These are the culprits -

http://www.internet-exchange.co.uk/home.asp?section=communications

There's nothing in the website that makes the user think that they charge 
for every breath one takes - in dreadful environments - how dare these 
people tell users they charge for emails and that "they are not a charity" 
when they are using library premises !

It's not a joke - other CILIP in London librarians say why don't I "just" go 
over to another borough -
it's not acceptable.

In the meantime, at CILIP members' room there are reports (in which 8 users 
have their "oil paintings" portrayed for a LearnDirect/UFI report - telling 
us how wonderful and flexible all of this "learning" is - how the courses 
are readily available to "enhance their skills" and how they can "come and 
go" -

There is also a UFI conference video with Bob Mckee delivering a paper -and 
so on - everyone singing praises to mediocrity -

I just wonder if the people who write these things (apart from the 8 who 
have their oil paintings included in the UFI strategic plan / report) can 
possibly know what it's like at the chalk face.

Pages and pages of responses and consultation of course -

Emilce


>From: "Callan, Mark" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "Emilce Rees" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: Pseudo Training and Education
>Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:22:40 +0100
>
>Righteous anger, a wonderful thing - you make me realise how apathetic I 
>have become... "Window dressing and low expectations" pretty much sums up 
>the political state we've got ourselves into. Or no, actually: that should 
>read "fake expectations".
>
>"Is bad provision better than no provision?" Isn't it rather that bad 
>provision is the façade for no provision? Were there no provision we might 
>get sufficiently motivated to insist on provision.
>
>Please, somebody, tell us what we can do about all this.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lis-educ: Library services for education 
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Emilce Rees
>Sent: 26 July 2005 13:03
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Pseudo Training and Education
>
>
>Having just had another Third World (stained chairs, just a chipped painted
>block of blue counter as desks, with no leg space) experience with my oh so
>with it "Learn Direct" provider at my local library (which wants me to
>complete endless forms and stupid learning agreements when all I want, to
>do their courses - which incidentally do not even begin to reflect what the
>LearnDirect brochure promises). I just wonder what librarians are doing
>about the pathetic standards (and the low expectations and time wasting
>involved) offered by middle course providers (working under several covers,
>mainly in public libraries or career centres). In the meantime, while
>nobody seems to understand that all we need is a user name and password and
>get allowed access to PCs (which has become almost impossible in the part
>of London where I live) LearnDirect claims in their pages/related bumph
>that they are going from strength to strength.
>
>It is, of course, the duty of "bureaucrauts" to confuse and make matters
>opaque so that they show themselves in a "clever" light (ECDL was piloted
>at UCL, quite a long time ago, and there was none of the nonsense that the
>people involved with it submerge users into).
>
>Unrelated (or perhaps not) Oxford Brookes is closing their Modern Languages
>degrees (except French).
>
>Is the bureaucracy, window dressing and low expectations (in provision and
>attainment, where ECDL, equivalent to GCSE, is presented as worth having)
>and the closure of university degrees unrelated (plus librarians in local
>libraries failing to understand that it's my user's right to send or
>receive attachments for example) completely unrelated ? Perhaps not.
>
>Is bad provision better that no provision at all ?
>
>Can we do something about this ?
>
>
>
>LEGAL INFORMATION
>Information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure 
>under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is 
>legally exempt, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be 
>guaranteed.
>Unless expressly stated otherwise, the information contained in this e-mail 
>& any files transmitted with it are intended for Emilce Rees 
>([log in to unmask]) only. If you are not the intended recipient you 
>must not copy, distribute, or take any action or reliance upon it. If you 
>have received this e-mail in error, you should notify the Callan, Mark 
>([log in to unmask]) immediately and delete this email. Any 
>unauthorised disclosure of the information contained in this e-mail is 
>strictly prohibited.  Any views or opinions presented are solely those of 
>the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Tyne Metropolitan 
>College unless explicitly stated otherwise.
>This e-mail and attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving 
>Tyne Metropolitan College. Tyne Metropolitan College will not be liable for 
>any losses as a result of any viruses being passed on.
>
>26/7/2005
>
>