Madam, - Some days ago I received a form letter from An Post explaining, among other interesting facts, that "on the reverse of this letter you will find a Statutory Declaration Form (Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926). This form is issued to all business addresses both licensed and unlicensed, about once a year. By returning it correctly completed it is less likely that your company will be visited by a television licence inspector during the year."
A questionnaire on the other side of the sheet required of me the number of my licence, its date of issue, office of issue, etc. A note at the end of the page explained: "Under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, 1926, to 1988, a person who, when required to do so, fails to complete and return a Form of Declaration within 14 days or makes a false or misleading statement in the Declaration is liable to prosecution and fine."
Fine by all means. Fine for An Post which, it seems, has money to burn if it can afford to send out these threatening missives to citizens like myself who already have valid licences, a record of which is automatically taken when the licence is issued.
I rang An Post customer services and eventually, after the obligatory piped music interspersed with "All our operators are busy . . . patience . . . strict rotation", I got through. The young lady to whom I spoke was most helpful and courteous. She told me to disregard the letter and said many people had called to make the same point.
Perhaps if the various departments of An Post consulted with one another more often they would save some of the money they propose to garner by slapping 7 cents on to postage stamps. And why, even supposing I had supplied An Post with written confirmation of what is already in its records, would this reaffirmation serve only to make it "less likely" that an inspector would call? The implication is that having made their list and checked it twice, an inspector will be sent along to make assurance triply sure. - Yours, etc.,
TOM MATHEWS, Clareville Road, Dublin 6W.