Licence to print money
There's a lot of views about the BBC
licence fee, and decriminalising failure to pay it. Here:
Mary Dejevsky follows the other sheep
in the debate, and misses or evades the main points. At least, my
main points. Which are these:
- The reason for decriminalisation isn't taking up disproportionate time in the courts. The argument for retaining criminal status isn't that otherwise there'll be more evasion. The reason for decriminalisation is that, plainly, it is the right thing to do. Not paying the licence fee isn't on the same playing field as mugging someone or thumping a granny.
- The long term solution isn't tacking the fee onto taxes or council tax bills. That, entirely wrongly, continues the assumption that anyone with a TV or computer will watch BBC programmes. The current system fines me, and I can happily go years without feeling the need to watch BBC output, for owning devices capable of receiving that output I'm uninterested in.
I would happily pay a radio licence
fee, because I do frequently listen to BBC radio.
It is patently unfair to charge a
licence fee in relation to owning a television. It is the equivalent
of a subscription service demanding payment just because you have the
necessary hardware to receive it, whether or not you do. The only
fair way is to find a way to block their signal. Then, if I want it,
I'll pay for it, and otherwise, I'll give it a miss, thanks. It's
that choice thing our in-charge blokes keep promoting.
Another unfair point is the cost. When
the licence fee was conceived there was only the BBC, and the licence
fee was a fraction of the cost of a telly. Now, while it remains a
fraction of the cost of a full-on widescreen extravaganza Carlos
Fandango model, you can pick up a telly for less than the licence
fee, which is ridiculous.
I will admit to the Six Nations Rugby,
but only on the BBC when I can't get it on a proper sport broadcaster that
makes a better job of it and gives the games more pre- and post-match
airtime. On a pay per view basis, that round about a tenner a game,
which I certainly wouldn't be forking out for, say, Italy v Scotland.
When is and when isn't text okay?
Phil Collins made headlines when he
divorced his wife, or informed her of their separation with immediate
effect, or something like that, by text.
Now the airline has told flight MH370
relatives that there's no hope of any survivors. By SMS message.
It sounds reasonable. Wherever possible
the news was given face-to-face as a first preference. Then over the
telephone. Where neither of those lines of communication worked out,
then a text was sent so that the news didn't come via the media, who
could not be trusted to sit on the news until all the families were
informed.
There would be, though, wouldn't there,
the temptation to download and use a plane-crash smiley? There
wouldn't? Probably right. Evil thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment