I am very pleased that Shelagh will be there and it would be excellent if
there was a way people not attending could submit views in advance, rather
than only receiving news of the debate afterwards (though this will be
useful in itself). I would rather submit my views to the Summit than write
a letter to CILIP Update and if anyone can tell me how best to do this I
will make haste to do it!
Roslyn
Shelagh Levett <[log in to unmask]>@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
on 18/06/2004 11:50:42
Please respond to Chartered Library and Information Professionals
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
cc:
Subject: Re: Libri in The Bookseller
Not complaining at all, just asking a question. We hear alot of people
quote the 'usual suspects' usually when they haven't been invited to
something. But would those people have contributed if they had? This is a
rhetorical question and is not aimed at those in this correspondence. The
usual suspects are often at these events because they are the most
appropriate to attend! And they represent organisations/groups that need to
be there.
Yes I am going. That isn't a secret and many colleagues know I am (they
have
asked me directly). There is a wide cross section of representation at the
event. For some reason the 'summit' seems to have become shrouded in some
mystery! What would you like to see out of the summit, how (albeit at this
late stage) can we ensure the widest views possible are put forward? I am
confident that the delegates at the summit will do that. This isn't about
vested interest, it is about the future direction of the public library
service in this country and we all have a part to play in that.
I would hope that the summit debate will be widely circulated for all to
comment.
Shelagh Levett
-----Original Message-----
From: John Briggs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 June 2004 11:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Libri in The Bookseller
Are you complaining because you haven't been invited or because you have
been?
John Briggs
Shelagh Levett wrote:
>
> Could we have a definition of the 'usual suspects' please.
>
> Shelagh Levett
> Bournemouth
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Briggs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 18 June 2004 10:54
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Libri in The Bookseller
>
>
> Roslyn Byfield wrote:
>> Re the Library Summit I have been wondering just the same thing as John
>> but
>> have been unable to find out... it would be healthier if attendance
could
>> be broader than the "usual suspects".
>
> Chance would be a fine thing! They don't want 'healthier' - the
> government have 'cross cutting priorities and agendas', although Coates
> seems a remarkably blunt instrument for achieving them. We are the last
> people they would want there.
>
> John Briggs
*************************************************************************************
Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and are
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and
any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient you
must not copy, distribute or use the communication in any other way.
If you receive this email in error please contact the sender as soon as
possible and delete the email and any attachments.
*************************************************************************************
|