I NOTE in the article regarding the spraying of "‘Poverty’" on the office of Neil Carmichael, that the staff say that the cost cleaning off the offending paint is likely to exceed £1,000 and the cost will be met by the taxpayer!
Why the taxpayer?
Do other businesses and private dwellings that suffer such attacks have their costs met by the taxpayer?
Does Mr Carmichael have no insurance?
Does his party have no financial resources?
After all, a lot of those taxpayers are in poverty already without subsidising political parties.
Brings home what I think the painter meant.
Mike Linnett
Berkeley
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article