Talk:Television licensing in the Republic of Ireland

message: I have added a new section concerning the dubious constitutionality of the practices of TV licence inspectors in the Republic of Ireland, based on the harassment of me by them arising out of my non possession of a TV (and therefore, non possession of a TV Licence).
As in the UK, TV licence inspectors in the Republic of Ireland cannot accept that you do not have or want a TV.
I wonder how long before the cowards of the establishment remove my changes rather than allow the truth to be told. Ewanduffy 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully with what you say re the RTE television tax. (Sarah777 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm going to remove that section to the Talk: page.  There are several problems: Neutral Point of View; Original research; No references.  If you can find published sources that make your points, then cite them.  But please try to find opposing responses to those contentions too. jnestorius(talk) 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Sarah777 reinstated it and tagged it for citations etc, which is OK, but I'd generally prefer any such material to be kept on the talk page until citations are added. However, the absence of any attempt to balance the criticisms with An Post or the govt's position on constitutionality makes me think that it should be removed until balanced.  It's not good for wikipedia's credibility to have unsourced POV material included like this, even when I personally agree with the criticism made. So I have removed it it again, and look forward to seeing a balanced and referenced section on his issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't really agree BHG, but as it is YOU have removed it......(Sarah777 21:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consitutionality 

message: TV licensing regulations as they currently stand raise many constitutional issues, in light of Ireland's status as a constitutional republic.
* The maintenance of a database of unlicenced address's breaches Data Protection legislation as An Post is abusing its mailing database by using it for other purposes. An Post also fails to remove address's from this database when requested to do so by the owners of said properties.
* An Post works on a 'guilty unless proven innocent' basis with regard to unlicenced premises, a principle which has long been established as unconstitutional.
* The Courts have held, in the case of Local Authority service charges, that charges cannot be levied where a service is not availed of. There is no reason why this principle would not apply to the TV licence in cases where no TV exists on a property.
* The failure of the State to introduce legislation to allow property owners to have TV signals in the form of cable TV connections removed from their property without penalty or an exemption from the TV licence when no TV is possessed breaches the constitutional duty to favour all equally or not at all as it gives greater property rights to cable TV proprietors over other property owners. The State has not vindicated the property rights of homeowners by failing to legislate a requirement on cable companies to pay a rent for the commercial cable wayleave, to which most property owners have no say over.
* Business premises only require one licence per address, regardless of the number of business's therein, by contrast, an apartment block or a house in flats requires a licence for each sub unit. This is a distinct favouring of one category of premises over another.
* Enforcement of TV licencing in prison is zero. Each cell is akin to an apartment and therefore should be required to hold a TV licence. 86.147.171.161 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cable is not a public utility in the same way as gas, water, electricity or landline telephone services are. Householders (whether TV owning or not) are not legally obliged to allow cable companies run cables across their property. Most householders in Ireland don't realise this but those who do generally tend not to make an issue of it as they don't wish to deprive neighbors who may wish to enjoy the amenity of cable TV or indeed deprive themselves of the opportunity to avail of it in the future should they decide to. 86.166.76.70 (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutionality of TV Licence enforcement practices

message: Removed this:
:Therefore, it is practically impossible to not possess a TV licence, even when your premises do not possess a TV, as even a coat hanger can potentially be a TV aerial.
It's rubbish.
*Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1988 §2(2)-TABLE:
:"Television set" means any apparatus for wireless telegraphy capable of receiving and exhibiting television programmes broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.
Coat hanger cannot exhibit anything but coats.  I grant you could make a schools-debate sophistry around "dependent on the use of anything else", but without a courtcase to cite it's just bunkum. jnestorius(talk) 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The law on aerials is subject to a lot of confusion. First off -under the right circumstances a coat hanger (or any other object made from conductive material) CAN be used as an aerial. There is no need for a court precedent to verify a simple fact of physics. Secondly a rooftop aerial (or satellite dish) can be for other things besides television. Broadband or radio for example (Outdoor aerials are widely recommended for FM radio reception even if very few people bother nowadays). The law about broken TV's is somewhat murky. The (government operated) "citizens information" website claims they still need to be licensed but the actual law isint clear on this and common sense certainly suggests otherwise. 92.28.236.12 (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what RTE/An Post/ The "Citizens (mis)information" website claim the notion that "a broken TV needs a license" is nonsense. A broken TV is not "capable of receiving and exhibiting television programmes". 2.123.243.182 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1988 definition is out of date. The current definition is from the 2009 act and statutory instrument  A broken TV still doesn't need a license (That nonsense from Citizens "Information" has been widely rehashed across the internet) but an old analogue set (even without digital box/Saorview) still does. The fact that there are no available analogue signals any more is completely besides the point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.76.70 (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  coat hanger aerial 

message: the current system for tv licencing fails to provide a fair sevice for those who have holiday homes in the republic from other countries perhaps if there was a equitable and fair payment more people would be willing to contribute a proportion of the fee rather than avoid paying completely  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.88.217 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of things about the Irish TV licensing system that are unfair and inequitable but WP:SOAP. There is a list of criticisms in the main article if one can find a citation for it. 86.166.76.70 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  holiday homes and tv licencing 

message: It is stated a couple of times in the article that the level of license evasion in the Republic stands at around 15%. On what is this based ? Do the authorities just assume that every residential unit in the state is occupied and that no household can possibly live without television ? By that logic the rate of firearms license evasion must stand at around 97% ? 86.166.76.70 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "15%" level of evasion. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Television licensing in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.econsultation.ie/ec/econswip.nsf/0/EB861AD5FEF3FFA9802571E1002CC628?OpenDocument
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://econsultation.ie/ec/econswip.nsf/0/F5BE3435A5242D15802571A200660BDF?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120922041237/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0682/D.0682.200905120053.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0682/D.0682.200905120053.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607223723/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2011/Programme_for_Government_2011.pdf to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2011/Programme_for_Government_2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605233724/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/si/0404.html to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/si/0404.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Television licensing in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721124756/http://www.finance.irlgov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2009/bl100vol1.pdf to http://www.finance.irlgov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2009/bl100vol1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830220409/http://www.bai.ie/about_levy.html to http://www.bai.ie/about_levy.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118194959/http://www.esr.ie/Vol35%203/Vol%2035_3DelaneyOToole.pdf to http://www.esr.ie/Vol35%203/Vol%2035_3DelaneyOToole.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Quote from :
:Activists were heavily influenced by the experiences of Welsh-language media activists and adopted their own campaign of studio invasions and licence fee defaults. However, in 1986 the Irish government closed the legislative loophole that had provided some justification for the licence default campaign and the use of this form of protest decreased.
Does anybody know what the loophole and 1986 fix were? Perhaps 1986 is a misprint for 1976; Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976 s.13 changed Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 s.17 
From:
:;General duty with respect to national aims.:
:In performing its functions, the Authority shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture and shall endeavour to promote the attainment of those aims.
To:
:;General duty of Authority.:
:In performing its functions the Authority shall in its programming—
:(a) be responsive to the interests and concerns of the whole community, be mindful of the need for understanding and peace within the whole island of Ireland, ensure that the programmes reflect the varied elements which make up the culture of the people of the whole island of Ireland, and have special regard for the elements which distinguish that culture and in particular for the Irish language,
:(b) uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression, and
:(c) have regard to the need for the formation of public awareness and understanding of the values and traditions of countries other than the State, including in particular those of such countries which are members of the European Economic Community.”.
jnestorius(talk) 16:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "legislative loophole"?