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

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below for further brief OT discussion, otherwise please feel free
to ignore ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-bounces at lists.infradead.org]On
>     Behalf Of Jim web
>     Sent: 15 May 2016 12:21
>     To: get_iplayer at lists.infradead.org
>     Subject: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to
>     watch to catch
>     up with their favourite shows
>
>     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.)

That argument rests on the government and the BBC being entirely seperate
and independent entities, which they are not because to an extent the one
determines the funding of and thereby controls the other.

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

I'm sure many would welcome this, and of course it would be a possibly
significant extra source of revenue.

>     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.

That is an unsupportable argument that you're making.

I don't have installed the qualifying equipment, and therefore don't have to
pay the Licence Fee.  Why should I volunteer to pay a tax that I don't
qualify to pay?  I don't have to pay Income Tax because my income is too
low, but by your logic above, I should pay it voluntarily anyway!  Or for a
more closely related example, those over 75 who are entitled not to pay the
Licence Fee should nevertheless pay it anyway!

The logical end to your argument would be that we all of us form an orderly
queue  -  after all, we are British  -  to hand over all our money to the
government, and for the government to apportion it back to support each of
us as and how it thinks fair and fit!

>	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.

Again, this argument is flawed.  The two situations are not comparable
because, unlike rich businesses stowing assets abroad, I'm not hiding
anything from anyone, and I'm not breaking the law.

>     the effect on the BBC's income has been becoming more marked,
>     and needed
>     dealing with.

As I've already agreed.

>     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.

Yes, yes, but all this is 'magic moral fairies' again.  Whenever they appear
to solve the world's many wrongs, then it might be useful to pursue these
daydreams, but otherwise it's just pointless OT ramblings.