READERS CONSIDER

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 16, Issue 10, 20 October 1950, Page 4

READERS CONSIDER

UNSPORTSMANLIKE?

Sir, —Now that the Rugby season has finished I, a player, would like, through the' medium of your paper, to express my opinion on the very unsportsmanlike atttitude of the Rotorua Sub-Union.

The union, which had a predominence of players chosen in the Bay reps, throughout the season elected to forfeit to Whakatane and play for the Peace Cup instead. Thus, both the Whakatane and Bay Unions were done out of their share of the gate money. This match was against an outside team that contributes nothing towards the financial upkeep of the Bay Union. It peems to me, and I am sure also to others, that the general idea must have been “We’ve had all we can get out of the Hurinui Shield. Let Whakatane have it plus the empty bag to keep it company.” In conclusion, I would point out, if a repetition of this sort of thing ,is to be avoided, Bay delegates will have to be appointed who have very much more than the limited vocabulary of only one word. Yours etc., S. PARKINSON, ,Te Teko. October 19, 1950.

REPLY TO MR SERGANT Mr Sergant’s letter in reply to mine shows a considerable improvement on his usual stj’le because at least readers know what it is about. Mr Sergant has stated that it is lack of courage that prompted me not to sign my name. This is a common jibe and it is no more true than to say that Mr Sergant signs his name because he is foolhardy or egotistical. Many really great men, politicians, churchmen, social workers and even judges have used pen names not through lack of courage but because of social and business connections they have deemed it prudent to do so. If great men can conceal their identity surely this correspondent, perhaps the second dullest who has contributed to your journal can claim the same privilege. Anyway it’s more fun for readers, and in stodgy commnities there is a tendency to judge the man and not the logic in the material he contributes.

In his original letter Mr Sergant made the assertion that there was only one candidate offering. No one knows better than Mr Sergant that for years there has been a suspicion that the Mayor has been selected by a small coterie who formed a ring, and so far the ring has not been broken. When three men are toying with the idea of breaking the ring they should be encouraged to take independent action and not reminded (as they were by Mr Sergant) of the old tradition.

Mr Sergant also inferred . that the management of Borough affairs was efficient. It would be very interesting to learn on what he based this assertion. Does he admire the colour of the town water supply after a flood, the absence of sewerage, the state of the conveniences in the town, both men’s and women’s, the absence of a suitable social hall for the town, the care of the grass plot round the Rock, or the condition of the rubbish dump.

Other matters are the Council’s last ditch stand against a power quota system, their failure to accept transit housing when it was offering, and their failure to accept a Community Centre scheme when a £1 for £1 subsidy was available. Even such a trifling matter as having the power on from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. the last three Sundays without mentioning whether this cut has been abolished or not, is a bit of muddling. It is Mr Sergant’s own business if this is the tradition of efficiency which he has immortalised in verse.

Yours etc., “NO MONOPOLY” ►