Jo,
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Jo Harvey wrote:
> Sorry John, I wasn't aware that I had responded to your private email
> yesterday.
Odd - the usual rule is for mail from a discussion group to route replies
back to the group unless explicitly over-ruled by the respondent. I'm sure
this is a setup option when setting up the mailing list itself. Maybe the
owner of this mailing list could change this? What's the point of a
discussion group that routes replies away from the group?
> You're absolutely right, this is a really important issue for those of us
> in public libraries, and its essential that CILIP get involved. I am
> appalled that they have not responded to your email yet, and am concerned
> that it has been passed to Membership, Marketing and Media, and not to
> Professional Services (or does this not exist any more?) A colleague of
> mine emailed CILIP on a similar issue, regarding the portrayal of public
> libraries in the national media, a while back, and CILIP were loath to get
> involved. It makes me wonder why, apart from it being a job requirement
> for most of us, we bother to pay them our annual fees.
Well, if the other CCs go down this route then you will be able to stop
paying the CILIP annual fees since the CCs will no longer require it, in
fact being a member of CILIP may be discouraged :-) .
> I sent a messge of support to Kent libraries yesterday, and received a
> reply that they were grateful. Maybe this is something more of the list
> can do, as although it is a small thing, it is daunting to go on strike,
> particularly over something as important as your professional standing.
> The website is at www.kent.gov, where you can link to individual libraries
> (I sent my message to Maidstone) and there is a very interesting official
> line at www.kent.gov.uk/kcc/home/newsarticle.aspx?id=1881
I hope you typed this URL in incorrectly as I just tried to access it and
was told it doesn't exist. Please check and confirm the URL. If it has
been deleted someone is obviously watching :-( .
> As a point of interest, Kent CC also introduced a local version of Section
> 28, which banned the promotion of lesbian and gay material in local
> authority run establishments, despite it being scrapped by central
> government earlier this year.
Isn't it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation?
> It's worth remembering that if this re-structure is allowed to go ahead, it
> will only be a matter of time before other local authorities, in the
> south-east and beyond, see this as a marvellous way to cut costs, and begin
> to try to do the same.
They may already have but we haven't been told. I've already had one note
'For my eyes only' which claims many workers in public libaries are afraid
for their jobs and don't dare speak out
John Smith.
|