!!! Warning to TV Licence Inspectors !!!

kneemos

foxy farmer wrote: »

8 programmes are repeats 9 if you count the angelus. Almost as bad as tv3. I must have a licence to watch that cac too even though they get nothing from the licence.

It's a pile of Shoite for the most part.Crap presenters,programming that appears to be geared towards the elderly and repeats after repeats,don't even bother checking RTE any more when flicking through the channels.
Still pay the license though.

Cienciano

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You do know the licence doesn't just pay for RTE television services. You are able to watch TV because it is controlled. Having lived near a pirate radio station that blocked out other stations I was grateful there was somebody to stop it.
You might find it is useful to have an ambulance service that can use it's radio if they are coming to your assistance.

Most of it goes to RTE. Comreg are in charge of broadcasting licences in ireland and they're the people who close down pirate radio stations. Your TV licence doesn't fund that

Arthur Beesley

BBJBIG wrote: »

Says on the Radio that they will now come to visit us on the Weekends ...
So ... disturb my Weekend - and, get a Fist in the Face.

Too busy watching TV to be disturbed?

bumper234

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Im sorry but thats pushing it... I have a smart phone and im sure as hell am not going to be paying a broadcasting licence to make and receive phonecalls and do the odd bit of internetting.... not happening and anyone coming to my door for this reason wont be welcome

Fully agree with you, their argument is that you "could" watch the likes of RTE replayer online therefore you have access to the programming. They come to my house and ask if i have a phone i will show them this bad boy



http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/image-library/port/376/n/nokia-3210.jpg

holystungun9

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They're gona sweeten the deal this year. Anyone who pays on time will be told what really happened to Amber.

That's the one who went missing when caught without a TV licence isn't it?

Titzon Toast

I had an inspector call to my door a couple of weeks back. I didn't answer the door and he left a card addressed to "The occupier". They don't have my name and without it they can go and jump in a river!

To the people berating others for not paying. Get a grip, you're just pissed off because you had no choice but to pay.
If it was voluntary would you have coughed up that insane amount they ask for? I think not.

SterlingArcher

kneemos wrote: »

You like to pick and choose which laws to obey.

Yeah sure why not. Some laws are made to better man ,others just to enslave them. Or in this case pay for really sub standard television and way way way over payed "talent".

You pay for me ok? Cheers you're a pal.

dickwod1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You do know the licence doesn't just pay for RTE television services.

Your right it also pays RTE Radio presenters ...

Joe Duffy's huge wage €300,00.00
Marion Finucane's huge wage €295,000.00

To name but a few

Link : http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0327/378730-rte-pay-presenters/

listermint

rubadub wrote: »

Because if you need one (they reckon 99% of households need one) then by not paying you are effectively robbing from others, forcing them to pay your share, there's a reason its so high. No real difference between not paying this and normal tax evasion.

I would like to see be a subscription service, or if not then just included in normal taxation. Its crazy that a large house with 5 high earning young professionals pay the same as a single person just scraping by.

If they had licences for walking on footpaths similarly 99% of households would be liable. But footpath costs are included in normal taxation, if you don't like the footpath in your area you might similarly consider tax evasion and try and justify it to yourself, making out like your some sort of moral protestor, but everyone and yourself really know you're just a miserable & stingy cunt.

Normal tax evasion is thankfully a little harder than not answering the door.


You need a separate one for a holiday home.

That just makes them think you might have one, having an aerial will not result in a fine if it went to court.

Just to be clear here though.

If your peddling that 'trollix' then you really need to take a reality check.

The only reason anything is 'high' in this country is because they can get away with it. it rarely if ever has a direct correlation with actual cost.

It has nothing to do with others not paying just another revenue stream for Pat and Michael.

Kate!!!

There should be no warning !!! If you have a tv get a licence !!!

bumper234

Kate!!! wrote: »

There should be no warning !!! If you have a tv get a licence !!!

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BBDBB

Kate!!! wrote: »

There should be no warning !!! If you have a tv get a licence !!!

they should sell them with the tv at the electrical shop

Kate!!!

bumper234 wrote: »

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then prepare for a fine or better yet jail time !!!

Dia1988

I remember my housemate answered to a TV licence inspector and when he realised who he had,
He made it obvious to read a text message and the went into hysterics shouting,

'Im going to be a Dad, a Dad......

And got his keys and sped away in his car leaving the TV licence feeling bemused.

Og course, the guy didnt even have a girlfriend or having a baby that he knew of,

listermint

BBDBB wrote: »

they should sell them with the tv at the electrical shop

Why would they do that?? Sure then An Post employees wouldnt get their cosy money in their pocket for collecting it.

Some folks in here are utterly naive, It is hilarious.

Value for money my back side.

Jaggy

Someone mentioned early on in the thread about getting a monitor instead. I've looked high and low for an affordable option that's 32" or more. Very hard to come by it seems. Any ideas or links?

Best I can find.

rubadub

listermint wrote: »

If your peddling that 'trollix' then you really need to take a reality check

Jesus, you think I need the reality check. Do you really think tax & tv licence evasion and the likelihood of future evasion has zero impact on what they charge?!? the rate of evasion is huge. If not added directly to the tv licence the shortfall still has to be made up from other forms of taxation. Its a moot point how they get the shortfall.

If people are not paying they are effectively robbing from their neighbours & friends who do, they can stick their head in the sand all they want, but deep down they know they are robbing cunts. if they genuinely did feel strongly about the issue they would contact their local TD, rather than just hide behind the curtain like a cowardly fucker.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/the-cost-of-unpaid-tv-licences-242724.html

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Of the 16 EU member states who have a television licence, the €160 charge in Ireland is the sixth most expensive. But €60 of this subsidises ‘free’ television licences, not paid from central taxation and corporation tax, which RTÉ is liable for on the income it receives as a ‘grant-in-aid’ derived from the public.

Last year, 24% of the cost of our public service broadcasting was funded by central taxation to compensate for ‘free’ television licences.

As I said before, I would like a subscription service, I am against the tv licence.

BBDBB

listermint wrote: »

Why would they do that?? Sure then An Post employees wouldnt get their cosy money in their pocket for collecting it.

Some folks in here are utterly naive, It is hilarious.

Value for money my back side.

It seems a less onerous and less expensive way of dealing with the problem of non payers would be the main reasons

dashcam5586

What happens if you just dont answer your door at all?
Can they do anything if you refuse?

Ruu

Could YOU *points at OP* live with the shame? (probably )

bumper234

Kate!!! wrote: »

Then prepare for a fine or better yet jail time !!!

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dickwod1

dashcam5586 wrote: »

What happens if you just dont answer your door at all?
Can they do anything if you refuse?

NOPE not a thing, No law saying you must answer your door - No law saying that you must give them your name if you do!

listermint

rubadub wrote: »

Jesus, you think I need the reality check. Do you really think tax & tv licence evasion and the likelihood of future evasion has zero impact on what they charge?!? the rate of evasion is huge. If not added directly to the tv licence the shortfall still has to be made up from other forms of taxation.

If people are not paying they are effectively robbing from their neighbours & friends who do, they can stick their head in the sand all they want, but deep down they know they are robbing cunts. if they genuinely did feel strongly about the issue they would contact their local TD, rather than just hide behind the curtain like a cowardly fucker.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/the-cost-of-unpaid-tv-licences-242724.html


As I said before, I would like a subscription service, I am against the tv licence.

BBDBB wrote: »

It seems a less onerous and less expensive way of dealing with the problem of non payers would be the main reasons

I dont need a reality check. Pull out all the stats you like.

We are stuck in a union deal with An Post for collection. Just like Vehicle Tax in this country it, doesnt matter what compliance is there and how efficient the system is. Its only there to pay for something or other.

None of these charges are ring fenced for anything. Sure didnt they close down most of the Motor Tax offices across the country. Do you think we seen any effective change in the cost of Administering that ? no... In fact motor tax went up for those lucky enough to afford a post 08 car. And well everyone else can lump it on ridiculously high rates.

As for this TV license, thats not going down no matter how much compliance you get. And the fact that you believe compliance keeps it high..

Well i have to scratch my head with some folks.

tayto lover

TV Licence Inspector -- " I'm looking for your licence".

Householder -- " Come on in and i'll give you a hand ".

Knasher

They should encrypt the signal and sell a subscription to the people who actually want to watch RTE. Instantly an end to people "stealing" RTE, people being convicted at considerable cost to the state, and people being forced to pay for a service that they have no interest in receiving. Since the switch to digital, pretty much every TV already includes the ability to decrypt this signal.

The reason that this will never happen is because nobody is under the illusion that RTE would survive if it was optional. It simply isn't competitive so we are all forced to be its customers in order to prop it up.

SaveOurLyric

Is the original post grounds for prosecuting the poster for intimidation ?

Mr.Micro

Knasher wrote: »

They should encrypt the signal and sell a subscription to the people who actually want to watch RTE. Instantly an end to people "stealing" RTE, people being convicted at considerable cost to the state, and people being forced to pay for a service that they have no interest in receiving. Since the switch to digital, pretty much every TV already includes the ability to decrypt this signal.

The reason that this will never happen is because nobody is under the illusion that RTE would survive if it was optional. It simply isn't competitive so we are all forced to be its customers in order to prop it up.

We have to keep that huge stable of RTE staff in jobs and the style they are used to.

_Redzer_

Tell ya what, rte, make your service a subscription plan so you only sign up if you want to watch rte.

Oh that's right, they know nobody would ever subscribe to that crap so they make it mandatory for everyone...

And what if you've already got sky with rte on it. Wtf would you have to pay for it twice?

c_man

tayto lover wrote: »

TV Licence Inspector -- " I'm looking for your licence".

Householder -- " Come on in and i'll give you as hand ".

*porn music*

:eek:

dashcam5586

dickwod1 wrote: »

NOPE not a thing, No law saying you must answer your door - No law saying that you must give them your name if you do!

Brilliant. Sorted so, just not going to answer the door to people I dont know in the future.
Look through the peep hole....and walk away.

rubadub

listermint wrote: »

As for this TV license, thats not going down no matter how much compliance you get. And the fact that you believe compliance keeps it high..

Well i have to scratch my head with some folks.

Scratch some more, it might get something working inside. I am not saying the licence will go down, compliance might make future increases less though. But I am really saying the shortfall has to come from somewhere. You seem to be making out like its a victimless crime, that non-payment makes zero difference to anybody.

If people could simply hide behind curtains and not pay income tax, and non-compliance was 24%, do you also think this would have no effect on other taxes?

I can't understand how someone could deny this, unless you are just hiding behind semantics or something.

I hate paying my licence fee, but I am not about to effectively rob my family & friends. I am also disgusted with the current collection method, squandering money all over the place.

Knasher wrote: »

The reason that this will never happen is because nobody is under the illusion that RTE would survive if it was optional.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Oh that's right, they know nobody would ever subscribe to that crap so they make it mandatory for everyone...

They have investigated this before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

A survey of public attitudes to public-sector broadcasting was carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute in 2004.[31] The authors noted that "public discontent at the level and inherently regressive nature of the ad rem licence fee is noticeable by its absence, particularly in contrast to the difficulties associated with the introduction of some ad rem service charges, e.g. bin and water charges."[31] The associated opinion poll recorded agree:disagree percentages of 54:29 for the statement "Public Broadcasting should be financed by the licence fee."[32] Respondents were asked what level of monthly fee they would be prepared to pay to receive RTÉ if subscription access were hypothetically to replace the licence fee: the annualised mean and median household figures were €180 and €252.60, compared to the then licence fee of €150, with those who frequently watched RTÉ programs most willing to pay

BBDBB

listermint wrote: »

I dont need a reality check. Pull out all the stats you like.

We are stuck in a union deal with An Post for collection. Just like Vehicle Tax in this country it, doesnt matter what compliance is there and how efficient the system is. Its only there to pay for something or other.

None of these charges are ring fenced for anything. Sure didnt they close down most of the Motor Tax offices across the country. Do you think we seen any effective change in the cost of Administering that ? no... In fact motor tax went up for those lucky enough to afford a post 08 car. And well everyone else can lump it on ridiculously high rates.

As for this TV license, thats not going down no matter how much compliance you get. And the fact that you believe compliance keeps it high..

Well i have to scratch my head with some folks.

Fair enough. All valid reasons why it wont happen

It doesn't change the fact that it would be a more efficient and less onerous way to collect it.

dxhound2005

BBDBB wrote: »

Fair enough. All valid reasons why it wont happen

It doesn't change the fact that it would be a more efficient and less onerous way to collect it.

What is onerous about it? You can pay over the phone or online if you think it is too burdensome to go to the Post Office. On your original plan, would you hit a woman if they sent out a female inspector?

Maphisto

uch wrote: »

They certainly wont, my brother had to bring the inspector into his house and show him around before he'd believe that there was no telly in the house

No you don't. The Inspector needs to report that he has evidence of a TV set. Now assuming there is not the Eastenders theme heard blaring out the front window, he has no evidence.

He has two alternatives then, record a "No Set" declaration or obtain a warrant to search the premises for a set that may or may not work when he finds. Given that these are not the highest paid people in the country which would you choose?

BBDBB

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What is onerous about it? You can pay over the phone or online if you think it is too burdensome to go to the Post Office. On your original plan, would you hit a woman if they sent out a female inspector?

onerous for the collectors to employ people to go knocking on doors and taking people to court. All seems a bit like a big game to those seeking to avoid paying. With no real power to force entry they are toothless in the face of those who are willing to defy them. Seems the system is broken so change the system.

ps my original plan hasn't mentioned hitting anyone, are you confusing me with someone else?

dxhound2005

BBDBB wrote: »

onerous for the collectors to employ people to go knocking on doors and taking people to court. All seems a bit like a big game to those seeking to avoid paying. With no real power to force entry they are toothless in the face of those who are willing to defy them. Seems the system is broken so change the system.

ps my original plan hasn't mentioned hitting anyone, are you confusing me with someone else?

Yes I confused you with the OP sorry. Similar names BBJBIG.

The law dates back to 1926 in it's original form. It was a licence to keep a receiving apparatus and the current version is essentially the same. There is no other way to deal with evaders, except through the courts. Their TV signal can't be cut off like electricity or phone lines can.

Isn't it rumoured to be replaced with a fixed charge for everyone soon anyway.

Flat fee whether you have a TV or not. Broadcasting charge I think they call it.

BBDBB

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Yes I confused you with the OP sorry. Similar names BBJBIG.

The law dates back to 1926 in it's original form. It was a licence to keep a receiving apparatus and the current version is essentially the same. There is not other way to deal with evaders, except through the courts. Their TV signal can't be cut off like electricity or phone lines can.

No worries

Exactly, using a law dated from then seems a foolhardy thing to even try. Given the responses from the evaders in this thread and every thread like it on after hours, it doesn't seem to be a system that's going to work.

That's why I suggested charging for a licence when someone buys a new tv. Either that or they show up with a copy of their existing licence when buying or collecting it.

Another angle to consider is that in all probability we import all our tellys from abroad, shouldn't be too hard to tax them upon importation and let the retailers collect the licence fee or absorb the cost

dxhound2005

rarnes1 wrote: »

Isn't it rumoured to be replaced with a fixed charge for everyone soon anyway.

Flat fee whether you have a TV or not. Broadcasting charge I think they call it.

It's more than a rumour. You missed your chance to make an input into how you would like it to operate.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Broadcasting/Consultation+on+Public+Service+Broadcasting+Charge/

dickwod1

Maphisto wrote: »

No you don't. The Inspector needs to report that he has evidence of a TV set. Now assuming there is not the Eastenders theme heard blaring out the front window, he has no evidence.

He has two alternatives then, record a "No Set" declaration or obtain a warrant to search the premises for a set that may or may not work when he finds. Given that these are not the highest paid people in the country which would you choose?

You can blare the Eastenders theme as loud as you like, Tell them your watching it on the RTE Player - No licence needed!

kowloon

the groutch wrote: »

are you by any chance related to Facekicker?

The Fister! Hmmm, something's not quite right about that.

Tail Docker

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I pay my TV licence because I'm not a hard man.

TV licences are for cissies.

Admittedly, I do have one though..

dxhound2005

BBDBB wrote: »

No worries

Exactly, using a law dated from then seems a foolhardy thing to even try. Given the responses from the evaders in this thread and every thread like it on after hours, it doesn't seem to be a system that's going to work.

That's why I suggested charging for a licence when someone buys a new tv. Either that or they show up with a copy of their existing licence when buying or collecting it.

Another angle to consider is that in all probability we import all our tellys from abroad, shouldn't be too hard to tax them upon importation and let the retailers collect the licence fee or absorb the cost

Good ideas but they fall down when it comes to the time to renew the licence which has to be done annually by law. The vendor couldn't be expected to be responsible for any element of the collection process years after they sold the TV. I don't know how the Broadcasting Charge will be collected but it would be a dreadful mistake if it was to rely on the present system which has never managed anywhere near 100% compliance.

rubadub

BBDBB wrote: »

That's why I suggested charging for a licence when someone buys a new tv. Either that or they show up with a copy of their existing licence when buying or collecting it.

99% of households are supposed to be liable. If they insist on people paying a subscription, rather than an optional subscription, then it's far more cost effective to just charge everyone, just like they do with so many other government supplied services.

I read before that 8% of the fees goes towards collection costs by an post. That would only be part of it, RTE have lost revenue showing those stupid ads instead of getting revenue from real ads, and court time, investigating non-payers, issuing fines which will never be paid etc. Must cost a fortune.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/licence-fee-system-should-be-scrapped-26332130.html

Fine Gael made the call just days after RTE received a €2 licence fee hike which will kick-in on January 1, 2008, pushing the fee up to €160.

The party's communications spokesman, Simon Coveney, said people are being forced to pay for the estimated 16pc of households that are not willing to pay the licence fee.

The current system is similar to the car insurance system, whereby people who pay insurance "must pay for those who do not", he added.

Instead of the current intrusive and inefficient system of collecting money to finance public service broadcasting, the Government could finance it through general taxation, Mr Coveney said.

BBDBB

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Good ideas but they fall down when it comes to the time to renew the licence which has to be done annually by law. The vendor couldn't be expected to be responsible for any element of the collection process years after they sold the TV. I don't know how the Broadcasting Charge will be collected but it would be a dreadful mistake if it was to rely on the present system which has never managed anywhere near 100% compliance.

True
Why not make the charge a one off rather than an annual repeat?
Whilst not a perfect system I think we agree that the existing process is failing and will continue to do so as more people believe that the system is toothless and if their neighbours can get away with not paying then so can they

No I agree, the responsibility could only be legally enforced upon the initial sale, chasing it thereafter would be just as futile as the current system. Those who want to evade paying would still do so on a second hand sale, although those selling second hand tvs might increase their price to cover the cost of a licence in part or in full.

Dunno, im just idly speculating really

Dia1988

Hi,

With the new Broadcasting charge, can just just say they have
No Internet
No mobile phone
No TV
No radio
No laptop

And live the life of a recluse


Can they search your house or could you get away without paying this?

BBDBB

rubadub wrote: »

99% of households are supposed to be liable. If they insist on people paying a subscription, rather than an optional subscription, then it's far more cost effective to just charge everyone, just like they do with so many other government supplied services.

I read before that 8% of the fees goes towards collection costs by an post. That would only be part of it, RTE have lost revenue showing those stupid ads instead of getting revenue from real ads, and court time, investigating non-payers, issuing fines which will never be paid etc. Must cost a fortune.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/licence-fee-system-should-be-scrapped-26332130.html

That's another option of course. Its a bit Big Brother and I think a compulsory subscription would seem more unfair and very unpopular, I don't think a government would dare.

Pocoyo

rubadub wrote: »

by not paying you are effectively robbing from others, forcing them to pay your share, there's a reason its so high. No real difference between not paying this and normal tax evasion.

Absolute rubbish so you believe if every one paid the licence fee would go down??? No no no sir YOU ARE WRONG so WRONG in fact i am offended if more people paid, the RTE fat cats would simply receive an extra 500k per year,Please dont be fooled so easily now.... apologize for your post.

rubadub

BBDBB wrote: »

I think a compulsory subscription would seem more unfair and very unpopular, I don't think a government would dare.

but the current situation IS a compulsory subscription, its just easy to avoid and has stupid costs associated with it. And it certainly is unpopular.

Imagine the introduced a footpath licence, and if you owned shoes you had to pay it, and you could just hide inside and not pay. You would similarly have thieves saying "I never use the footpath, it benefits me in absolutely no way, either directly or indirectly, sure the paths in my area are rubbish, I'm not paying". Its ridiculous to give people the way to easily not pay, if 99% are getting usage then just charge everyone, I expect there are loads of things that the public pay for that far fewer than 99% use, like subsidised or free museums or parks etc. I have more respect for traditional straight up thieves who at least are not down the pud with their other thieving mates all patting themselves on the back as though they are standing up for their rights and that their crime is benign with no repercussions on anybody elses finances.

dxhound2005

More likely the future of broadcasting will not really be broadcasting. Companies like UPC and now Eircom call their TV services TV but they are not being broadcast by terrestrial transmitters or from satellites. They are provided through copper/fibre hybrid lines and this will be the model which will become more common.

Also the techonlogy already exists to put spot beams on satellites which can exclude most of the overspill into neighbouring territories. It is being done by Saorsat which only covers the island of Ireland and a little bit of England and Wales. It is not possible to get UPC or the new Eircom TV without paying for it. So if traditional terrestrial and satellite broadcasting is to continue with Free to Air content it will still have to be funded.