Tom Richmond (Yorkshire Post, January 7) is not the only commentator to raise the issue of “poor people” which induces apoplexy, every time I read of it!
Why is it that no-one queries upon what the supposed “poor people” spend their money? It’s never mentioned. Is it simply cowardice on the part of the media or a need to be liked or it’s not politically correct? I would dearly love to have an answer to this question.
I guess that I come into the “poor person” category myself. I’ve never received any kind of benefits, am self-supporting and live on about £12,000 a year (and have done so for many years). I run a car and take holidays, but I don’t smoke or drink; I turn lights off when leaving a room; don’t heat unoccupied rooms; put on an extra jumper in the house (this is never mentioned in “energy saving tips”); and put a rug over my knees when sitting on the sofa.
I eat simply but healthily. I’m sure that I’m not alone in following these common-sense procedures. So why is it that a bottomless porridge pot of money is given out, in all kinds of ways, to “poor people” who appear to have no requirement to justify upon what it’s spent?
It’s ludicrous and has proven to make no difference to the children in these families – because the children don’t, of course, see any of it.
Your columnist says: “Young children are vulnerable to the cold.” Perhaps their parents should be spending more on heating, than on smoking. Why isn’t this checked upon, before they are given extra money (my money) or “£1.1bn over four years” from the energy suppliers? And Freeview is perfectly acceptable – I have it – rather than expensive Sky contracts which “poor people” seem to favour.
I believe that a packet of cigarettes costs nearly £5, and a pint of beer several pounds. You query the price of a pint of milk (I won’t go into the number of dairy farmers giving up because of the poor return on their expense and efforts), but, come on, 50p? Are you saying that “poor people” cannot afford 50p for milk? They could have 10 pints of milk, for one packet of cigarettes, and anyway, are probably buying Coca Cola, at a far higher price than milk.
I could use the analogy of Dragon’s Den. If someone wishes to be given funds by the Dragons, then he/she must answer questions in great detail as to their business plan, budget, how they would spend the money, etc etc.
If these questions are, in the view of the Dragon, insufficiently answered, then, well, obviously, the funds are not forthcoming.
This is exactly the criterion which should be applied to recipients of handouts. But these Dragon funds are the property of the individual – in the case of the Government, there is less interest in the “outcomes” of money which is not their own.
