Did you see Bake Off last week? Wasn’t it absolutely criminal how Paul gave both Candice and Jane the famed handshake and completely shunned Andrew? Do you know what else is criminal? You. Probably.

Recently, the law on TV licensing has been changed, removing a well-known, well-loved loophole. This loophole meant that you didn’t need a TV licence to watch live or catch-up BBC TV on a laptop or mobile device, as long as it wasn’t plugged into the mains. Not any more. The TV licensing website now says: “Anyone who downloads or watches BBC programmes on demand on iPlayer must be covered by a TV licence” – whatever the device. So unless you have delved into your pockets and coughed up the necessary money for a TV licence, watching BBC iPlayer is now a crime.

This is not the only so-called ‘micro-crime’ that is common among citizens of the UK. A recent poll revealed that 75 per cent of British people break the law on a ‘small’ scale, and many others probably do too, but don’t admit to it. Other micro-crimes common among the people of the UK include paying someone cash-in-hand, and avoiding paying fares on public transport. In general, the attitude towards these crimes is that they’re not really illegal. In fact, my use of the word ‘crime’ there probably warranted a raised eyebrow or two. How can something really be the law if it isn’t enforced? Surely if everyone does it, it’s ok? It’s not really breaking the law. And anyway the law’s just a guideline, isn’t it? These are the unsaid sentiments behind committing these ‘micro-crimes’.

The whole idea of micro-crimes and crimes that aren’t really crimes casts us right into the lion’s den of bigger questions about morality. All in all, there are three different positions that we can take. First, we can say that the law is the law, so anything within the letter of the law is acceptable, and anything that is against the law is wrong. Secondly, we can say that the basics of the law should be followed, but there are a few bits on the edges that can be taken away and extra bits can be added to form our own idea of right and wrong. Thirdly, we can say that the law is irrelevant and everyone should do what they want, regardless of what the government or another person thinks.

I would hazard a guess that most of us fall into the second category. If we feel no twinge of guilt while watching iPlayer without a TV licence, then we can’t possibly fall into the first. As for the third category, it’s practically impossible to form our own morality in a vacuum. Whether we like it or not, our ideas of right and wrong are based on the law. Not to mention the threat of some severe fines or jail time, depending on how deeply buried your rebellious streak is.

So what are the problems with this ‘follow only the basics of the law’ attitude? Simply put, it is extremely vague. What is it based on? If we don’t have a supreme authority on moral issues, then everyone has their own opinions on whether something is permissible or not and thus the whole of society becomes a huge pit of people disagreeing with each other. To take an extreme example, although it is perfectly legal, corporate and private tax avoidance is thought to be wrong by the majority of members of the public. However, companies such as Starbucks and Amazon, and persons such as those who were exposed in the Panama Papers earlier this year, clearly don’t have a problem with storing their assets in off-shore accounts to avoid paying tax on them. Who’s right?

We could argue about the morality of micro-crimes and tax avoidance until the end of time, but if everyone takes the second (or indeed the third) viewpoint mentioned above, there is no guiding light that provides us with a way of settling arguments about whether something is right or wrong. In the least blunt way possible, this means that the only logical response is to follow the law to the letter.

Sadly, this means paying for a TV licence, so we should all go and do that now, end of story.

Or is it? Fortunately we don’t have to exist in a terrifying Orwellian world, where everyone perfectly adheres to the law. Humans are not robots and we can cope with moral disparities. It is possible for each person in this country to have their own ideas of morality tightly or loosely based on the law. The only implication is that there will be unresolvable arguments about morality, because nobody can claim that their rules for living are better than anybody else’s. We simply have to move past this and let people legally avoid taxes or illegally dodge fares if that doesn’t scratch their morals.

Fortunately, however, we can say that next year, we won’t need to face a moral dilemma to watch Bake Off – Channel 4 is not affected by TV licensing laws.