TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

mikom · 30-09-2014 10:42am

In the real world, warrants are not easily got............... especially when it comes to cleaving in a door to catch someone watching "Meet the Mcdonaghs" without a licence.

30-09-2014 11:01am

mikom wrote: »

In the real world, warrants are not easily got............... especially when it comes to cleaving in a door to catch someone watching "Meet the Mcdonaghs" without a licence.

In the real world people obey the law.

mikom · 30-09-2014 11:04am

Deleted User wrote: »

In the real world people obey the law.

If that's the real world then buying/selling condoms, suicide, and homosexual acts would still be a crime.......... and 1916 would never have happened.

FreudianSlippers · 30-09-2014 11:09am

This thread has taken a turn from the dumb to the absurd.

1) TV Licence inspectors don't need a warrant to enter a premises.
2) Selling condoms hasn't been illegal for almost 4 decades.
3) Homosexuality hasn't been a crime since 1993 (and arguably since 1988).
4) Attempted suicide also hasn't been illegal since 1993.

Fred Swanson · 30-09-2014 11:11am

This post has been deleted.

mikom · 30-09-2014 11:12am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This thread has taken a turn from the dumb to the absurd.

1) TV Licence inspectors don't need a warrant to enter a premises.
2) Selling condoms hasn't been illegal for almost 4 decades.
3) Homosexuality hasn't been a crime since 1993 (and arguably since 1988).
4) Attempted suicide also hasn't been illegal since 1993.

mikom wrote: »

If that's the real world then buying/selling condoms, suicide, and homosexual acts would still be a crime.......... and 1916 would never have happened.

Bolded for clarity.
And yes I know its 108 years since 1916.
Well done.
.
.

TV Licence inspectors do indeed need a warrant to enter a premises if you forbid them to enter.
They have to be invited in.................. much like vampires.............. funny that.
.
.

30-09-2014 11:13am

mikom wrote: »

If that's the real world then buying/selling condoms, suicide, and homosexual acts would still be a crime.

Hey Mr Strawman-Dumbguy-Slippery Slope! Haven't seen this argument in a while.

What you are saying (in case my sarcastic use of language above didn't quite give it away for you) is absolute nonsense!

All of those things were illegal. Doing those things would have been a criminal act and many people broke the law, many people obeyed it. Breaking the law didn't change the law, organised lobbying and conscientious argument did.

So your insanely simplistic analogy (which happens to be completely incorrect) makes no sense. Do I wish I didn't have to pay a TV licence? Hell yes! Do I wish I didn't have to pay income tax? HELL YES. Do I think equating a licence that pays for people to watch Love/Hate with the struggle of homosexual people to have their very nature decriminalised is insulting and incredibly offensive? Hell. Yes.

But don't let logic, common sense, rational argument or the facts dissuade you. You just keep on keeping on there Mikom.

mikom · 30-09-2014 11:17am

Deleted User wrote: »

Dumbguy

And with that, I bid you good luck and goodnight.
Be seein' ya...................... but only if you have a warrant.

30-09-2014 11:21am

mikom wrote: »

And with that, I bid you good luck and goodnight.
Be seein' ya...................... but only if you have a warrant.

You're right that was harsh. My apologies. I meant the argument though, not you. However it's ambiguous enough to look like a pop at you and that's never my intent.

Your argument is ferociously dumb and insulting but I don't wanna call you dumb.

mikom · 30-09-2014 11:24am

Deleted User wrote: »

You're right that was harsh. My apologies. I meant the argument though, not you. However it's ambiguous enough to look like a pop at you and that's never my intent.

Your argument is ferociously dumb and insulting but I don't wanna call you dumb.

Nice backhand.
John McEnroe had a good backhand.............. he was hot-headed prick I seem to remember.

FreudianSlippers · 30-09-2014 11:26am

mikom wrote: »

Bolded for clarity.
And yes I know its 108 years since 1916.
Well done.
.
.

TV Licence inspectors do indeed need a warrant to enter a premises if you forbid them to enter.
They have to be invited in.................. much like vampires.............. funny that.
.
.

But why would they need to enter at all? If they suspect you have a TV then they send you to court (through the established process). It's entirely moot to discuss warrants, repealed laws or slopes of varying different degrees of slipperiness

FreudianSlippers · 30-09-2014 11:27am

Ok - handbags away everyone!

30-09-2014 11:28am

mikom wrote: »

Nice backhand.
John McEnroe had a good backhand.............. he was hot-headed prick I seem to remember.

Not a backhand. I am being absolutely unequivocal. Your argument is utter tripe. That reflects on your argument though and I was out of order if it appeared I was commenting on you personally.

Fred Swanson · 30-09-2014 11:28am

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers · 30-09-2014 11:34am

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it's fairly adequately dealt with in Section 151 of the Broadcasting Act 2009:

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under section 148 in which it is shown that a television set was in a particular premises or specified place on a particular day, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that on that day the television set was in the possession of the person who was then the occupier of the premises or specified place.

(3) In a prosecution for an offence under section 148 in which it appears that a person kept or had in his or her possession a television set at the time to which the prosecution relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that he or she did not at such time hold a television licence then having effect and licensing him or her to keep or have in his or her possession the television set to which the prosecution relates.

30-09-2014 11:37am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think it's fairly adequately dealt with in Section 151 of the Broadcasting Act 2009:

I disagree. S. 151 only deals with the presumption that a television set was in your possession as opposed to any presumption that a television set was actually there.

The burden still rests with the prosecution to show that a set was physically on the premises.

FreudianSlippers · 30-09-2014 11:41am

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. S. 151 only deals with the presumption that a television set was in your possession as opposed to any presumption that a television set was actually there.

The burden still rests with the prosecution to show that a set was physically on the premises.

It's academic at the end of the day though isn't it?

Inspector shows up at a house, is refused entry and therefore presumes that there is a TV on the premises. It boils down to what the word "shown" means in s151(2); but on the balance, isn't it likely that this refusal is going to meet the criteria?

I'd argue that to suggest otherwise only gives undue credit to the insanity posted earlier.

30-09-2014 12:24pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's academic at the end of the day though isn't it?

Inspector shows up at a house, is refused entry and therefore presumes that there is a TV on the premises. It boils down to what the word "shown" means in s151(2); but on the balance, isn't it likely that this refusal is going to meet the criteria?

I'd argue that to suggest otherwise only gives undue credit to the insanity posted earlier.

I don't care about giving credence to stupid arguments. That section can only be read as meaning the State have to prove that a television was there (there are ways to do this without having to be voluntarily invited into a home). To do otherwise would be to presume an actus reus. The Act can allow a rebuttable presumption of possession for obvious reasons but not for actually having a television on the premises.

FreudianSlippers · 30-09-2014 12:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't care about giving credence to stupid arguments. That section can only be read as meaning the State have to prove that a television was there (there are ways to do this without having to be voluntarily invited into a home). To do otherwise would be to presume an actus reus. The Act can allow a rebuttable presumption of possession for obvious reasons but not for actually having a television on the premises.

I don't disagree. My point, I suppose, was that what level of proof are you saying is required by the State in these circumstances? Picture evidence? There is no way that AGS are going to get involved in a TV Licence inspection.

I'd bet that there are a number of cases where the inspector's evidence that they believe that there is a set on the premises is sufficient for s151(2).

Jojoface · 30-09-2014 12:53pm

Hi there

Just looking for a bit of advice. My Tv License expired end Aug 2014. Around that time I found out I would have to move out of my flat in mid October. I decided to get rid of my TV as I rarely watch it anyway so that I would not have to pay 160 euro for a 6 week period. I also gave 30 days notice to UPC to cancel my account but I'm waiting for them pick up the box. It was 1st week in September that I contacted UPC so technically I am still within that 30 day period. I will be moving in temporarily (maybe 6 months) with friend who already has a TV license, so that is why I won't buy one and transfer to new address. What I want to know is should I inform anpost that I no longer have a tv, even though the upc box is currently still here and still active. I don't want to be forced to pay tv license due to UPC box being there when I have less than 2 weeks in this flat and no TV. The reason I am worried is letter I received today said it was a legal notice, and also next year when I will be looking for place for myself and will have to get a license for the new address will they have a record of my name and be able force me to back date the license to Sept 2014 if I don't inform them now that I have had no TV since 1st September?
Any thoughts welcome! Thanks.

Kimbot · 30-09-2014 12:56pm

Ring the TV License section and just tell them that you no longer have a TV and you are moving into a house in the next couple of weeks that already has one in existance.

Jojoface · 30-09-2014 1:04pm

jonny24ie wrote: »

Ring the TV License section and just tell them that you no longer have a TV and you are moving into a house in the next couple of weeks that already has one in existance.

Yeah I know that sounds like most sensible straightforward thing to do, but just wondering if I contact them will it make them send an inspector out to the flat? I can show them there is no actual TV alright, but can they find out that UPC is still technically active and force me to pay license back dated to 1st Sept based on that? Or will it be easier to ignore them as in 2 weeks I will be gone from flat?

BarryD · 30-09-2014 1:11pm

Two weeks?? You could be waiting for two years for a TV licence inspector to come near you! Unless you're very, very unlucky. An Post strategy to get public to pay TV licence is based heavily on advertising and letters - presumably they pay little for either. Manpower to implement the threats is rather thin, as far as I can see.

We went without a TV for a couple of years once, informed An Post - received threatening letters, informed An Post - received threatening letters, informed An Post - received threatening letters, informed An Post - received threatening letters etc etc - you get the picture?

Jojoface · 30-09-2014 1:20pm

BarryD wrote: »

Two weeks?? You could be waiting for two years for a TV licence inspector to come near you! Unless you're very, very unlucky. An Post strategy to get public to pay TV licence is based heavily on advertising and letters - presumably they pay little for either. Manpower to implement the threats is rather thin, as far as I can see.

We went without a TV for a couple of years once, informed An Post - received threatening letters, informed An Post - received threatening letters, informed An Post - received threatening letters, informed An Post - received threatening letters etc etc - you get the picture?

I've seen them out a few times in my area, latest being mid August. He was harrassing a young lad outside the apartment block getting his details in full sight of anyone coming or going there! Maybe they won't be scheduled to come out again anytime soon if they were there so recently. I think I might leave it until end of this week and email them so they have a record I informed them, but hopefully that won't give them time to get the inspectors out before I go!

Kimbot · 30-09-2014 1:26pm

Trust me youll be grand if you give them a ring in fairness. I have had this happen before and all was sorted on the phone call.

Chancer3001 · 30-09-2014 5:56pm

I will never pay for my tv license.

I've been met by tv license inspectors a few times. Just told them that I wasn't getting one each time. But not my name. So they can do sfa.

If the guards ever come (which they won't, this is the real world) I just won't answer the door. Or I'll put the tv out the back before they come in if they happened to come back like 3 or 4 times.

shruikan2553 · 30-09-2014 6:48pm

It took them 3 weeks to send me a letter saying they will be going after a search warrant. God only knows how long it would take for them to actually get one.

BarryD · 30-09-2014 7:25pm

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I will never pay for my tv license.

I've been met by tv license inspectors a few times. Just told them that I wasn't getting one each time. But not my name. So they can do sfa.

If the guards ever come (which they won't, this is the real world) I just won't answer the door. Or I'll put the tv out the back before they come in if they happened to come back like 3 or 4 times.

Hmm.. well I happen to think that if you have a TV, you should pay the licence .... but also that if you don't have a TV, it should be sufficient to advise An Post once and let them inspect if they want to bother.

As it is, they're long on threatening letters and TV/radio adverts and little action. Lazy approach. Like I said earlier, letters cost them little and they probably get the ads for free too. All waffle..

Victor · 01-10-2014 1:17am

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I've been met by tv license inspectors a few times. Just told them that I wasn't getting one each time. But not my name. So they can do sfa.

It's An Post, they know your name.

Chancer3001 · 01-10-2014 8:37am

Victor wrote: »

It's An Post, they know your name.

You would think so. But no, no they don't.

Any threatening letters just get sent to the occupier.

We also receive post to about 6 different Polish sounding names of people who obviously used to live here

TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Comments