Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
---1998 Comment---

1997 Comment
1999 Comment
2000 Comment

Complaint to a railway company

September 1998

Date of journey 7 September 1998 Departure time 10.16

From LOOE To ST IVES

Comments

Two of us took the train for a day trip to St Ives expecting to arrive there at 12.29. However the Penzance train was delayed and when we got to St Erth (about 8 mins late) the connecting service had gone. The ticket office person said "Nothing to do with me - I was on my lunch break - do you want a complaints form?" My complaint is that if I had known I was going to have to sit around at St Erth station for three quarters of an hour I would not have taken the train at all. (I also think the European Regional Development Fund are wasting their money if they are subsidising this pathetic service.) If arriving 40+ minutes late qualifies for a refund, I'd appreciate a refund.

Re: Bus Free-For-All

4 August 1998 Letter to Albuquerque's Weekly Alibi, published in edition of 12-18 August 1998.

Dear Weekly Alibi

Dennis Domrzalski's piece about Councilor Bregman's free bus plan for central Albuquerque raises an interesting scenario. But it's not only Denver and Chattanooga that have free city center transit systems. Both Seattle and Portland (Oregon) have "magic carpet" areas where transportation is free. In Portland there is a light rail system. In Seattle some buses run underground in special tunnels. These are free, together with other bus services, within designated city blocks. Maybe one day Frasier Crane will take a bus! Maybe he already has.

All the best

Steve Savage, London

26 March 1998 Letter to the London Evening Standard

Dear Sir

Unlike most US voters, if polls are to be believed, Max Hastings is clearly no great fan of President Clinton. Not of course that that makes him unusual among British journalists. But his article in yesterday's Standard (25 March 1998) seems to be whirling around in a storm of Mr Hastings' anger. He almost appears to blame Mr Clinton for the ill-advised US intervention in Somalia, which of course was the brainchild of President Bush (supposedly a foreign-policy expert compared to President Clinton) and his administration. Then Mr Hastings blames President Clinton for doing the sensible thing and getting out of Somalia.

He seems to disapprove of the President's African tour, to put it mildly, but is perhaps forgetting that he is the USA's head of state as well as of government.

But oddest of all is Mr Hastings' view that America doesn't take any interest in Africa and that Africa's problems need to be somehow sorted out by the United States. The USA does take an interest in Africa, for example (if indirectly) through the World Bank, which exercises an influence on many African governments (for good or ill). And surely the bottom line is that Africa's problems aren't going to be sorted out by Americans any more than they were sorted out by British and other colonialists, excellent farmers though they may have been. In the final analysis, Africa's problems have to be sorted out by Africans.

Yours faithfully
Steve Savage

Cabbages, kings and flying pigs

10 March 1998

'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings.'

Through the Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carroll
The focus groups have had their effect. Word comes out of London's Buckingham Palace that the queen is keen to modernise the monarchy. Apparently what the monarchy and its advisers have in mind for the new millenium are (a) tighter restrictions on awarding the arcane title 'Her' or 'His Royal Highness', (b) the flying of the Union Jack on the flagpole of Buckingham Palace when the queen is not staying there and (c) loosening up the rules on bowing and curtseying.

Thus does the molehill move and give forth a mouse.

The British mass media purport to take all this nonsense perfectly seriously, as though anyone (a) understands or (b) cares about the royal family's bizarre fixation on the meaningless title 'HRH', or on flag-flying. Reporters enquire further about bowing and curtseying and are told that the position is in fact as before -- bowing and curtseying are entirely voluntary (as before, apparently) and advice has been disseminated to this effect, with the rider that the royals would be grateful if people would nevertheless observe customary practice.

Customary practice has been for all concerned to treat bowing, curtseying and general obsequiousness as obligatory, on the grounds that it would be churlish to behave normally.

It's hard to decide if this strange institution -- the British monarchy -- more resembles Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass. The British republican movement is still tiny. With the monarchy emitting such guff, one has to wonder why.

Desperately seeking green sneakers

5 January 1998 A few years ago - many years ago, in fact - I bought myself a couple of one-piece garments. Jumpsuits? Boiler suits? One of them was red and one was green. I still have them. They appear to have shrunk over the years, but I know that's just one more illusion.

Having bought these striking items of apparel, I decided I wanted to buy a pair of green sneakers, or gymshoes, or plimsolls, or deck shoes. But it didn't matter what I wanted to call them, for there were none to be had. Every manufacturer, every retailer, with one mysterious accord, had decided there was no money in green sneakers, nor any in green gymshoes, nor green plimsolls, nor green deck shoes. For one thing, the new generation of trainers was in. For another, colour was out. After much searching, I bought some sneakers and also something to make them green - paint, or dye. Pretty weird I must have looked in my green jumpsuit when I'd painted up my sneakers, but that was then, as they say.

A few years later, colourful sneakers, or gymshoes, or plimsolls, or deck shoes were in again. But I'm one of those individuals who make up that fickle thing known as the public, and as I no longer wanted green sneakers, nor gymshoes, nor plimsolls, nor deck shoes, I didn't buy any.

When I went to the sales this winter in search of an overcoat, I was reminded of that dispiriting search for green sneakers. A few years ago I used to buy my coats at places like British Home Stores and Marks & Spencer. With one mysterious accord, major clothes retailers have apparently decided that men don't wear overcoats. They wear jazzed-up anoraks. Fun. They wear raincoats. Moody. They wear leather jackets. Mean. Cool. But overcoats? Out. Out. Out.

I had just about given up. But I decided to check out a branch of Moss Bros, although this was with some misgivings, since Moss Bros seemed to be calling itself The Suit Company. Would a suit company sell coats?

Yes, indeed! There were rails laden down with overcoats and I was so overcome that I bought a rather elegant number with a Pierre Cardin label. Even though the coat was in the sale, I was spending about twice as much as I had planned to. But, hey, it was a bargain.

As I walked away with my coat, I wondered what was wrong with the name Moss Bros. Maybe focus groups persuaded the owners that the old name was too - old. They needed something new, sharp - something like The Suit Company. Probably the same thing explains why British Home Stores changed to Bhs and dumped men's overcoats.

But overcoats will be back in fashion one of these years. You can count on it. What goes around, comes around. Just like my sneakers. Trouble is, when coats are in again, I'll probably want a leather jacket.