Benefits of having no TV - for the neighbours...

  Stuartli 14:54 11 Mar 09

At last a council prepared to take action that the majority of people will probably agree with wholeheartedly:

click here

At least the family cannot claim it wasn't warned.

  Chegs ®™ 15:00 11 Mar 09

Mr Cregan and his wife, who has lived in the house all her life, will have to pay the council almost £400 if they want their items back.

Shouldnt be to hard to find the £400 as they bought the TV & sound system.

Having lived beside noisy neighbours,I have no sympathy for this family.If they chose to ignore the abatement notice then they deserve to lose the gear.

  wiz-king 15:18 11 Mar 09

Why bring up the benefits tag, it make no difference to the noise level.
They broke a noise abatement order end of story.

  Monoux 15:43 11 Mar 09

"They issued a noise abatement order in 2006"

Why did the neighbours have to suffer until now before the equipment was seized, the Council should have acted much quicker then it did.

wiz-king - I expect the benefits tag was to demonstrate once again that there is something wrong with a system that provides sufficient money to buy a £2500.00 TV and £450.00 sound system when people who work damm hard can't even begin to afford one.

  tullie 16:05 11 Mar 09

Looks like they were working at the time,she still is,but is off sick.

  interzone55 16:26 11 Mar 09

The Benefits tag is because it's the Daily Mail and every story in the paper is carefully designed to raise the blood pressure of the readers, I think they're trying to kill them all for some reason...

  interzone55 16:34 11 Mar 09

There seems to be some confusion over the size of the TV.

The main body of the Mail article, as well as the headline states it's a 62" Sharp Plasma TV.

The photo caption states it's a 52" Plasma.

On the other hand, the Rochdale Observer states it's a 50" TV.

Additionally, there is no way that TV cost £2500, and the stereo system is probably worth about £300. It look's like those are the made up prices at Brighthouse where they sell items worth £100 for £3 a week for 2 years + compulsory insurance...

  Stuartli 17:40 11 Mar 09

A friend of mine bought a 50in Panasonic plasma set last year - it certainly cost more than £2k.

Your comments on the Daily Mail coverage is way off the mark.

The majority of people could not afford such prices for a TV, although a large screen model from around £300 to £600 would likely be within their means.

Don't forget that Sony, Panasonic etc have TV model ranges of different quality standards - the more you pay the superior the set, especially as far as the electronics are concerned.

IIRC Sony, for instance, has three different model levels.

  oresome 17:45 11 Mar 09

Papers, some more than others, never let facts get in the way of a good story!

  interzone55 21:00 11 Mar 09

"Your comments on the Daily Mail coverage is way off the mark."


They couldn't agree with themselves on the size of the TV. Although they've now corrected this - maybe someone at the Mail reads this forum.

They plaster the word BENEFITS all over the story to wind up the readers.

I think I made a fair comment.

btw if you read the article again you'll see the TV is a Sharp which are somewhat cheaper than Panasonic...

  Stuartli 21:17 11 Mar 09

The Mail story will have been, more than likely, submitted by a Greater Manchester based freelance journalist or agency.

To settle any arguments, the TV is a 52in according to the horse's mouth (i.e. the husband). The actual brand is of no consequence (or even, come to that, the screen size), rather the apparent cost of the set.

His wife is partially deaf it seems, so the sound was sometimes turned up quite high (she's not heard, it would seem, of sub-titles or lip reading).

The story has been featured on BBC TV's Look North regional news programme.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro 5 News - release date, UK price, features, specs

Gear VR vs. Daydream: Which delivers the best VR experience?

Best Mac antivirus 2017