Lack Of Facilities

Dear Sir,—Recently we wrote to you about lack of student facilities in the College. Since then some of our members have discussed matters with the executive. We find that some action has been taken over the deplorable conditions in the common rooms and in the women's cloak rooms. Congrats to the exec.—keep it up.

We understand, however, that plans for improved conditions in these places will be submitted to the Registrar and that the problem will be, what percentages of the costs will be borne (a) by the Students Association, (b) by the college authorities.

It is our opinion that the college authorities who are, so to speak, the landlords, should be responsible for the repairs and improvements. The Students' Association has the responsibility of keeping the Student Union building fund healthy, and that should be our main consideration.

Another source of controversy between the students and the council again centres on the student facilities. Naturally the new science block has top priority, but what is to come next—a new library or the Union? We say the Union but Professor Bailey, acting-principal, has publicly stated otherwise. We can only conclude that the council's honeyed excuses when refusing permission to the Soc. Club to build a hut were sheer hypocrisy. (See "Pie in the Sky." page 4.) "Why should student facilities always come at the bottom of the list?

In the proposed plans for the Sub we notice that provision has been made for only two small clubrooms—one for the use of secretaries, the other for general purposes. Obviously these are inadequate. Club meeting times would clash and gear would still have to be housed—in some cases considerable libraries! The SCM. EU, CSG and Soc. Club all merit rooms of their own. Presumably the Drama Club will find a home in the Little Theatre, but there are also other sporting and cultural clubs needing accommodation.