I was listening to a debate on LBC about prisoners having the right to Sky TV. The presenter thought that because prisoners don’t have liberty they should have access to full Sky TV.
There’s an argument that prisoners, because they can’t put their kids to bed at night, because they can’t make certain choices in their lives we should pity them and allow them to view channels and have access to services that law-abiding citizens who can’t afford it don’t get. We shouldn’t pity them and give them this service. They are in prison because they committed a crime. It doesn’t matter how juvenile that crime was, they committed it and it was enough that a judge, and then a jury (possibly) said that they shouldn’t be in society.
A family who can’t get work struggles and they drop the things they can’t afford. They pay the bare minimum to loans, they do the best they can to provide for their family, to keep their family alive, to keep their lives afloat and they acknowledge that Sky TV is too much for them. Then they understand that prisoners are able to access these channels simply because they committed a crime.
What is fair about that?
Many people simply can’t afford to having anything more than Freeview in their homes and they accept that but Freeview is the most dismal of television services. It is basically the worst of TV and it’s free so no one should complain.
You should complain. Don’t settle for it. You were forced into this by the digital revolution. It doesn’t mean you accept what that brings.
Sky TV is a luxury. Why should you get that for simply being in jail?
If prisoners have the right to view Sky TV for nothing, so do the rest of us, regardless of who funds it.