Sir, – As one of the many non-homeowning [and unlikely to be any time soon] taxpayers, I have to take issue with James Beard’s sense of entitlement with regard to the Government mica redress scheme and related Ministers’ public announcements (Letters, June 16th).
While I sympathise with the plight of the affected homeowners I can’t help but feel that the huge transfer of public funds from less well-off citizens to wealthier cohorts stinks of cynicism.
The affected homeowners could have purchased latent/structural defects buildings insurance which would have responded to the mica/pyrite issues but they chose not to. If I choose not to buy renters’ insurance and my rented home is burgled, can I hold the Government responsible for my losses because it didn’t do enough to stamp out crime. – Yours, etc,
CIAN CARLIN,
An Irish businessman in Singapore: ‘You’ll get a year in jail if you are in a drunken brawl, so people don’t step out of line’
Paul Mescal’s response to meeting King Charles was a masterclass in diplomacy
Protestants in Ireland: ‘We’ve gone after the young generations. We’ve listened and changed how we do things’
In Dallas, X marks the mundane spot that became an inflection point of US history
Carlingford,
Co Louth.