Why do people suggest cancelling Sky...

Eric_Pisch

Yes - Totally

nekosuki wrote: »

Poor Jim! Poor Bully!!!!

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

well theres umm adverts and umm more adverts and ummmm

errrrr

hmmm

ahh DAVE!!! :rotfl:

Actually sky+ is a boom many people have got in the habbit of pre recording what they want to watch over the week and then wizzing the adverts out :T its becoming a problem for sky

X factor goes from 2 hours to about 45 mins with the adverts and backstories ZZZZzzz removed

becky_rtw

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

I lived without a tv (or one that could receive tv anyway - still had a dvd player) for a year and you know what I never missed it (I also didnt have internet access for a while at the same time :eek:)...you only get bored if you have a short attention span and cant entertain yourself - I hardly watch it now, but I live in a shared house and it was there when I moved in so sometimes I watch it with my flatmates.

I find tv quite boring to be honest , so yes I think if people are serious about paying off their debts they should at least switch to freeview!

bikerboi87

Yes - Totally

becky_rtw wrote: »

I lived without a tv (or one that could receive tv anyway - still had a dvd player) for a year and you know what I never missed it (I also didnt have internet access for a while at the same time :eek:)...you only get bored if you have a short attention span and cant entertain yourself - I hardly watch it now, but I live in a shared house and it was there when I moved in so sometimes I watch it with my flatmates.

I find tv quite boring to be honest , so yes I think if people are serious about paying off their debts they should at least switch to freeview!

indeed, last year, the house where i lived for 6 months didn't have an aerial (bloody landlord), so no tv. even though now i'm back home and have a tv and freeview in my room, i barely watch it - most of the time i'm watching dvd's (more accurately, they're on for background noise most've the time, my head is too buried inside computer code)

never-in-doubt

No - Not a chance

MrsTine wrote: »

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...)

LOL, no it will not be a thing of the past soon with the 'recent hearing'. I almost replied to you in the last thread you mentioned this in but refrained.

Unenforceability is here for the long haul, one element was brought under question and to be fair that ruling was unique and has no affect whatsoever on the general unenforceability route

MrsTinks

Yes - Totally

Oh well I can hope that someone makes a more general ruling soon then

becky_rtw

bikerboi87 wrote: »

indeed, last year, the house where i lived for 6 months didn't have an aerial (bloody landlord), so no tv. even though now i'm back home and have a tv and freeview in my room, i barely watch it - most of the time i'm watching dvd's (more accurately, they're on for background noise most've the time, my head is too buried inside computer code)

Same problem I had - no signal...but I watched some amazing films during that time

(now I run too much to have time for stuff like that :o)

never-in-doubt

No - Not a chance

MrsTine wrote: »

Oh well I can hope that someone makes a more general ruling soon then

It won't happen, the act is there and it will remain in force as it forms part of the CCA. The specific point to make about the 'ruling' is the way the extra broker fee incurred interest which was what was being disputed. This one case has no affect on unenforceability but some lenders think it does and have started to quote it - until they meet people like me that tell them they are wrong, they'd quite willingly lie to get innocent people to pay back an unlawful debt.

Side note - for a board guide on dfw your attitude regards to unenforceability is a little bad, to say the least!

gilligansyle

MrsTine wrote: »

It's a luxury...

or is it? The full package definitely is, but the basic package is fine, and where I am there is no choice but to have sky or cable, because the signal reception is so awful we only get welsh channels! For the same reason we can't have freeview without paying for a new aerial and a booster for it. So for me, going to basic package £30 including phone and broadband, or paying £175+ for new aerial and booster and still having to pay £12 a month for phone and maybe no internet.

redsquirrel80

Yes - Totally

TV in itself is a luxury isn't it?

LittleMissSkint

At the risk of getting splinters in my bottom I'd be inclined to sit on the fence on this one. I think when people post their SOA on here they need to be ready to be told things like cancel the sky, buy supermarkets own brands, never go out etc. For people in dire debt this is sometimes the only way to save money - but for others it's probably not necessary. It has to be personal choice at the end of the day. I think it'd be wrong to say someone wasn't serious about clearing their debt or whatever just because they didn't cancel their Sky tv. For a lot of people it's one of the only pleasures left in life - as it's cheaper than going out or having takeaways or whatever. Battling your debt is great, it's admirable but you run the risk of having a very miserable life if you take away every little pleasure. Some people will be happy to read books, sit on the net or whatever but others like their telly, and it's their money, their time and their business!

TV is standard these days really, I wouldn't count basic TV as a luxury. Maybe 40 years ago! Times have changed. If we lived without everything that used to be a luxury you'd be telling people to get rid of their central heating, internet, PCs, hell even indoor toilets :rotfl:A full SKy package is luxury - totally. But if it is only one of very few you have in your life then enjoy it. Otherwise what's the point.

Save your money by cancelling sky, buy cheaper brands of food, don't go out, don't buy sweets and drinks - whatever luxury you need to cut out - it's your choice. People can offer advice - but at the end of the day only the individuals concerned know what works for them and their family.

:T