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