I have only recently joined this list and have found it to be quite
interesting in terms of content. However the tone of several contributions
has surprised me. Is there any need to depart from a polite and professional
approach? I hope not.
Jackie Fishleigh
Librarian
Payne Hicks Beach
10 New Square
Lincoln's Inn
London
WC2A 3QG
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Oppenheim [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 June 2003 09:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Libraries and devolution
Oh dear Frances Hendrix, how arrogant you are.
Thanks to these remarks of yours, you'll end up with far fewer useful
comments than you would otherwise get.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
01509-223065
(fax) 01509-223053
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frances Hendrix" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Libraries and devolution
> Oh dear John Briggs, how little you know, and I am sorry I don't know you
or
> where you work.
>
> The Laser Foundation, a non political Charitable Grant Making Body,
> commissioned the author, who has a huge background in work related to
> transformation of government services, and was the researcher for
> 'Framework', is an Associate of Demos, who published the report, which is
> Charlie's view. It was felt in order to get the recognition the public
> library sector (and note it was only the public libraries that were being
> commented upon) on a much broader scale than just the library sector,
using
> an organization like Demos would achieve this, and it has. If you look at
a
> record of the Demos work, is it international and for all types of bodies
> across the UK, in every sector.
>
> It is a narrow minded view to think the only commentators on public
> libraries have to be within the sector, and this report is probably the
> least bland ever written about the sector. You have obviously not read the
> full text if you believe it is only about reading for one year olds. Many
> many people are asking the legitimate question of what public libraries
are
> for, as so much has changed since they were originally created, and the
rate
> of change and the way people use their leisure and learn has significantly
> change, so not to ask that question would be foolish, if, as some of us
do,
> want the sector to survive and develop.
>
> Charlie was commissioned to write his view of the sector, not for the
Laser
> Foundation to put words in his mouth, and why on earth should the
Foundation
> concentrate on Interlending, which is nationally offered anyway, and has
the
> BL delivering it nation wide. The Foundation is much broader than looking
at
> Interlending, again you seem not to know the facts. Why would it be more
> likely that informed criticism would come from Resource than any other
> quarter? Surely public librarians would be more likely to intelligently
> criticize, as well as users and observers?
>
> I find your comments less than constructive or informed, and your personal
> comments re the major participants less than mature.
>
> I welcome sensible and serious debate on the issues in the report, which
is
> one of the reasons it was commissioned in the first place.
> By the way do you work in a public library?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Briggs
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:32 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Libraries and devolution
>
>
> I must confess that I was worried by the links between Demos and New
Labour.
> Digging a little deeper, I find that Demos are, in fact, harmless (or
> "mostly harmless") - they are regarded as something of a laughing stock.
> What we have is simple cronyism: they tell New Labour what to think, and
are
> rewarded with consultancy work by government departments.
>
> I was also worried by the idea someone with no background in library and
> information work producing reports on public libraries, but again I
needn't
> have worried for the results are predictably bland. It is almost painful
> watching an outsider trying to articulate "What should libraries be for?"
> Apart from the risible suggestion of teaching reading to one year olds,
> there is nothing beyond the familiar New Labour attack on the public
> services, with its vague menaces to staff. The attack on Resource seems a
> little surprising, but is probably a case of Leadbeater getting his
> retaliation in first, as informed criticism is most likely to come from
that
> quarter. It seems surprising to me that a Laser Foundation report should
> have nothing sensible to say on library inter-lending, but cynics may have
> other views. Both reports represent a missed opportunity - one for a
> trained library and information professional from outside the public
library
> service to take a critical look at it and provide a blueprint for the
> century.
>
> So, a Think Tank that can't think writing reports for a government without
> vision.
>
> John Briggs
>
>
|