Higher Fares and Yellow Paint

Cable Car Rumpus

• March 25—Training Coll Students Exec passes similar motion.
• March 26—Joint meeting of Training Coll and VUC sub-committees proposes deputation to Mayor, and outlines possible further actions in case of failure—a boycott or the so-called "Evison Scheme",—keeping the cars constantly crowded with students at peak hours.
• March 27—Salient supplement No. I reports meeting.
• March 29—Deputation meets Mayor who suggests submissions will be considered. Rumour hath it that submissions have been rejected.
• April 1—Early morning cable-car users find both cars, walls, notices and footpaths on the cableway covered with slogans disapproving of the fare increases, and making merry of the fact that they were introduced on this of all days. "Evening Post" billboard announced "Shocking Vandalism". Councillor Barton Ginger estimated 'hundreds of pounds' worth of damage".
• Meeting of certain full-time students at midday, unaware of events of morning and misled by rumours, decide to apply "Evison Scheme" that afternoon. Salient supplement announces this, and is banned by Stud Ass President.
• April 2—Executive of Stud Ass meets. One student summoned by President, and others invited to be present, are sent away by two Exec members. Exec undecided as to action.

This unprecedented action of the Association accepting responsibility is not to be taken as setting a new tradition. It was made for a number of reasons, some of which were touched on in a statement made at the meeting by Exec. member A. A. T. Ellis (published elsewhere in this issue).

First, there was clear evidence in this case that students were responsible for what damage had been done.

Second, it seemed likely that the behaviour concerned was largely influenced by the Exec. decision to take action about fares at all, and publicity given to it in "Salient Supplement No. I." and rumours about the deputation being rebuffed.

Third, there were erroneous and mischievous statements in the daily Press suggesting that far more damage had been done than was actually the case.

Fourth, the culprits were all freshers of a few weeks' standing from a hostel where (due to official policy) there are hardly any senior students to act as a restraining influence. They were obviously unaware of the seriousness of such irresponsible behaviour.

Fifth, unless the Association afforded them some protection by accepting responsibility collectively and disciplining them itself, they were liable to punishment far beyond what the offence warranted.

Sixth, by taking this firm attitude, the Executive shows that it is willing to accept this vicarious burden in order that negotiations with the Council over fares may be prejudiced to the least possible extent.

We applaud this move as wise and courageous, but point out that this in no way implies that the Association is responsible for the actions of individual students.

—B and W.