***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 4 *****
Continued debate on the changes to the benefits systems.
Click here for Volume 1
Click here for Volume 2
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 4 Feb 12 at 16:04
|
Dreadfully easy to be judgemental, and there but for the grace, etc, but
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
I've no idea how much 24 cans of lager and 200 cigarettes a week cost, but wouldn't that help towards an £80 shortfall a little, even if reduced rather than cut out entirely, which might be an impossible target?
|
I was sympathetic until I read about the fags/booze. 60-70 quid a week on fags ???? FFS ! The only benefit of that is that at least they're putting a decent amount back into the exchequer...
"I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating"
or smoking and drinking maybe - no doubt that a Human Right !
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 1 Feb 12 at 16:47
|
> The only benefit of that is that at least they're putting a decent amount back into the exchequer...
>>
And shortening the likely claiming period with an equisite display of addiction Darwinism.
sympathy?, not for a blink of an eye.
|
They aren't getting a great deal of sympathy, are they ?
I've not read all the comments, but I'd guess about 95% seem to agree they are being overpaid, and I'm inclined to agree on the basis of what is in the article
|
I have every sympathy with their addictions, but there are too many of them, they don't need that many mobile phones, they aren't very bright about entertainment and they could probably save a lot on food while eating better.
One would also think that the skills needed for 'educational software' might have been extended or adapted to secure some other employment in the field.
The Chinese are right about population. No couple should be allowed to have more than two children if they can't prove they have the means to support them. No single person should be allowed to have any children.
The sort of legislation needed would of course be anathema to most people and would seem evil to religious believers. Nevertheless I can't help feeling that advanced countries will get round to it sooner or later.
|
|
Not sure what part of N Wales he lives, but on the western fringes there's plenty of work around if you're not too fussy or work shy.
|
I can now see why people might not want to put themselves through the hassle of working, though I don't envy them. Starting from there, it's impossible to give people an incentive to work.
But frankly they are feckless. I consider myself well enough off but I would think it imprudent (for us) to spend £780 a year on Sky, £1660 a year on mobiles (we each have a PAYG and I can't even remember the last time I put £10 on either) or £3120 a year on fags - over 10% of their income on the fags alone. Of course, I am trying to provide for my own and my wife's retirement as well as paying about 30% of my earnings in income tax. It's good to know it's being well spent!
Of course, people can spend their money as they wish - but where is the fairness in others paying for them to spend money on things they deny themselves?
They could easily save for an annual holiday. But I suspect they are living hand to mouth with no proper budgeting - but of course that's OK when you have a guaranteed, inflation linked income.
They are even wasteful with their energy - I'd guess most people's bills are a fair bit lower than theirs.
If they are poor, it's because they are making themselves poor. They are only spending like that because they can.
Harsh?
|
We have cancelled sky over 40 pounds a month its getting silly.Mobile phones pay as you go.
No smokers in the house like a glass of wine.I don't think you are harsh the problem is what you can't afford you don't get.Some people will never learn this.
|
>> Harsh?
No, very very lenient indeed.
These people do not need benefits, they need a lesson in life - by someone like Roger who can show them what it means and takes to live within their means.
>> Not sure what part of N Wales he lives, but on the western fringes there's plenty of work around if you're not too fussy or work shy. >>
Don't suggest they should move. You will have the human rights brigade of this forum on to you complaining that families should not have to move away from the area they were born in, and they have a right to claim benefits in order to remain where they have their friends and relatives.
Last edited by: John H on Wed 1 Feb 12 at 21:07
|
>>>Don't suggest they should move. You will have the human rights brigade of this forum on to you complaining that families should not have to move away from the area they were born in, and they have a right to claim benefits in order to remain where they have their friends and relatives.
<<
Typical Daily Mail comment.
Pat
|
I think that with the beer and fags disclosure becoming the focus ( quite rightly so), the point is being missed that so many people are working for far less than £30,000 a year and working very hard for it to.
The benefits system as it stands, makes it possible and indeed profitable, for this family to have a choice of working or not.
Pat
|
The key point is in the third para His wife Katherine suffers from bipolar disorder with an anxiety disorder and is unable to work.
Mrs B's late sister had bi-polar disorder (manic depression) and it's the devils job to manage. When K was low she was almost catatonic and suicidal. High and she was off on all sorts of wild goose chases. Conventional medication then was Lithium, OK but had side effects. Problem was compliance. Self medication with tobacco helped her nearly as much - banning smokimg in psychiatric hosptals is almost inhuman.
Alcohol is a common complication with B-P as well.
|
|
That's interesting B. Thanks for that.
|
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100134365/why-britain-is-stuffed-an-unintentional-masterclass-courtesy-of-the-bbc/
" .... "bipolar disorder with anxiety disorder". Know the feeling, love. I too find myself daily crippled with anxiety about the fact that our economy is tanking, in part at least to the massive burden being placed on it by people with convenient mental problems which render them "too ill" to work. ... "
|
|
Brilliantly funny piece....I know Bi-Polar people who manage to hold down a job and in one case a business. Good point about re-training. One bus company in North Wales has to recruit from Poland and other countries to get bus drivers....re-train Wayne.
|
Ray says: "The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise."
The benefits system was not designed to keep people from retraining.
|
>> Brilliantly funny piece....I know Bi-Polar people who manage to hold down a job and in
>> one case a business.
Some manage their condition and of course quite a few brilliant creative personalities down the years are/were BP. To suggest however that because Stephen Fry and a few others overcome it therefore they all can is nonesense.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 10:04
|
I see they produced another child 5 years ago when they were already about 5 years into getting benefits. Feckless.
The £30k my Mrs is losing in state pension (60 put up to 65) is covering but one year of their lifestyle.
It's a bit more that irritating.
|
They make my blood boil.
"Raymond, a former educational software writer, has been jobless since 2001. Ray says: "The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago - there's a total lack of work in my area of expertise."
Try something different then, old chum.
Father of SEVEN. No way could I, or any of my friends, even contemplate more than an absolute maximum of 4 children, more probably 3, far more likely 2 and often 1 child. But then it's different when you have (want) to pay for their education, isn't it.
What's worse is the feckless underclass has an extra seven members courtesy of this work-shy couple. In the next generation that's a further FORTY NINE children for those of us who work to support.
Drop Sky, drop the 200 fags a week, drop the tobacco, drop £THIRTY TWO pounds a week on mobiles THIRTY TWO!!!. I wish the state would provide me with a mobile.
And of course because they don't pay for it they manage to spend £2,000 a year on electricity and gas. Get yourselves some jumpers.
As I mentioned previously, there should be an amnesty for people like this to shoot their children so the family is reduced to two children.
|
Im sure theres a benefit you can get for a chip on the shoulder like that ;-p
|
It's good we have Brompton on here as our token lefty to be an apologist for those on benefits.
Otherwise we'd have people suggesting shooting "people like that". Instead we're being told to pay them more.
|
One can but only point the finger at having the Labour party in No 10 for 13 years for all this mess,
Come the revolution - I'd lethally inject anyone who so much as even thought of voting for the Labour party.
|
>> One can but only point the finger at having the Labour party in No 10
>> for 13 years for all this mess,
>>
>> Come the revolution - I'd lethally inject anyone who so much as even thought of
>> voting for the Labour party.
>>
Hmm I'll set the RSPCA on you..
|
Im not as old as many of you lot, so tell me, have there always been people who live on the state like this?
I dont ever recall being aware of people who did quite so well off doing nothing at all, I do remember grotty council estates and people driving battered old cars, but nothing worthy of the stories that crop up now.
|
>> Im not as old as many of you lot, so tell me, have there always
>> been people who live on the state like this?
No. Have a look at "People of the Abyss" by Jack London.
Free here if you care.
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1688
|
>> Im not as old as many of you lot, so tell me, have there always
>> been people who live on the state like this?
>>
>> I dont ever recall being aware of people who did quite so well off doing
>> nothing at all, I do remember grotty council estates and people driving battered old cars,
>> but nothing worthy of the stories that crop up now.
Stu,
The idea that people 'On the Parish/On the Social' live too well is a narrative going back as long as relief for the poor has been provided: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Poor_Laws
The parameters of course move as living standards rise.
Iain Sproat, then Conservative MP for Aberdeen South, made his name in the seventies condemning 'Social Security Scroungers' who could afford, amongst other things, the 'luxury' of a colour TV.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 12:17
|
>> Iain Sproat, then Conservative MP for Aberdeen South, made his name in the seventies condemning
>> 'Social Security Scroungers' who could afford, amongst other things, the 'luxury' of a colour TV.
He had a point. A colour TV has always been £300, give or take. That was big potatoes in the 70s. In 1977 when I got married I earned £2500 a year, gross. We bought our first colour TV in 1981.
|
>> He had a point. A colour TV has always been £300, give or take. That
>> was big potatoes in the 70s. In 1977 when I got married I earned £2500
>> a year, gross. We bought our first colour TV in 1981.
Quite right but the less well off got them from Radio Rentals - even a small town had two or three TV rental outfits.
|
>> Quite right but the less well off got them from Radio Rentals - even a
>> small town had two or three TV rental outfits.
True, but rental as you know is more expensive then owning, like for like! I was the less well off - the last thing I was going to do was take on a commitment that would make me poorer every month ;-)
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 12:42
|
>>True, but rental as you know is more expensive then owning, like for like!
Many would rent because of reliability problems and expensive repairs.
|
I know about poor relief etc.
What I mean is, how long has it been that people on benefits can be substantially better off than people in work?
Has it really always been possible to get 30 grand a year ( or the equiv back in the day ) from the state?
In some ways, my nan, born 1918 and single mum to 7 children from 1948 onwards is a great comparison.
She survived by working 3 jobs, kids working when they werent at school and the odd bit of cash from wealthier siblings in hard times.
She never sat back and had it all paid for her, so did she just not claim what she was entitled to, or were things different then? My dad always says times were very different then for the poor. Is he wrong?
Last edited by: FoR on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 12:51
|
Read a book by Friedrich Engels FoR.
|
It's the endless breeding of the benefit claiming classes that irritates me more than anything else.
We have two children. We would like more, but we can't afford them, or the bigger house we would need to put them in. For people who don't work, this simply isn't a concern or an issue.
It's when I think where this is going, that I become genuinely worried. Like most working people, I am bringing my kids up with a strong work ethic. I've made bad decisions with money in my past, which I am still paying for, and which I will completely pay for. This also will be part of my children's education.
My two kids are only 6 and 4, but they already understand the value of money, and that if they want something significant, they have to earn it, and save for it. If Christmas and birthday 'budgets' don't cover it, they can ask for money instead, and put it towards the savings. Sometimes, they will get treated to things, but as a reward for exceptional behaviour or achieving something outstanding at school. They really, genuinely get it. It's not a hard lesson for kids to learn. When they are old enough to get a part time job, they will be strongly encouraged to do so, and to have some financial independence.
A family we know has 5 kids, and has been on benefits for years. They don't encourage this ethic in their kids, but instil the same entitlement philosophy. They demonstrate daily to their kids that it's OK to breed endlessly, and that someone else will give them a home, clothes, food etc. The eldest daughter is 16 and pregnant. She doesn't know who the father is, but will happily tell anyone she knows that "it's OK because the council will sort us out".
There are 5 of these kids, to my 2, and these ratios are similar up and down the country. Fecklessness breeds fecklessness. So, I wonder whether this problem will be better or worse in 20 years time, than it is now?
I support a robust benefits system as a safety net, but only as a safety net. It should not be possible for anyone to claim it for years without having to jump through a series of increasingly difficult hoops to get there. And I'm sorry, but people falling pregnant under the age of 21 should get NOTHING from the state.
|
The benefits system MUST be changed and changed now.
I most certainly don't agree with what this chap in some Godforsaken village in North Wales has done and continues to do, but............it's North Wales where jobs are hard to come by, 10 years ago the bloke loses his job and the state pays him the equivalent of maybe a £32,000 salary to sit at home.
You'd have to be very strong minded to retrain and consider any job at less than than £32,000 pa.
Benefits should be there to stop you starving and dying of cold - nothing more.
|
www.newsbiscuit.com/2012/01/27/woman%E2%80%99s-promotion-finally-allows-family-%E2%80%98to-eat-like-benefits-claimants%E2%80%99/
You couldn't make it up :-)
As I said Dulwich there are jobs around here - N Wales covers a huge area from "Godforsaken" rural bits to "Godforsaken" urban bits out east - The biggest employer in Wales is based in the east (Airbus) and Toyota - I was in the job market up until recently and knew the score - I didn't need to work so I was picky. It ain't hard if you're desperate. This family are in the rented sector so relocation is also on an option.
|
" You couldn't make it up :-) "
Unfortunately, you could and it was.
|
|
I know that (comma) hence the smiley !
|
>>some Godforsaken village in North Wales<<
Probably on Anglesey, God forsaked it 2000 years ago when the Romans left.
:)
|
|
They had one hell of a job to occupy it - the rest of the country just went belly up.
|
|
Yep! - the ancient Britons/Celts last stand I believe (and the Druids)
|
|
It's a strange place Dog - spirits everywhere despite its facade of modernity.
|
>> spirits everywhere despite its facade of modernity.
Spirits on benefits though Rob.
'The market for my haunting and freaking-out skills disappeared years ago. These days people haunt themselves by taking poor-quality recreational drugs and reading the Daily Mail. It's no fun being a spirit when other spirits are everywhere, looking for a role. I haven't had a weekend break in cloud cuckoo land for centuries. I blame the Holy Roman Emperor for these brutal cuts. I'd haunt him if I could, but the damn toerag is one of us now so I can't.'
|
Similar to a lot of areas in the west country really, which is why I like living here I suppose,
I used to be 'into' archaeology big time when we lived up on Bodmin Moor, I probably know of more Lithic sites in Cornwall than most Cornish do.
This is worth a visit if you're ever down this way (again) www.witchcraft.co.uk/boscastle.htm
|
We have a welfare system now in the past there was none.People died young no health care and the working classes where treated like rubbish.
Remember it was a labour man Bevin and in the Netherlands Van Drees Labour who fought for the NHS.
If you bring your kids up to dislike people on benefits also tell them about the rich who fiddle their taxes and cheat he system.Two sides to the coin.
|
|
The vast majority are in the moddle ground, people who actually want to and enjoy working to bring their kids up. That was our background. Never had any support off the state. Never will hopefully.
|
Look what is happening in the States.No fall back system people moving in tents.
Health care zilch for the poor .No thanks I rather stick with our way with all his faults.
Maybe it's our generation fault born after the war we had all the goodies.You can't blame children they can't help which side of the fence they are born.
|
>> We have a welfare system now in the past there was none.
Well...
The Council also inspects the Incapables; for there is a law enacting that persons possessing less than 3 minae and incapacitated by bodily infirmity from doing any work are to be inspected by the Council, which is to give them a grant for food at the public expense at the rate of 2 obols a day each. And there is a Treasurer for these persons, elected by lot.
Aristotle about 350BC
|
Our healthcare and benefits system is likely to collapse in the next 20 years.. It's unaffordable and treats the elderly worse than dogs. If the RSPCA found dog homes run like many hospitals and old age care homes, most of the managers would be on trial for gross neglect. And go to jail. And be banned from EVER looking after the old again. Ever.
The baby boomers - us - are going to bankrupt the system..
Last edited by: madf on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 15:56
|
When theres an economic boom, which one imagines, there will be at some point, then all these things will be quietly forgotten and anyone earning less than £40k a year will have a tax payer funded lifestyle.
Labour has zero interest in cutting benefits really, they want to increase them, continue to be the party that gives you something for nothing and therefore secure a majority for all of time as turkeys dont vote for xmas and benefits claiments will always vote for whoever will pay them more.
As I said before though, its pumping money directly back into the economy so dont despair too much. You can loath the way the money is spent, but via VAT and other such lovelies, it comes back around in the end.
I think the government prob gets back in VAT from me what they give me in benefits. In between they get jobs for upteen people to assist me in spending that money.
Its a rather wonderful merrygoround.
Last edited by: FoR on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 16:07
|
|
I've been thinking about that BBC item. It doesn't ring true, made up by some hack I reckon.
|
I did wonder if they made a slip up somewhere.
I wasnt sure they picked an example which was watertight enough to make people feel sorry for them.
If you want to make the point about the cap, it would have been far better to have some central London family who had one parent in employment, genuinely spending all their cash on housing. That would have tugged the sympathy strings more.
|
>>I wasnt sure they picked an example which was watertight enough to make people feel sorry for them.
It was written to make you feel anything but sorry for them. What makes you think that was anything but intentional?
|
>>It was written to make you feel anything but sorry for them. What makes you think that was anything but intentional?<<
Its the BBC and they dont stop banging on about how unfair benefits changes are - its the kind of story the much-loved Daily Mail would run - the BBC generally goes the opposite way to them.
I thought initially it would be a sob story. It was, but presented in a way which shines an uncomfortable light on how benefits are spent. I dont reckon that was their intention.
|
|
I was going to say something like that but I didn't want to be seen Mail bashing again.
|
>>I was going to say something like that but I didn't want to be seen Mail bashing again.<<
I thought it would have more weight coming from a Righty :-)
Look for clues in the article -
'They do not own a car or take a regular annual holiday'
'I would love to be able to say that we are living in one of these eight-bedroom mansions that everyone is up in arms about, but no, we are stuck in a three-up, two-down house that has external measurements of barely 19ft by 25ft. '
This is asking for pity, not trying to make them look bad.
The article finishes with 'I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating'
Big dramatic vision of people either hungry or freezing cold - sounds like a cry for help the BBC wants us to hear. This aint Daily Mail style at all.
I think someone made a mistake in letting the article go out as it did because while some of their circumstances arent great, it doesnt shine a good light on the parents in how they spend quite a large portion of the money. The journo seems to be a Guardianista.
Mistake I reckon OR whoever signed it off thinks blowing wads of state money on fags, booze and mobiles is ok and most people will understand - either is quite possible.
|
>> It doesn't ring true,
There is something of the baited hook about it.
Will it turn out that 'Raymond' never existed, and thus in some eyes, all the righteous indignation aimed at him will be seen as without value ?
|
>> I've been thinking about that BBC item. It doesn't ring true, made up by some
>> hack I reckon.
Interesting Rob. Folks in the know on benefits in other forums also came to same conclusion.
|
This is a response to FoR at 16.07.
Don't worry, we'll soon get this country out of recession and be a world envied economy again - let's just take in each other's washing thereby giving full employment to all.
Last edited by: Dulwich Estate on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 16:31
|
>>Don't worry, we'll soon get this country out of recession and be a world envied economy again - let's just take in each other's washing thereby giving full employment to all.<<
Ah, your channelling your inner socialist, we shall be glorious as one. Benefits for all!!
|
|
If the BBC story was fictional, there will most certainly be many tax-payer-funded 'living and breathing' Raymond & Co's living (quite well) in a town near you/me/us, which is why UKgov want to fit the cap.
|
|
They could do a factual case study - I've done plenty in my time with CAB - you get the feel for what's right and wrong in that sort of scenario very quickly.
|
The comments are all pre-modded. If they wanted the sympathetic ones posting, then they'd have posted them.
The BBC know just as well as everybody else which way the wind is blowing. Those on benefits who'd vote Labour will vote Labour anyway; those with jobs who pay tax will not vote for benefits.
You mark my words, people who expect their benefits to cover their annual VAT bill have got a thing coming to them. We'd all like a state hand-back of 100% of the tax we pay.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 17:58
|
>>those with jobs who pay tax will not vote for benefits.<<
Sure, someone on £13.5k a year who is £4.5k under the threashold for WTC is going to say no, what I need is to struggle MORE and give up that extra money - of course they will.
I see blue skies over them white cliffs of Dover, not to mention the flock of pigs flying overhead.
|
A self-employed person does a £100 job (labour only) and charges the customer VAT giving a bill of £120. £20 goes on tax. He pays an element of Income Tax and National Insurance – let’s say 20% all-in, so another £20 goes in tax. He has £80 left.
He drives to the fuel station and puts in £80 worth of petrol. The combined fuel tax and VAT is around 70% of the sale price, so another £56 goes in tax.
The chap is left with £24 worth of fuel for which his customer paid £120. The Tax take is around £96.
Thankfully he's not a higher rate tax payer !
Yes MM, I’d like just some of my tax back please
Last edited by: Dulwich Estate on Thu 2 Feb 12 at 18:46
|
>>Yes MM, I’d like just some of my tax back please
Wouldn't we all. But to claim benefits and justify it "because I pay a lot of tax anyway" is just crazy.
>>Sure, someone on £13.5k a year who is £4.5k under the threashold for WTC is going to say
>>no, what I need is to struggle MORE and give up that extra money - of course they will.
Quite. So why do you blame those on 30k-worth of benefits for taking what they can?
You're work-shy, just like the rest of them. Go and do a few more hours work in the way your nan used to - or the rest of us do. What would she think of your state-funded idleness? Let's just remind ourselves what you said about your nan:
"In some ways, my nan, born 1918 and single mum to 7 children from 1948 onwards is a great comparison.
She survived by working 3 jobs, kids working when they werent at school and the odd bit of cash from wealthier siblings in hard times.
She never sat back and had it all paid for her."
|
>>You're work-shy, just like the rest of them. Go and do a few more hours work in the way your nan used to - or the rest of us do. What would she think of your state-funded idleness? Let's just remind ourselves what you said about your nan:<<
Yes because someone who works 40 hours a week is idle in the same way someone who doesnt work any hours is. You do talk some crap.
You have only half the facts but hey, enjoy poor-bashing if you like, im done. Like a chicken. Tally Ho!
|
This message has been hidden as many of our users have rated it as offensive. You may view it by clicking hereWork a few more hours then. at £6 per hour you need only work an extra 6 hours a week to cover the £2,000 you scrounge from the rest of us.
You, as a person on benefits, are better off than the rest of us, as you don't need to bother working for the extra money you want.
snip
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 3 Feb 12 at 16:46
|
Could be Dog. Haven't had a decent one for a while.
|
|
Do we have our first puce-green scowly face?
|
"Do we have our first puce-green scowly face?"
It's only stage 3 - Yellow and orange to go
|
|
Is it any wonder that we do not attract any new members on this site when you read some of the vile posts that are left on here !
|
>> Is it any wonder that we do not attract any new members on this site
>> when you read some of the vile posts that are left on here !
>
Skip. This is a largely self moderating forum. The Moderators rarely have to snip posts, ban posters, remove or cut threads to pieces.
Compared to most (I'll be brave and say all) of the web forums this is a place of comparative harmony!
|
|
I didnt even see what was snipped so no idea if it was deserving.
|
>> "Do we have our first puce-green scowly face?"
>>
>> It's only stage 3 - Yellow and orange to go
Its made yellow.
|
>> Do we have our first puce-green scowly face?
Noo, not by a long way, I have acquired many in my time. More than AC in fact.
|
>>More than AC in fact.
Surely not...
|
|
A league table would be nice
|
>>Could be Dog. Haven't had a decent one for a while<<
Silly really CG IMO, it takes two to Tango, and one can choose to just ignore whoever is getting up ones nose :)
|
Exactly - you don't have to keep responding if someone is trying to is trying to wind you up. Does provide a degree of amusement to the spectators though.
|
|
One of the most enjoyable aspects of this site is the humour. For me, anyway.
|
One of the few programs I watch on the box these days is Cops, but the ones on Freesat (CBS) not Freeview,
They are all in America and y'all just got to luv the way they do things 'over there' :)
It's on now, see ya!
|
Not quite. Last time my depression was becoming a problem I ducked out for a while, conflicts on a personal level tend to be unhelpful, but no flounce on the horizon.
I guess I flounced from playing girlie slaps with MM. It got boring, my handbag is in a right state... must see if I can get DWP to send a new one.
Im waiting for Zero's how 2 guide on going out in style. Ive been a bit narky lately, but resisted the urge to say what I really think, it would only be snipped anyway :-p
|
Not read all of this thread - but how many of us spend £15pw on Sky? Especially as there's nothing else to do? Over £60pm!
I am surprised he was (a) unable to retrain for work.... well that's it... earning £30k tax free is great. I am looking into it.
|
We spend £42 a month on SKY but then we do watch alot of shows that are on the channels provided not to mention next month ill be getting the super F1 coverage included in that price so the value got greater for me personally.
We dont often go to the cinema or infact out at all, my wife is too tired from work and im too uncomfortable to be bothered, so having a broad range of TV which we enjoy works for us and its pretty good value if you like whats on.
|
I pay for Sky (and broadband besides) and have all channels apart from movies. But then I'm not on benefits. Not quite all.... no ESPN etc nor music channels. For me it's about £43 too.
Why can't the person in the referenced news not borrow DVDs cheap from the library. He seems to need movies because as someone trained in computer programming he cannot retrain
Not sure why Stu posted that. He's entitled to it. Or does Stu also get over 30k tax free from benefits? I suspect the answer is no.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 4 Feb 12 at 01:08
|
>> I pay for Sky (and broadband besides) and have all channels apart from movies. But
>> then I'm not on benefits. Not quite all.... no ESPN etc nor music channels. For
>> me it's about £43 too.
I cant afford sky.
|
>>I cant afford sky. <<
Your here to tell us you can afford a meal out somewhere, but cant find £20 a month. You are so very silly sometimes.
|
>> >>I cant afford sky. <<
>>
>> Your here to tell us you can afford a meal out somewhere, but cant find
>> £20 a month. You are so very silly sometimes.
I have to eat.
|
|
At 4 times the cost of doing so with food bought in a shop. Budgeting not a strong point?
|
>> At 4 times the cost of doing so with food bought in a shop. Budgeting
>> not a strong point?
At least I am paying for all I eat not for 800 channels of unwatchable crap. No wonder you'r depressed watching that merde.
Value for money not your strong point?
|
You could argue it that way I guess, but I dont watch 800 channels in the same way that people dont optimise their use of roads, their gardens, their time...life.
But so what. Your arguing that you cant afford it. Your a secret Lib Dem arent you? I ask because your saying one thing but mean another. What you mean is, you dont WANT Sky, not that you cant afford it. Of course it wouldnt sound so dramatic then would it :-)
Will you be putting dramatic attention seeking in the book?
|
>>
>> Will you be putting dramatic attention seeking in the book?
You have a cheek, you of all people, No1 at the art, accusing me.
That really takes the biscuit.
edit, its left me so speechless I am off to walk the dog and ponder the sheer cheek of it.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 4 Feb 12 at 10:31
|
...I have to eat...
Beans on toast and watching West Ham and F1 on Sky, or haute cuisine and re-runs of quiz shows on Freeview.
Your choice.
|
>> ...I have to eat...
>>
>> Beans on toast and watching West Ham and F1 on Sky, or haute cuisine and
>> re-runs of quiz shows on Freeview.
>>
>> Your choice.
I will watch ALL F1 for free - thank you. (and live if you know where to look)
Hey but then budgeting is not my strong point
|
>> >> ...I have to eat...
>> >>
>> >> Beans on toast and watching West Ham and F1 on Sky,
Actually Beans on Toast is a really good meal very tasty and satisfying.
Which is more than can be said for watching West Ham.
|
>>Not sure why Stu posted that. He's entitled to it. Or does Stu also get over 30k tax free from benefits? I suspect the answer is no <<
I was answering the general question on SKY subscription rather than someone on 30k benefits - if I am getting that much my wife must have a double life! What we get will halve in April so the party is over, if there ever was one.
|
|
FoR it's obviously a lifestyle choice, I prefer to eat out a couple of times a months rather than pay for Sky.
|
|
I know. Im a very decent cook so eating in is a pleasure. The only time I see my wife most of the week is when we sit down to watch all the series we record over the week, so for us its part of the glue of the relationship, its our time we set aside every week and I think thats very important.
|
...rather than pay for Sky...
I'm a Sky person at present, but nothing is forever.
When I signed up for HD, I checked the length of the contract which is 12 months.
I regard the 12 monthly payments as money already spent, but will review the position in November.
A Freeview HD recorder box is an option, particularly if Freeview adds a channel or two of interest.
|
|
Before I lock this thread just add another thought to the Sky thing - plenty of HD stuff about without paying Murdoch and his cronies money for it. I'm converting to BT Vision which is far better value for money.
|
Benefit Changes Thread Volume 3. - Crankcase
