Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Archna
    • By MSE Archna 18th Mar 08, 11:39 AM
    • 1,874Posts
    • 6,140Thanks
    MSE Archna
    TV Licence article Discussion
    • #1
    • 18th Mar 08, 11:39 AM
    TV Licence article Discussion 18th Mar 08 at 11:39 AM


    This thread is specifically to discuss the the


    To discuss or ask a question about this article: click reply
    Last edited by MSE Researcher; 14-06-2010 at 4:08 PM.
    Report inappropriate posts: forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com




Page 135
    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 5th Apr 18, 8:28 PM
    • 10,246 Posts
    • 55,108 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    Unlike a subscription-only model it keeps the costs small for everyone.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    It doesn't keep the cost small, for those people who don't use the services.
    My job is Top Secret. Even I don't know what I'm doing.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - 1308

    Who are you to question why your god doesn't want me to believe in him?
    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 5th Apr 18, 8:35 PM
    • 10,246 Posts
    • 55,108 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    I think its worth it purely for Radio 4 and BBC4
    Originally posted by halogen
    That's because you enjoy Radio 4 and BBC4.

    Although I do think the new iPlayer set up is rubbish.
    You're happy to pay for something you think is rubbish
    My job is Top Secret. Even I don't know what I'm doing.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - 1308

    Who are you to question why your god doesn't want me to believe in him?
    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 5th Apr 18, 8:52 PM
    • 10,246 Posts
    • 55,108 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    It means that, theoretically at least, those that can afford to pay more than others.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    It does away with TVL and all the problems they cause. Which will have the added benefit of saving money.
    Let's likewise put VED on Council Tax.

    That should save me a good few quid, what with everyone contributing to it, and the need for enforcement being eliminated.
    My job is Top Secret. Even I don't know what I'm doing.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - 1308

    Who are you to question why your god doesn't want me to believe in him?
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 6th Apr 18, 9:25 AM
    • 11,620 Posts
    • 11,231 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    Let's likewise put VED on Council Tax.

    That should save me a good few quid, what with everyone contributing to it, and the need for enforcement being eliminated.
    Originally posted by Bedsit Bob
    I never mentioned Council Tax - I said general taxation. Personally I'd like to see Corporation Tax increased, tax loopholes for multinationals closed and income tax on the very highest earners increased. But I think that's outside the scope of this discussion.

    Interesting argument about the VED. To some extent it does currently tax those who use it more more (e.g. a household with 5 cars will pay more than a household with 1 car) and it taxes the polluting of cars which is a good thing. But it does have the problem of it not taxing the _use_ of the cars which is really what should be taxed. I think the ideal solution would be to scrap the VED and increase petrol duty but with a rebate for miles driven - so gas-guzzling cars would pay significantly more than greener cars.
    But, overall, I don't think scrapping VED and adding the cost to general taxation would be a bad idea.
    • halogen
    • By halogen 6th Apr 18, 2:50 PM
    • 116 Posts
    • 145 Thanks
    halogen
    I never listen to Radio 4 or watch BBC4.... can I have a tax rebate please?
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    Does not compute.....!
    Not appreciating BBC4 I just about get but radio4? are you alive?
    • halogen
    • By halogen 6th Apr 18, 2:51 PM
    • 116 Posts
    • 145 Thanks
    halogen
    That's because you enjoy Radio 4 and BBC4.



    You're happy to pay for something you think is rubbish
    Originally posted by Bedsit Bob
    Even in its current rubbish form it's better than what I've used of netflix.
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 6th Apr 18, 4:29 PM
    • 4,955 Posts
    • 13,210 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Interesting argument about the VED. To some extent it does currently tax those who use it more more (e.g. a household with 5 cars will pay more than a household with 1 car) and it taxes the polluting of cars which is a good thing. But it does have the problem of it not taxing the _use_ of the cars which is really what should be taxed. I think the ideal solution would be to scrap the VED and increase petrol duty but with a rebate for miles driven - so gas-guzzling cars would pay significantly more than greener cars.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    Without taking the thread way off topic, the current combination of VED/Fuel duty actually achieves both your objectives. VED is a tax on ownership which discourages the purchase of larger and more polluting vehicles (and also penalises older vehicle owners ) and fuel duty disincentivises use of the vehicle, with owners of larger (and less efficient) vehicles being further penalised indirectly through paying more tax per mile.

    In some areas there are problems with the number of cars owned, and removing the ownership taxation (VED) might unlock latent demand for car ownership in these areas.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 6th Apr 18, 4:36 PM
    • 4,955 Posts
    • 13,210 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Does not compute.....!
    Not appreciating BBC4 I just about get but radio4? are you alive?
    Originally posted by halogen
    The only radio I have is in the car, and I only listen to CD's when I'm driving (the nonsense spouted on most 'talk' radio programmes is not conducive to safe driving )
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 6th Apr 18, 8:10 PM
    • 10,246 Posts
    • 55,108 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    I never mentioned Council Tax - I said general taxation.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    OK, so substitute General Taxation for Council Tax. The principle is the same.

    To some extent it does currently tax those who use it more more (e.g. a household with 5 cars will pay more than a household with 1 car)
    But it doesn't tax those who don't drive at all, whereas your suggestion for the alternative to the TV Licence, does tax those who don't watch TV at all.
    My job is Top Secret. Even I don't know what I'm doing.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - 1308

    Who are you to question why your god doesn't want me to believe in him?
    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 6th Apr 18, 8:15 PM
    • 10,246 Posts
    • 55,108 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    Even in its current rubbish form it's better than what I've used of netflix.
    Originally posted by halogen
    But Netflix is entirely voluntary, whereas the suggestion is to make paying for the BBC compulsory, irrespective of using TV.
    My job is Top Secret. Even I don't know what I'm doing.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - 1308

    Who are you to question why your god doesn't want me to believe in him?
    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 7th Apr 18, 4:20 PM
    • 10,246 Posts
    • 55,108 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    Out of interest, I was LLF for a while.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    So what you benefited from, you now want to deny to others?

    Shades of I'm alright Jack.
    My job is Top Secret. Even I don't know what I'm doing.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - 1308

    Who are you to question why your god doesn't want me to believe in him?
    • mbmonty
    • By mbmonty 10th Apr 18, 8:46 AM
    • 110 Posts
    • 57 Thanks
    mbmonty
    I found out recently that a Romanian friend of mine has been charged by her Landlady for the full TV Licence fee.

    She was told she needed to pay because she has a TV in her bedroom, it turns out the Landlady is charging all of the occupants the same (the full amount).

    To me this is fraud,

    However, she is reluctant to do anything because she worries about being kicked out, she said that the only area she can afford to live in has a "community" connected by religion, so if she gets kicked out of one then none of them will rent to her.

    If she did want to report this, is this something that the Police would be interested in?
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 10th Apr 18, 11:01 AM
    • 10,017 Posts
    • 9,894 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    I found out recently that a Romanian friend of mine has been charged by her Landlady for the full TV Licence fee.

    She was told she needed to pay because she has a TV in her bedroom, it turns out the Landlady is charging all of the occupants the same (the full amount).

    To me this is fraud,

    However, she is reluctant to do anything because she worries about being kicked out, she said that the only area she can afford to live in has a "community" connected by religion, so if she gets kicked out of one then none of them will rent to her.

    If she did want to report this, is this something that the Police would be interested in?
    Originally posted by mbmonty
    More info required:-

    1. Is the Landlady actually buying TV Licences for each of the residents from whom she is taking payment? If not, then there are two potential problems, one in the taking of money under false pretences and the other in potential liability for TV Licence evasion.

    2. Are you sure that your friend does not require a TV Licence, as you seem to be implying? TV Licensing say that both Tenants and Lodgers are potentially liable to pay IF they receive TV broadcasts in their own room(s) under certain circumstances. This is complicated, and the requirement for a Licence depends on various seemingly arbitrary considerations.

    I'd suggest you find out whether your friend needs a Licence or not (if necessary ask TV Licensing the general question). Then, suggest that (because of the potential criminal liability) she asks her Landlady to produce evidence of the Licence that has been purchased for your Friend.


    As usual, the TV Licensing info on this is not very clear, but here it is, anyway:-

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/tenants-and-lodgers-aud2
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 10-04-2018 at 11:22 AM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Heedtheadvice
    • By Heedtheadvice 10th Apr 18, 12:07 PM
    • 813 Posts
    • 380 Thanks
    Heedtheadvice
    Wow!
    What a long thread. It certainly seems to be stirring up the emotions and causing lots of posting activity.
    Don't think I have contributed to it for some but here goes....

    The BBC is a public service broadcaster you either believe in having one or not.
    If you do then somehow it needs to be funded from public funds.
    Taxation leaves it's income unstable and very subject to the colour of government at the time. Like privately owned media it would then be less impartial. Overall I think it is impartial getting equal praise from left, right, centre, government, opposition, leave, remain etc.
    It's charter includes entertainment (it covers a wide spectrum) and education and it certainly does that. Sometimes broadcasting new ideas that we are not comfortable with such as global warming, the science behind it and plastic debris in the oceans.
    Hence it fulfills it's most basic charter need.

    Now you might argue that the licence fee method is a bit out of date (I would agree) but cannot see a better alternative apart from a tax.

    The argument that it is not used (by an individual) is fallacious because it is there for the public good like many other services. Latterly VED has been brought into the discussion. Again that roads should be entirely funded from central taxation is a fallacy. Those who use them most pay. Nobody gets no benefit and everybody pays something through purchases or deliveries and general taxation. It could be argued that general taxation tops up the BBC too but then we fall into the political interference problem!
    To argue that it is not used by certain individuals goes against the provision of a public service. Really very few individuals have never had a benefit. Even if I chose to pay through the nose and watch programmes etc on my screen and excluded the BBC I recognise I contribute to the general good even though it might not be too obvious.

    Channel 4 is paid for by everyone, indirectly, whether you watch or not, have a TV or not, can afford to or not via advertising which costs us all through our purchases and, even though it has good programmes, falls well short of what is produced by the BBC.

    Now you may not believe in public services, think you do not benefit in some way or other or be mean enough to expect to pick just a selection of services and not pay for the rest. So be it but then you must think that will opt out of paying for any social benefit and be purely capitalist. So you are then left with privately owned media, that competes only to serve the lucrative mass market, subject to the whims of it's owners, those with most assets sucking up any talent, more impartiality, greater reliance on entertainment to the detriment of inform and educate........and pay through the nose as well!

    Then maybe you believe in public service with state controls spouting lies and untruths thus controlling the populations opinion and banning any TV, radio and other services that does not suit.

    The BBC is far from perfect (we should aim to improve it!) but is better than most if not the actual best and does not give support to extremists but does give a good balance. It's charter aims in general are met even though there has been running down over recent years.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 10th Apr 18, 12:49 PM
    • 10,017 Posts
    • 9,894 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    The BBC is a public service broadcaster you either believe in having one or not.
    Originally posted by Heedtheadvice
    I "believe" in having Public Service Broadcasting, but don't necessarily think that the BBC is the only possible model. Indeed, we have other PSBs in the UK, none of which follow the BBC model (C4, ITV, C5, S4C), as well as channels like Dave that are BBC-half-owned, but not PSBs. It's complicated.

    If you do then somehow it needs to be funded from public funds.
    There are lots of Publicly-owned, Publicly-run things that are not funded collectively or centrally. The one does not follow from the other.

    Taxation leaves it's income unstable and very subject to the colour of government at the time.
    I don't think anyone witnessing the Licence Fee freeze could really argue that Licence Fee funding was any form of protection from Government intervention.

    Like privately owned media it would then be less impartial.
    An oft-made comment, seldom accompanied by any credible references or evidence. In the critical area of consumer journalism, C4, ITV and C5 all have their own contributions, and I see no evidence of partiality to advertisers.

    Overall I think it is impartial getting equal praise from left, right, centre, government, opposition, leave, remain etc.
    "Equal praise"? I must have missed that.

    Now you might argue that the licence fee method is a bit out of date (I would agree) but cannot see a better alternative apart from a tax.
    I can think of several better methods: subscription, central tax funding, local tax funding, industry levy, advertising. (In fact, anything would be better than the present system, whose enforcement is highly questionable from a legal, moral and practical perspective).

    The argument that it is not used (by an individual) is fallacious because it is there for the public good like many other services.
    And yet, we allow certain individuals (myself included) not to pay. Is that another reason why it is not a true public service?

    It could be argued that general taxation tops up the BBC too but then we fall into the political interference problem!
    Well, yes, the Licence Fee has been augmented by Government in recent years (through the Free Over-75s Licence, being funded by a Grant from the DWP). Is there any evidence of political interference as a consequence of that?

    Even if I chose to pay through the nose and watch programmes etc on my screen and excluded the BBC...
    Paid through the nose for what?

    Channel 4 is paid for by everyone, indirectly, whether you watch or not, have a TV or not, can afford to or not via advertising which costs us all through our purchases...
    In another forum I sometimes post on, this has been discussed to death, and then some. No credible evidence has ever been found or supplied to support the argument. The best that can be said is that certain products that are heavily advertised could be a net cost to consumers of those products. Such products can be avoided, but doing so may not save consumers any money. Overall, there is no evidence that advertising represents a bottom-line cost to individual consumers or to society that is unavoidable.

    And that's a good thing, too, because the BBC profits from the ad-funded channels that it half-owns (Dave, Gold, Yesterday, Really, Drama, W, etc. etc.)

    [C4]... even though it has good programmes, falls well short of what is produced by the BBC.
    It has a different remit.

    Now you may not believe in public services, think you do not benefit in some way or other or be mean enough to expect to pick just a selection of services and not pay for the rest.
    Or you could just think that mere TV does not fulfil the requirements of being a fully-funded public service.

    So be it but then you must think that will opt out of paying for any social benefit and be purely capitalist.
    You think that supporting life-saving emergency medicine on the NHS automatically commits us to Strictly Come Dancing?

    So you are then left with privately owned media, that competes only to serve the lucrative mass market, subject to the whims of it's owners, those with most assets sucking up any talent, more impartiality, greater reliance on entertainment to the detriment of inform and educate........and pay through the nose as well!
    That seems like a rather negative reading of the situation. I don't think that examining the output of Sky or ITV (or C4) really supports those allegations. What I see is huge diversity across commercial TV - probably more diversity overall than is provided by the BBC.

    Then maybe you believe in public service with state controls spouting lies and untruths thus controlling the populations opinion and banning any TV, radio and other services that does not suit.
    You mean State-controlled Media in a non-democratic society? I don't see us having that within the foreseeable future.

    The BBC is far from perfect (we should aim to improve it!)...
    How do you propose that we do that with such a famously secretive and unaccountable organisation? (Arguably the BBC is its own worst enemy in this respect).

    ... but is better than most if not the actual best and does not give support to extremists but does give a good balance.
    You mean that BBC airtime is never given to people with extreme views? I don't think that's true or that it would be healthy if it was.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 10-04-2018 at 1:15 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 11th Apr 18, 12:22 AM
    • 4,955 Posts
    • 13,210 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Cornucopia has already said much of what I'd say, so I won't repeat that, but would add some additional points of my own.

    The BBC is a public service broadcaster you either believe in having one or not.
    If you do then somehow it needs to be funded from public funds.
    Originally posted by Heedtheadvice
    I don't agree with this premise - Channel 4 provides a very good PSB service without having to be funded from public funds.

    It's charter includes entertainment (it covers a wide spectrum) and education and it certainly does that. Sometimes broadcasting new ideas that we are not comfortable with such as global warming, the science behind it and plastic debris in the oceans.
    Originally posted by Heedtheadvice
    This is not unique to the BBC. Other channels produce similarly challenging material - in my opinion Sky News is often better in this respect than the BBC.

    Channel 4 is paid for by everyone, indirectly, whether you watch or not, have a TV or not, can afford to or not via advertising which costs us all through our purchases and, even though it has good programmes, falls well short of what is produced by the BBC.
    Originally posted by Heedtheadvice
    That is a subjective personal opinion though.

    In my (subjective) opinion, Channel 4 produces original programming that knocks the spots off the BBC, they also buy-in programming which far more frequently becomes classic 'must-see' TV compared to the BBC. Sky News is far superior to BBC News. And although I don't watch them, I understand the Saturday night TV talent programmes produced by ITV are pure gold compared to the BBC's efforts to mimic them.

    Now you may not believe in public services, think you do not benefit in some way or other or be mean enough to expect to pick just a selection of services and not pay for the rest.
    Originally posted by Heedtheadvice
    It isn't a question of being "mean". The question is whether TV is a service which should rank alongside healthcare, having the bins emptied, education, and social services where there is good reason for the costs to be shared amongst us all regardless of actual use. When BBC (One) was the only channel there was some justification for public funding (via a licence fee) of its educational and informative output, but that was a very long time ago.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 11th Apr 18, 12:31 AM
    • 4,955 Posts
    • 13,210 Thanks
    EachPenny
    How do you propose that we do that with such a famously secretive and unaccountable organisation? (Arguably the BBC is its own worst enemy in this respect).
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    In a perfectly timed move the BBC has provided a great example to prove the truth in this statement.

    Radio 1 is set to "start the weekend" on Friday (so rad man) which means the weekday daytime presenters will only do four days a week.

    In the real world, if you only work four days a week you only get paid for four days. So will the (already overpaid) Radio 1 presenters be taking a pay cut and only getting 4/5ths of their current pay? I'll leave it to the BBC news website to explain this important point:-
    It's unclear how the schedule changes might affect the daytime hosts' current salaries, but a BBC spokesman said all presenters on the station are paid fairly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43712467
    So that's a 'no' then.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 11th Apr 18, 8:44 AM
    • 10,017 Posts
    • 9,894 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    In a perfectly timed move the BBC has provided a great example to prove the truth in this statement.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    I suppose it's because other broadcasters are fully accountable to shareholders and regulators that makes people somewhat ambivalent about the BBC's (lack of) accountability (because the end result on screen is very similar). But its secrecy really is endemic, as your example illustrates.

    Another example is pivotal to the discussion on the TV Licence. In the course of a formal complaint, I asked the BBC to publish the legal framework by which TV Licence enforcement operates. I absolutely think that in a democratic society ALL agencies should be completely open about which laws they use and how they use them (and there are legal principles in that direction). The BBC refused that request, citing legal privilege. In other words, they didn't want to disclose the legal framework in case some hypothetical future court case challenged it - hardly a ringing endorsement of its legal standing or legal accuracy. I asked my MP to ask them again, and the response was the same.

    So, in this instance, their notorious secrecy has taken them down a sinister path in which they are engaged in a massive law enforcement operation whose legal framework is obscured from the Public, and which was at the time completely unaccountable.

    A new Ombudsman has recently been appointed and it'll be interesting to see how that process handles relatively complex issues like this.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 11-04-2018 at 8:48 AM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 11th Apr 18, 10:17 AM
    • 11,620 Posts
    • 11,231 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    In another forum I sometimes post on, this has been discussed to death, and then some. No credible evidence has ever been found or supplied to support the argument. The best that can be said is that certain products that are heavily advertised could be a net cost to consumers of those products. Such products can be avoided, but doing so may not save consumers any money. Overall, there is no evidence that advertising represents a bottom-line cost to individual consumers or to society that is unavoidable.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    I don't see what you're saying here.
    If an episode of Bake Off costs Channel 4 2.5m, someone has to pay for that.
    Obviously the companies who are advertising are paying for it.
    But if companies are paying 2.5m in advertising, someone has to pay for that.
    There's no-one other than consumers who can pay for it, surely?
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 11th Apr 18, 10:38 AM
    • 10,017 Posts
    • 9,894 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    I don't see what you're saying here.
    If an episode of Bake Off costs Channel 4 2.5m, someone has to pay for that.
    Obviously the companies who are advertising are paying for it.
    But if companies are paying 2.5m in advertising, someone has to pay for that.
    There's no-one other than consumers who can pay for it, surely?
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    The issue is that that is not how advertising works. For most brands, if the advertising was cost-neutral (i.e. its entire cost was levied upon the existing sales to existing customers) then they would surely cancel their advertising and use the resulting savings to reduce the price and improve their competitiveness in the marketplace.

    The reality is that manufacturers have a variety of costs to cover, and advertising is simply another. The overall profitabilty of their business has to cover those costs, but it can be achieved in a variety of ways.

    Let's say that a (simplified) company owns a Baked Bean factory. That factory is currently running at 50% capacity (because that is all they can sell), has fixed costs of 500k, and volume-related costs of 20k per 1% of production.

    So their 50% capacity operation costs 1.5m, with sales of 2m for a profit of 500k.

    Using advertising, they can potentially increase production to 75%, in which case their costs become 2m, with sales of 3m for a profit of 1m. If their advertising has cost them less than 500k then it has produced an improvement in the efficiency and profitability of the business at no cost to consumers.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 11-04-2018 at 10:44 AM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,156Posts Today

8,566Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin