Oh dear this is hard to understand. Why on earth would a membership
organisation that is involved in information dissemination abandon one of
its more attractive benefits to its membership, i.e. communicating with one
another. Now the nasty part of me wonders if this is anything to do with the
occasional 'bad press' type of postings some have made, and I include myself
in that. But surely not? This is a democracy and the freedom of expression
must surely be important to us all, whether it is palatable or not. Maybe it
is a cost cutting exercise, but can this be so? And why aren't Cilip taking
this to its members to consult upon.
Surely this is a wheeze and simply not true. I would think that if this
list, this service, and this ability to risk some bad postings is removed it
will send the wrong messages to the membership.
As for your second point, well why I am not surprised? And yes I am sure
Cilip is preparing its comments as we email? I hope so.
Is this another occasion of leaking bad news when there is so much more
going on, and a long weekend?
Many thanks for alerting us Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jackson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: CILIP, mailing lists, ID Cards and advocacy
> I would be very disappointed if the mail list lis-cilip were to close, as
> I believe it gives us the chance to discuss important topics relating to
> library and information services. What is even more important is that it
> gives us the chance to promote, and inform the general public about our
> services and our profession. There has been much discussion about the need
> for promoting ourselves, our jobs, standards, and the contribution made by
> all libraries to the community, and lis-cilip does help with this. I would
> support any motion that opposes the closure of this list.
> As for your second point, nothing would surprise me about this governments
> polices and intentions. Breaking news about the inability to track down
> serious ex-offenders gives little chance to the idea that personal data
> held by government would be held securely or used for the correct purpose
> it was supplied for.
> > Colleagues
> > I normally use my blog (info NeoGnostic) to comment on events which
> > concern the profession, CILIP, etc. The last two posts are quite
> > important, and I suppose some of you may wish to read them.
> > 1. There is some risk that CILIP may close the LIS-CILIP mailing list,
> > thus removing an important focus for discussion of professional issues.
> > The list is open to both members and non-members of CILIP, which is one
> > reason why it is so important. I (and others) are lobbying against the
> > closure and it will be debated at next Council. If you value debates on
> > LIS-CILIP, lobby your local Councillor. See:
> > http://i-a-l.blogspot.com/2006/04/two-against-free-speech.html
> > 2. Out-Law.com have just flagged up the first move by government to
> > extend the functionality of the National Identity Register. This despite
> > assurances given in the House of Lords very recently. The issues concern
> > the amount of information held about individuals, the uses to which it
> > is put, the way it is shared between government departments, and the
> > individual's (your) right and ability to confirm data held about you is
> > correct. I believe CILIP - as expert in information - should be lobbying
> > government about this. See:
> > Chris
> > ______________________________
> > Chris Armstrong (CILIP National Councillor)
> > Information Automation Limited
> > t. (+44) 1974 251302
> > e. [log in to unmask]
> > w. www.i-a-l.co.uk
> > b: http://i-a-l.blogspot.com/
> Jim Jackson ACLIP
> C/O The Law Library
> University of Exeter
> Rennes Drive
> Exeter. EX4 4RJ
> Tel: 44 (0) 1392 263356
> Any opinions expressed in this message are my own, and not those of the
> University of Exeter. They do not form any statement by the University of
> Exeter or any other member there of.