Text: an original contemporary community-column-style practice extract.
The rehearsal rooms used to be booked in a paper diary kept beside the caretaker’s desk. People who arrived first could claim the best evening slots, and a group that had missed out might find the next week already filled. The diary was simple, but simplicity did not make it fair.
The new system limits each group to one evening booking a week. At first, some members called that a restriction. The committee collected feedback slips after the first month:
Response Number of slips The booking limit made access fairer 15 The available times did not suit us 6 The change made no difference 3 Those figures are encouraging, but they are not a victory parade. The slips came from people who had used the rooms that month; they cannot tell us what people who stopped trying would have said. And a group that can only meet on one particular evening may still lose out, even when every group is given the same limit.
Still, the diary no longer rewards whoever happens to reach the desk first. Groups can see the same available slots and the same rule. The limit has not created more evenings, or made every time convenient. It has made one part of the decision visible. That is a modest improvement, but a real one: fairness is easier to judge when the rule is out in the open.
In this extract, the writer tries to persuade readers that a booking limit makes access to the rehearsal rooms fairer, while recognising that some groups may still be disadvantaged. Evaluate how successfully this is achieved. Support your views with detailed reference to the extract.