charged for sky magazine????

jane_72

has anyone noticed an additional £1.45 being added to their direct debit for sky...


i saw it on one of the forums a bit back that they were gunna start charging for this junk book in january!!! so was gunna call and tell them i did'nt want it nearer the time!!

just checked my bank and an extra £1.45 has been taken out.....


i think it is such a cheek.......to just assume and take money without your permission!!

C_Ronaldo

jane_72 wrote:

has anyone noticed an additional £1.45 being added to their direct debit for sky...


i saw it on one of the forums a bit back that they were gunna start charging for this junk book in january!!! so was gunna call and tell them i did'nt want it nearer the time!!

just checked my bank and an extra £1.45 has been taken out.....


i think it is such a cheek.......to just assume and take money without your permission!!

is taht not theft taking when permission hasnt been given

Mrs_B_12

Hmm, I seem to remember on the last letter with the magazine we got it said that they would charge for the magazine but take the same amount off of our subscription payment. Will keep an eye out for my next payment and see how much goes out.

soolin

I was paying £32 and have just checked online banking and am still being charged £32, so at the moment for me they are sticking to what they said in their letter that the cost of the magazine would be taken by reducing the subscripton package cost.

Soo

itsme_2

I called customer services and told them to cancel the magazine and to reduce my subscription by £1.45, I was told the magazine was free, I told them about the info I had recieved with my magazine but they persisted it was free. The person I was speaking to was foreign so I'm not really sure if my magazine has been cancelled, seems a waste of time phoning them.

I will keep an eye on my direct debits though.

codger

Hopefully somebody here will have a better memory than me, but when Sky's magazine first appeared, there was a row about News Corporation's VAT evasion or tax avoidance (or something similar) where this publication was concerned. Perhaps Sky / Murdoch / News Corporation has now had to come to an accommodation with HM Treasury, hence the seemingly bizarre decision to charge-but-then-not-charge for it -- otherwise, why go to all the administrative bother involved????

None of this alters the fact that the magazine was designed to be a cash-cow, and so delivery to subscribers' homes was deliberately made compulsory -- not for their benefit, but for Sky's.

For Sky is able to approach advertising agencies with "readership figures" showing that 1 million people (or however many are daft enough to put money in Murdoch's coffers) "take the magazine", and on the basis of those figures sell magazine advertising space at £000s per page.


This exploitation of Sky subscribers for commercial purposes ought to have been stamped out long ago, but it hasn't. So every subscriber, whether he / she likes it or not, and regardless of whether he / she has consented to it must continue to accept this junk mail -- which is all Sky Magazine is -- and allow themselves to be used as statistical fodder.

Sky subscribers really ought to have written to News Corporation long since, asking for their rightful share of Sky Magazine's profits, because without News Corporation's unrestricted access to their letterboxes, there'd be no magazine at all. . .