Why do people suggest cancelling Sky...

SingleSue

People think my brother is weird as he doesn't have a television set up to watch any channels.

Up until about 4 months ago, he didn't even have a television, just an old laptop (without any kind of internet facility - no phone line either) purely to watch DVD's on. I gave him a surplus to requirements TV/video combi so he could watch his mountains of videos on but he is still not able to connect up as his aerial is hidden somewhere behind a blooming great cupboard which is not moveable (it's got his mountains of videos in it)

We go round every Tuesday and Thursday for DVD/Video nights and have tremendous fun catching up on loads of old films.

It doesn't bother him not to have any kind of television reception, internet or phone line...he likes the simple life.

I do have a television with aerial etc but rarely watch it...a good book and the internet suffice for me.

[Deleted User]

All interesting points, but where do you draw the line? Toothpaste is a luxury surely, as you could go around with smelly breath and bad teeth. Or perhaps you should reduce your food shopping down to rice, bread, fruit and chicken, as that covers all your key nutrients in the least cost possible, right?

Of course, I'm being facetious, but I when I look at some of the comments on the DFW it's very difficult to know how much to scrimp and when to admit defeat against debt. Sky TV is - pound per minute - one of the most efficient ways of entertaining a family, compared to any other form of going out or entertainment. Yes, it is a luxury, but how basic should one live in order to pay off debts?

Some of the 'hints and tips' on here are great, but surely you can't live that frugally? E.g. not going out at all. Always buying value items at the supermarket. Walking everywhere. Fine, but at some point surely it's better to just be made bankrupt than it is to live the life of a miser?

What's more important? Paying off your debts or enjoying your life (financially responsibly)? Surely you're all focussing on the former in order to support the latter?

I'm all for being frugal, but people have to have a life too...

redsquirrel80

Yes - Totally

Yes, it is a luxury, but how basic should one live in order to pay off debts?

As basically as you are prepared to I suppose. For some people it's more important to get those debts cleared quickly and they're prepared to make huge cut backs to do that, as that is what will make them happier in the long term. For others they'd rather still enjoy some luxuries and pay it off slower, or make extra money from other channels instead of cutting back. Or some sort of compromise (I am probably in this camp)!

tyllwyd

We had Sky about nine years ago, and yes, it was great at the time. But my OH got fed up that every six months or so they'd change the packages or the pricing structure or something else, and every time it ended up that the cost went up again, so he cancelled.

Now we've got a Freeview PVR box - when we go to stay with people who have got Sky, my daughter heads for the Disney channel, but apart from that we don't find that there is much more that we actually want to watch than we have got already at home. And now Freesat boxes are widely available as well.

I think our money is better spent on other things than Sky.

a_j_mair

never in doubt are you actually being serious??

debt is in almost all cases caused by people living outwith there means, wether that is by way of overdrawn and bank charges or just spending on things that are not a necesity like sky.

I also cant believe you would rather try and get out of paying debt you say is "unlawfull" (where did the debt come from, i am willing to bet it came from your misuse of money or buying things on finance etc that were not nesecitys)

I do not agree with getting up to your eye balls and then trying to worm your way out through technicalities. Do the crime do the time

misspoppy

Hi

I agree sky is a luxery if you can't afford to pay other things, with freeview and freesat its hardly a hardship to have free tv and everyone with sky can have freesat. It amazes me people will skimp on food to have tv channels. Yes its personal choice but I'd rather eat better than have access to channels that show the same thing over and over.

never-in-doubt

No - Not a chance

a_j_mair wrote: »

never in doubt are you actually being serious??

Yup - 100%. Why? Was that not obvious in my posts? If you knew about me you'd know I do not vote for paying back unlawful funds to lenders, so yea - i'm serious!

a_j_mair wrote: »

debt is in almost all cases caused by people living outwith there means, wether that is by way of overdrawn and bank charges or just spending on things that are not a necesity like sky.

Really? Not something like having a good lifestyle, a change then takes this lifestyle away but all you want to do is keep your sanity so keep sky package live? Is that such a crime is it?

a_j_mair wrote: »

I also cant believe you would rather try and get out of paying debt you say is "unlawfull" (where did the debt come from, i am willing to bet it came from your misuse of money or buying things on finance etc that were not nesecitys)

I'm not even going here with you cos you evidently don't have a clue if you've got to ask me to explain why it is unlawful.... :rotfl: Suffice to say, read some of my posts and then you'll not only learn the law but also why it is 99% of the time unlawful.

To set the record straight, I have £0 debt - never have had any. But I am anti banks - yea, too right I am.

a_j_mair wrote: »

I do not agree with getting up to your eye balls and then trying to worm your way out through technicalities. Do the crime do the time

Ermm, yet again showing your inability to construct basic data to form a picture...... It is not worming out of anything, but the law! If a lender does not have the necessary paperwork then nothing is due - simple.

Your opinion is of course valid, but honestly don't try to preach to me about something you have no idea about

never-in-doubt

No - Not a chance

misspoppy wrote: »

Hi

I agree sky is a luxery if you can't afford to pay other things, with freeview and freesat its hardly a hardship to have free tv and everyone with sky can have freesat. It amazes me people will skimp on food to have tv channels. Yes its personal choice but I'd rather eat better than have access to channels that show the same thing over and over.

Or instead of eating better (a luxury right?) then why not use your food money to repay the debt? Thus my original question comes back into play.... who dictates that sky is a luxury - in my house it is a necessity but then I do have HD multiroom and the full package and love paying sky around £100 per month for the privilege of their service...... money well spent in my household.

Its personal choice really.....

SmudgeUK

redsquirrel80 wrote: »

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"

Am i not right in assuming, that you can still be fined cause your tv is still capable of recieving signal with a simple fix, cause i remember a case about it a few years ago when someone did much the same, but still got fined in court.

redsquirrel80

Yes - Totally

SmudgeUK wrote: »

Am i not right in assuming, that you can still be fined cause your tv is still capable of recieving signal with a simple fix, cause i remember a case about it a few years ago when someone did much the same, but still got fined in court.

I would think they would have to detect you using TV to fine you. Apparently they will visit at some point to check so I'll find out then I guess. But it does say on their site:

You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.

and assuming that most houses will have a TV aerial cable whether you use it or not...