Among the thieves and thugs, the robbers and rapists, the prostitutes, pimps and perverts, the local magistrates' courts occasionally offer the spectacle of offenders of a different sort, TV licence dodgers. In my reporting days, they came in batches of 20 or more the detector vans had been in the area again. I rarely stuck around to hear the cases, although sometimes one sat through them, waiting for a more newsworthy matter further down the list. Thus one saw conveyor belt 'justice' dispatched. At Woodstock Magistrates' Court now alas no more the Duke of Marlborough, the chairman of the bench, used briskly to dispose of the cases and announce the penalty a £90 fine, say, with £15 costs. "Fifteen pounds what?" asked one bemused defendant, unable to fathom the upper-crust accent in which his financial obligation was revealed. "Corsts!" thundered His Grace.

According to the spokesperson for TV Licensing, Jessica Ray, in a letter to The Independent last Saturday, licence-dodgers and 400,000 were caught last year come from "all socio-economic groups in the UK". I suppose they do. But, as I remember it, for every well-heeled defendant able but unwilling (or too careless) to pay there are a dozen or more who really can't afford it. Forced to choose between financial priorities like feeding the kids and keeping the house warm, or meeting this, for them, heavy financial commitment, is it any wonder that they decide against the licence? And, yes, I accept that buying a packet of fags might sometimes come first too, but for many these are a necessary prop, as John Reid recently reminded us.

I think of these poor people whenever the subject of the TV licence is raised. A broadcasting service funded entirely by advertising revenue would probably suit some of them very well. While the chattering classes find the present, advert-free BBC (save, of course, for the tedious plugs for its own products) entirely to their taste, this is not what everyone else wants. Many enjoy advertisements not only for their own sake but for the opportunity they offer viewers to nip to the loo or make a cup of tea. It cannot be fair that everyone must pay equally to support the sort of broadcasting service that appeals to a minority a vocal and articulate minority, who are just as selfish about the sort of programmes they want to watch.

It is argued in favour of the licence that, without it, the 'pot' of advertising revenue would not be sufficient to maintain the style of broadcasting we are used to. Indeed, it might not be in which case elements of the output ought to be funded directly from tax. "Oh horrors! Government interference," say apologists for the status quo. But I believe it better to risk that governments (even this one) can be carefully watched than maintain a situation in which society's 'have nots' are expected to finance the pleasures of the 'haves'.

Which brings me to the ghastly Jonathan Ross as I judge him to be from his foul-mouthed broadcasting persona (though people who know him tell me he is a good egg, with no airs and graces). The extent of his remuneration for his BBC radio work has been widely commented on. I can only point to the utter absurdity of his being paid significantly more for three hours work on a Saturday morning than the BBC's director general Mark Thompson earns in a whole week. His radio earnings are dwarfed by what he trousers from the BBC for his television appearances £12m a year, according to a report in the Daily Mirror.

His defenders will argue that he brings in the audiences an argument which happens to be utter balls. His Saturday morning Radio 2 audience of three million or so is almost exactly half that achieved every weekday afternoon by the infinitely more skilful Steve Wright. Wright earns £8.30 a minute, compared with Wossy's £25.64.

The former BBC chairman George Howard used to charge his prostitutes to the licence payer. "F*** off. I'm an old man. I am going to die soon and if the BBC doesn't like it, too bad," was the response he made when his practice was questioned a response which proved, if nothing else, that he spoke the sort of language Ross understands. Reprehensible as Howard's conduct was, I find it more acceptable than the BBC's insane generosity (who approved it?) to Ross. At least it was helping to support the needy.