Madam, First the extent of the people caught; now we are treated to the extent of their excuses. There does seem a fair old campaign ongoing to encourage all and sundry to make sure we have our TV licences. As we all should. If we require them. The tales spun are indeed a rum bunch. One can see the appeal to those with column inches to fill.

Certainly most of those shared were hard to justify. But what of the more nuanced or prosaic reasons? Were we not to know of these? Any appeals, mitigations? Or were all caught 'bang to rights', done and dusted and dealt with en bloc, no questions asked?

Because I do just ask, as using a TV as a source of lamp-like glow is not illegal and does not require a licence, if not screening live broadcasts. So that glow could be from watching a DVD or catch-up online.

There are also out there some less than amusing stories on how TVL/Capita chooses to explain the legal basis of demands and searches in letters and at the door, and even rather hair-raising tales of what can happen once they gain access into people's houses, often assisted by police personnel less than well versed in the law in such matters. Police, who perhaps could be better deployed elsewhere at a time of high austerity and stretched resources. The BBC's recent high-profile string of 'investments' using licence fee money anywhere other than on broadcasting content hardly makes them deserving of unique revenue collection assistance, especially considering the costs to the poorest and most vulnerable in such lean times and cuts to public sector services that are, really, essential.

One presumes anyone brought to court, as in the featured piece, did not enjoy legal support on the licence fee-payer's tab, like so many BBC executives called to account, and still only internally, on matters ranging from Savile through McAlpine to Help for Heroes to the £100M Digital Media Initiative?

Peter Martin, Ross