READERS’ OPINIONS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXV, Issue 10368, 8 April 1927, Page 4

READERS’ OPINIONS

THAT ATHLETIC COSTOOTEIiST

(To the Editor.) Sir.—ln your issflie of April 1 I notice a letter from a correspondent who has evidently taken umbrage at vour athletic writer’s report of the three-mile track championship. \\ foist thanking him (the correspondent; ior his defence of my capabilities. I really think that too much has been made cf the whole thing, as, knowing your athletic writer’s opinion of. my running for some time past, it is only to be expected that he would take this opportunity of haying a hit baen at me. Unbiassed criticism is welcome, but. since the retirement of the previous lady champion from athletics, i have missed the former weekly athletic contributions and had been thinking that your contributor had also given the game best, “fctride ' is entitled to his opinions and the people who read his notes are also entitled to theirs. Kuf sea.—l am jours, etc., KcaiM . Wellington.

AIRING OF GRIEVANCES. (To the Editor.) Sir —Kindly allow me sufficient space to air a few of my grievances re unemplovment in our-midst. Firstly I would like to ask the chairman oY the Harbor Board is it a lact that there are quite a number of single men (unskilled laborers) engaged on the harbor works Also, is u; correct that some men working on the dredges are working douole shifts —that is. sixteen hours per” day—and doing some other men out of * work that can well do with n■' Mv last grouch is: “Is there suc-a a tliino- as a preference clause on the works?” If not, it c-ertamly seems to swing that way. Old Country labor seems to come first, and Colonial labor a poor second, in conclusion. I may state that I am tne father of a young family (all being born in Gisborne) and, indirectly, l have been paving rates for a gooaly number of Years. Still lam not able to zseeure a billet here, not that.- I cannot do a day s work u itb the besi. Thanking you, S’-r, for allowing me to have my little say— so cn the above. —I ain, yours, etc.. NOT A LOAFER.