Sky TV how shortsighted can you get

John_T_5

grex9101 wrote:

As a taxpayer, Epiphone IS actually paying for Alloneword's sky subscription, therefore I think it's a perfectly acceptable question to ask.

Epiphone wrote:

I'm not having a pop, just asking. When I was on JSA I couldn't afford £250 a year for Sky. Sky TV is a luxery, not something that should be paid for by the taxpayer. All IMHO of course.

1) It's none of your business

2) You are wrong, we all pay National Insurance, just as if we had an insurance policy with a private company, we have an insurance policy with the Benefits Agency and the OP is simply claiming what they are entitled to and have paid for through previous taxes, which incidentally you continue to pay whilst receiving benefits.

3) If there is natural justice in the world you someday will get to enjoy unemployment, then maybe others can sift through your finances and nitpick about what they deem as unacceptable spending.

grex9101

John_T wrote:

1) It's none of your business

2) You are wrong, we all pay National Insurance, just as if we had an insurance policy with a private company, we have an insurance policy with the Benefits Agency and the OP is simply claiming what they are entitled to and have paid for through previous taxes, which incidentally you continue to pay whilst receiving benefits.

3) If there is natural justice in the world you someday will get to enjoy unemployment, then maybe others can sift through your finances and nitpick about what they deem as unacceptable spending.

1) I think it is.

2) I'm not claiming, therefore I am entitled to know.

3) I would never claim benefits as I would never stoop that low.

MORPH3US

John_T wrote:

1) It's none of your business

2) You are wrong, we all pay National Insurance, just as if we had an insurance policy with a private company, we have an insurance policy with the Benefits Agency and the OP is simply claiming what they are entitled to and have paid for through previous taxes, which incidentally you continue to pay whilst receiving benefits.

3) If there is natural justice in the world you someday will get to enjoy unemployment, then maybe others can sift through your finances and nitpick about what they deem as unacceptable spending.

Sorry, but i've got to disagree.

1. By posting on a public forum such as this, it leaves it open for ANYONE to comment. If the OP doesn't tell anyone then its no-one's business (although technically even then it still is because other people are paying taxes for his benefits).

2. You continue to pay National Insurance whilst on benefits???? Never heard of this before, but even if its true, thats like someone giving you £100 for free and then you offering to lend them back £20 but charging them interest.

John_T_5

grex9101 wrote:

1) I think it is.

2) I'm not claiming, therefore I am entitled to know.

3) I would never claim benefits as I would never stoop that low.

Unless you are working for the Benefits Agency you aren't entitled to know, and I think you have already stooped a lot lower than that by having a pop at someone because they are on benefits.

By the way, nice trolling.

tomstickland

I don't think he was trolling. I don't agree with his statement "I'd never stopp low enough to claim" though - one day you might have to.

However, the OP was moaning about finding £30 to pay for a dish to be moved whilst paying £20 per month for an optional TV service.

grex9101

No, I would rather starve than become a leech on society. Then again, maybe i've just been raised with sufficient moral responsibility.

There are enough jobs in the country to negate jobless related benefits.

If everyone worked we would all be better off. The lazy gits are spoiling it for the rest of us.

Anyway, benefits must be too generous if people can afford sky on them. Benefits should only cover the absolute BASICS. Otherwise they're simply an incentive for morally corrupt folks not to work.

mrcow

tomstickland wrote:

However, the OP was moaning about finding £30 to pay for a dish to be moved whilst paying £20 per month for an optional TV service.

That's the bit I didn't get either.

I think Sky have done you a favour if money is that tight. It's a waste of money anyway!

smcaul

grex9101 wrote:

No, I would rather starve than become a leech on society. Then again, maybe i've just been raised with sufficient moral responsibility.

There are enough jobs in the country to negate jobless related benefits.

If everyone worked we would all be better off. The lazy gits are spoiling it for the rest of us.

Anyway, benefits must be too generous if people can afford sky on them. Benefits should only cover the absolute BASICS. Otherwise they're simply an incentive for morally corrupt folks not to work.

Earth to Grex........ the OP said they were on benefits, they did not say which ones, they could be on IB or any number of other ones - they may well have been invilided out of work after many years paying into the NI fund - none of us know or have the right to know. Like wise how the OP chooses to spend that money is up to them. Just out of interest do you drink alcohol or smoke? I don't, so why should my NI fund your health problems in the future?

djl

a sky "contractor riped me of £50.00 as well until a sky enginer called round and said "what the f##k is this " to the roof bracket he had made me pay for, make sure you get them to pay up

raymond

Totally agree with other posters, NO one on benefits should be able to afford Sky.

Benefits should be for basics, anything else is a luxury. I know people who work for a living and can barely afford Sky, perhaps its because they are actually paying it twice, once for themselves and once in taxes for someone else !