It's a BBC worldwide website, working in the UK, using the BBC brand (e.g. the logo), showing adverts to UK people.
At the bottom of the (very good) content it says:
"BBC Worldwide is a commercial company that is owned by the BBC (and just the BBC).
No money from the licence fee was used to create this website.
The profits we make from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes."
That's essentially the same message used as the explanation as to why I can't use the bbc.com/future website. Confusion has not abounded, the world has not ended.
The UK-blocked "future" website continues to make no sense to me. I can't see how this is not daft.
They can't. The content isn't owned by BBC UK, it's owned by BBC Worldwide, and BBC UK would have to: pay to licence the content from BBC WW or BBC WW would have to display ads.
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/
It's a BBC worldwide website, working in the UK, using the BBC brand (e.g. the logo), showing adverts to UK people.
At the bottom of the (very good) content it says:
"BBC Worldwide is a commercial company that is owned by the BBC (and just the BBC).
No money from the licence fee was used to create this website.
The profits we make from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes."
That's essentially the same message used as the explanation as to why I can't use the bbc.com/future website. Confusion has not abounded, the world has not ended.
The UK-blocked "future" website continues to make no sense to me. I can't see how this is not daft.