THE TV licensing 'name and shame' advertisements (July 7) and Colin Clarke's proposed alternative (July 15) are both unfair to a small but significant group of people - those who do not have a television.

The TV licensing adverts make the clear but unstated implication that anyone who does not have a licence is breaking the law. Of course this is not true - you are only required to have a license if you use a television in your household. The latest statistics suggest that about two per cent of the population do not - thus, one in every 50 addresses will, quite legitimately, not be licensed.

Presumably these addresses are included in the figures published in the TV licensing adverts. If they were worded along the lines of 'x householders in Bootham have been convicted of watching TV without a licence' then I would have no problem. As things stand these adverts give the impression that law-abiding citizens are committing criminal offences.

As for Mr. Clarke's alternative (collecting the TV licence fee through direct taxation), why should I be forced to pay for something I don't use? I pay taxes to run schools though I don't have any children. And I pay taxes to subsidise public transport which is too infrequent, unreliable and expensive for me to use. Why should I pay even more taxes for another service I don't need?

Unlike, for example, education, watching TV is not a basic human right. It is a luxury, and the people who want it should be the people who pay for it. If the TV licence fee is to be collected through direct taxation, then so should the road fund licence, so that non-drivers can subsidise me to run my car.

Leo Enticknap,

Ingram House,

Bootham, York.

Do you also survive without a television? We would like to hear from readers who get by without television. Contact Chris Titley at the address below.