TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Chancer3001 · 28-01-2015 5:08pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

They certainly would. They're the post office, remember; they deliver the post. They know who lives where, or can easily find out.

It's not a state secret, people. This is Ireland. It's easy to find out who lives in a particular house, if you want to. At the point where they need to find the name of the occupier of a particular house, they'll find it without too much difficulty.

I've done this myself, for the purpose of serving legal proceedings. I just went into the post office and asked. If I had got no joy there, I would have gone to the guards' barracks. Failing that, a local pub. But in fact I've never had to go further than the guards' barracks; they always know, and they can usually tell me when you're most likely to be around to accept service of proceedings. ("He does go down to the mammy in Nenagh most weekends, but if you call on a Monday evening . . .") Piece of cake!

Go to the guards and ask for 250,000 houses occupiers so

Fred Swanson · 28-01-2015 5:09pm

This post has been deleted.

wobzilla1 · 13-02-2015 9:43pm

wobzilla1 wrote: »

I have been summoned to appear in court in February over not having a tv licence.

I bought my current tv broken (Not even turning on) and removed the tuner/decoder before repairing it. It was never a functioning tv while in my house.

When I start getting the reminders and warnings in my door, I emailed an post telling them that my tv could not receive a signal as the tuner had been removed. I proposed them to send an inspector to view the tv. I was simply asked for the make and model of the tv and told it was a tv. It was obvious at this point that the person I was dealing with was incompetent in dealing with my issue and I did not reply anymore.

I have taken the tv apart and taken photos of the inside including the mainboard where the tuner had been removed. I have also obtained the original mainboard schematics that show where the tuner should be.

I intend to bring these and print-outs of the email conversation with me on the day.

The summons says I am being charged under section 142 and 148 of the broadcasting act 2009. The definition of a tv set in 140 is

There is no mention of repairibilty in there.

What do you reckon my chances are on the day?

They also used an incorrect name on the summons

Just to follow up, I had my day in court today and the case was dismissed by the judge.

For the last few months I've had friends, family members and pretty much anyone I discussed it with tell me to get a licence before the court date so the judge would go easier on me, despite the fact that I was in the right and broke no law. The amount of fear surrounding the whole thing is amazing.

Anyway, I showed up at the district court, there were about 40 people to be seen at 10.30 all for tv licence.

There were 3 or 4 inspectors there and each was sworn in before the people who's houses they'd called to were brought up.

I was one of the last to be called and there were basically 3 types of people there.
There were people who had since bough a licence and were told that they had to pay a back-dated charge from when the inspector called (one person had this removed as it was less than €50). There were a couple of people who were waiting on replies from social services for applications for a free licence, and there was a few people who said they couldn't afford it and were told to come back in 3 months with a licence.

Anyone who didn't show up was instantly charged €300 plus €50 fees in addition to any money owed.

When I was called I said I didn't have a licence as the device in my home was not a tv as defined in section 140 of the broadcasting act.

I was then asked if I'd like to cross examine the inspector, which I didn't as he had called to the house and seen the "tv".

I was then asked to take the stand and was sworn in.

I had with me, my email transcripts from emailing an post, photos of the tv's PCB where there was no tuner, the original schematics for the PCB and a op copy of the broadcasting act.

I basically said that I had bought the device broken and it was never capable of receiving a broadcast.
I was asked what the device was and said it was manufactured as a television but for all intents and purposes is a monitor which is only used for video game consoles and I have no Sky, UPC, etc.

I took out the pictures of the PCB and they basically didn't know what to think.

The counsel for an post basically tried to argue to the judge that as I called it a tv at one point, there was some sort of liability on me (If I called it a machine gun, they'd probably do me for firearms).

The judge said it was not safe to prosecute me considering, and dismissed the case.

Johnboy1951 · 13-02-2015 11:41pm

wobzilla1 wrote: »

Just to follow up, I had my day in court today and the case was dismissed by the judge.

For the last few months I've had friends, family members and pretty much anyone I discussed it with tell me to get a licence before the court date so the judge would go easier on me, despite the fact that I was in the right and broke no law. The amount of fear surrounding the whole thing is amazing.

Anyway, I showed up at the district court, there were about 40 people to be seen at 10.30 all for tv licence.

There were 3 or 4 inspectors there and each was sworn in before the people who's houses they'd called to were brought up.

I was one of the last to be called and there were basically 3 types of people there.
There were people who had since bough a licence and were told that they had to pay a back-dated charge from when the inspector called (one person had this removed as it was less than €50). There were a couple of people who were waiting on replies from social services for applications for a free licence, and there was a few people who said they couldn't afford it and were told to come back in 3 months with a licence.

Anyone who didn't show up was instantly charged €300 plus €50 fees in addition to any money owed.

When I was called I said I didn't have a licence as the device in my home was not a tv as defined in section 140 of the broadcasting act.

I was then asked if I'd like to cross examine the inspector, which I didn't as he had called to the house and seen the "tv".

I was then asked to take the stand and was sworn in.

I had with me, my email transcripts from emailing an post, photos of the tv's PCB where there was no tuner, the original schematics for the PCB and a op copy of the broadcasting act.

I basically said that I had bought the device broken and it was never capable of receiving a broadcast.
I was asked what the device was and said it was manufactured as a television but for all intents and purposes is a monitor which is only used for video game consoles and I have no Sky, UPC, etc.

I took out the pictures of the PCB and they basically didn't know what to think.

The counsel for an post basically tried to argue to the judge that as I called it a tv at one point, there was some sort of liability on me (If I called it a machine gun, they'd probably do me for firearms).

The judge said it was not safe to prosecute me considering, and dismissed the case.

Well done!

.... and thank you for posting back about your experience.

Chancer3001 · 14-02-2015 2:37pm

Jaysus, I'd I ever get caught I'll just do that

Take pictures of a broken tv and say,nah sure it's just a monitor

FreudianSlippers · 16-02-2015 10:13am

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Jaysus, I'd I ever get caught I'll just do that

Take pictures of a broken tv and say,nah sure it's just a monitor

Apt username. Good luck and do come back and let us know how big your fine is.

Chancer3001 · 16-02-2015 11:12am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Apt username. Good luck and do come back and let us know how big your fine is.

My fine would be 0. As was the posters above who did exactly that

fxotoole · 16-02-2015 3:24pm

"Excuse me, your Honour, a random person on Boards said they got away with no fine using this one weird trick..., why are you fining me?????"

Chancer3001 · 16-02-2015 3:41pm

????

Because somebody got away with it and posted on,ine doesn't mean nobody else can ever get away with it for the same reason again

16-02-2015 8:05pm

Chancer3001 wrote: »

My fine would be 0. As was the posters above who did exactly that

He wasn't committing perjury

Chancer3001 · 17-02-2015 12:12am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He wasn't committing perjury

But they won't know that I am committing perjury.

And I won't care

17-02-2015 12:29am

Chancer3001 wrote: »

But they won't know that I am committing perjury.

And I won't care

I don't care if you want to risk prison time over something that stupid. That's your own choice to make. Seems a lot of effort to break the law.

I was just pointing out that what he did was honest and what you planned to do is a crime of dishonesty. But, you know, whatever floats your boat.

Chancer3001 · 17-02-2015 12:55am

It's very very little effort

Grolschevik · 17-02-2015 12:59am

Chancer3001 wrote: »

It's very very little effort

Depends how much your time is worth, I suppose.

Chancer3001 · 17-02-2015 9:53am

Probabaly take me an hour.

What's the license fee? 180 something?

FreudianSlippers · 17-02-2015 9:56am

Grolschevik wrote: »

Depends how much your time is worth, I suppose.

Obviously less than the €13.33 per month it costs for a TV Licence.

Grolschevik · 17-02-2015 10:11am

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Probabaly take me an hour.

What's the license fee? 180 something?

An hour to do all the stages that guy did?

Disassemble a TV.
Identify the relevant part.
Remove the relevant part without damaging the ability to use it as a monitor.
Take photos.
Locate the relevant circuit diagram.
Identify the relevant component on the diagram.
Read the relevant law.
Turn up in court and hang around til it's your turn.
Take the stand and lie.

All in an hour?

Fred Swanson · 17-02-2015 12:52pm

This post has been deleted.

Grolschevik · 17-02-2015 12:54pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair point. The original guy to do this didn't lie and was legitimate in not having a TV capable of receiving signals.

The guy proposing to copy him is saying that he'd try to evade paying the license for a TV he has by spoofing the court with some pictures of a broken TV.

hullaballoo · 17-02-2015 2:53pm

I always think it's a good idea to publicly advertise that I'm about to commit perjury.

Wait, no, no it's a terrible idea.

Grolschevik · 17-02-2015 3:26pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

I always think it's a good idea to publicly advertise that I'm about to commit perjury.

Wait, no, no it's a terrible idea.

On a related note, An Post's legal team will now be aware of the modification defence, so it would be wise to do it right rather than spoof in court.

Chancer3001 · 17-02-2015 3:44pm

Yawn

hullaballoo · 17-02-2015 4:42pm

Tbh, if you find this boring, you wouldn't like what prison has to offer.

Wheelnut · 17-02-2015 6:23pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Tbh, if you find this boring, you wouldn't like what prison has to offer.

But I wonder would he really serve a prison sentence in our system. Is it not more likely that he would be brought in, go through the admission formalities, be given a free dinner and his taxi fare home?

FreudianSlippers · 18-02-2015 10:26am

Grolschevik wrote: »

On a related note, An Post's legal team will now be aware of the modification defence, so it would be wise to do it right rather than spoof in court.

We should include an instructional post about Norwich Pharmacal Orders as well so that they know how to easily find out the poster's actual identity.

Pawwed Rig · 18-02-2015 4:44pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We should include an instructional post about Norwich Pharmacal Orders as well so that they know how to easily find out the poster's actual identity.

I think you over estimate how clever An Post are.

Chancer3001 · 18-02-2015 11:55pm

Wee talking about a tv license dept who are outsmarted by "this isn't my house" , by you not answering the door, or by you giving a fake name....

FreudianSlippers · 19-02-2015 10:11am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think you over estimate how clever An Post are.

That's why I'm suggesting we explain it on here for them.

Chancer3001 · 19-02-2015 4:10pm

You're living in absolute dreamland if you think they'll get a court order to check boards accounts to find your name and address to go to your house to hope you're in, to see if you have a telly to bring you to court to fine you for not having a tv license.

Dreamland.

FreudianSlippers · 19-02-2015 4:20pm

Chancer3001 wrote: »

You're living in absolute dreamland if you think they'll get a court order to check boards accounts to find your name and address to go to your house to hope you're in, to see if you have a telly to bring you to court to fine you for not having a tv license.

Dreamland.

I'm talking about evidence to be used against a person in their trial. Done it many times myself in the course of work. It's no hassle at all.

TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Comments