https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0

TMH loved it

--
Adam

On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it



Brian, it's a picture of a really untidy garden.

On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Very tastefully executed.
Caravan next door adds a nice touch.

On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Art.

If you turned that photo into a painting and hung it in a London
gallery, you'd be famous.

Or maybe you could actually buy the items there and do a confessional
exhibition like Tracey Emin.

Then, when it's famous, sell the "installation" for £142,000 to an art
collector, and comfortably retire ....

--
Adrian C

On 07/03/2021 09:32, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0

Brian, it's a picture of a really untidy garden.

I think to count as a garden there has to be, at least, the possibility
of things growing in it. It's a back yard entirely covered with some
kind of timber decking covered with debris of some sort; I'm sure the
owner has his reasons.

--
Max Demian

On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


to know all is to forgive all: e.g. all that tatty decking could just be
the result of someone too productive to muck about with burials under a
patio

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 07/03/2021 10:26, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:32, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


Brian, it's a picture of a really untidy garden.

I think to count as a garden there has to be, at least, the possibility
of things growing in it. It's a back yard entirely covered with some
kind of timber decking covered with debris of some sort; I'm sure the
owner has his reasons.



The owner does not know about it,

It's a renter property and the tenant installed it along with the shed
at the back with a bar in it and the conservatory.

It's going to cost thousands to sort out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


--
Adam

If you change the0 into a 1 at the end of the link then it should auto
download.

One thing that worries me about decking is rats. I know of several folk with
this trendy patio system, and they have all had rodent issues. I'm not quite
sure why, unless they eat there and it goes between the cracks when they
drop food.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"ARW" wrote in message
...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0

TMH loved it

--
Adam

On 07/03/2021 10:11, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Art.

If you turned that photo into a painting and hung it in a London
gallery, you'd be famous.

Or maybe you could actually buy the items there and do a confessional
exhibition like Tracey Emin.

Then, when it's famous, sell the "installation" for £142,000 to an art
collector, and comfortably retire ....

There's a definite feel of a S African 'township' about it.

https://www.alamy.com/slums-in-sweet...150353732.html

Note the satellite dishes and free electricity stolen from the
government owned electricity company...


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 07/03/2021 11:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:11, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Art.

If you turned that photo into a painting and hung it in a London
gallery, you'd be famous.

Or maybe you could actually buy the items there and do a confessional
exhibition like Tracey Emin.

Then, when it's famous, sell the "installation" for £142,000 to an art
collector, and comfortably retire ....

There's a definite feel of a S African 'township' about it.

https://www.alamy.com/slums-in-sweet...150353732.html


Note the satellite dishes and free electricity stolen from the
government owned electricity company...




Your point seems to be that those people could be living in mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

On 07/03/2021 10:40, ARW wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:26, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:32, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0



Brian, it's a picture of a really untidy garden.

I think to count as a garden there has to be, at least, the
possibility of things growing in it. It's a back yard entirely covered
with some kind of timber decking covered with debris of some sort; I'm
sure the owner has his reasons.



The owner does not know about it,

It's a renter property and the tenant installed it along with the shed
at the back with a bar in it and the conservatory.

It's going to cost thousands to sort out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0

So the periodic inspections went well :-)

On 07/03/2021 11:53, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:40, ARW wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:26, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:32, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0




Brian, it's a picture of a really untidy garden.

I think to count as a garden there has to be, at least, the
possibility of things growing in it. It's a back yard entirely
covered with some kind of timber decking covered with debris of some
sort; I'm sure the owner has his reasons.



The owner does not know about it,

It's a renter property and the tenant installed it along with the shed
at the back with a bar in it and the conservatory.

It's going to cost thousands to sort out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


So the periodic inspections went well :-)

7 failures plus a note that the sockets and switches had been painted
with gloss.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0

--
Adam

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:11, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Art.

If you turned that photo into a painting and hung it in a London
gallery, you'd be famous.

Or maybe you could actually buy the items there and do a confessional
exhibition like Tracey Emin.

Then, when it's famous, sell the "installation" for £142,000 to an art
collector, and comfortably retire ....

There's a definite feel of a S African 'township' about it.

https://www.alamy.com/slums-in-sweet...150353732.html

Note the satellite dishes and free electricity stolen from the
government owned electricity company...

difficult to run a tv set without electricity

-

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 07/03/2021 10:40, ARW wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:26, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:32, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0



Brian, it's a picture of a really untidy garden.

I think to count as a garden there has to be, at least, the
possibility of things growing in it. It's a back yard entirely covered
with some kind of timber decking covered with debris of some sort; I'm
sure the owner has his reasons.



The owner does not know about it,

It's a renter property and the tenant installed it along with the shed
at the back with a bar in it and the conservatory.

It's going to cost thousands to sort out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0




Doesn't the owner check on the property at 3 to 6 monthly intervals?

On 07/03/2021 13:05, SH wrote:


Doesn't the owner check on the property at 3 to 6 monthly intervals?

No idea. The letting agency was 80 miles away from the property.


--
Adam

On 07/03/2021 11:31, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2021 11:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:11, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Art.

If you turned that photo into a painting and hung it in a London
gallery, you'd be famous.

Or maybe you could actually buy the items there and do a confessional
exhibition like Tracey Emin.

Then, when it's famous, sell the "installation" for £142,000 to an
art collector, and comfortably retire ....

There's a definite feel of a S African 'township' about it.

https://www.alamy.com/slums-in-sweet...150353732.html


Note the satellite dishes and free electricity stolen from the
government owned electricity company...




Your point seems to be that those people could be living in mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

No, my point is that chavs are chavs irrespective of race/color.
And they all have the same priorities..


--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On 07/03/2021 10:11, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

Then, when it's famous, sell the "installation" for £142,000 to an art
collector, and comfortably retire ....


You can't comfortably retire on £142,000.

Bill

On 07/03/2021 11:31, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2021 11:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:11, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Art.

If you turned that photo into a painting and hung it in a London
gallery, you'd be famous.

Or maybe you could actually buy the items there and do a confessional
exhibition like Tracey Emin.

Then, when it's famous, sell the "installation" for £142,000 to an
art collector, and comfortably retire ....

There's a definite feel of a S African 'township' about it.

https://www.alamy.com/slums-in-sweet...150353732.html


Note the satellite dishes and free electricity stolen from the
government owned electricity company...




Your point seems to be that those people could be living in mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 07/03/2021 10:26, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:32, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


Brian, it's a picture of a really untidy garden.

I think to count as a garden there has to be, at least, the possibility
of things growing in it. It's a back yard entirely covered with some kind
of timber decking covered with debris of some sort; I'm sure the owner
has his reasons.



The owner does not know about it,

It's a renter property and the tenant installed it along with the shed at
the back with a bar in it and the conservatory.

It's going to cost thousands to sort out.

Dunno, at least with the timber its easy enough to burn it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0

On 07/03/2021 10:03, Richard wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Very tastefully executed.
Caravan next door adds a nice touch.

Must take some photos next time I go back of the next door neighbours
garden.

They have a special car parked in front of the caravan.


--
Adam

Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?

--
Chris Green
·

On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were on
benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic classes
are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf

Look at Figure 2.35

On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were on
benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic classes
are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf

Look at Figure 2.35



I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and I
may have misunderstood?

GB wrote:
On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were on
benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic classes
are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf

Look at Figure 2.35

I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and I
may have misunderstood?

Not to mention that the differences are pretty small, and is
there any guarantee that the 'demographics' correspond to 'on
benefit' in any way?

--
Chris Green
·

On 08/03/2021 09:47, GB wrote:
On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were
on benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic
classes are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf


Look at Figure 2.35



I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and I
may have misunderstood?



Well another hypothesis is that low income groups lie more about what
they have and do.



--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 08/03/2021 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/03/2021 09:47, GB wrote:
On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if
you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were
on benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic
classes are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf


Look at Figure 2.35



I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and
I may have misunderstood?



Well another hypothesis is that low income groups lie more about what
they have and do.

You are Donald Trump AICMFP.

On 07/03/2021 18:25, ARW wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:03, Richard wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Very tastefully executed.
Caravan next door adds a nice touch.

Must take some photos next time I go back of the next door neighbours
garden.

They have a special car parked in front of the caravan.



Richard have a look at the door neighbours garden and the special car

https://www.dropbox.com/s/re3j8sv56t...sized.jpg?dl=0

I believe that you will enjoy it. The photo not the actual garden - if
you know what I mean:-)

I have another EICR to do in that village that looks even worse than
this one and is occupied. Gaining access is difficult for the next one.

--
Adam

On 08/03/2021 19:24, ARW wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, ARW wrote:
On 07/03/2021 10:03, Richard wrote:
On 07/03/2021 09:12, ARW wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hi3s7i9gtf...zed_1.jpg?dl=0


TMH loved it


Very tastefully executed.
Caravan next door adds a nice touch.

Must take some photos next time I go back of the next door neighbours
garden.

They have a special car parked in front of the caravan.



Richard have a look at the door neighbours garden and the special car

https://www.dropbox.com/s/re3j8sv56t...sized.jpg?dl=0

I believe that you will enjoy it. The photo not the actual garden - if
you know what I mean:-)

Thanks.
That does add something.
Not being judgemental, but I can't help wondering if supervision was
removed too soon.


I have another EICR to do in that village that looks even worse than
this one and is occupied. Gaining access is difficult for the next one.

Intriguing...

On 08/03/2021 09:47, GB wrote:
On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were
on benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic
classes are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf


Look at Figure 2.35



I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and I
may have misunderstood?

My bad, you are indeed correct. I had inverted the groups.

Fredxx wrote:
On 08/03/2021 09:47, GB wrote:
On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were
on benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic
classes are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf


Look at Figure 2.35



I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and I
may have misunderstood?

My bad, you are indeed correct. I had inverted the groups.

So, going back to where I asked 'Evidence?' it turns out that you have
provided evidence for the opposite of what you were saying! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

On 09/03/2021 05:41, Richard wrote:
On 08/03/2021 19:24, ARW wrote:

I have another EICR to do in that village that looks even worse than
this one and is occupied. Gaining access is difficult for the next one.

Intriguing...


Glad you enjoyed the car.

I have been to the other house but could not get him to answer the door
but I knew he was in.

The garden is worse than the first one. I might sneak a few shots of the
inside if possible when I do it.



--
Adam

On 09/03/2021 17:35, ARW wrote:
On 09/03/2021 05:41, Richard wrote:
On 08/03/2021 19:24, ARW wrote:

I have another EICR to do in that village that looks even worse than
this one and is occupied. Gaining access is difficult for the next one.

Intriguing...


Glad you enjoyed the car.

I have been to the other house but could not get him to answer the door
but I knew he was in.

The garden is worse than the first one. I might sneak a few shots of the
inside if possible when I do it.


Be sure to don a hazmat suit.

On 09/03/2021 16:12, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 08/03/2021 09:47, GB wrote:
On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were
on benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic
classes are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf


Look at Figure 2.35



I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and I
may have misunderstood?

My bad, you are indeed correct. I had inverted the groups.

So, going back to where I asked 'Evidence?' it turns out that you have
provided evidence for the opposite of what you were saying! :-)


Evidently.

On 09/03/2021 18:37, Richard wrote:
On 09/03/2021 16:12, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 08/03/2021 09:47, GB wrote:
On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if
you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were
on benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic
classes are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf



Look at Figure 2.35



I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and I
may have misunderstood?

My bad, you are indeed correct. I had inverted the groups.

So, going back to where I asked 'Evidence?' it turns out that you have
provided evidence for the opposite of what you were saying! :-)


Evidently.

Hooked up to illegal cable is not on the figures.

Can you still get that?



--
Adam

On 09/03/2021 16:12, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 08/03/2021 09:47, GB wrote:
On 08/03/2021 00:32, Fredxx wrote:
On 07/03/2021 18:25, Chris Green wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

Your point seems to be that those people could be living in
mansions, if
only they were not spending so much on watching satellite telly?

Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

Evidence?


I recall an article in a paper, probably The Sun that went over the
various luxuries enjoyed by households where one or more persons were
on benefit.

This is more recent and it shows that the higher socio-economic
classes are more likely to enjoy just Digital Terrestrial TV:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse..._tv_charts.pdf


Look at Figure 2.35



I had a look at Fig 2.35, and I formed the reverse conclusion.

AB form 27% of the population, and they are 26% of the DTT only group.
DE form 25% of the population, and they are 31% of the DTT only group.

I don't think the graphic is the best way of presenting the data, and I
may have misunderstood?

My bad, you are indeed correct. I had inverted the groups.

So, going back to where I asked 'Evidence?' it turns out that you have
provided evidence for the opposite of what you were saying! :-)

My recollection was an article a decade or more ago and viewing styles
have since changed a great deal. I can find no reference and so admit
defeat.

Yes, please do feel free to be ungracious and rub it in! :-)

On 07/03/2021 16:33, Fredxx wrote:
Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

That isn't true.

Bill

On 08/03/2021 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well another hypothesis is that low income groups lie more about what
they have and do.

No, the biggest liars are the rich. That's how they got rich.

Bill

williamwright wrote:
On 07/03/2021 16:33, Fredxx wrote:
Given in the UK you are more likely to subscribe to Sky TV if you're on
benefits that would be a reasonable deduction.

That isn't true.

You're a bit late to the game Bill! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

On 09/03/2021 18:36, Richard wrote:
On 09/03/2021 17:35, ARW wrote:
On 09/03/2021 05:41, Richard wrote:
On 08/03/2021 19:24, ARW wrote:

I have another EICR to do in that village that looks even worse than
this one and is occupied. Gaining access is difficult for the next one.

Intriguing...


Glad you enjoyed the car.

I have been to the other house but could not get him to answer the
door but I knew he was in.

The garden is worse than the first one. I might sneak a few shots of
the inside if possible when I do it.


Be sure to don a hazmat suit.

For personal protection, or to further freak out their neighbours?

--
Adrian C

On 10/03/2021 10:23, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 09/03/2021 18:36, Richard wrote:
On 09/03/2021 17:35, ARW wrote:
On 09/03/2021 05:41, Richard wrote:
On 08/03/2021 19:24, ARW wrote:

I have another EICR to do in that village that looks even worse
than this one and is occupied. Gaining access is difficult for the
next one.

Intriguing...


Glad you enjoyed the car.

I have been to the other house but could not get him to answer the
door but I knew he was in.

The garden is worse than the first one. I might sneak a few shots of
the inside if possible when I do it.


Be sure to don a hazmat suit.

For personal protection, or to further freak out their neighbours?


Give him a chance to reconnect the meter so it is 'legal' :-)