to pay for it" argument should really think through that whole idea.

Pawwed Rig

In fairness the only reasons you have come up with for paying the fee is 'Because it is the law' (which you have said over and over again) and because YOU like RTE.
Other things are THE LAW but it doesn't stop us debating them (see clamping thread, household charge, abortion etc etc). It was the law not too long ago that condoms were illegal here. I'm sure you would have supported that law at the time too and labeled the girls who went up North to prove a point as criminals like you are labeling people here.

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In fairness the only reasons you have come up with for paying the fee is 'Because it is the law' (which you have said over and over again) and because YOU like RTE.
Other things are THE LAW but it doesn't stop us debating them (see clamping thread, household charge, abortion etc etc). It was the law not too long ago that condoms were illegal here. I'm sure you would have supported that law at the time too and labeled the girls who went up North to prove a point as criminals like you are labeling people here.

And that's a bad reason that it's the law? As I said if people disagreed with it and still obeyed it until such time things changed then that would also be fine too.

The "condoms" law was primarily to do with our religious beliefs at the time and was a ridiculous law (just as many others are at present which we/many obey) that was rightly disobeyed because it put some peoples lives at risk. The TV licence law, according to those that reject it, is just bad because RTE is rubbish. Not really the best example you could give now is it?

Pawwed Rig

Ah I see so as long as you think it is a ridiculous law it needn't be observed but if you think the law is good it should be observed. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Quandary

cookie1977 wrote: »

And that's a bad reason that it's the law? As I said if people disagreed with it and still obeyed it until such time things changed then that would also be fine too.

The "condoms" law was primarily to do with our religious beliefs at the time and was a ridiculous law (just as many others are at present which we/many obey) that was rightly disobeyed because it put some peoples lives at risk. The TV licence law, according to those that reject it, is just bad because RTE is rubbish. Not really the best example you could give now is it?

Look, its quite simple.

If people want to watch RTE then they should pay for it, no arguments there. But if like me, people do not want to ever watch RTE then why should they be forced to pay for it????

cookie1977

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ah I see so as long as you think it is a ridiculous law it needn't be observed but if you think the law is good it should be observed. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

And you are equating peoples lives with with your TV licence?

Look, you dont pay the TV licence, fine, I'll be able to cope with knowing that. it's just yours (and others) arguments for not paying it are extremely weak and short sighted on the subject. If you were better able to articulate a valid reason then fine I'm happy to listen. As I said I'd prefer if you paid the "extortionate" fee to support the national broadcaster and to espouse your views on why or where RTE could improve its services but other then "I'm not paying it so there" and "RTE is rubbish and it's stars are over paid", that's all you've given us.

Sweeping statements of RTE are rubbish (I'm paraphrasing) are just that, sweeping and rubbish.

The need for a fully funded national broadcaster is paramount in society. Not a privately funded one nor a "competitive" one. It provides point and counter point arguments on a range of topics of national interest. Yes, as I said RTE are by no means perfect but they do have a place in Irish society despite what you and others believe and the proof of that is in the fact that such a large amount do pay the licence. Even if you excluded a percentage of them as "disgruntled" payers that percentage of people happy with and happy to pay for the national broadcaster would still be higher then the naysayers amongst us.

You can pay anything from 26-36 euro per month for ad filled primarily foreign points of view TV so for 160 euro a year this little country gets a national TV (and lets not forget radio since the licence fee goes towards that too) broadcaster. I would argue that's bang for your buck no matter what you and others think.

rubadub

Quandary wrote: »

And for anyody to suggest that the licence fee would be reduced if payment avoidance was reduced to 0% is simply laughable.

Yawns wrote: »

If everybody paid for a tv licence and we achieved a 100% rate, do you honestly think they will decide to reduce the licence fee? If your answer is yes, I think you are wee bit naive.

Do you think honestly think when calculating what fee increase is needed that they do not account for non-payers, and so have to set it at a higher level than if 100% paid? if your answer is yes you are incredibly naive.

That was the point I am making.

A 13 year old doing basic business studies will know any business will have to make allowances for predicted bad debts.

The mind boggles with the arguments some people come up with to try and make themselves feel better about their theft, as though its a victimless crime. Reminds me of insurance scammers & vandals who then whinge about having high car insurance.

Quandary wrote: »

Why the hell should I??? because its the law????

Yes, because its the law, as I said before you are in effect stealing from me and and friends or family of yours who end up having to pay your share.

I accept that you may have low moral values, like a common thief, I know many scumbags know full well what they are and are happy in their own skin. I'm just making double sure you know what you are, and that you are under no illusion that its a 'victimless crime' or something. Or that your missing money is magiced up from somewhere.

Quandary wrote: »

It is ridiculous to suggest that someone should have to pay for something that they don't want and will never use.

Forcing the people to pay for things they do not want/need is despicably wrong.

Astonishing, so pretty much every government on the planet is "ridiculous" & "despicable" since they have taxation & rates etc paying for things that may not be of use to 100% of the population.

I have said in many threads before that I am utterly opposed to the tv licence. I pay it since I am not going to steal from my friends, family & neighbours.

delta36

Quandary wrote: »

Look, its quite simple.

If people want to watch RTE then they should pay for it, no arguments there. But if like me, people do not want to ever watch RTE then why should they be forced to pay for it????

I always figured the reason for that was that there is no ultimately legitimate way of proving you don't watch it. It's more a charge for the ability to access it. And the easiest way of doing that is defining it that you need to pay the licence if you own a TV. (Though as I've mentioned a few times earlier in this thread, the ability to access free to air in this country will change in a few days)

Quandary

rubadub wrote: »

Do you think honestly think when calculating what fee increase is needed that they do not account for non-payers, and so have to set it at a higher level than if 100% paid? if your answer is yes you are incredibly naive.

That was the point I am making.

A 13 year old doing basic business studies will know any business will have to make allowances for predicted bad debts.

The mind boggles with the arguments some people come up with to try and make themselves feel better about their theft, as though its a victimless crime. Reminds me of insurance scammers & vandals who then whinge about having high car insurance.

Yes, because its the law, as I said before you are in effect stealing from me and and friends or family of yours who end up having to pay your share.

I accept that you may have low moral values, like a common thief, I know many scumbags know full well what they are and are happy in their own skin. I'm just making double sure you know what you are, and that you are under no illusion that its a 'victimless crime' or something. Or that your missing money is magiced up from somewhere.

Astonishing, so pretty much every government on the planet is "ridiculous" & "despicable" since they have taxation & rates etc paying for things that may not be of use to 100% of the population.

I disagree completely with all of your points.

I'm pleased for you that you have payed for a service and are now getting to use that service. I on the other hand, have not paid for that same service, and will continue not to use it.

If that makes me a scumbag and a thief then you do not understand what those two words mean.

trumi

I was looking at the Irish Statute Book and I still can't figure out what does this mean. For me these 2 notes say opposite things!!!!!!

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0319.html

EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Instrument and does not purport to be a legal interpretation.)

This Order provides for the exemption from the television licensing requirements of section 142 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 of (a) portable devices with a display size of not more than 160 cm2 capable of exhibiting television services e.g. mobile phones or personal digital assistants, and (b) other devices, e.g. personal computers or laptops, capable of accessing the Internet and television-like services streamed via websites.

This order does not exempt from the television licensing requirements devices (e.g. personal computers or laptops) with a display size of more than 160 cm2, capable of displaying television channels (e.g. RTÉ Two, TV3, TG4, BBC One, 3e) distributed by conventional broadcast networks (e.g. cable, satellite, IPTV, analogue terrestrial, digital terrestrial or MMDS) using a television tuner card or related device (whether or not such devices are also capable of accessing the Internet or television-like services streamed via websites).

Question:
Do you have to pay TV license if you use a laptop to watch TV in streaming (without TV card) or not?

serarra

trumi wrote: »

I was looking at the Irish Statute Book and I still can't figure out what does this mean. For me these 2 notes say opposite things!!!!!!

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0319.html

EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Instrument and does not purport to be a legal interpretation.)

This Order provides for the exemption from the television licensing requirements of section 142 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 of (a) portable devices with a display size of not more than 160 cm2 capable of exhibiting television services e.g. mobile phones or personal digital assistants, and (b) other devices, e.g. personal computers or laptops, capable of accessing the Internet and television-like services streamed via websites.

This order does not exempt from the television licensing requirements devices (e.g. personal computers or laptops) with a display size of more than 160 cm2, capable of displaying television channels (e.g. RTÉ Two, TV3, TG4, BBC One, 3e) distributed by conventional broadcast networks (e.g. cable, satellite, IPTV, analogue terrestrial, digital terrestrial or MMDS) using a television tuner card or related device (whether or not such devices are also capable of accessing the Internet or television-like services streamed via websites).

Question:
Do you have to pay TV license if you use a laptop to watch TV in streaming (without TV card) or not?

Without TV card, it looks like the answer is no.

With TV card, yes. 160cm2 means 24'8in2, and that is around 7" diagonal.
So anything bigger than a tablet should, if you use one of those usb receivers. (It talks about "conventional broadcast networks", meaning cable, satellite dish or aerial)
The only thing a little weird is the IPTV. I believe Magnet uses that format. But it is a way of streaming.... So watching programs in streaming, even if is not IPTV "per se", could be considered that, I wonder?

rubadub

Quandary wrote: »

I disagree completely with all of your points.

Bizarre. If you want to claim/feign ignorance about the fact that businesses account for bad debts that's fine. This sticking your head in the sand business is fooling nobody, and I doubt anybody believes your claimed lack of knowledge.

Do you also believe past, current and predicted future false insurance claims have no effect on the price of insurance premiums?

Quandary wrote: »

I'm pleased for you that you have payed for a service and are now getting to use that service.

I never said I use the service. I pay for plenty of services that I do not use, and am not likely to every use.

I do of course use many of the services it pays for. I doubt anybody believes your second outlandish claim, that you never ever avail of any of the services provided by licence fee money, either directly or in a less obvious manner. Which do not just include RTE TV stations, but the radio stations, rte.ie and reiterated/copied reports/broadcasts etc in other media outlets e.g. a newspaper or website quoting anything produced using licence fee money, such as a remember here copying and pasting a RTE published article in a thread. A non-RTE radio station getting weather info from RTE. That station may not be in existence if it could not rent use of the RTE broadcasting infrastructure, such as broadcasting masts.

TV3 always point out they get no licence money, but they avail of the RTE transmission network.

Quandary wrote: »

If that makes me a scumbag and a thief then you do not understand what those two words mean.

I know what they mean to me, you simply have a different definition than me, one that suits your attempt to justify your actions.

Quandary

rubadub wrote: »

Bizarre. If you want to claim/feign ignorance about the fact that businesses account for bad debts that's fine. This sticking your head in the sand business is fooling nobody, and I doubt anybody believes your claimed lack of knowledge.

Do you also believe past, current and predicted future false insurance claims have no effect on the price of insurance premiums?

I never said I use the service. I pay for plenty of services that I do not use, and am not likely to every use.

I do of course use many of the services it pays for. I doubt anybody believes your second outlandish claim, that you never ever avail of any of the services provided by licence fee money, either directly or in a less obvious manner. Which do not just include RTE TV stations, but the radio stations, rte.ie and reiterated/copied reports/broadcasts etc in other media outlets e.g. a newspaper or website quoting anything produced using licence fee money, such as a remember here copying and pasting a RTE published article in a thread. A non-RTE radio station getting weather info from RTE. That station may not be in existence if it could not rent use of the RTE broadcasting infrastructure, such as broadcasting masts.

TV3 always point out they get no licence money, but they avail of the RTE transmission network.

I know what they mean to me, you simply have a different definition than me, one that suits your attempt to justify your actions.

Businesses are one thing. RTE is anything but a business and trying to imply it is run anything like a real world business is naive or just deliberately obtuse. In a privately funded business of course bad debts will increase the price of their product/service. This practice will never apply to a state run body in this country. Do u honestly believe the TV licence fee would decrease if compliance was 100%? If you do then I feel sorry for you.

Also, If we are to accept what u are saying, then ideally everybody should pay a licence fee regardless of whether or not they own a TV because the national broadcaster(in its many forms) is in one way or another used by everybody in the country.

Once again I feel your points are hollow, repetitive and hold very little water.

rubadub

Quandary wrote: »

Do u honestly believe the TV licence fee would decrease if compliance was 100%?

No I don't believe they would reduce it, I never suggested they would, you and the other poster twisted what I actually said into that.

I do believe if compliance had historically always been 100% that the current fee would not be as high as it currently is, or that other taxes would not be as high for me. I also believe if compliance was suddenly 100% or close, and expected to be that 100% the future, then I do not think there would be the need for the same level of increases we would otherwise have e.g. if they increased prosecutions with far harsher fines, or if they included it in general taxation so it was harder to avoid.

Quandary wrote: »

In a privately funded business of course bad debts will increase the price of their product/service. This practice will never apply to a state run body in this country.

So where does the missing money/shortfall come from then?

At least you admit if a 'normal' business loses money they increase the price, your feigned ignorance about basic economics was getting quite pathetic. If a government loses money from one source they will "increase the price" some other way, e.g. general taxation. So even if the licence fee was increasing at the same rate, again I am paying more to subsidise your theft, since you are still not paying your way.

Quandary wrote: »

Also, If we are to accept what u are saying, then ideally everybody should pay a licence fee regardless of whether or not they own a TV because the national broadcaster(in its many forms) is in one way or another used by everybody in the country.

For me, ideally there would be no public broadcaster. If there has to be one then ideally there would be no licence fee, it would be in general taxation, so in that way yes I would like to see everybody pay TV or not. I would also be happy to see it as a subscription service, then I would call it a private broadcaster though.

As I said I pay for plenty of services that I do not use.

99% of households are liable, that is the actual figure. 8% of the fees goes towards collection costs by an post, this would be far lower if in normal taxation. If 99% are liable it makes more sense to me to charge everybody, just like so many other services.

They have decided that having the TV is their deciding factor in this case. So currently people with no TV do not have to pay, that does not mean they do not avail of some services it pays for.

My point was directed directly at your ridiculous claim that you do not avail of any service which the TV licence pays for. Nobody believes that crap, you say it in the smartarse hope that nobody will challenge you since they might appear confrontational by calling you a liar.

Once again I feel your points are hollow, repetitive and hold very little water.

Ditto, tenfold...

Seems Fine Gael think along the same lines as myself. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/licence-fee-system-should-be-scrapped-1219898.html

cookie1977

Now isn't this alone worth the licence fee

dermo88

While I paid the licence, I resented it. In England, I had a bit of fun for the price of a crate of Lager 'donated' to the local teenage riff raff to have some fun.

I had, of course in my possession some photos of the local TV licence inspectors.

They did'nt come back.....

Thats how to deal with them.

delta36

dermo88 wrote: »

While I paid the licence, I resented it. In England, I had a bit of fun for the price of a crate of Lager 'donated' to the local teenage riff raff to have some fun.

I had, of course in my possession some photos of the local TV licence inspectors.

They did'nt come back.....

Thats how to deal with them.

What do you mean you had photos of them? Doing what? You saying you blackmailed them?

smeal

Hi..

We've only just got round to bringing to the tv up to college and yes for the past week or two have been using it without a tv license.

ANYWAYS, tonight the inspector called took one of the girls names and said she'd have a letter within 10 days. Just wondering what will that letter say? Will it just be a warning saying we have such an amount of time to pay it? And will there be a fine or will they just request the €160?

Thanks

Pawwed Rig

cookie1977 wrote: »

Now isn't this alone worth the licence fee

]

Christ. That video has renewed my opposition to ever getting a TV licence. Dam good song though

smeal wrote: »

Hi..

We've only just got round to bringing to the tv up to college and yes for the past week or two have been using it without a tv license.

ANYWAYS, tonight the inspector called took one of the girls names and said she'd have a letter within 10 days. Just wondering what will that letter say? Will it just be a warning saying we have such an amount of time to pay it? And will there be a fine or will they just request the €160?

Thanks

You will be asked to get a licence nothing more. In fact if you get one now you most likely won't even receive the letter

ABajaninCork

I've got a licence. It's now expired. I've got the stamps to get a new one, but I wait for the reminder, just to **** them off!

Tweedle Dumb

Was renting a place last year, had given my notice and was moving out at the end of the month. Answered the door to a inspector (foolish i know). Told him that i was out within two weeks, he told me to pass it on to the others in the apartment and let them take care of it. said sure, ill do that.

The week after i left a letter arrived in my name (well actually they had the name slightly wrong) saying pay the license etc, court etc all that. Went into the post office to tell them, that i don't live there, not my tv and now live at home which has a license and the inspector said it was ok to pass it on to the other flatmates to pay. She asked, how did i get the letter, told them the new occupant knew where i worked. then she ring up the license department who said NO, i still have to pay. And she asked for payment. I looked at her with a smile and said, oh ill be back in to pay, laughed and walked out.

They expected me to pay for a license for a house i dont live in, for a tv that wasn't mine and while I reside in a house with license,what a load of bull!

Personally, i believe that RTE waste too much money, on wages for gombeens like Pat and Tubs, and don't have enough high quality programs. If they had quality programs and no overpaid eejits i would have no problem to pay it (Not in my name as they would track me for life, but in principal)

trumi

today I called these 2 numbers and they both told me:

1890 228 528
01 7058800
NO TV, NO license.

If you have radio or laptop, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TV LICENSE.

If you have to pay TV license ONLY if you have TV.

suicide_circus

They were knocking at our apartment door last night, they buzzed all the intercoms, i don't know which idiot neighbours let them in. Anyway, ignored their knocking and they pissed off.