Why do people suggest cancelling Sky...

never-in-doubt

Morning everyone

Just pondering a thought; I read the same old story on these threads and always wonder why people suggest cancelling Sky? I mean, I enjoy helping people as much as the next person, but losing Sky in my household would be like losing my left arm!

Whilst i'm all for both sides (I prefer chasing fault/unenforceability etc but appreciate some people prefer to pay back), I personally would rather get a default by a lender than lose Sky - I mean, we still have to have a little normality don't we? Getting into debt or whatever doesn't mean we should lose the right to live - granted, some extravagances could be avoided but not Sky - please don't take my Sky away.............:p


** Niddy boy freaking out at the possibility of no football - no what!?!

nekosuki

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I mean, we still have to have a little normality don't we?

Morning never-in-doubt

Do you remember when we all managed quite well with 4 channels? IMHO Sky TV is a luxury which, if you're having a nice bright shiney light-bulb moment, can be £20 - £40 better thrown at debts.

But then again, there are people who don't spend their ££ on going out and do just sit and watch TV (and it's a great child-distraction too, I hear).

So - I guess it depends on just how bright the ol' bulb is burning and whether the "want" for 50 home shopping channels is greater than the "need" to pay back borrowings and become debt free.

bikerboi87

Yes - Totally

because while it's nice to have, its not something that you NEED. it's not like heating where you'll freeze to death if you don't have it, if you don't have sky the most that will happen is that you might get a big grumpy about missing something or get a bit bored

never-in-doubt

No - Not a chance

nekosuki wrote: »

Morning never-in-doubt

Do you remember when we all managed quite well with 4 channels?

Hiya,

I remember when we only had 3 channels long before Ch4 went live :eek: :eek:

The good old days where you had the Big Breakfast (too noisy at 7am) and that brookie kiss.... we all know the one

In fact, I remember in the 80's I used to have an old square dish, maybe BSB or whatever and it was great - Premier Movies et al

Anyway, back on track, i'm saying though - if you're brassick and have no dollar then surely staying in is the lesser evil (i.e. cheaper than going out etc).....

robsmum_2

Hi, I can understand how you feel about loosing Sky, when my OH lost his well paid job and got another on minimum wage we felt the same. Initially we reduced our package and to our suprize found we didn't miss it. We then cancelled completely and the only thing my OH missed was Sky sports news!
We just couldn't justify the monthly expense when we no longer had the income for normal life let alone non-essential items.

MrsTinks

Yes - Totally

It's a luxury... if you can't repay your debts then you can't have it - same as you can't have champagne and caviar.
(and tempting though it is I shan't start picking on the point about "chasing the unenforcability of debt"... especially being as it may be a thing of the past soon anyway with the recent court ruling...)

Eric_Pisch

Yes - Totally

nekosuki wrote: »

Do you remember when we all managed quite well with 4 channels?

Nope, I remember having 4 channels and thinking 90% of the time what is this crap, shows like bullseye got 20 mill+ viewers, because they where that good NOT :rotfl:

Thank god for VHS and the amiga, I must have watched star wars 50 times and completed dungeon master 100 times lol

You are right thou sky is a luxury (and bloody expensive) you can do with out when paying back heavy debts, especially with free view and free sat about.

Eric_Pisch

Yes - Totally

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya,

I remember when we only had 3 channels long before Ch4 went live :eek: :eek:

The good old days where you had the Big Breakfast (too noisy at 7am) and that brookie kiss.... we all know the one

In fact, I remember in the 80's I used to have an old square dish, maybe BSB or whatever and it was great - Premier Movies et al

Anyway, back on track, i'm saying though - if you're brassick and have no dollar then surely staying in is the lesser evil (i.e. cheaper than going out etc).....

sky came out before big brother so you could watch hogans hero's and mash repeated forever

nekosuki

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

Nope, I remember having 4 channels and thinking 90% of the time what is this crap, shows like bullseye got 20 mill+ viewers, because they where that good NOT :rotfl:

Poor Jim! Poor Bully!!!!

At least everything on satellite TV is worthwhile viewing...

fermi

Depends on how desperately you want or need to solve your debt problems.

There is a very wide spectrum on this board.

If they are really pressing, then they are a luxury that can be dispensed with until you are sorted. As is "going out" for some people.

redsquirrel80

Yes - Totally

bikerboi87 wrote: »

because while it's nice to have, its not something that you NEED. it's not like heating where you'll freeze to death if you don't have it, if you don't have sky the most that will happen is that you might get a big grumpy about missing something or get a bit bored

Exactly, but you get used to it. I've recently got rid of my TV licence because I don't spend enough time at home to justify paying for it, and yep I do miss it a bit, but it's made me realise how often I used to put it on just for the sake of it. I can still watch DVDs (have cut end off my aerial cable for when they come round to check but can still use TV with DVD player), read, do other stuff, and it actually feels quite liberating to have got rid of something which a lot of people might claim they "can't live without"