Sheffield Independent – Wednesday 06 July 1938
What a Fuss Over One Little Word
The ways of the commentator are hard and fraught with risk.
A recent review in this column of the change in Swinton’s postal address landed me into very hot water at the Swinton Council meeting last week, when members took exception to a suggestion that they had been fussing over little or nothing.
In point of fact that impression was erroneous, although it all turns interpretation of the one little word “fuss.” According to my dictionary, fuss is defined tumult, bustle.”
Surely no one can deny that the protests of the Swinton authority regarding the proposed change, created tumult, since it occasioned questions in the House of Commons, personal Intervention by the P.M.G, and several Interviews with the Regional Controller.
I must still maintain therefore that remark “so all the fuss has only served to cause delay of three months in providing the district with improved facilities,” was fair and justifiable comment on the outcome of Swinton’s case. If, on the other hand, the change of address had been annulled, I would probably have commented, “So all the fuss has achieved the desired object.” or “proved well worth while,” and I not think that similar objection would have been taken to the use the word in those circumstances.
As it was, however, Mr. M. Creighton and Mr. D. White took it as constituting an attack upon the Swtnton Council, and an allegation that its members had been actuated only trivial motives without regard for public service.
They told me in no uncertain terms at the public meeting.
I must differ with them on the facts. Since Swinton members first took exception to the proposed change some three months ago, their case has received yards of publicity, and their anxiety that harm might occasioned to the township, has been stressed time and again in the news columns.
I have on several occasion referred to the soundness their argument, particularly applying to local industrial concerns who feared loss of advertisement value a result of the transfer from “near Rotherham’’ to “near Mexborough.” Such a reference was indeed contained in those same notes of three weeks ago, but apparently went unnoticed.
There has never been, mention of the futility or triviality of the Swinton councillors’ efforts, and so far the “Daily Independent’s” treatment of the matter has been concerned, the only issue has been whether these well founded points of the Swinton case were sufficient to outweigh the advantages of an improved postal service for the whole of the Mexborough and Swinton area.
Just one other point. Mr. Creighton refutes the idea that there was anything of “old standing parochial tradition” in this affair. Again I have to aver that such was not attributed in this case the Council, but In referring to the operation of the new scheme I said there were people at Swinton who would suffer anything rather than association with Mexborough.
I repeated that opinion privately to Mr. Creighton, and so again with every confidence, for I know of my own contacts many people who come under that category, and they are mighty proud of it, not ashamed to acclaim it to the whole world if need be !