Support for petition over library cuts (From This Is Wiltshire)

wow - 65 people out of a population in the borough of 200,000.

If she was that interested in keeping the library open she would pop over to the Walcot library & see how they are doing it with just volunteers, rather than insult the volunteers saying they offer a second rate service!

@SN5

Agreed. Only 65 people! I wonder how many of those actually use the library. Its common for these sorts of petitions to do the rounds of family and friends to boost numbers.

It would appear there is very little support.

These 65 people need to live in the real world.....folks are struggling to put food on the table and turn the heating on!
This council needs to focus on the those most in need first......
Having a public funded library is a luxury that we can longer afford.
These 65 people in my opinion are the most selfish persons in Swindon

Sn5 - would I be welcome to come over to see yr library? I did come once in the past and was shown over it by then Cllr, Mr Mallinson. Let me know.

You have not seen what I wrote to explain why the article in question was not insulting volunteers.

I had to communicate through a third party because the complaint from your manager was not made to me directly, but to the newspaper. 99% of my response was not printed.

So ask your manager if I'm welcome to drop by.

sn5 wrote:
wow - 65 people out of a population in the borough of 200,000.

If she was that interested in keeping the library open she would pop over to the Walcot library & see how they are doing it with just volunteers, rather than insult the volunteers saying they offer a second rate service!

Well meaning volunteers cannot provide the same service regardless of what you think. This is yet another attack on frontline staff providing a service. Why mock someone trying to save it?

Shirley Burnham wrote:
Sn5 - would I be welcome to come over to see yr library? I did come once in the past and was shown over it by then Cllr, Mr Mallinson. Let me know.

You have not seen what I wrote to explain why the article in question was not insulting volunteers.

I had to communicate through a third party because the complaint from your manager was not made to me directly, but to the newspaper. 99% of my response was not printed.

So ask your manager if I'm welcome to drop by.

it's not my library - need to speak to Mr Mallinson

Library staff are hardly 'frontline workers', but maybe if Labour hadn't spent all the money and saddled the nation with unaffortable debt we might not be in the position of having no choice but to modify the library budgets.

Peter, would I be welcome to drop into Walcot Library, as suggested by a comment above? The person called Sn5 says that you are the person to ask. Thank you.

We are in difficult times,but its a very short sighed and silly decision to cut libraries at a time like this though. What do you think gets people out of state reliance? Its getting a better job, what helps with that? Knowledge and learning. Reading, even for pleasure is one of the key drivers behind people making the most of their abilities in life and making it less likely they have to rely on the state for things. Libraries are not some mad lefty idea they exist to help people make the most of themselves. You would imagine all parties would see this but the parties are full of people who have gotten where they are not because of what they know but who they know and who their parents are. Its no wonder the political classes see libraries as something to cut. As someone once said, cutting libraries in a recession is like cutting a hospital during a epidemic. But its ok, just keep blaming the other side, its easier that way and watch the world go to crap while you moan at each other. All for a miniscule 99k, the same as TWO of the 115 over 50k staff working at the council.

Trevor Craig wrote...
We are in difficult times,but its a very short sighed and silly decision to cut libraries at a time like this though.

But this is the problem. Most people accept that cuts have to be made and that there isn't any money left, but whenever a cut is suggested they say, 'No, not that'.

Whatever cuts are suggested, somebody, somwhere, will claim it's an important service and can't withstand any cuts.

Which is probably the reason the government are still spending and borrowing at record levels.

The day will soon come when nobody will lend to us anymore, and then things will get really interesting.

Trevor Craig wrote:
We are in difficult times,but its a very short sighed and silly decision to cut libraries at a time like this though. What do you think gets people out of state reliance? Its getting a better job, what helps with that? Knowledge and learning. Reading, even for pleasure is one of the key drivers behind people making the most of their abilities in life and making it less likely they have to rely on the state for things. Libraries are not some mad lefty idea they exist to help people make the most of themselves. You would imagine all parties would see this but the parties are full of people who have gotten where they are not because of what they know but who they know and who their parents are. Its no wonder the political classes see libraries as something to cut. As someone once said, cutting libraries in a recession is like cutting a hospital during a epidemic. But its ok, just keep blaming the other side, its easier that way and watch the world go to crap while you moan at each other. All for a miniscule 99k, the same as TWO of the 115 over 50k staff working at the council.

Had you actually bothered to read the article you would see that absolutely no libraries are being cut! Only the opening hours of some are being reduced.

Trevor Craig wrote:
We are in difficult times,but its a very short sighed and silly decision to cut libraries at a time like this though. What do you think gets people out of state reliance? Its getting a better job, what helps with that? Knowledge and learning. Reading, even for pleasure is one of the key drivers behind people making the most of their abilities in life and making it less likely they have to rely on the state for things. Libraries are not some mad lefty idea they exist to help people make the most of themselves. You would imagine all parties would see this but the parties are full of people who have gotten where they are not because of what they know but who they know and who their parents are. Its no wonder the political classes see libraries as something to cut. As someone once said, cutting libraries in a recession is like cutting a hospital during a epidemic. But its ok, just keep blaming the other side, its easier that way and watch the world go to crap while you moan at each other. All for a miniscule 99k, the same as TWO of the 115 over 50k staff working at the council.

@Trevor Craig

Quote "What do you think gets people out of state reliance? Its getting a better job, what helps with that? Knowledge and learning. Reading, even for pleasure is one of the key drivers behind people making the most of their abilities in life and making it less likely they have to rely on the state for things. Libraries are not some mad lefty idea they exist to help people make the most of themselves. "


Unfortunately reality is a little different or do you see 1000s of people using the libraries that are looking to better themselves.....!

These days many people like trashy celeb gossip type TV shows which don't require going to the library to watch.

Really good post Lord Ash, most younger people especially dont want to improve the education and the chance of getting a better job they want to be celebrities of footballers or win the lottery, very few actually want to work for a living. Also you can buy a book for the price of a pint of beer of half a packet of cigarettes or less, so no excuse for people not reading, it's about life choices and far too many dont make good ones.

""A.Baron-Cohen says...
9:44am Fri 15 Feb 13

These 65 people need to live in the real world.....folks are struggling to put food on the table and turn the heating on""

Just how many are really like that? How many actually do have enough to do that but instead think that smoking, drinking, mobile phones etc are more important? Having worked in debt counselling for many years I can tell you the answer to that is a lot. For many the problem is not a lack of income it is a lack of understanding of what is a priority and what is a luxury when spending their money.

As for the Council, they have no idea how to run this town, its obscene that 115 staff out of a workforce of only 1500 are on £50k and above and probably another couple of hundred on £30 - £50k too and yet they say they cant provide this service for £99k. They are unbelievably inefficient and wasteful and they should look inwards first at their excessive staffing and salaries before they take away services. Bring in a senior manager who understands the private sector and how to run a value for money business and they wouldnt have to cut anythnig and would probably even be able to spend more. Its a complete scandal!

You obviously cannot force people to stop watching rubbish on the TV and go to the library, library usage is still high and although there is a small decline overall children's usage has shot up in libraries the past few years. Yes for councils its a question of choice and cutting libraries back is the same as closing them for some people as we all lead busy lives and it might discourage people from using them. There are plenty of other areas councils should cut. They have all these well paid officers, and a chief exec who is paid far more than the prime minister. WODC and Cotswold DC share a lot of their senior management why can swindon not? After all most councils services are outsourced these days so what are all these highly paid and pensioned people doing all day? I would rather have a fully funded and staffed library service. The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years but that doesn't bother the council they just want to balance the budget and cutting the services that are statutory and we pay for is they way they are doing it. If you volunteer to run a library good luck but you are paying for it twice while others are getting it provided. It is a two tier service.

""""WODC and Cotswold DC share a lot of their senior management why can swindon not? After all most councils services are outsourced these days so what are all these highly paid and pensioned people doing all day"""

Swindon BC are a Unitary Authority so they are on thier own, most of the rest of Wiltshire have common managers and service but we cant do that without changing our status.
Very good point on outsourcing, most of them are just checking up on the outsouring companies and duplicating jobs in the process. That said outsourcing has taken a good few hundred jobs ou of Swindon which may look good in the short term budget but is clearly bad for the overall economy of the town with that many less well paid jobs in the town. But then they arent very good at looking at the bigger picture just a short term view on everything apart from their own jobs and pensions of course.

""""WODC and Cotswold DC share a lot of their senior management why can swindon not? After all most councils services are outsourced these days so what are all these highly paid and pensioned people doing all day"""

Swindon BC are a Unitary Authority so they are on thier own, most of the rest of Wiltshire have common managers and service but we cant do that without changing our status.
Very good point on outsourcing, most of them are just checking up on the outsouring companies and duplicating jobs in the process. That said outsourcing has taken a good few hundred jobs ou of Swindon which may look good in the short term budget but is clearly bad for the overall economy of the town with that many less well paid jobs in the town. But then they arent very good at looking at the bigger picture just a short term view on everything apart from their own jobs and pensions of course.

Trevor Craig wrote...

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

This has to be a wind up, surely?

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote...

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

This has to be a wind up, surely?

No, I'm entirely serious. There is research to back this up:

"In 2002, OECD research stated that reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors"

http://www.literacyt
rust.org.uk/policy/n
lt_policy/825_indepe
ndent_commission_on_
social_mobility

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote...

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

This has to be a wind up, surely?

No, I'm entirely serious. There is research to back this up:

"In 2002, OECD research stated that reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors"

http://www.literacyt

rust.org.uk/policy/n

lt_policy/825_indepe

ndent_commission_on_

social_mobility

Which has precisely nothing, whatsoever, to do with slightly reducing library opening hours.

If children read for pleasure, they will ask for books for their birthdays and Christmas. They will spend any money they have on them. As mentioned on other threads, just about any book can be bought for pennies on Amazon and eBay. And are there no books in schools anymore? Can they not borrow them from friends and relatives?

To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' is the most outrageous scaremongering I've yet seen in relation to these 'cuts' we keep hearing about but which never seem to actually happen.

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote...

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

This has to be a wind up, surely?

No, I'm entirely serious. There is research to back this up:

"In 2002, OECD research stated that reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors"

http://www.literacyt


rust.org.uk/policy/n


lt_policy/825_indepe


ndent_commission_on_


social_mobility

Which has precisely nothing, whatsoever, to do with slightly reducing library opening hours.

If children read for pleasure, they will ask for books for their birthdays and Christmas. They will spend any money they have on them. As mentioned on other threads, just about any book can be bought for pennies on Amazon and eBay. And are there no books in schools anymore? Can they not borrow them from friends and relatives?

To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' is the most outrageous scaremongering I've yet seen in relation to these 'cuts' we keep hearing about but which never seem to actually happen.

Its no scaremongering, its what I believe will happen slowly over time. The amazon/ebay argument is bs. Books are not pennies, the most popular childrens books are at least a fiver each, I just checked amazon. If a kid reads a book a week thats £20 quid a month, if a family has two kids thats £40 a month etc etc. Not everyone is well off enough to afford that and you are excluding children from literature by cutting libraries and hours. And of course getting kids interested in books in the first place is much easier if they can browse and look at them in the libraries rather than online. Anyway I suspect I'm not going to change your mind on this, I suggest you go down to a few libraries and speak the parents and ask them why libraries are important.

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote...

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

This has to be a wind up, surely?

No, I'm entirely serious. There is research to back this up:

"In 2002, OECD research stated that reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors"

http://www.literacyt



rust.org.uk/policy/n



lt_policy/825_indepe



ndent_commission_on_



social_mobility

Which has precisely nothing, whatsoever, to do with slightly reducing library opening hours.

If children read for pleasure, they will ask for books for their birthdays and Christmas. They will spend any money they have on them. As mentioned on other threads, just about any book can be bought for pennies on Amazon and eBay. And are there no books in schools anymore? Can they not borrow them from friends and relatives?

To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' is the most outrageous scaremongering I've yet seen in relation to these 'cuts' we keep hearing about but which never seem to actually happen.

Its no scaremongering, its what I believe will happen slowly over time. The amazon/ebay argument is bs. Books are not pennies, the most popular childrens books are at least a fiver each, I just checked amazon. If a kid reads a book a week thats £20 quid a month, if a family has two kids thats £40 a month etc etc. Not everyone is well off enough to afford that and you are excluding children from literature by cutting libraries and hours. And of course getting kids interested in books in the first place is much easier if they can browse and look at them in the libraries rather than online. Anyway I suspect I'm not going to change your mind on this, I suggest you go down to a few libraries and speak the parents and ask them why libraries are important.

Just to clarify, you quoted me as saying:

"To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' "

Which isn't watch I actually said, please don't cut and paste to change the meaning of things.

Shirley, you would be welcome to come over to the Walcot Library any time.

I am not the Manager that title belongs to a female volunteer member.

Free tea and coffee are always available for everyone, so we could sit down in comfort and talk things over.

In this article it is reported that " Smaller libraries being affected are Covingham, Penhill, Pinetrees, Liden, Old Town, Even Swindon, and Walcot;"

This is not correct, Walcot is not affected in any way.

That response is very courteous and good of you, Peter. I shall come when home circumstances permit. Many thanks indeed.

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote...

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

This has to be a wind up, surely?

No, I'm entirely serious. There is research to back this up:

"In 2002, OECD research stated that reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors"

http://www.literacyt



rust.org.uk/policy/n



lt_policy/825_indepe



ndent_commission_on_



social_mobility

Which has precisely nothing, whatsoever, to do with slightly reducing library opening hours.

If children read for pleasure, they will ask for books for their birthdays and Christmas. They will spend any money they have on them. As mentioned on other threads, just about any book can be bought for pennies on Amazon and eBay. And are there no books in schools anymore? Can they not borrow them from friends and relatives?

To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' is the most outrageous scaremongering I've yet seen in relation to these 'cuts' we keep hearing about but which never seem to actually happen.

Its no scaremongering, its what I believe will happen slowly over time. The amazon/ebay argument is bs. Books are not pennies, the most popular childrens books are at least a fiver each, I just checked amazon. If a kid reads a book a week thats £20 quid a month, if a family has two kids thats £40 a month etc etc. Not everyone is well off enough to afford that and you are excluding children from literature by cutting libraries and hours. And of course getting kids interested in books in the first place is much easier if they can browse and look at them in the libraries rather than online. Anyway I suspect I'm not going to change your mind on this, I suggest you go down to a few libraries and speak the parents and ask them why libraries are important.

You've clearly never heard of companies like the Book People then.

I buy nearly all my kids books and nearly all my non fiction books from there.

The only books I buy elsewhere tend to be specialist training/skill books that they do not do.

I mean "my fiction".....

Shirley Burnham wrote:
That response is very courteous and good of you, Peter. I shall come when home circumstances permit. Many thanks indeed.

Hi Shirley, please could I have a copy of the petition. I'm in Covingham & would really miss the Library being open when it is now. Thanks Emily

Ems78 wrote:

Shirley Burnham wrote:
That response is very courteous and good of you, Peter. I shall come when home circumstances permit. Many thanks indeed.

Hi Shirley, please could I have a copy of the petition. I'm in Covingham & would really miss the Library being open when it is now. Thanks Emily

Ems78: Please send me an email via the www.friendsofoldtown
library.co.uk website. I'll do my best to help.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you really use the library, you could sign it when you go in there....!

Oh hang on, you mean the petitions are not collecting signatures in the libraries themselves.....!

Says it all really.

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you really use the library, you could sign it when you go in there....!

Oh hang on, you mean the petitions are not collecting signatures in the libraries themselves.....!

Says it all really.

Each petition will be specific to each particular Library. I am preparing one for Covingham, ready to send to Ems78

No, they can't be signed on council property. That's a *national* policy. But yes, they can be signed anywhere else!

Today a guy really wanted to sign the Old Town one - but he said "I can't". I asked why, and he said "I work for the council". So public employees (all) seem to be gagged. Seems wrong and also utterly silly, doesn't it?

@Shirley

What rule/policy/guidelin
e/law says they can't be signed on council property?

Traditionally libraries were common places for such things to be organised.

Of course the council employee can sign. His real reason maybe more likely the potential come back as public sector employees do "in my experience" tend to hold grudges against anyone who challenges authority.


http://www.swindon.g
ov.uk/cd/cd-consulta
tions/Pages/cd-consu
ltations-petitions.a
spx

http://www.swindon.g
ov.uk/cd/cd-consulta
tions/Documents/epet
itionsguidance.pdf

Today a guy really wanted to sign the Old Town one - but he said "I can't". I asked why, and he said "I work for the council". So public employees (all) seem to be gagged. Seems wrong and also utterly silly, doesn't it?

I wonder if this type of ruling is in contradiction to civil rights etc

A friend of mine was out collecting signatures (Lydiard Park I think)
He claimed that Oliver Donachie instructed him to move along as he was collecting signatures on council premises

Empty Car Park wrote:

Today a guy really wanted to sign the Old Town one - but he said "I can't". I asked why, and he said "I work for the council". So public employees (all) seem to be gagged. Seems wrong and also utterly silly, doesn't it?

I wonder if this type of ruling is in contradiction to civil rights etc

A friend of mine was out collecting signatures (Lydiard Park I think)
He claimed that Oliver Donachie instructed him to move along as he was collecting signatures on council premises

I know that it is *national practice* that if a petition is to protest to a Council, that petition must not be signed on council premises. Swindon is not doing anything unusual in this regard. A council would hardly want to be helping to get complaints to itself, would it?

It's possible that council workers are following their rules of employment by not signing something that is critical of their employer. OR maybe they just have unspecific fears that their names appearing could jeopardise their livelihoods in some way. So they are super-careful. There's a *climate of fear* in the jobs market these days. I can't blame them.

More shocking is that Councillors won't sign petitions, if their Party is not officially for the issue - That is *very* bad because people might reasonably expect an Opposition party to support them in opposing the ruling party's conduct. If this is pointed out to them, one is likely to be ignored. It's a Democracy Fail.

Recent experience of this, alas, too.

I don't think that there is anything stopping council staff from signing petitions apart from not wanting to 'rock the boat'.

Council officers above a certain payscale are not allowed political affiliations and can't canvas on behalf of candidates. This used to be the old Principal Officer grade (above £28,000), but the payscales are different now.

Of course, the individual may have just wanted an excuse not to sign.

Shirley Burnham wrote:

Empty Car Park wrote:

Today a guy really wanted to sign the Old Town one - but he said "I can't". I asked why, and he said "I work for the council". So public employees (all) seem to be gagged. Seems wrong and also utterly silly, doesn't it?

I wonder if this type of ruling is in contradiction to civil rights etc

A friend of mine was out collecting signatures (Lydiard Park I think)
He claimed that Oliver Donachie instructed him to move along as he was collecting signatures on council premises

I know that it is *national practice* that if a petition is to protest to a Council, that petition must not be signed on council premises. Swindon is not doing anything unusual in this regard. A council would hardly want to be helping to get complaints to itself, would it?

It's possible that council workers are following their rules of employment by not signing something that is critical of their employer. OR maybe they just have unspecific fears that their names appearing could jeopardise their livelihoods in some way. So they are super-careful. There's a *climate of fear* in the jobs market these days. I can't blame them.

More shocking is that Councillors won't sign petitions, if their Party is not officially for the issue - That is *very* bad because people might reasonably expect an Opposition party to support them in opposing the ruling party's conduct. If this is pointed out to them, one is likely to be ignored. It's a Democracy Fail.

Recent experience of this, alas, too.

@Shirley

Quote "I know that it is *national practice* that if a petition is to protest to a Council, that petition must not be signed on council premises. Swindon is not doing anything unusual in this regard. A council would hardly want to be helping to get complaints to itself, would it? "


Do you have a reference to support this? I looked and I couldn't find anything.

I suspect this is a myth put around by councils and other public bodies etc.

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:

Shirley Burnham wrote:

Empty Car Park wrote:

Today a guy really wanted to sign the Old Town one - but he said "I can't". I asked why, and he said "I work for the council". So public employees (all) seem to be gagged. Seems wrong and also utterly silly, doesn't it?

I wonder if this type of ruling is in contradiction to civil rights etc

A friend of mine was out collecting signatures (Lydiard Park I think)
He claimed that Oliver Donachie instructed him to move along as he was collecting signatures on council premises

I know that it is *national practice* that if a petition is to protest to a Council, that petition must not be signed on council premises. Swindon is not doing anything unusual in this regard. A council would hardly want to be helping to get complaints to itself, would it?

It's possible that council workers are following their rules of employment by not signing something that is critical of their employer. OR maybe they just have unspecific fears that their names appearing could jeopardise their livelihoods in some way. So they are super-careful. There's a *climate of fear* in the jobs market these days. I can't blame them.

More shocking is that Councillors won't sign petitions, if their Party is not officially for the issue - That is *very* bad because people might reasonably expect an Opposition party to support them in opposing the ruling party's conduct. If this is pointed out to them, one is likely to be ignored. It's a Democracy Fail.

Recent experience of this, alas, too.

@Shirley

Quote "I know that it is *national practice* that if a petition is to protest to a Council, that petition must not be signed on council premises. Swindon is not doing anything unusual in this regard. A council would hardly want to be helping to get complaints to itself, would it? "


Do you have a reference to support this? I looked and I couldn't find anything.

I suspect this is a myth put around by councils and other public bodies etc.

No. I don't have any reference to support that, just anecdotal evidence from campaigners (in other places) who've described attempting to place a petition within their public library and have been told they must not.

Does it also concern you that public sector staff - even after they have left their job - are, apparently, not free to point out any flaws in the service for which they work(ed) ? I understand they sign confidentiality agreements. This means that bad practice or questionable policies can continue unchallenged. Those who might identify what is wrong are gagged.

Further to the above, this article:

Daily Echo : 15th December
Southampton librarians 'gagged' from speaking out against council cuts |

Opposition politicians say the move throws democracy in Southampton into question, with some likening it to an authoritarian state like North Korea. Now leisure boss Cllr Warwick Payne has launched an inquiry into why the council officer sent the memo out.

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10110958
.Librarians__gagged_
_from_discussing_cut
s/

I've not found any follow-up article on the matter.

Trevor Craig wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote...

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

This has to be a wind up, surely?

No, I'm entirely serious. There is research to back this up:

"In 2002, OECD research stated that reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors"

http://www.literacyt




rust.org.uk/policy/n




lt_policy/825_indepe




ndent_commission_on_




social_mobility

Which has precisely nothing, whatsoever, to do with slightly reducing library opening hours.

If children read for pleasure, they will ask for books for their birthdays and Christmas. They will spend any money they have on them. As mentioned on other threads, just about any book can be bought for pennies on Amazon and eBay. And are there no books in schools anymore? Can they not borrow them from friends and relatives?

To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' is the most outrageous scaremongering I've yet seen in relation to these 'cuts' we keep hearing about but which never seem to actually happen.

Its no scaremongering, its what I believe will happen slowly over time. The amazon/ebay argument is bs. Books are not pennies, the most popular childrens books are at least a fiver each, I just checked amazon. If a kid reads a book a week thats £20 quid a month, if a family has two kids thats £40 a month etc etc. Not everyone is well off enough to afford that and you are excluding children from literature by cutting libraries and hours. And of course getting kids interested in books in the first place is much easier if they can browse and look at them in the libraries rather than online. Anyway I suspect I'm not going to change your mind on this, I suggest you go down to a few libraries and speak the parents and ask them why libraries are important.

Just to clarify, you quoted me as saying:

"To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' "

Which isn't watch I actually said, please don't cut and paste to change the meaning of things.

Here is your direct quote:

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

Trevor Craig wrote...

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

This has to be a wind up, surely?

No, I'm entirely serious. There is research to back this up:

"In 2002, OECD research stated that reading for pleasure was a more important indicator of future success than any socio-economic factors"

http://www.literacyt





rust.org.uk/policy/n





lt_policy/825_indepe





ndent_commission_on_





social_mobility

Which has precisely nothing, whatsoever, to do with slightly reducing library opening hours.

If children read for pleasure, they will ask for books for their birthdays and Christmas. They will spend any money they have on them. As mentioned on other threads, just about any book can be bought for pennies on Amazon and eBay. And are there no books in schools anymore? Can they not borrow them from friends and relatives?

To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' is the most outrageous scaremongering I've yet seen in relation to these 'cuts' we keep hearing about but which never seem to actually happen.

Its no scaremongering, its what I believe will happen slowly over time. The amazon/ebay argument is bs. Books are not pennies, the most popular childrens books are at least a fiver each, I just checked amazon. If a kid reads a book a week thats £20 quid a month, if a family has two kids thats £40 a month etc etc. Not everyone is well off enough to afford that and you are excluding children from literature by cutting libraries and hours. And of course getting kids interested in books in the first place is much easier if they can browse and look at them in the libraries rather than online. Anyway I suspect I'm not going to change your mind on this, I suggest you go down to a few libraries and speak the parents and ask them why libraries are important.

Just to clarify, you quoted me as saying:

"To suggest that cutting library opening hours a bit would directly lead to children 'ending up in the care system' "

Which isn't watch I actually said, please don't cut and paste to change the meaning of things.

Here is your direct quote:

The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years

There is a correlation.

Accessible public libraries support literacy in the population. The majority in the UK prison system are functionally illiterate. Correlation with crime, etc.

Cuts to our branch libraries may be considered small (now), but they will continue if the council thinks it can snip away at them without challenge.

*Tim Newroman*, you may see what the commentator - Trevor - is trying to say in his phrase that you keep quoting, if you study this link :

National Literacy Trust | New report shows illiteracy costing the world $1.19 trillion |

Illiteracy estimated to cost UK economy approximately $127 billion a year (£81 billion) |

http://www.literacyt
rust.org.uk/news/456
7_new_report_shows_i
lliteracy_costing_th
e_world_1_19_trillio
n

Then, you might also be interested to look up references to literacy in the UK prison population and the impact of illiteracy on our care system.

Think it through.

I think the usual suspects are as always getting a little sidetracked. Get back to the article rather than just picking on each other again and again. More like a kindergarden that a library.

@Shirley Burnham - yes, as I said above, obviously it is better if people are able to read and write. Obviously it is better if people choose to read and gain enjoyment from it.

None of that has any correlation to libraries reducing their opening hours a little bit.

Books are available at charity shops, online, from friends, relatives and neighbours. They cost pennies second hand.

And what's the betting that the 'vulnerable cheeeldren' that people think will 'end up in care' if libraries shut for a couple of hours per day actually have Internet access at home and on their mobile phones - which means they have access to more free reading and research material than they could ever get round to digesting even if they lived many lifetimes over.

This is not 1940.

house on the hill wrote:
I think the usual suspects are as always getting a little sidetracked. Get back to the article rather than just picking on each other again and again. More like a kindergarden that a library.

Yup. You are right. So here is my final comment.

The people who support these petitions appreciate *Library Staff* and access. The small libraries are losing nearly 50% of their opening hours (read "staffed hours") to only 10 per week - which we feel is disproportionate. The next tier up
has 30 hours.

Caring about this is not the over-reaction that is implied by Tim Newroman. Slicing at the salami unfairly will mean that these small libraries are more vulnerable to total de-staffing of expert personnel, or closure, in the near future.

Library staff are not available in a charity shop or via the internet. Their contribution to the quality of our local library service is significant.

There are some parallels with 1940 today, but to branch out into that would be side-tracking in the extreme.

Thanks for a very interesting conversation.

#SaveLibraries

10 hours per week seems entirely reasonable. If you're serious about using a library, you will make the time to use it somewhere within those 10 hours.

Maybe if the 'Save' campaign wasn't demanding a jump of an additional 20 hours it might gain more support.

That said, I have not said that caring about this subject is an over-reaction. What IS a (massive) over-reaction is to claim that libraries opening 'only' 10 hours per week will directly lead to some children being taken into care!

Walcot library is open for 17.5 hrs with at least 2 volunteers in attendance. (35 hrs / week)

No full time paid staff attend the library on a regular basis, they spend most of their 10 hrs housekeeping in the Parks library for Walcot.

The volunteers have maintained this system for 4 years of helping and dealing with all aspects of the library service on a one to one level.

They have been picked and trained to do the duties required.

Tim Newroman wrote:
10 hours per week seems entirely reasonable. If you're serious about using a library, you will make the time to use it somewhere within those 10 hours.

Maybe if the 'Save' campaign wasn't demanding a jump of an additional 20 hours it might gain more support.

That said, I have not said that caring about this subject is an over-reaction. What IS a (massive) over-reaction is to claim that libraries opening 'only' 10 hours per week will directly lead to some children being taken into care!

'Save' campaigners only ask that the current hours of the small libraries be retained. They are not asking for a "jump" of any kind. Whilst central is to go from 58 to 55 hours under the proposals, Covingham is to have its hours cut from 29 to 10. Cuts may be necessary (in spite of council waste on other ventures) but if they must be made, they should be equitable, we say.

As far as your second point is concerned, now reiterated by you quite a number of times, I imagine it meant to illustrate that is often those with the fewest resources and space at home who should be encouraged to use libraries the most. Looking at it from that point of view might make you less angry about the comment.

I thought I'd quit - but hope you do not mind my responding. Drop into the small libraries some time and see how well-used and valued they are! Small is beautiful. We love them.

Peter Mallinson wrote:
Walcot library is open for 17.5 hrs with at least 2 volunteers in attendance. (35 hrs / week)

No full time paid staff attend the library on a regular basis, they spend most of their 10 hrs housekeeping in the Parks library for Walcot.

The volunteers have maintained this system for 4 years of helping and dealing with all aspects of the library service on a one to one level.

They have been picked and trained to do the duties required.

You are in a far better position to know about paid staff hours at your library, Walcot - so I may be out of line here.

But aren't there 6 paid staff hours in the library every Thursday afternoon (2 people x 3 hours) when the shop is not open? and 4 further staff hours somewhere in the week?

This is a query in good faith.

Shirley Burnham wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
I think the usual suspects are as always getting a little sidetracked. Get back to the article rather than just picking on each other again and again. More like a kindergarden that a library.Yup. You are right. So here is my final comment.

The people who support these petitions appreciate *Library Staff* and access. The small libraries are losing nearly 50% of their opening hours (read "staffed hours") to only 10 per week - which we feel is disproportionate. The next tier up
has 30 hours.

Caring about this is not the over-reaction that is implied by Tim Newroman. Slicing at the salami unfairly will mean that these small libraries are more vulnerable to total de-staffing of expert personnel, or closure, in the near future.

Library staff are not available in a charity shop or via the internet. Their contribution to the quality of our local library service is significant.

There are some parallels with 1940 today, but to branch out into that would be side-tracking in the extreme.

Thanks for a very interesting conversation."That said, I have not said that caring about this subject is an over-reaction. What IS a (massive) over-reaction is to claim that libraries opening 'only' 10 hours per week will directly lead to some children being taken into care!"

That isn't what I mean't Tim, sorry if you have misunderstood my meaning. The OECD figures state that access to books are a important indicator of social mobility. So when I said:

"The kids using libraries if they are cut could well end up claiming benefits and end up in the care system in 60-70 years"

Kids when they grow up claiming benefits and having to rely on the care system in 60-70 years (when those kids are old and in retirement). Sorry if that wasn't clear but that is what I meant. I don't think that's a unreasonable conclusion to draw from the OECD research and libraries being cut, either in hours or closure.

We are going to be a small island with little or no resources of our own in the next couple of generations, the only resource we will have as a country will be our minds, while we are cutting libraries all the countries in the developing world like India and china are building new libraries every week. The so called "global race" politicians keep going on about we are going to lose if we cut libraries.

You are correct Shirley, 2 members of staff run a reading class for pre-school children on a Thursday afternoon.

This is not so much a full library service as an extra event. However you are again correct in saying that they represent 6 hrs of the 10 hrs staffed service.

Also I had not taken this into account in the total of hours open, this should be 20.5 hrs and not 17.5 hrs.