FROM THE ARCHIVES:Although a bureaucrat himself, Brian O'Nolan delighted in exposing bureaucratic lunacies in his Myles na Gopaleen column, as in this one. – JOE JOYCE
IT IS difficult to believe that it is eight years since the war ended.
It had its moments of grim humour for us neutrals. Do you remember the bread and our covert attempts to get the prohibited roll with our lunch in the restaurants?
Do the ladies remember the terrible restrictions on the number of pleats they might have in their skirts? And pockets in men’s suits?
A London paper, the Investors' Chronicle and Market Review,under the title "The Blight of Bureaucracy", gives an account of what happened about the pockets of a worthy citizen in Britain. It is worth quoting.
A citizen wrote to the Board of Trade for permission to have two pockets in the trousers of a suit instead of the three officially authorised, and to have the third pocket transferred to the jacket. Here is the reply he got:
“Making of Civilian Clothing (Restrictions) Order.
“I am to refer to your letter dated March 1 in which you make application for a licence to permit of a suit being made having more pockets than those laid down in the above-mentioned Order.
“It is noted that you do not require more than two pockets in the trousers and that you would like, instead of the third pocket, to have an extra one in the jacket.
“I am to say that the Board are not prepared to consider the giving up of a pocket in one garment sufficient reason for the granting of an extra pocket in another garment, since the restrictions are imposed on the separate garment and not on the suit as a whole.
“The Board realise, however, that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to vary the restrictions, and if you would state why you are unable to make use of the third pocket in the trousers (it is not necessary that this pocket should be a hip pocket, the restrictions do not in any way refer to the position of the pockets but only to the total number in each garment), thus necessitating the extra jacket pocket, full consideration will be given to the issue of a licence.
“It would also be helpful if you would state the exact use to which the extra pockets in the jacket and waistcoat are to be put.
“With regard to your request for a small sub-division in the right-side pocket of the jacket, I am to say that this is not regarded as an extra pocket and that no licence will therefore be necessary in respect of this requirement.
“The name and address of your tailor should also be stated in order that if a licence is issued it may be sent to him.”
Leaving that aside, surely we are losing the meaning of words when “austerity clothing” is taken to mean suits with less pockets? Why not no pockets? Think of the millions of extra hands that would be seen
From sheer boredom, a lot of these newly-seen hands would probably start doing some work.
http://url.ie/cvkx