As a member of the public, I have to write this letter which is about the Salvation Army Night shelter on Parson's Road.

I have some friends who stay there and they tell me they have to leave their clothes in the bushes during the day at the shelter and when it rains, their clothes get drenched. They cannot dry their clothes in the dryers if it is not men's night, as it is called.

They've also told me about people being bad friends with water, not bathing and not being encouraged or told to bathe. They said the supervisor in Booth II just watches TV and chats.

These men, with whom I've spoken, are reluctant to speak out because they know that management will make a hard life harder.

They also told me that when it rains outside, it rains inside, on the beds and in the bathroom.

I noticed that they fixed up the grounds just before Princess Anne came here (even hired outside help to cut the grass instead of hiring guys from the shelter) but it seems to be a farce. How could they not fix a roof which has been leaking for years? Does it make sense to paint a building and not fix a leak you know has been existing for years? That's what happened at the Salvation Army Shelter on Parson's Road.

Mr. Nelson Bascome needs to go down there and get to the root of these problems, people must start asking questions and do something.

OBSERVER Pembroke Swan misses the point November 22, 1999 Dear Sir, After reading The Royal Gazette for a while, I have long become resigned to the lack of interrogative journalism that defines its ethos.

However to my utter amusement, quoting some of the former Premiers of the UBP government (the same group that was ousted by the majority electorate) now randomly creates nonsensical front-page stories. My amusement, however, quickly turned into irritation when I read Sir John Swan's view about the renaming of Cup Match to Emancipation day. Henry Adderley reports that according to Sir John, the renaming of Cup Match would be a divisive act and send the message that "...we are now developing a divided society through the symbolism of two separate holidays -- one for whites and one for blacks''.

Is it possible to challenge Sir John on this matter? People like Sir John would have us believe that any effort to accurately depict or celebrate the history of Africans in the Diaspora will in turn disempower whites and cause "separateness''. We must therefore only discuss our history in ways that accommodate the dominant white culture.

In my opinion, such views erroneously perpetuate racism by demanding that black people constantly conform their history and cultural experience so that it is comfortable and permissible to whites. Bermuda is saturated with examples of black servitude where blacks have led themselves to believe that the apparent racial harmony (if it exists at all) must supersede that truth of our historical black experience and the freedom to examine that truth without fear of reprisal.

Surely, Sir John must understand that emancipation is not just black history but it is indeed world history. If you accept this premise, then one would expect whites to engage themselves in Emancipation Day, its meaning and significance as much as blacks would engage themselves in it.

With or without such festivities, the fact remains that many whites do not embrace the meaning of our history and nor do they let that history inform their daily lives. So why then should white apathy or white fear determine when and how we choose to celebrate our own cultural experience? Simply renaming Cup Match to Emancipation Day will not, however, address a more fundamental problem -- which is our glaring lack of knowledge about ourselves and our inability to reflect on how that past has created patterns that linger on in the future. As Audre Lorde so eloquently put it: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.'' IVY KUSINGA City of Hamilton Get own house in order November 22, 1999 Dear Sir, I was interested to read your editorial in today's edition of The Royal Gazette , particularly in light of a rather punctilious phone call which I received from the Government Statistics Department last week: Once the caller had indeed established that I was the owner of the enterprise: Why -- she inquired in an exacting tone -- had I failed to fill out the economic survey form and return it as requested? My reply was simple and straightforward: I was basically too busy and I was not going to pay an employee for an extra two hours to fill out all the details requested. In any event, I felt that the information about the sources of income, profit, exact breakdown of expenses etc., was indeed highly confidential.

This civil servant's civility began to wear thin, and she pushed harder, inferring that perhaps we did not keep books. I fell right into the trap, replying that of course we did, and that furthermore, I completed them personally using the latest computer software; to which here response was: "Then just give us a print-out!'' Now I ask you, in all fairness: Why should any business, small or large, be expected to comply with this Government's's request for detailed financial information, when we the taxpayers of the country are not permitted access to exact information on travel expenses, and indeed intended use of new taxes (ours have been doubled) raised? In fact, Sir, you state that 1996 was the last time that you were able to access statistics on Government travel expenses! Things will definitely have to change before I feel any obligation whatsoever to comply with intrusive questionnaires and pushy phone calls from the Statistics Department.

"Do you doubt our ability to keep the information confidential?'' she asked.

"Yes'' I replied; however upon reflection, after reading today's Editorial, I probably should have qualified my response.

FOR TRANSPARENCY City of Hamilton Two-strokes should go November 9, 1999 Dear Sir, As an avid motorcyclist who in the past twenty five years has has owned a large array of bikes from 50cc to 1520cc, I strongly welcome the suggestion to ban two strokes. Current policy limiting all bikes to 100cc was clearly put in place by people who had no real knowledge of motorcycle engines and their related performance.

Simply put, a two stroke motorcycle is generally vastly faster than a comparable four stroke machine.

For example, any Japanese 400cc motorbike is much faster both in terms of acceleration and top speed than a 1320cc Harley Davidson. This is possible due to the higher revolutions per minute (rpm) that the two stroke engine can achieve. Higher rpm also leads to that noisy high pitched whine that annoys most of Bermuda's residents. Also, due to the need to burn oil, two strokes produce a huge amount of pollution (we've all followed stinking "blue clouds'' resulting from two stroke bikes).

The solution is to allow four stroke cycles only up to 150cc and ban two strokes entirely.

COMMON SENSE City of Hamilton