ACCOMMODATION AT LANCASTER PARK POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22194, 10 September 1937, Page 7

ACCOMMODATION AT LANCASTER PARK

POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS

TO TH* IDITOB 01 THX P»E8». Sir, —I note in a recent issue of “The Press” that the president of the New Zealand Rugby Union, Mr R. T. Meredith, at the dinner given to the South African team after the second test match, “thanked the Canterbury Rugby Union and its committee for the way the arrangements for' the match had been handled.” With that statement 1 emphatically disagree. It is obvious that he gathered his impressions from the committee room and was not or. the embankment. I was. I wish to draw his attention to certain occurrences on and off the field which, far from being a matter for congratulation, call for the very strongest condemnation. Further, the overcrowding on the embankment on that occasion was absolutely scandalous and a danger to human beings. Supposing, for instance that Mr Meredith had been one of those unfortunate individuals who were crushed in the crowd owing to latecomers trying to force their way on to the bunk long after its capacity to hold them had been stretched to the utmost would he be so enthusiastic about the work of the local union? I think not. And if he had crushed and rolled over same of the numerous broken bottles lying about I think he would have at once instituted legal proceedings to obtain redress for such outrageous treatment. In my opinion, the embankment was overcrowded at noon, yet the people continued to stream through the entrance gates. The official in charge of the broadcasting outfit, acting on the union's behalf, kept urging the bankers to pack closer and stand closer. In fact, the bankers were being treated worse than sheep in a railway truck. Moreover, what provision was made in case of fire in the temporary stand? The Canterbury Rugby Union had had previous experience of handling a big crowd and should have made provision, by way of adequate railings on the embankment passage ways, more conveniences, stand accominodaticn, and in general provided the necessary amenities for the comfort and wellbeing of their patrons. The next point for consideration is the behaviour of the children parked under the new stand. Why were they allowed to hoot the visitors’ colours at calculated intervals before the maten without being immediately checked by the broadcasting official, or whoever was in charge of them? Again, why were they allowed to yell generally when Brand, the South African lullback, was preparing to take a shot at goal? Actually what they wanted was a sound spanking for their shocking display cf bad manners. —Yours, etc., V HERVEY HAMILTON. P.O. Bdx 183, Christchurch. September 8, 1937. [Dr. W. S. Seed, president of the Canterbury Rugby Union, had no comment to make on this letter.!

TO THE EUITOB 01 IHB PBBBa. Sir —The official policy of the Douglas social credit movement of New Zealand is to obtain pledges from parliamentary candidates (especially from sitting members) to carry out the will of the people as set out in a demand form. Mr F. G. Thomas, who styles himself a social creditor, considers that this is a waste of time. As Major C. H. Douglas, the world leader of the movement, has himself advised this’ policy, it is plain to see that_Mr Thomas is a rebel in the ranks. This is further indicated by his remarks regarding the banking system. He objects to private banks creating and cancelling money. As all genuine social creditors knew, this practice would still obtain under social credit, but a national credit authority would be empowered to issue debt-free money for all national and social services up to