BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[Jim web]

In article
<PHEAIHCMJKHMHMOFBPOGIEDGCOAA.c.e.macfarlane at macfh.co.uk>, C E
Macfarlane <c.e.macfarlane at macfh.co.uk> wrote:

> >     -----Original Message----- From: get_iplayer
> >     [mailto:get_iplayer-bounces at lists.infradead.org]On Behalf Of Andy
> >     Gascoigne Sent: 14 May 2016 20:11 Cc: get_iplayer Subject: Re: BBC
> >     iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with
> >     their favourite shows
> >
> >     To be honest I am quite fed up with people who seem to think that
> >     they have a right to watch BBC programmes "free".

> To be equally honest, I am quite fed up with people who seem to think
> that they have a right to preach to others.

> No system of funding anything is perfectly just.  You win some, you lose
> some.  In common with many who are fortunate enough to reach my age, I
> have survived various economic injustices.  Normally I don't choose to
> discuss these, partly because I suspect many of us could say the same,
> but when someone gets on their high arse, sorry horse, and preaches at
> me, perhaps it becomes time to see the wider context.

Well, OK, in a wide context... :-)

I've never been particularly keen on the idea that two wrongs would equate
to a right. Particularly if it may 'harm' an innocent party. (In this case
the BBC.)

Despite that, I can sympathise with people who would happily pay a license
fee, but have been denied the choice, or can't afford to, when they seek to
access BBC output anyway. Fortunately, I suspect that the ability for many
such people to pay and 'join' being able to get the material seems now to
be on the cards. 

Allowing the BBC to arrange for people outwith the UK to pay and access
strikes me as good for both sides. 

However none of that seems to me to justify people accessing without
payment who are *in* the UK when they could simply pay the fee. Using a
'loophole' seems to me rather akin to the way rich businesses dodge taxes
by adopting a low profile and hiding what they're up to from scrutiny. 

Of the two, the tax dodging seems a far more serious matter. Compared to
that, using the 'no license required' loophole seems fairly trivial. But
the effect on the BBC's income has been becoming more marked, and needed
dealing with. 

Seems reasonable to me that people who can pay for a license, should, if
they want access. Albeit with some agreed exemptions which people have come
to some sort of democractic decision over for social reasons. Such *agreed*
exemptions seem to me a fairer basis for some to bet 'free' access than a
loophole. The problem then is not to have the BBC lose out as a result -
e.g. the way the Government have transferred the burden of the 'free'
licenses here for the over-75s so it now is essentially a cut in the BBCs
net income.

Hence I'd prefer to proceed on the basis of changing what exceptions and
allowances might be made, based on individual circumstances. if the problem
is lack of income, that should be dealt with on a socially agreed basis. If
we want to tackle issues like tax dodging by the rich, then we should also
tackles such issues for the disadvantaged, etc. By uncovering the details
and *agreeing* what to do.

But as been said, this is not a political forum, nor a moral debate. So
please ignore the above, and I'll make no further comment.

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html