Library users fear hours may be cut

Library user Shirley Burnham  at Old Town Library

Library user Shirley Burnham at Old Town Library

First published in News Swindon Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , @Michael_Benke

CONCERNS have been raised that the opening hours of the Old Town Library are set to be reduced once the Arts Centre is handed over to private hands.

On April 1, HQ Theatres, which runs the Wyvern Theatre, will take over the Arts Centre as part of the town’s leisure programme, although the library will remain in council control.

As it stands the library is open for 38 hours a week, with 18 of those hours staffed at the council’s expense.

However, HQ Theatres will be reducing the hours the box office is open so the building will be left unstaffed for a period of time, meaning the library will not be able to open.

This has led to a furious reaction from users of the library, but council leaders have said they will seek to provide increased staffing while a full town-wide consultation on libraries is carried out.

Shirley Burnham, of the action group Save the Old Town Library, said: “The main reason we moved there in the first place was so it could be open for all the 38 hours.

“If it is reduced it will be a terrible loss to people who use this vital service.

“Library users are pretty distraught about losing 20 hours of access.

“Old Town Library opening hours are currently publicly advertised on the council’s website as 38 per week.

“It is disingenuous to pretend that these are in effect 18 hours and the rest is an informal arrangement with the Arts Centre.”

The level of concern is shared by ward councillor Nadine Watts (Lab, Old Town), who said: “I am really concerned about the fact that the Old Town library’s opening hours look set to reduce by half.

“I do appreciate the Cabinet’s position was that the library’s staffed opening hours was 18 hours.

“However, for Old Town library users, they have had more access to the library because it has been part of a community hub within the Arts Centre.

“Some library users have said they feel betrayed by the fact that they were told things would not be much different with the Arts Centre under different operational management, however this clearly will not be the case with the current proposals.”

A town-wide consultation is currently being carried out to decide the future of the town’s libraries in the face of reduced funds.

Coun Keith Williams (Con, Shaw), the cabinet member for libraries, said: “The council is not in any way reducing the number of staff at the libraries. In fact we are increasing them so the library will be open for the same number of hours.

“We are committed very much to Swindon libraries.”

Details of the consultation and how to participate can be found at www.swindon.gov.uk/librarystrategy

Comments (84)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:25am Thu 20 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

Activists of all descriptions will know that Petitions to the council have required that each signatory add his/her address, as otherwise they'd not be taken into account. This is to ensure that fraud is avoided. So WHY are those safeguards not being applied to the council's current consultations? "Sauce for the goose ..."

Please note that the one-page survey-****-flyer headed 'Old Town Library Opening Hours' which sets out 3 options for 'Old Town Library Opening Hours', one of which may be selected, does NOT require the consultee to add his name or address or any of his/her details whatsoever.

1. This nullifies the survey, as it is open to fraud. I, for example, could fill in and submit 50 copies and no-one would know.
2. When the results are analysed there can be no guarantee those who have set up the survey can prove that the responses given to it are legitimate. A fair decision on the library's Opening Hours cannot be made on this basis.

Although a link is given to the swindon.gov website on the printed flyer, residents of South Swindon have NOT been made aware of the survey's existence, its impact on their library usage or whether the Library Hours survey may be accessed remotely.

CONCLUSIONS - OLD TOWN LIBRARY HOURS:

The council should acknowledge the inadequacy of the 'Old Town Library Opening Hours' survey (which ends tomorrow!) and that it has left the vast majority of residents in ignorance of its existence. They must NOT implement any changes to Old Town Library's opening hours until full and proper public consultation has been undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS : "TOWN-WIDE" CONSULTATION

The council's "town-wide" consultation on its Libraries Strategy is similarly flawed - as it is, again, wholly anonymised and vulnerable to the same opportunities for fraud.
Consultees should have been asked for their details on the questionnaires and advised that these would be held in confidence.

When emotions run high - with some thinking libraries are a total waste of money and others the opposite - what is to stop any activist or ideologue submitting multiple copies of this Consultation to the council?

Surely I am not the only one to have identified these and other failures of this so-called consultation process?

Apathy will be rewarded with a lousy Library Service - so perhaps a few Swindonians will now decide to speak up !
Activists of all descriptions will know that Petitions to the council have required that each signatory add his/her address, as otherwise they'd not be taken into account. This is to ensure that fraud is avoided. So WHY are those safeguards not being applied to the council's current consultations? "Sauce for the goose ..." Please note that the one-page survey-****-flyer headed 'Old Town Library Opening Hours' which sets out 3 options for 'Old Town Library Opening Hours', one of which may be selected, does NOT require the consultee to add his name or address or any of his/her details whatsoever. 1. This nullifies the survey, as it is open to fraud. I, for example, could fill in and submit 50 copies and no-one would know. 2. When the results are analysed there can be no guarantee those who have set up the survey can prove that the responses given to it are legitimate. A fair decision on the library's Opening Hours cannot be made on this basis. Although a link is given to the swindon.gov website on the printed flyer, residents of South Swindon have NOT been made aware of the survey's existence, its impact on their library usage or whether the Library Hours survey may be accessed remotely. CONCLUSIONS - OLD TOWN LIBRARY HOURS: The council should acknowledge the inadequacy of the 'Old Town Library Opening Hours' survey (which ends tomorrow!) and that it has left the vast majority of residents in ignorance of its existence. They must NOT implement any changes to Old Town Library's opening hours until full and proper public consultation has been undertaken. CONCLUSIONS : "TOWN-WIDE" CONSULTATION The council's "town-wide" consultation on its Libraries Strategy is similarly flawed - as it is, again, wholly anonymised and vulnerable to the same opportunities for fraud. Consultees should have been asked for their details on the questionnaires and advised that these would be held in confidence. When emotions run high - with some thinking libraries are a total waste of money and others the opposite - what is to stop any activist or ideologue submitting multiple copies of this Consultation to the council? Surely I am not the only one to have identified these and other failures of this so-called consultation process? Apathy will be rewarded with a lousy Library Service - so perhaps a few Swindonians will now decide to speak up ! Shirley Burnham
  • Score: 1

8:19am Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -1

8:34am Thu 20 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -1

11:27am Thu 20 Mar 14

trolley dolley says...

If people in Old Town are so keen to keep their library open why do they not volunteer to do some hours.

Please Shirley don't come back with your comments about professionals being better, they cannot be afforded.

Are there no retired teachers, librarians, professionals etc. who live in Old Town and are concerned about their library.

If nothing is done, then people will start to say "you have the big library just down the hill, so close the one in Old Town".
If people in Old Town are so keen to keep their library open why do they not volunteer to do some hours. Please Shirley don't come back with your comments about professionals being better, they cannot be afforded. Are there no retired teachers, librarians, professionals etc. who live in Old Town and are concerned about their library. If nothing is done, then people will start to say "you have the big library just down the hill, so close the one in Old Town". trolley dolley
  • Score: 3

11:46am Thu 20 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

trolley dolley wrote:
If people in Old Town are so keen to keep their library open why do they not volunteer to do some hours.

Please Shirley don't come back with your comments about professionals being better, they cannot be afforded.

Are there no retired teachers, librarians, professionals etc. who live in Old Town and are concerned about their library.

If nothing is done, then people will start to say "you have the big library just down the hill, so close the one in Old Town".
it is nonsense to suggest that volunteers (unsupervised) could open the Library for more hours. HQ Theatres, like any operator, has duties under fire regs, security, health & safety etc to have staff present when the public wander in. And, incidentally, use of the Library's automated self-checkout machine does not rely on the presence of volunteers, it relies only on the main doors not being locked against the public.

As far as "just down the hill" is concerned, meet Stephen from the Library's reading group who can barely walk and tell him to go down to central library, and trundle back UP the hill, why don't you? He is not alone in appreciating having a local branch in Old Town to rely on.

As far as paid staff and your remark: "they can't be afforded", I do take issue with it. The savings are minimal and the social costs high. Refer to the evidence (nationally) that pertains and you might take a different view.

On a more positive note, I asked the Adver (but they did not report it) why HQ Theatres have not comtemplated putting a 3-D printer in The Arts Centre. It's a commercially viable proposition for them and would get people flocking in - There would then be no need to lock people out of this "community hub" half the time. Perhaps, as a person of some influence yourself, you might suggest the idea in high places. Many thanks.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: If people in Old Town are so keen to keep their library open why do they not volunteer to do some hours. Please Shirley don't come back with your comments about professionals being better, they cannot be afforded. Are there no retired teachers, librarians, professionals etc. who live in Old Town and are concerned about their library. If nothing is done, then people will start to say "you have the big library just down the hill, so close the one in Old Town".[/p][/quote]it is nonsense to suggest that volunteers (unsupervised) could open the Library for more hours. HQ Theatres, like any operator, has duties under fire regs, security, health & safety etc to have staff present when the public wander in. And, incidentally, use of the Library's automated self-checkout machine does not rely on the presence of volunteers, it relies only on the main doors not being locked against the public. As far as "just down the hill" is concerned, meet Stephen from the Library's reading group who can barely walk and tell him to go down to central library, and trundle back UP the hill, why don't you? He is not alone in appreciating having a local branch in Old Town to rely on. As far as paid staff and your remark: "they can't be afforded", I do take issue with it. The savings are minimal and the social costs high. Refer to the evidence (nationally) that pertains and you might take a different view. On a more positive note, I asked the Adver (but they did not report it) why HQ Theatres have not comtemplated putting a 3-D printer in The Arts Centre. It's a commercially viable proposition for them and would get people flocking in - There would then be no need to lock people out of this "community hub" half the time. Perhaps, as a person of some influence yourself, you might suggest the idea in high places. Many thanks. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -2

12:08pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on? Always Grumpy
  • Score: 2

12:10pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Trevor Craig says...

There is a lot of ignorance about what libraries and library staff actually do. Literacy is a growing problem in the UK and closing libraries at this time is crazy. All the developing countries are opening new libraries, we're closing ours, we won't succeed in the future with children and adults who cannot read and write properly. In other developed countries like the, despite the arrival of e-books and the internet (which we've had for years now) library usage is still growing. A large percentage of the UK population have to internet, when government forces everyone to do all their stuff online where will they do that when the libraries have closed? Cutting libraries is short sighted stupidity, replacing low paid library assistants and managers with volunteers is also stupid as because of the training requirements it saves almost no money if any.
There is a lot of ignorance about what libraries and library staff actually do. Literacy is a growing problem in the UK and closing libraries at this time is crazy. All the developing countries are opening new libraries, we're closing ours, we won't succeed in the future with children and adults who cannot read and write properly. In other developed countries like the, despite the arrival of e-books and the internet (which we've had for years now) library usage is still growing. A large percentage of the UK population have to internet, when government forces everyone to do all their stuff online where will they do that when the libraries have closed? Cutting libraries is short sighted stupidity, replacing low paid library assistants and managers with volunteers is also stupid as because of the training requirements it saves almost no money if any. Trevor Craig
  • Score: 1

12:16pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Trevor Craig says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/77537/
Taking-Part_2012-13_
Quarter-1_Report.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf Trevor Craig
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/77537/

Taking-Part_2012-13_

Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
[quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 1

12:47pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Trevor Craig wrote:
There is a lot of ignorance about what libraries and library staff actually do. Literacy is a growing problem in the UK and closing libraries at this time is crazy. All the developing countries are opening new libraries, we're closing ours, we won't succeed in the future with children and adults who cannot read and write properly. In other developed countries like the, despite the arrival of e-books and the internet (which we've had for years now) library usage is still growing. A large percentage of the UK population have to internet, when government forces everyone to do all their stuff online where will they do that when the libraries have closed? Cutting libraries is short sighted stupidity, replacing low paid library assistants and managers with volunteers is also stupid as because of the training requirements it saves almost no money if any.
Blame the education system and poor parenting for the illiteracy, not the demise of libraries.
[quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: There is a lot of ignorance about what libraries and library staff actually do. Literacy is a growing problem in the UK and closing libraries at this time is crazy. All the developing countries are opening new libraries, we're closing ours, we won't succeed in the future with children and adults who cannot read and write properly. In other developed countries like the, despite the arrival of e-books and the internet (which we've had for years now) library usage is still growing. A large percentage of the UK population have to internet, when government forces everyone to do all their stuff online where will they do that when the libraries have closed? Cutting libraries is short sighted stupidity, replacing low paid library assistants and managers with volunteers is also stupid as because of the training requirements it saves almost no money if any.[/p][/quote]Blame the education system and poor parenting for the illiteracy, not the demise of libraries. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Trevor Craig says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g


overnment/uploads/sy


stem/uploads/attachm


ent_data/file/77537/


Taking-Part_2012-13_


Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.[/p][/quote]Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy. Trevor Craig
  • Score: 2

12:50pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ChannelX says...


It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.


This is a wind-up, surely?

We've had plenty of libraries open to everyone for decades - yet illiteracy is worse than ever.

To suggest that people end up as vagrants because library opening hours are reduced slightly is so laughable I can barely believe anybody actually typed the words out.

The real irony here is that, thanks to smartphones and the Internet, children (and adults) today read more than anyone has done in the past.

The number of people who actually use Swindon's libraries is vanishingly small. Quite why they even need to be open more than around 2 or 3 hours per weekday is hard to fathom. You want to hire a book out, go when the library is open - even if you're illiterate, vagrant and ignorant it's not difficult to understand... although, obviously if you ever set food inside a library you couldn't actually be any of those things.

It's great when people are passionate about their beliefs, but when that passion overspills into quite ridiculous claims and assertions, it merely serves to damage their credibility and the points they're trying to make. Ms Burnham, take note.
[quote] It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan. [/quote] This is a wind-up, surely? We've had plenty of libraries open to everyone for decades - yet illiteracy is worse than ever. To suggest that people end up as vagrants because library opening hours are reduced slightly is so laughable I can barely believe anybody actually typed the words out. The real irony here is that, thanks to smartphones and the Internet, children (and adults) today read more than anyone has done in the past. The number of people who actually use Swindon's libraries is vanishingly small. Quite why they even need to be open more than around 2 or 3 hours per weekday is hard to fathom. You want to hire a book out, go when the library is open - even if you're illiterate, vagrant and ignorant it's not difficult to understand... although, obviously if you ever set food inside a library you couldn't actually be any of those things. It's great when people are passionate about their beliefs, but when that passion overspills into quite ridiculous claims and assertions, it merely serves to damage their credibility and the points they're trying to make. Ms Burnham, take note. ChannelX
  • Score: 2

1:10pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

ChannelX wrote:

It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.


This is a wind-up, surely?

We've had plenty of libraries open to everyone for decades - yet illiteracy is worse than ever.

To suggest that people end up as vagrants because library opening hours are reduced slightly is so laughable I can barely believe anybody actually typed the words out.

The real irony here is that, thanks to smartphones and the Internet, children (and adults) today read more than anyone has done in the past.

The number of people who actually use Swindon's libraries is vanishingly small. Quite why they even need to be open more than around 2 or 3 hours per weekday is hard to fathom. You want to hire a book out, go when the library is open - even if you're illiterate, vagrant and ignorant it's not difficult to understand... although, obviously if you ever set food inside a library you couldn't actually be any of those things.

It's great when people are passionate about their beliefs, but when that passion overspills into quite ridiculous claims and assertions, it merely serves to damage their credibility and the points they're trying to make. Ms Burnham, take note.
Cutting Library hours by more than half in Old Town seems in excess of "slightly". But on the main issue you raise ....

May I refer you to the National Literacy Trust's website where you may search for the items: public libraries, libraries, literacy - and thus investigate these matters via that source - as you find my claims and assertions so ridiculous. As you can afford all the latest digital kit, you will also be able to find a lot on the Web that could be of interest by searching further.

P.S. It rather damages your credibility and that of the Grumpy person that you disguise yourselves behind pseudonyms. But I imagine it is for the best of reasons. Whoever you are - Kind regards: S
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote] It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan. [/quote] This is a wind-up, surely? We've had plenty of libraries open to everyone for decades - yet illiteracy is worse than ever. To suggest that people end up as vagrants because library opening hours are reduced slightly is so laughable I can barely believe anybody actually typed the words out. The real irony here is that, thanks to smartphones and the Internet, children (and adults) today read more than anyone has done in the past. The number of people who actually use Swindon's libraries is vanishingly small. Quite why they even need to be open more than around 2 or 3 hours per weekday is hard to fathom. You want to hire a book out, go when the library is open - even if you're illiterate, vagrant and ignorant it's not difficult to understand... although, obviously if you ever set food inside a library you couldn't actually be any of those things. It's great when people are passionate about their beliefs, but when that passion overspills into quite ridiculous claims and assertions, it merely serves to damage their credibility and the points they're trying to make. Ms Burnham, take note.[/p][/quote]Cutting Library hours by more than half in Old Town seems in excess of "slightly". But on the main issue you raise .... May I refer you to the National Literacy Trust's website where you may search for the items: public libraries, libraries, literacy - and thus investigate these matters via that source - as you find my claims and assertions so ridiculous. As you can afford all the latest digital kit, you will also be able to find a lot on the Web that could be of interest by searching further. P.S. It rather damages your credibility and that of the Grumpy person that you disguise yourselves behind pseudonyms. But I imagine it is for the best of reasons. Whoever you are - Kind regards: S Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -2

1:26pm Thu 20 Mar 14

madreeves says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
If people in Old Town are so keen to keep their library open why do they not volunteer to do some hours.

Please Shirley don't come back with your comments about professionals being better, they cannot be afforded.

Are there no retired teachers, librarians, professionals etc. who live in Old Town and are concerned about their library.

If nothing is done, then people will start to say "you have the big library just down the hill, so close the one in Old Town".
it is nonsense to suggest that volunteers (unsupervised) could open the Library for more hours. HQ Theatres, like any operator, has duties under fire regs, security, health & safety etc to have staff present when the public wander in. And, incidentally, use of the Library's automated self-checkout machine does not rely on the presence of volunteers, it relies only on the main doors not being locked against the public.

As far as "just down the hill" is concerned, meet Stephen from the Library's reading group who can barely walk and tell him to go down to central library, and trundle back UP the hill, why don't you? He is not alone in appreciating having a local branch in Old Town to rely on.

As far as paid staff and your remark: "they can't be afforded", I do take issue with it. The savings are minimal and the social costs high. Refer to the evidence (nationally) that pertains and you might take a different view.

On a more positive note, I asked the Adver (but they did not report it) why HQ Theatres have not comtemplated putting a 3-D printer in The Arts Centre. It's a commercially viable proposition for them and would get people flocking in - There would then be no need to lock people out of this "community hub" half the time. Perhaps, as a person of some influence yourself, you might suggest the idea in high places. Many thanks.
Actually, it's not nonsense at all and a valid point. The Arts Centre has operated for many years with volunteers providing the service of evacuating people in the event of emergency etc. Just because people aren't being paid, doesn't mean they have no responsibility. It's how charity shops etc operate. Perhaps you should look into suggesting this and form a responsible group? It is a shame that the hours are being reduced, but they are not being done away with totally, so the current users will just have to re-adjust their own priorities to be able to get there and choose some books. Unless, of course, they are using the library for other means - i.e. primarily as a form of social gathering or for use of other facilities, in which case, sorry, that's not what it's there for. You still have 18 hours a week in which to hold reading groups - more than enough. I think it's fortunate that the Arts Centre is now being taken over. For far too long it has been run by staff too highly paid and not committed enough - I've been to performances where there were only half a dozen or so other people there. Embarrassing. HQ's aim will be to see it generating income from what it is and what they are taking on - a theatre - and that will mean cutting the extortionate salaries and expensive downtime, and bringing it in line with any other commercial theatre.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: If people in Old Town are so keen to keep their library open why do they not volunteer to do some hours. Please Shirley don't come back with your comments about professionals being better, they cannot be afforded. Are there no retired teachers, librarians, professionals etc. who live in Old Town and are concerned about their library. If nothing is done, then people will start to say "you have the big library just down the hill, so close the one in Old Town".[/p][/quote]it is nonsense to suggest that volunteers (unsupervised) could open the Library for more hours. HQ Theatres, like any operator, has duties under fire regs, security, health & safety etc to have staff present when the public wander in. And, incidentally, use of the Library's automated self-checkout machine does not rely on the presence of volunteers, it relies only on the main doors not being locked against the public. As far as "just down the hill" is concerned, meet Stephen from the Library's reading group who can barely walk and tell him to go down to central library, and trundle back UP the hill, why don't you? He is not alone in appreciating having a local branch in Old Town to rely on. As far as paid staff and your remark: "they can't be afforded", I do take issue with it. The savings are minimal and the social costs high. Refer to the evidence (nationally) that pertains and you might take a different view. On a more positive note, I asked the Adver (but they did not report it) why HQ Theatres have not comtemplated putting a 3-D printer in The Arts Centre. It's a commercially viable proposition for them and would get people flocking in - There would then be no need to lock people out of this "community hub" half the time. Perhaps, as a person of some influence yourself, you might suggest the idea in high places. Many thanks.[/p][/quote]Actually, it's not nonsense at all and a valid point. The Arts Centre has operated for many years with volunteers providing the service of evacuating people in the event of emergency etc. Just because people aren't being paid, doesn't mean they have no responsibility. It's how charity shops etc operate. Perhaps you should look into suggesting this and form a responsible group? It is a shame that the hours are being reduced, but they are not being done away with totally, so the current users will just have to re-adjust their own priorities to be able to get there and choose some books. Unless, of course, they are using the library for other means - i.e. primarily as a form of social gathering or for use of other facilities, in which case, sorry, that's not what it's there for. You still have 18 hours a week in which to hold reading groups - more than enough. I think it's fortunate that the Arts Centre is now being taken over. For far too long it has been run by staff too highly paid and not committed enough - I've been to performances where there were only half a dozen or so other people there. Embarrassing. HQ's aim will be to see it generating income from what it is and what they are taking on - a theatre - and that will mean cutting the extortionate salaries and expensive downtime, and bringing it in line with any other commercial theatre. madreeves
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Thu 20 Mar 14

CocoaClown says...

Having two school aged children I wouldn't want to see all libraries shut as we make use of our a local, larger library and have found them useful not just for borrowing books.

But what I can also appreciate is that the Council need to save money and whilst services need to be cut I would rather the money was saved on libraries than on essential services such as care for the elderly for example.

Whilst it is nice having a library on your door step, we have a few larger libraries in the town which are all in easy access to public transport. I would rather the Council keep these ones open and extend the services and hours at these than keep the smaller ones operating which are probably less utilitised yet still costing money to run.

This is my opinion and it can be shot down all you like, but I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.

And lets be honest, the Council's "consultation" exercise is a waste of time and money regardless of what anyone comments on it. This is Swindon Borough Council remember and no doubt they already have a plan in place regardless of the outcome of the "consultation". (Remember the consultation on the recycling collections for example!). This consultation is just to tick the box to say they've done one, they don't need to take views into consideration.
Having two school aged children I wouldn't want to see all libraries shut as we make use of our a local, larger library and have found them useful not just for borrowing books. But what I can also appreciate is that the Council need to save money and whilst services need to be cut I would rather the money was saved on libraries than on essential services such as care for the elderly for example. Whilst it is nice having a library on your door step, we have a few larger libraries in the town which are all in easy access to public transport. I would rather the Council keep these ones open and extend the services and hours at these than keep the smaller ones operating which are probably less utilitised yet still costing money to run. This is my opinion and it can be shot down all you like, but I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking along these lines. And lets be honest, the Council's "consultation" exercise is a waste of time and money regardless of what anyone comments on it. This is Swindon Borough Council remember and no doubt they already have a plan in place regardless of the outcome of the "consultation". (Remember the consultation on the recycling collections for example!). This consultation is just to tick the box to say they've done one, they don't need to take views into consideration. CocoaClown
  • Score: 5

1:51pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g



overnment/uploads/sy



stem/uploads/attachm



ent_data/file/77537/



Taking-Part_2012-13_



Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.
Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then?
No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?
[quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.[/p][/quote]Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.[/p][/quote]Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then? No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it? Always Grumpy
  • Score: 3

2:04pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
"P.S. It rather damages your credibility and that of the Grumpy person that you disguise yourselves behind pseudonyms. But I imagine it is for the best of reasons. Whoever you are - Kind regards: S"

Always rely on a loser to use abuse to defend their lost causes.

You gain nothing in credibility on this site by using real names - it means nothing to use a pseudonym as almost everyone, not you obviously, already knows. On the other hand you just make yourself a public laughing stock when you get it so wrong, as you have in this case.

Perhaps in your efforts to save vagrants, illiterates and the ignorant, you would be better placed volunteering to help out in schools and homeless charities at your own expense, not public buildings at my expense.

You spend your own money how you wish, but stop trying to spend my money on your precious out-of-date libraries.
Shirley Burnham wrote: "P.S. It rather damages your credibility and that of the Grumpy person that you disguise yourselves behind pseudonyms. But I imagine it is for the best of reasons. Whoever you are - Kind regards: S" Always rely on a loser to use abuse to defend their lost causes. You gain nothing in credibility on this site by using real names - it means nothing to use a pseudonym as almost everyone, not you obviously, already knows. On the other hand you just make yourself a public laughing stock when you get it so wrong, as you have in this case. Perhaps in your efforts to save vagrants, illiterates and the ignorant, you would be better placed volunteering to help out in schools and homeless charities at your own expense, not public buildings at my expense. You spend your own money how you wish, but stop trying to spend my money on your precious out-of-date libraries. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 2

2:06pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
ChannelX wrote:

It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.


This is a wind-up, surely?

We've had plenty of libraries open to everyone for decades - yet illiteracy is worse than ever.

To suggest that people end up as vagrants because library opening hours are reduced slightly is so laughable I can barely believe anybody actually typed the words out.

The real irony here is that, thanks to smartphones and the Internet, children (and adults) today read more than anyone has done in the past.

The number of people who actually use Swindon's libraries is vanishingly small. Quite why they even need to be open more than around 2 or 3 hours per weekday is hard to fathom. You want to hire a book out, go when the library is open - even if you're illiterate, vagrant and ignorant it's not difficult to understand... although, obviously if you ever set food inside a library you couldn't actually be any of those things.

It's great when people are passionate about their beliefs, but when that passion overspills into quite ridiculous claims and assertions, it merely serves to damage their credibility and the points they're trying to make. Ms Burnham, take note.
Cutting Library hours by more than half in Old Town seems in excess of "slightly". But on the main issue you raise ....

May I refer you to the National Literacy Trust's website where you may search for the items: public libraries, libraries, literacy - and thus investigate these matters via that source - as you find my claims and assertions so ridiculous. As you can afford all the latest digital kit, you will also be able to find a lot on the Web that could be of interest by searching further.

P.S. It rather damages your credibility and that of the Grumpy person that you disguise yourselves behind pseudonyms. But I imagine it is for the best of reasons. Whoever you are - Kind regards: S
Was it time spent in libraries that taught you how to be so incredibly patronising and sarcastic? If so, I'd recommend others avoid them like the plague.

People are not made illiterate, vagrant or ignorant because they do not have access to libraries. What happened to their schooling? The mandatory schooling that everyone on this country must pass through by law?

And, as I mentioned before - but you conveniently ignored - we have had public libraries in this country for many decades, people can visit them if they wish (and will still be able to even if opening hours are cut by half). The issue here is that people DON'T choose to visit them.

You don't even know the accurate visitor numbers for Swindon's libraries. Maybe all that time spent reading books could have been better spent learning to count, as it shouldn't be that difficult to tally the tiny number of people concerned.

Why are library users 'distraught' about the libraries they use being open 18 hours a week? Surely that allows more than enough time to pick up a few books and take them back each week?

Or are you trying to seriously suggest there are people who spend 38 hours a week in the libraries and will now have to find other things to do with the 20 hours a week they'll have spare?

Honestly, some of the comments on this article must rank as one of the most abysmal defences against 'cuts' I've yet read on this website - and that really is saying something.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote] It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan. [/quote] This is a wind-up, surely? We've had plenty of libraries open to everyone for decades - yet illiteracy is worse than ever. To suggest that people end up as vagrants because library opening hours are reduced slightly is so laughable I can barely believe anybody actually typed the words out. The real irony here is that, thanks to smartphones and the Internet, children (and adults) today read more than anyone has done in the past. The number of people who actually use Swindon's libraries is vanishingly small. Quite why they even need to be open more than around 2 or 3 hours per weekday is hard to fathom. You want to hire a book out, go when the library is open - even if you're illiterate, vagrant and ignorant it's not difficult to understand... although, obviously if you ever set food inside a library you couldn't actually be any of those things. It's great when people are passionate about their beliefs, but when that passion overspills into quite ridiculous claims and assertions, it merely serves to damage their credibility and the points they're trying to make. Ms Burnham, take note.[/p][/quote]Cutting Library hours by more than half in Old Town seems in excess of "slightly". But on the main issue you raise .... May I refer you to the National Literacy Trust's website where you may search for the items: public libraries, libraries, literacy - and thus investigate these matters via that source - as you find my claims and assertions so ridiculous. As you can afford all the latest digital kit, you will also be able to find a lot on the Web that could be of interest by searching further. P.S. It rather damages your credibility and that of the Grumpy person that you disguise yourselves behind pseudonyms. But I imagine it is for the best of reasons. Whoever you are - Kind regards: S[/p][/quote]Was it time spent in libraries that taught you how to be so incredibly patronising and sarcastic? If so, I'd recommend others avoid them like the plague. People are not made illiterate, vagrant or ignorant because they do not have access to libraries. What happened to their schooling? The mandatory schooling that everyone on this country must pass through by law? And, as I mentioned before - but you conveniently ignored - we have had public libraries in this country for many decades, people can visit them if they wish (and will still be able to even if opening hours are cut by half). The issue here is that people DON'T choose to visit them. You don't even know the accurate visitor numbers for Swindon's libraries. Maybe all that time spent reading books could have been better spent learning to count, as it shouldn't be that difficult to tally the tiny number of people concerned. Why are library users 'distraught' about the libraries they use being open 18 hours a week? Surely that allows more than enough time to pick up a few books and take them back each week? Or are you trying to seriously suggest there are people who spend 38 hours a week in the libraries and will now have to find other things to do with the 20 hours a week they'll have spare? Honestly, some of the comments on this article must rank as one of the most abysmal defences against 'cuts' I've yet read on this website - and that really is saying something. ChannelX
  • Score: 4

2:07pm Thu 20 Mar 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
I have to agree, or at least let private contractors run them
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, or at least let private contractors run them A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 1

2:12pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

"It's how charity shops operate"
Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre
tail.org.uk/howchari
tyshopswork.html
The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs.

I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.
"It's how charity shops operate" [quote: trolley dolley] Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre tail.org.uk/howchari tyshopswork.html The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs. I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -3

2:15pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ChannelX says...


39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage.


Let's see the figures for the number of adults who've used a library in the last two weeks. I'd be amazed if it's more than 3%.

And if it was specified down to those adults who used a library solely in order to hire out a book in the last two weeks, half that number.
[quote] 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. [/quote] Let's see the figures for the number of adults who've used a library in the last two weeks. I'd be amazed if it's more than 3%. And if it was specified down to those adults who used a library solely in order to hire out a book in the last two weeks, half that number. ChannelX
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Trevor Craig says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g




overnment/uploads/sy




stem/uploads/attachm




ent_data/file/77537/




Taking-Part_2012-13_




Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.
Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then?
No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?
Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth
eyknow.com/request/1
50409/response/36861
0/attach/html/3/Cipf
a%202011%2012.pdf.ht
ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Borough_of_
Swindon
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.[/p][/quote]Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.[/p][/quote]Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then? No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/1 50409/response/36861 0/attach/html/3/Cipf a%202011%2012.pdf.ht ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Borough_of_ Swindon Trevor Craig
  • Score: -4

2:55pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Elizabeth A says...

Well done to Shirley Burnham and Trevor Craig for pointing out the facts and standing up for people who can't. I'm astonished at the nasty comments others are leaving, including those of some who confirm the flaws in the consultation being undertaken by suggesting they take full advantage of it to skew the results.

Don't rise to the bait Shirley.
Well done to Shirley Burnham and Trevor Craig for pointing out the facts and standing up for people who can't. I'm astonished at the nasty comments others are leaving, including those of some who confirm the flaws in the consultation being undertaken by suggesting they take full advantage of it to skew the results. Don't rise to the bait Shirley. Elizabeth A
  • Score: -1

3:14pm Thu 20 Mar 14

madreeves says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
"It's how charity shops operate"
Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre

tail.org.uk/howchari

tyshopswork.html
The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs.

I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.
I note you didn't care to respond to the statement that the Arts Centre already runs with volunteers and the suggestion that you form a responsible group willing to take that action. Thanks for the point about charity shops. As you say, some already operate on a voluntary basis - point proved. It's all very well to resort to insults and accusing people of hiding behind pseudonyms as a way of somehow trumping the argument, but it really isn't valid I'm afraid. Also, it's not particularly clever to label someone as uncaring when their post clearly states nothing of the sort, merely points out the realities - the service is being reduced, not dispensed with. Again, reacting with a "you are uncaring, therefore I win" attitude really doesn't help your cause and paints you in a rather poor light. I suggest again that you do something constructive and useful and form a responsible group. Then put your suggestions to HQ instead of badgering the Advertiser and berating everyone for (understandably) not sharing your particular point of view.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: "It's how charity shops operate" [quote: trolley dolley] Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre tail.org.uk/howchari tyshopswork.html The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs. I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.[/p][/quote]I note you didn't care to respond to the statement that the Arts Centre already runs with volunteers and the suggestion that you form a responsible group willing to take that action. Thanks for the point about charity shops. As you say, some already operate on a voluntary basis - point proved. It's all very well to resort to insults and accusing people of hiding behind pseudonyms as a way of somehow trumping the argument, but it really isn't valid I'm afraid. Also, it's not particularly clever to label someone as uncaring when their post clearly states nothing of the sort, merely points out the realities - the service is being reduced, not dispensed with. Again, reacting with a "you are uncaring, therefore I win" attitude really doesn't help your cause and paints you in a rather poor light. I suggest again that you do something constructive and useful and form a responsible group. Then put your suggestions to HQ instead of badgering the Advertiser and berating everyone for (understandably) not sharing your particular point of view. madreeves
  • Score: 7

3:29pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

madreeves wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
"It's how charity shops operate"
Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre


tail.org.uk/howchari


tyshopswork.html
The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs.

I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.
I note you didn't care to respond to the statement that the Arts Centre already runs with volunteers and the suggestion that you form a responsible group willing to take that action. Thanks for the point about charity shops. As you say, some already operate on a voluntary basis - point proved. It's all very well to resort to insults and accusing people of hiding behind pseudonyms as a way of somehow trumping the argument, but it really isn't valid I'm afraid. Also, it's not particularly clever to label someone as uncaring when their post clearly states nothing of the sort, merely points out the realities - the service is being reduced, not dispensed with. Again, reacting with a "you are uncaring, therefore I win" attitude really doesn't help your cause and paints you in a rather poor light. I suggest again that you do something constructive and useful and form a responsible group. Then put your suggestions to HQ instead of badgering the Advertiser and berating everyone for (understandably) not sharing your particular point of view.
Well said.

This fairly modern facade of 'I'm caring, you're not, therefore I win' is as tiresome as it is entirely erroneous. It always seem to simply rely on one person, usually a fairly predictable type, to supposedly claim the moral high ground before the other.

Ms Burnham couldn't give a **** about those who are forced to fund her library, she just wants to ensure she gets her own way, yet I don't particularly hold that against her, think she's selfish or believe I'm better than her.

Although, it's the almost complete lack of any sense of humility that is starting to actively make me want to see the Old Town library closed permanently.
[quote][p][bold]madreeves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: "It's how charity shops operate" [quote: trolley dolley] Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre tail.org.uk/howchari tyshopswork.html The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs. I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.[/p][/quote]I note you didn't care to respond to the statement that the Arts Centre already runs with volunteers and the suggestion that you form a responsible group willing to take that action. Thanks for the point about charity shops. As you say, some already operate on a voluntary basis - point proved. It's all very well to resort to insults and accusing people of hiding behind pseudonyms as a way of somehow trumping the argument, but it really isn't valid I'm afraid. Also, it's not particularly clever to label someone as uncaring when their post clearly states nothing of the sort, merely points out the realities - the service is being reduced, not dispensed with. Again, reacting with a "you are uncaring, therefore I win" attitude really doesn't help your cause and paints you in a rather poor light. I suggest again that you do something constructive and useful and form a responsible group. Then put your suggestions to HQ instead of badgering the Advertiser and berating everyone for (understandably) not sharing your particular point of view.[/p][/quote]Well said. This fairly modern facade of 'I'm caring, you're not, therefore I win' is as tiresome as it is entirely erroneous. It always seem to simply rely on one person, usually a fairly predictable type, to supposedly claim the moral high ground before the other. Ms Burnham couldn't give a **** about those who are forced to fund her library, she just wants to ensure she gets her own way, yet I don't particularly hold that against her, think she's selfish or believe I'm better than her. Although, it's the almost complete lack of any sense of humility that is starting to actively make me want to see the Old Town library closed permanently. ChannelX
  • Score: 1

3:30pm Thu 20 Mar 14

nobody says...

What's wrong with the library a short distance down the hill?
What's wrong with the library a short distance down the hill? nobody
  • Score: 3

3:42pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

ChannelX wrote:
madreeves wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
"It's how charity shops operate"
Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre



tail.org.uk/howchari



tyshopswork.html
The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs.

I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.
I note you didn't care to respond to the statement that the Arts Centre already runs with volunteers and the suggestion that you form a responsible group willing to take that action. Thanks for the point about charity shops. As you say, some already operate on a voluntary basis - point proved. It's all very well to resort to insults and accusing people of hiding behind pseudonyms as a way of somehow trumping the argument, but it really isn't valid I'm afraid. Also, it's not particularly clever to label someone as uncaring when their post clearly states nothing of the sort, merely points out the realities - the service is being reduced, not dispensed with. Again, reacting with a "you are uncaring, therefore I win" attitude really doesn't help your cause and paints you in a rather poor light. I suggest again that you do something constructive and useful and form a responsible group. Then put your suggestions to HQ instead of badgering the Advertiser and berating everyone for (understandably) not sharing your particular point of view.
Well said.

This fairly modern facade of 'I'm caring, you're not, therefore I win' is as tiresome as it is entirely erroneous. It always seem to simply rely on one person, usually a fairly predictable type, to supposedly claim the moral high ground before the other.

Ms Burnham couldn't give a **** about those who are forced to fund her library, she just wants to ensure she gets her own way, yet I don't particularly hold that against her, think she's selfish or believe I'm better than her.

Although, it's the almost complete lack of any sense of humility that is starting to actively make me want to see the Old Town library closed permanently.
There is a lot of hostility in what you are saying. If I've expressed myself badly, I apologise. You have a right to a point of view and you have given it. I have, too.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madreeves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: "It's how charity shops operate" [quote: trolley dolley] Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre tail.org.uk/howchari tyshopswork.html The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs. I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.[/p][/quote]I note you didn't care to respond to the statement that the Arts Centre already runs with volunteers and the suggestion that you form a responsible group willing to take that action. Thanks for the point about charity shops. As you say, some already operate on a voluntary basis - point proved. It's all very well to resort to insults and accusing people of hiding behind pseudonyms as a way of somehow trumping the argument, but it really isn't valid I'm afraid. Also, it's not particularly clever to label someone as uncaring when their post clearly states nothing of the sort, merely points out the realities - the service is being reduced, not dispensed with. Again, reacting with a "you are uncaring, therefore I win" attitude really doesn't help your cause and paints you in a rather poor light. I suggest again that you do something constructive and useful and form a responsible group. Then put your suggestions to HQ instead of badgering the Advertiser and berating everyone for (understandably) not sharing your particular point of view.[/p][/quote]Well said. This fairly modern facade of 'I'm caring, you're not, therefore I win' is as tiresome as it is entirely erroneous. It always seem to simply rely on one person, usually a fairly predictable type, to supposedly claim the moral high ground before the other. Ms Burnham couldn't give a **** about those who are forced to fund her library, she just wants to ensure she gets her own way, yet I don't particularly hold that against her, think she's selfish or believe I'm better than her. Although, it's the almost complete lack of any sense of humility that is starting to actively make me want to see the Old Town library closed permanently.[/p][/quote]There is a lot of hostility in what you are saying. If I've expressed myself badly, I apologise. You have a right to a point of view and you have given it. I have, too. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -1

4:11pm Thu 20 Mar 14

trolley dolley says...

Shirley, give yourself a break. You are not winning this argument.
Shirley, give yourself a break. You are not winning this argument. trolley dolley
  • Score: 1

4:13pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Even Angrier Monkey says...

nobody wrote:
What's wrong with the library a short distance down the hill?
Excactly. Improves literacy AND reduces obesity in one trip.
[quote][p][bold]nobody[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with the library a short distance down the hill?[/p][/quote]Excactly. Improves literacy AND reduces obesity in one trip. Even Angrier Monkey
  • Score: 4

4:17pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Davey Gravey says...

Don't bother trying to reason with the cretins on this site Shirley. It's pointless.Although in the majority in this site not the norm in the town thankfully. Good on you by the way.
Don't bother trying to reason with the cretins on this site Shirley. It's pointless.Although in the majority in this site not the norm in the town thankfully. Good on you by the way. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

4:22pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Shirley, give yourself a break. You are not winning this argument.
Dear pseudonyms: I shall not give up trying to save Old Town Library and the other smaller libraries in Swindon. If people who want to keep them "lose", as you so elegantly put it, then at least we'll have given it our best shot.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Shirley, give yourself a break. You are not winning this argument.[/p][/quote]Dear pseudonyms: I shall not give up trying to save Old Town Library and the other smaller libraries in Swindon. If people who want to keep them "lose", as you so elegantly put it, then at least we'll have given it our best shot. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -4

4:23pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Don't bother trying to reason with the cretins on this site Shirley. It's pointless.Although in the majority in this site not the norm in the town thankfully. Good on you by the way.
Oh, lovely to hear from you. Thanks a lot, Davey Gravey. Another pseudonym, but a friendlier one.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Don't bother trying to reason with the cretins on this site Shirley. It's pointless.Although in the majority in this site not the norm in the town thankfully. Good on you by the way.[/p][/quote]Oh, lovely to hear from you. Thanks a lot, Davey Gravey. Another pseudonym, but a friendlier one. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -3

4:35pm Thu 20 Mar 14

wornoutnow says...

I have read these responses to Shirley Burnham with horror. I was born and lived in a small Welsh village, with little more than a village band. Our library came to us from the nearest town in boxes, and the queues to read the latest collection went round the corner of the Institute they were delivered to.

Do these people called Grumpy etc have any idea what it is like to not be able to access the library, not only for books, but newspapers, internet, information, help with a million or more queries, from trained and expert staff. Public libraries were once described as the corner street university. What a totally uncivilised world it would be if we did not have public libraries. We have pretty much lost most other great things in our towns and villages, but let us keep this last and great symbol civilisation in as many towns and villages that we can.
Just because Grumpy and co don't want them , that is tough, I don't want a brothel on my street but a library would be great.

Sukkey
I have read these responses to Shirley Burnham with horror. I was born and lived in a small Welsh village, with little more than a village band. Our library came to us from the nearest town in boxes, and the queues to read the latest collection went round the corner of the Institute they were delivered to. Do these people called Grumpy etc have any idea what it is like to not be able to access the library, not only for books, but newspapers, internet, information, help with a million or more queries, from trained and expert staff. Public libraries were once described as the corner street university. What a totally uncivilised world it would be if we did not have public libraries. We have pretty much lost most other great things in our towns and villages, but let us keep this last and great symbol civilisation in as many towns and villages that we can. Just because Grumpy and co don't want them , that is tough, I don't want a brothel on my street but a library would be great. Sukkey wornoutnow
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Thu 20 Mar 14

beach1e says...

there is a library not too far from the arts centre, there is a library in wroughton...not sure why one is needed at the arts centre? times are hard, cuts have to be made , altho not sure why the wyvern has been allowed to take over the arts centre as all they seem to show are very low intelligence "entertainment". wonder how long It will be before its closed down. I don't think any public money should be be going to support theatre in this town when it is of such low quality. If you see the amount of people that go the cinema to see things like ntlive, you would realise that this town has a lot of people that like decent entertainment, but that obviously bypasses anyone within the council or this sad excuse for a theatre.
there is a library not too far from the arts centre, there is a library in wroughton...not sure why one is needed at the arts centre? times are hard, cuts have to be made , altho not sure why the wyvern has been allowed to take over the arts centre as all they seem to show are very low intelligence "entertainment". wonder how long It will be before its closed down. I don't think any public money should be be going to support theatre in this town when it is of such low quality. If you see the amount of people that go the cinema to see things like ntlive, you would realise that this town has a lot of people that like decent entertainment, but that obviously bypasses anyone within the council or this sad excuse for a theatre. beach1e
  • Score: 3

5:09pm Thu 20 Mar 14

madreeves says...

wornoutnow wrote:
I have read these responses to Shirley Burnham with horror. I was born and lived in a small Welsh village, with little more than a village band. Our library came to us from the nearest town in boxes, and the queues to read the latest collection went round the corner of the Institute they were delivered to.

Do these people called Grumpy etc have any idea what it is like to not be able to access the library, not only for books, but newspapers, internet, information, help with a million or more queries, from trained and expert staff. Public libraries were once described as the corner street university. What a totally uncivilised world it would be if we did not have public libraries. We have pretty much lost most other great things in our towns and villages, but let us keep this last and great symbol civilisation in as many towns and villages that we can.
Just because Grumpy and co don't want them , that is tough, I don't want a brothel on my street but a library would be great.

Sukkey
I agree. Libraries were once all that you describe. However, we can all look back on the rosier times of our youth when we did all go to the library and make good use of it. As a schoolchild, I used our local village one often. My nephews today, however, access everything via the internet and that's the way things are going. They have no need to go to a library. It's called progress and, unfortunately, progress can result in costs and doesn't always please everyone. We have a large central library in Swindon open for lengthy hours, and I know for a fact that there are people in North Swindon who sit in the library there for huge swathes of time solely to make use of the free power/internet for their own gains. Maybe some posters here on this site are doing just that. To my mind, that's not the spirit of a library. I think the detail of the proposal should be re-read - they're not doing away with the service but reducing it to what looks like about 3 hours a day (if they're opening on Saturdays - more if it's Monday to Friday). To my mind, that is a decent compromise. If anyone wishes to spend more than 3 hours a day in a library, they're not using it wholly for the intended purpose. I wouldn't worry that a brothel would replace a library as a brothel is an illegal activity and would be investigated by the police.
[quote][p][bold]wornoutnow[/bold] wrote: I have read these responses to Shirley Burnham with horror. I was born and lived in a small Welsh village, with little more than a village band. Our library came to us from the nearest town in boxes, and the queues to read the latest collection went round the corner of the Institute they were delivered to. Do these people called Grumpy etc have any idea what it is like to not be able to access the library, not only for books, but newspapers, internet, information, help with a million or more queries, from trained and expert staff. Public libraries were once described as the corner street university. What a totally uncivilised world it would be if we did not have public libraries. We have pretty much lost most other great things in our towns and villages, but let us keep this last and great symbol civilisation in as many towns and villages that we can. Just because Grumpy and co don't want them , that is tough, I don't want a brothel on my street but a library would be great. Sukkey[/p][/quote]I agree. Libraries were once all that you describe. However, we can all look back on the rosier times of our youth when we did all go to the library and make good use of it. As a schoolchild, I used our local village one often. My nephews today, however, access everything via the internet and that's the way things are going. They have no need to go to a library. It's called progress and, unfortunately, progress can result in costs and doesn't always please everyone. We have a large central library in Swindon open for lengthy hours, and I know for a fact that there are people in North Swindon who sit in the library there for huge swathes of time solely to make use of the free power/internet for their own gains. Maybe some posters here on this site are doing just that. To my mind, that's not the spirit of a library. I think the detail of the proposal should be re-read - they're not doing away with the service but reducing it to what looks like about 3 hours a day (if they're opening on Saturdays - more if it's Monday to Friday). To my mind, that is a decent compromise. If anyone wishes to spend more than 3 hours a day in a library, they're not using it wholly for the intended purpose. I wouldn't worry that a brothel would replace a library as a brothel is an illegal activity and would be investigated by the police. madreeves
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
madreeves wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
"It's how charity shops operate"
Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre




tail.org.uk/howchari




tyshopswork.html
The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs.

I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.
I note you didn't care to respond to the statement that the Arts Centre already runs with volunteers and the suggestion that you form a responsible group willing to take that action. Thanks for the point about charity shops. As you say, some already operate on a voluntary basis - point proved. It's all very well to resort to insults and accusing people of hiding behind pseudonyms as a way of somehow trumping the argument, but it really isn't valid I'm afraid. Also, it's not particularly clever to label someone as uncaring when their post clearly states nothing of the sort, merely points out the realities - the service is being reduced, not dispensed with. Again, reacting with a "you are uncaring, therefore I win" attitude really doesn't help your cause and paints you in a rather poor light. I suggest again that you do something constructive and useful and form a responsible group. Then put your suggestions to HQ instead of badgering the Advertiser and berating everyone for (understandably) not sharing your particular point of view.
Well said.

This fairly modern facade of 'I'm caring, you're not, therefore I win' is as tiresome as it is entirely erroneous. It always seem to simply rely on one person, usually a fairly predictable type, to supposedly claim the moral high ground before the other.

Ms Burnham couldn't give a **** about those who are forced to fund her library, she just wants to ensure she gets her own way, yet I don't particularly hold that against her, think she's selfish or believe I'm better than her.

Although, it's the almost complete lack of any sense of humility that is starting to actively make me want to see the Old Town library closed permanently.
There is a lot of hostility in what you are saying. If I've expressed myself badly, I apologise. You have a right to a point of view and you have given it. I have, too.
No 'hostility' at all, although I can see you're quick to try and play the victim/hard done by. Par for the course, I suppose.

The censored word was actually d.a.m n - rather than anything that actually may have deserved to have been asterisked.

There's no 'hostility'. In fact, as I said previously, it's good to see people defend their interests passionately. But not when they make wild claims and then try to belittle and mock anyone who doesn't happen to share their opinion (but who they rely on in order to fund their interests).
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madreeves[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: "It's how charity shops operate" [quote: trolley dolley] Some may do, most probably do not if you read this | How Charity Shops Work http://www.charityre tail.org.uk/howchari tyshopswork.html The ones I've worked in, there was always a paid manager. But let's not split hairs. I thought The Arts Centre very good; it's a shame you speak of the staff in these terms. We probably shan't agree on much and, of course, you hide behind a pseudonym - So I'll just send you my good wishes and regrets that you care not for those who use this Library and depend upon it.[/p][/quote]I note you didn't care to respond to the statement that the Arts Centre already runs with volunteers and the suggestion that you form a responsible group willing to take that action. Thanks for the point about charity shops. As you say, some already operate on a voluntary basis - point proved. It's all very well to resort to insults and accusing people of hiding behind pseudonyms as a way of somehow trumping the argument, but it really isn't valid I'm afraid. Also, it's not particularly clever to label someone as uncaring when their post clearly states nothing of the sort, merely points out the realities - the service is being reduced, not dispensed with. Again, reacting with a "you are uncaring, therefore I win" attitude really doesn't help your cause and paints you in a rather poor light. I suggest again that you do something constructive and useful and form a responsible group. Then put your suggestions to HQ instead of badgering the Advertiser and berating everyone for (understandably) not sharing your particular point of view.[/p][/quote]Well said. This fairly modern facade of 'I'm caring, you're not, therefore I win' is as tiresome as it is entirely erroneous. It always seem to simply rely on one person, usually a fairly predictable type, to supposedly claim the moral high ground before the other. Ms Burnham couldn't give a **** about those who are forced to fund her library, she just wants to ensure she gets her own way, yet I don't particularly hold that against her, think she's selfish or believe I'm better than her. Although, it's the almost complete lack of any sense of humility that is starting to actively make me want to see the Old Town library closed permanently.[/p][/quote]There is a lot of hostility in what you are saying. If I've expressed myself badly, I apologise. You have a right to a point of view and you have given it. I have, too.[/p][/quote]No 'hostility' at all, although I can see you're quick to try and play the victim/hard done by. Par for the course, I suppose. The censored word was actually d.a.m n - rather than anything that actually may have deserved to have been asterisked. There's no 'hostility'. In fact, as I said previously, it's good to see people defend their interests passionately. But not when they make wild claims and then try to belittle and mock anyone who doesn't happen to share their opinion (but who they rely on in order to fund their interests). ChannelX
  • Score: 3

6:26pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g





overnment/uploads/sy





stem/uploads/attachm





ent_data/file/77537/





Taking-Part_2012-13_





Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.
Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then?
No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?
Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth

eyknow.com/request/1

50409/response/36861

0/attach/html/3/Cipf

a%202011%2012.pdf.ht

ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Borough_of_

Swindon
You're obviously not very good at statistics are you?
17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable.
Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.
[quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.[/p][/quote]Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.[/p][/quote]Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then? No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/1 50409/response/36861 0/attach/html/3/Cipf a%202011%2012.pdf.ht ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Borough_of_ Swindon[/p][/quote]You're obviously not very good at statistics are you? 17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable. Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
I have to agree, or at least let private contractors run them
Now you've ruined my weekend, agreeing with me!
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, or at least let private contractors run them[/p][/quote]Now you've ruined my weekend, agreeing with me! Always Grumpy
  • Score: -1

6:30pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Trevor Craig says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g






overnment/uploads/sy






stem/uploads/attachm






ent_data/file/77537/






Taking-Part_2012-13_






Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.
Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then?
No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?
Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth


eyknow.com/request/1


50409/response/36861


0/attach/html/3/Cipf


a%202011%2012.pdf.ht


ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Borough_of_


Swindon
You're obviously not very good at statistics are you?
17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable.
Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.
Its not pathetically small at all, almost a fifth of the population use the service, your resorting to insults because you know you've lost the argument. Why don't leave the uk and go and find some libertarian utopia. I hope you never have to rely on services in the future that you currently don't want to pay for.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.[/p][/quote]Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.[/p][/quote]Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then? No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/1 50409/response/36861 0/attach/html/3/Cipf a%202011%2012.pdf.ht ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Borough_of_ Swindon[/p][/quote]You're obviously not very good at statistics are you? 17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable. Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.[/p][/quote]Its not pathetically small at all, almost a fifth of the population use the service, your resorting to insults because you know you've lost the argument. Why don't leave the uk and go and find some libertarian utopia. I hope you never have to rely on services in the future that you currently don't want to pay for. Trevor Craig
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

wornoutnow wrote:
I have read these responses to Shirley Burnham with horror. I was born and lived in a small Welsh village, with little more than a village band. Our library came to us from the nearest town in boxes, and the queues to read the latest collection went round the corner of the Institute they were delivered to.

Do these people called Grumpy etc have any idea what it is like to not be able to access the library, not only for books, but newspapers, internet, information, help with a million or more queries, from trained and expert staff. Public libraries were once described as the corner street university. What a totally uncivilised world it would be if we did not have public libraries. We have pretty much lost most other great things in our towns and villages, but let us keep this last and great symbol civilisation in as many towns and villages that we can.
Just because Grumpy and co don't want them , that is tough, I don't want a brothel on my street but a library would be great.

Sukkey
Just in case you hadn't noticed, this is the 21st Century now, not the 19th.
[quote][p][bold]wornoutnow[/bold] wrote: I have read these responses to Shirley Burnham with horror. I was born and lived in a small Welsh village, with little more than a village band. Our library came to us from the nearest town in boxes, and the queues to read the latest collection went round the corner of the Institute they were delivered to. Do these people called Grumpy etc have any idea what it is like to not be able to access the library, not only for books, but newspapers, internet, information, help with a million or more queries, from trained and expert staff. Public libraries were once described as the corner street university. What a totally uncivilised world it would be if we did not have public libraries. We have pretty much lost most other great things in our towns and villages, but let us keep this last and great symbol civilisation in as many towns and villages that we can. Just because Grumpy and co don't want them , that is tough, I don't want a brothel on my street but a library would be great. Sukkey[/p][/quote]Just in case you hadn't noticed, this is the 21st Century now, not the 19th. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g







overnment/uploads/sy







stem/uploads/attachm







ent_data/file/77537/







Taking-Part_2012-13_







Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.
Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then?
No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?
Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth



eyknow.com/request/1



50409/response/36861



0/attach/html/3/Cipf



a%202011%2012.pdf.ht



ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Borough_of_



Swindon
You're obviously not very good at statistics are you?
17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable.
Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.
Its not pathetically small at all, almost a fifth of the population use the service, your resorting to insults because you know you've lost the argument. Why don't leave the uk and go and find some libertarian utopia. I hope you never have to rely on services in the future that you currently don't want to pay for.
Rubbish and certainly not a lost argument judging by the number of posters against your flawed and meaningless statistics.
Get over it and move on, this is the 21st century, not the 19th.
In case you hadn't noticed there's still a recession on and cuts still have to be made. The library service is outdated and no longer needed in this electronic age.
Perhaps you should move to a third world country that still needs libraries if you think they are still so great.
[quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.[/p][/quote]Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.[/p][/quote]Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then? No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/1 50409/response/36861 0/attach/html/3/Cipf a%202011%2012.pdf.ht ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Borough_of_ Swindon[/p][/quote]You're obviously not very good at statistics are you? 17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable. Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.[/p][/quote]Its not pathetically small at all, almost a fifth of the population use the service, your resorting to insults because you know you've lost the argument. Why don't leave the uk and go and find some libertarian utopia. I hope you never have to rely on services in the future that you currently don't want to pay for.[/p][/quote]Rubbish and certainly not a lost argument judging by the number of posters against your flawed and meaningless statistics. Get over it and move on, this is the 21st century, not the 19th. In case you hadn't noticed there's still a recession on and cuts still have to be made. The library service is outdated and no longer needed in this electronic age. Perhaps you should move to a third world country that still needs libraries if you think they are still so great. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 1

6:44pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Trevor Craig says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g








overnment/uploads/sy








stem/uploads/attachm








ent_data/file/77537/








Taking-Part_2012-13_








Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.
Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then?
No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?
Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth




eyknow.com/request/1




50409/response/36861




0/attach/html/3/Cipf




a%202011%2012.pdf.ht




ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.




org/wiki/Borough_of_




Swindon
You're obviously not very good at statistics are you?
17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable.
Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.
Its not pathetically small at all, almost a fifth of the population use the service, your resorting to insults because you know you've lost the argument. Why don't leave the uk and go and find some libertarian utopia. I hope you never have to rely on services in the future that you currently don't want to pay for.
Rubbish and certainly not a lost argument judging by the number of posters against your flawed and meaningless statistics.
Get over it and move on, this is the 21st century, not the 19th.
In case you hadn't noticed there's still a recession on and cuts still have to be made. The library service is outdated and no longer needed in this electronic age.
Perhaps you should move to a third world country that still needs libraries if you think they are still so great.
Oh, so the number of people on a newspaper website posting against libraries mean you are on the right side of the argument? I'm trying not to laugh that argument is so pitiful. I'm going to withdraw now because nothing I saw will penetrate your narrow, ideological world view. You're like the ideological councillors who run our councils (of all parties), their views based on fear, ideology and prejudice not fact. Hope you have a lovely evening :D
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.[/p][/quote]Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.[/p][/quote]Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then? No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/1 50409/response/36861 0/attach/html/3/Cipf a%202011%2012.pdf.ht ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Borough_of_ Swindon[/p][/quote]You're obviously not very good at statistics are you? 17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable. Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.[/p][/quote]Its not pathetically small at all, almost a fifth of the population use the service, your resorting to insults because you know you've lost the argument. Why don't leave the uk and go and find some libertarian utopia. I hope you never have to rely on services in the future that you currently don't want to pay for.[/p][/quote]Rubbish and certainly not a lost argument judging by the number of posters against your flawed and meaningless statistics. Get over it and move on, this is the 21st century, not the 19th. In case you hadn't noticed there's still a recession on and cuts still have to be made. The library service is outdated and no longer needed in this electronic age. Perhaps you should move to a third world country that still needs libraries if you think they are still so great.[/p][/quote]Oh, so the number of people on a newspaper website posting against libraries mean you are on the right side of the argument? I'm trying not to laugh that argument is so pitiful. I'm going to withdraw now because nothing I saw will penetrate your narrow, ideological world view. You're like the ideological councillors who run our councils (of all parties), their views based on fear, ideology and prejudice not fact. Hope you have a lovely evening :D Trevor Craig
  • Score: -1

6:59pm Thu 20 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

One thing's for sure, both Ms Burnham and Mr Craig have elevated passive-aggressivene
ss to unparalleled heights in this thread.

Is the 17.4% figure related to people who *actually* hire out books from local libraries, or is it people who use them for any reason? Also, over what period is that figure defined and what is an 'active' borrower?

Without knowing the above, it's fairly meaningless. I doubt many people believe that 1 in 5 adults in Swindon regularly hire out books from the library, yet this is what we're being asked to believe.

Or is the 36,521 figure really just related to the number of local library cards that have been issued since the scheme began?
One thing's for sure, both Ms Burnham and Mr Craig have elevated passive-aggressivene ss to unparalleled heights in this thread. Is the 17.4% figure related to people who *actually* hire out books from local libraries, or is it people who use them for any reason? Also, over what period is that figure defined and what is an 'active' borrower? Without knowing the above, it's fairly meaningless. I doubt many people believe that 1 in 5 adults in Swindon regularly hire out books from the library, yet this is what we're being asked to believe. Or is the 36,521 figure really just related to the number of local library cards that have been issued since the scheme began? ChannelX
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted.
It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.
Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive?
So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use.
I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use.
Really, what planet are you on?
Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority.

https://www.gov.uk/g









overnment/uploads/sy









stem/uploads/attachm









ent_data/file/77537/









Taking-Part_2012-13_









Quarter-1_Report.pdf
That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.
Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then?
No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?
Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth





eyknow.com/request/1





50409/response/36861





0/attach/html/3/Cipf





a%202011%2012.pdf.ht





ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.





org/wiki/Borough_of_





Swindon
You're obviously not very good at statistics are you?
17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable.
Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.
Its not pathetically small at all, almost a fifth of the population use the service, your resorting to insults because you know you've lost the argument. Why don't leave the uk and go and find some libertarian utopia. I hope you never have to rely on services in the future that you currently don't want to pay for.
Rubbish and certainly not a lost argument judging by the number of posters against your flawed and meaningless statistics.
Get over it and move on, this is the 21st century, not the 19th.
In case you hadn't noticed there's still a recession on and cuts still have to be made. The library service is outdated and no longer needed in this electronic age.
Perhaps you should move to a third world country that still needs libraries if you think they are still so great.
Oh, so the number of people on a newspaper website posting against libraries mean you are on the right side of the argument? I'm trying not to laugh that argument is so pitiful. I'm going to withdraw now because nothing I saw will penetrate your narrow, ideological world view. You're like the ideological councillors who run our councils (of all parties), their views based on fear, ideology and prejudice not fact. Hope you have a lovely evening :D
I will have a lovely evening thanks and I certainly won't lose any sleep over comments the likes of you and Burnham care to make.
Quite clearly you have no concern for saving council tax payers money, but just want to fritter it away to suit your own selfish ends.
Losers such as yourself inevitably fail and I look forward to the demise of the library service and the savings this town will make as a result.
Bye the way, plenty of books in the charity shops if you get stuck for a good read. Enid Blyton should be right up your street with the exciting adventures of the Famous Five. If that's a bit too grown up, then perhaps Noddy might fill the bill.
[quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]If you were to submit 50 fraudulent (anonymous) copies of the 'Consultation', maybe your wish would be granted. It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan.[/p][/quote]Don't be so stupid and why so aggressive? So, the libraries are there for the ignorant, illiterate and vagrants. What a complete waste of money then. You don't honestly think the illiterate are going to the library to learn to read and why should I be expected to pay for somewhere warm for vagrants to use. I might just submit 50 anonymous copies of the survey then, if that speeds the closure of this wasteful and expensive service for a small minority of the paying public to use. Really, what planet are you on?[/p][/quote]Small minority of the paying public is wrong. 39.2% of adults used a library in the last twelve months according to government figures on library usage. There has been a decline in usage since 2006 from 48% to 39.2% but in the last few years the decline has stabilized to roughly the figure it is at now, despite the internet and e-books library usage is far from being used by a small minority. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/77537/ Taking-Part_2012-13_ Quarter-1_Report.pdf[/p][/quote]That might be national figures, but I suspect far less than 39% of the adults in Swindon use the libraries, hence the need to close them. If they were well used and a separate charge made to use them, much like green waste etc, then fine, but it's a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.[/p][/quote]Ah well, if you "suspect" that then it must be true. Great way to decide policy.[/p][/quote]Have you got the exact figures for Swindon then? No, thought not, so hardly a 'great way' to decide policy if you haven't got the exact figures is it?[/p][/quote]Always Grumpy, I base my arguments on facts, you "suspect" things that seem to then inform your opinion, you go and find some evidence to back your flawed arguments and assertions up. Yes those are the national statistics but if you want the local stats then in 2012 the library service had 36,521 active borrowers, Swindon Borough council covers a population of 209,700. So using those figures 17.4% or nearly a 5th of the people in Swindon are active borrowers. Yes lower than the national average, a failure of the council to promote the service in my view, but considering the library budget is normally a tiny fraction of the entire council budget (normally less than 2%, you can look up the exact figure if you can be bothered) . But your small minority statement is factually wrong, do you accept that? Active borrowers figure is here: https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/1 50409/response/36861 0/attach/html/3/Cipf a%202011%2012.pdf.ht ml And the population figure I got from wiki here: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Borough_of_ Swindon[/p][/quote]You're obviously not very good at statistics are you? 17.4% is a pathetically small number of people using the library and clearly not economically viable. Like I said to Burnham, you spend your money how you like, but do not spend mine.[/p][/quote]Its not pathetically small at all, almost a fifth of the population use the service, your resorting to insults because you know you've lost the argument. Why don't leave the uk and go and find some libertarian utopia. I hope you never have to rely on services in the future that you currently don't want to pay for.[/p][/quote]Rubbish and certainly not a lost argument judging by the number of posters against your flawed and meaningless statistics. Get over it and move on, this is the 21st century, not the 19th. In case you hadn't noticed there's still a recession on and cuts still have to be made. The library service is outdated and no longer needed in this electronic age. Perhaps you should move to a third world country that still needs libraries if you think they are still so great.[/p][/quote]Oh, so the number of people on a newspaper website posting against libraries mean you are on the right side of the argument? I'm trying not to laugh that argument is so pitiful. I'm going to withdraw now because nothing I saw will penetrate your narrow, ideological world view. You're like the ideological councillors who run our councils (of all parties), their views based on fear, ideology and prejudice not fact. Hope you have a lovely evening :D[/p][/quote]I will have a lovely evening thanks and I certainly won't lose any sleep over comments the likes of you and Burnham care to make. Quite clearly you have no concern for saving council tax payers money, but just want to fritter it away to suit your own selfish ends. Losers such as yourself inevitably fail and I look forward to the demise of the library service and the savings this town will make as a result. Bye the way, plenty of books in the charity shops if you get stuck for a good read. Enid Blyton should be right up your street with the exciting adventures of the Famous Five. If that's a bit too grown up, then perhaps Noddy might fill the bill. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -4

7:34pm Thu 20 Mar 14

wornoutnow says...

I understand the comments made about the 2!st Century and use of the internet, BUT.... speaking as a librarian for 50 years, having worked in every type of library, and been instrumental in bringing IT to libraries I can assure you that the Internet does not yet have everything, and not all over 60s are Silver surfers yet.

Your public library, via all the branch libraries however small, has access to, and for instance:-
all local newspapers of the UK (from their inception, an amazing research tool)
photographs and music scores
maps

interlibrary loans from all over the world (I once held a competition with the British Library on what books from where were borrowed on inter library loans, the results were amazing, for a tiny library in Hereford, books on worm farming for an unemployed couple wishing to start a worm farm., borrowed from the USA., from a fine art student a book on Maori paintings borrowed from New Zealand etc. The finest collection of local history books and music scores are held in public libraries, and the elderly
use the public libraries for their reading and for the kindness and interest shown by staff (again illustrated by research). Children's books and activities are not replicated by the internet, and for many our public library reference libraries still contain much more on business and early reference material, such as Birmingham's Shakespeare collection. The smallest library can access all this and much more.

Yes things will change over time, but a place to be, to be known. to be missed if you don't show up on your regular day, or books delivered to your home or village,.and where people care, where you can join a reading club, a children's reading time, and many other activities are real in peoples lives and not the loneliness
of the all night surfer.

I make intensive use of the internet, and also a kindle but I still depend on libraries for a lot of my special and specific requirements. For the 3 degree courses I took, much of the material was from the library, and as a place to sit and work, not much is better.

What sort of country would we be with out them?

Sukkey
I understand the comments made about the 2!st Century and use of the internet, BUT.... speaking as a librarian for 50 years, having worked in every type of library, and been instrumental in bringing IT to libraries I can assure you that the Internet does not yet have everything, and not all over 60s are Silver surfers yet. Your public library, via all the branch libraries however small, has access to, and for instance:- all local newspapers of the UK (from their inception, an amazing research tool) photographs and music scores maps interlibrary loans from all over the world (I once held a competition with the British Library on what books from where were borrowed on inter library loans, the results were amazing, for a tiny library in Hereford, books on worm farming for an unemployed couple wishing to start a worm farm., borrowed from the USA., from a fine art student a book on Maori paintings borrowed from New Zealand etc. The finest collection of local history books and music scores are held in public libraries, and the elderly use the public libraries for their reading and for the kindness and interest shown by staff (again illustrated by research). Children's books and activities are not replicated by the internet, and for many our public library reference libraries still contain much more on business and early reference material, such as Birmingham's Shakespeare collection. The smallest library can access all this and much more. Yes things will change over time, but a place to be, to be known. to be missed if you don't show up on your regular day, or books delivered to your home or village,.and where people care, where you can join a reading club, a children's reading time, and many other activities are real in peoples lives and not the loneliness of the all night surfer. I make intensive use of the internet, and also a kindle but I still depend on libraries for a lot of my special and specific requirements. For the 3 degree courses I took, much of the material was from the library, and as a place to sit and work, not much is better. What sort of country would we be with out them? Sukkey wornoutnow
  • Score: 2

9:55pm Thu 20 Mar 14

madreeves says...

wornoutnow wrote:
I understand the comments made about the 2!st Century and use of the internet, BUT.... speaking as a librarian for 50 years, having worked in every type of library, and been instrumental in bringing IT to libraries I can assure you that the Internet does not yet have everything, and not all over 60s are Silver surfers yet.

Your public library, via all the branch libraries however small, has access to, and for instance:-
all local newspapers of the UK (from their inception, an amazing research tool)
photographs and music scores
maps

interlibrary loans from all over the world (I once held a competition with the British Library on what books from where were borrowed on inter library loans, the results were amazing, for a tiny library in Hereford, books on worm farming for an unemployed couple wishing to start a worm farm., borrowed from the USA., from a fine art student a book on Maori paintings borrowed from New Zealand etc. The finest collection of local history books and music scores are held in public libraries, and the elderly
use the public libraries for their reading and for the kindness and interest shown by staff (again illustrated by research). Children's books and activities are not replicated by the internet, and for many our public library reference libraries still contain much more on business and early reference material, such as Birmingham's Shakespeare collection. The smallest library can access all this and much more.

Yes things will change over time, but a place to be, to be known. to be missed if you don't show up on your regular day, or books delivered to your home or village,.and where people care, where you can join a reading club, a children's reading time, and many other activities are real in peoples lives and not the loneliness
of the all night surfer.

I make intensive use of the internet, and also a kindle but I still depend on libraries for a lot of my special and specific requirements. For the 3 degree courses I took, much of the material was from the library, and as a place to sit and work, not much is better.

What sort of country would we be with out them?

Sukkey
I agree - they can be a valuable source of information and libraries are needed to cater for the sort of information you are talking about. They will always be around (or at least for the foreseeable future). However, these are large reference libraries that hold a lot of diverse, complex information. The Old Town library isn't in that league. It can provide the Mills & Boons but it couldn't cater for the extensive material needed to do a degree, and that's why it's opening hours can be limited.
[quote][p][bold]wornoutnow[/bold] wrote: I understand the comments made about the 2!st Century and use of the internet, BUT.... speaking as a librarian for 50 years, having worked in every type of library, and been instrumental in bringing IT to libraries I can assure you that the Internet does not yet have everything, and not all over 60s are Silver surfers yet. Your public library, via all the branch libraries however small, has access to, and for instance:- all local newspapers of the UK (from their inception, an amazing research tool) photographs and music scores maps interlibrary loans from all over the world (I once held a competition with the British Library on what books from where were borrowed on inter library loans, the results were amazing, for a tiny library in Hereford, books on worm farming for an unemployed couple wishing to start a worm farm., borrowed from the USA., from a fine art student a book on Maori paintings borrowed from New Zealand etc. The finest collection of local history books and music scores are held in public libraries, and the elderly use the public libraries for their reading and for the kindness and interest shown by staff (again illustrated by research). Children's books and activities are not replicated by the internet, and for many our public library reference libraries still contain much more on business and early reference material, such as Birmingham's Shakespeare collection. The smallest library can access all this and much more. Yes things will change over time, but a place to be, to be known. to be missed if you don't show up on your regular day, or books delivered to your home or village,.and where people care, where you can join a reading club, a children's reading time, and many other activities are real in peoples lives and not the loneliness of the all night surfer. I make intensive use of the internet, and also a kindle but I still depend on libraries for a lot of my special and specific requirements. For the 3 degree courses I took, much of the material was from the library, and as a place to sit and work, not much is better. What sort of country would we be with out them? Sukkey[/p][/quote]I agree - they can be a valuable source of information and libraries are needed to cater for the sort of information you are talking about. They will always be around (or at least for the foreseeable future). However, these are large reference libraries that hold a lot of diverse, complex information. The Old Town library isn't in that league. It can provide the Mills & Boons but it couldn't cater for the extensive material needed to do a degree, and that's why it's opening hours can be limited. madreeves
  • Score: -2

10:40pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Still About says...

wornoutnow wrote:
I have read these responses to Shirley Burnham with horror. I was born and lived in a small Welsh village, with little more than a village band. Our library came to us from the nearest town in boxes, and the queues to read the latest collection went round the corner of the Institute they were delivered to.

Do these people called Grumpy etc have any idea what it is like to not be able to access the library, not only for books, but newspapers, internet, information, help with a million or more queries, from trained and expert staff. Public libraries were once described as the corner street university. What a totally uncivilised world it would be if we did not have public libraries. We have pretty much lost most other great things in our towns and villages, but let us keep this last and great symbol civilisation in as many towns and villages that we can.
Just because Grumpy and co don't want them , that is tough, I don't want a brothel on my street but a library would be great.

Sukkey
Don't worry about it.
ChannelX, Trolley Dolly, Madreeves.......
All the same person.
A very obsessed councillor
[quote][p][bold]wornoutnow[/bold] wrote: I have read these responses to Shirley Burnham with horror. I was born and lived in a small Welsh village, with little more than a village band. Our library came to us from the nearest town in boxes, and the queues to read the latest collection went round the corner of the Institute they were delivered to. Do these people called Grumpy etc have any idea what it is like to not be able to access the library, not only for books, but newspapers, internet, information, help with a million or more queries, from trained and expert staff. Public libraries were once described as the corner street university. What a totally uncivilised world it would be if we did not have public libraries. We have pretty much lost most other great things in our towns and villages, but let us keep this last and great symbol civilisation in as many towns and villages that we can. Just because Grumpy and co don't want them , that is tough, I don't want a brothel on my street but a library would be great. Sukkey[/p][/quote]Don't worry about it. ChannelX, Trolley Dolly, Madreeves....... All the same person. A very obsessed councillor Still About
  • Score: 0

12:01am Fri 21 Mar 14

Phantom Poster says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Don't bother trying to reason with the cretins on this site Shirley. It's pointless.Although in the majority in this site not the norm in the town thankfully. Good on you by the way.
Oh, lovely to hear from you. Thanks a lot, Davey Gravey. Another pseudonym, but a friendlier one.
Oh why on earth do you go on and on about "pseudonyms"?

You show a totally naive and simplistic knowledge of the internet. Don''t you realise that security experts recommend that 'pseudonyms' are exactly what you ought to use when posting on the internet?

There are lots of strange people (or even google or GCHQ or the NSA or prospective employers) who we don't want to open up our personal life to, especially not simply for the opportunity to post a comment on the web site of a local rag.

Why do you think that your comments are more important because you post using your real name? Your lack of savvy regarding the online world just confirms the fact that librarians are behind the times and an abundance of available books doesn't seem to have helped.

I should add that I have been to the central and West Swindon libraries in the past - I wasn't impressed by the content!
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Don't bother trying to reason with the cretins on this site Shirley. It's pointless.Although in the majority in this site not the norm in the town thankfully. Good on you by the way.[/p][/quote]Oh, lovely to hear from you. Thanks a lot, Davey Gravey. Another pseudonym, but a friendlier one.[/p][/quote]Oh why on earth do you go on and on about "pseudonyms"? You show a totally naive and simplistic knowledge of the internet. Don''t you realise that security experts recommend that 'pseudonyms' are exactly what you ought to use when posting on the internet? There are lots of strange people (or even google or GCHQ or the NSA or prospective employers) who we don't want to open up our personal life to, especially not simply for the opportunity to post a comment on the web site of a local rag. Why do you think that your comments are more important because you post using your real name? Your lack of savvy regarding the online world just confirms the fact that librarians are behind the times and an abundance of available books doesn't seem to have helped. I should add that I have been to the central and West Swindon libraries in the past - I wasn't impressed by the content! Phantom Poster
  • Score: 0

6:43am Fri 21 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Don't bother trying to reason with the cretins on this site Shirley. It's pointless.Although in the majority in this site not the norm in the town thankfully. Good on you by the way.
Oh, lovely to hear from you. Thanks a lot, Davey Gravey. Another pseudonym, but a friendlier one.
Oh why on earth do you go on and on about "pseudonyms"?

You show a totally naive and simplistic knowledge of the internet. Don''t you realise that security experts recommend that 'pseudonyms' are exactly what you ought to use when posting on the internet?

There are lots of strange people (or even google or GCHQ or the NSA or prospective employers) who we don't want to open up our personal life to, especially not simply for the opportunity to post a comment on the web site of a local rag.

Why do you think that your comments are more important because you post using your real name? Your lack of savvy regarding the online world just confirms the fact that librarians are behind the times and an abundance of available books doesn't seem to have helped.

I should add that I have been to the central and West Swindon libraries in the past - I wasn't impressed by the content!
"Why do you think that your comments are more important because you post using your real name? Your lack of savvy regarding the online world just confirms the fact that librarians are behind the times .."

I am sorry you believe that I think my comments are "more important" because I post under my real name; they aren't and I don't. In defence of using one's real name, it allows others to identify who thinks what. It has been suggested above that someone here may have multiple identities; if that's the case, it would make this conversation less transparent. Also, If you check the article, you'll see that I am not a Librarian! How could you ascertain that if I wrote under a pseudonym? But I take your point and thank you for the advice. The bit that was particularly interesting was your remark about the Central and West Swindon libraries. The answer might be not to do away with the service, but to ask for improvements to the book stock, etc. I wish more people would.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Don't bother trying to reason with the cretins on this site Shirley. It's pointless.Although in the majority in this site not the norm in the town thankfully. Good on you by the way.[/p][/quote]Oh, lovely to hear from you. Thanks a lot, Davey Gravey. Another pseudonym, but a friendlier one.[/p][/quote]Oh why on earth do you go on and on about "pseudonyms"? You show a totally naive and simplistic knowledge of the internet. Don''t you realise that security experts recommend that 'pseudonyms' are exactly what you ought to use when posting on the internet? There are lots of strange people (or even google or GCHQ or the NSA or prospective employers) who we don't want to open up our personal life to, especially not simply for the opportunity to post a comment on the web site of a local rag. Why do you think that your comments are more important because you post using your real name? Your lack of savvy regarding the online world just confirms the fact that librarians are behind the times and an abundance of available books doesn't seem to have helped. I should add that I have been to the central and West Swindon libraries in the past - I wasn't impressed by the content![/p][/quote]"Why do you think that your comments are more important because you post using your real name? Your lack of savvy regarding the online world just confirms the fact that librarians are behind the times .." I am sorry you believe that I think my comments are "more important" because I post under my real name; they aren't and I don't. In defence of using one's real name, it allows others to identify who thinks what. It has been suggested above that someone here may have multiple identities; if that's the case, it would make this conversation less transparent. Also, If you check the article, you'll see that I am not a Librarian! How could you ascertain that if I wrote under a pseudonym? But I take your point and thank you for the advice. The bit that was particularly interesting was your remark about the Central and West Swindon libraries. The answer might be not to do away with the service, but to ask for improvements to the book stock, etc. I wish more people would. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -3

7:42am Fri 21 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

For a start, and despite the lies of a certain person, I can assure you that ChannelX, Trolley Dolly and Madreeves are not the same person. However, going back to something I mentioned earlier, you will probably still believe the lie because 'Still About' posted it first and it'll suit your agenda.

Secondly, your point about transparency makes absolutely no sense.

The person posting under the account 'Shirley Burnham' may not be the same person in the photo at the head of this article. Similarly, for all we know, the person posting as 'Shirley Burnham' may also have a second account and be posting as 'Trevor Craig'.

You see, just as 'Still About' (who is actually a person known here as I Too / Empty Car Park and numerous other fake accounts) posited the lie that ChannelX, Trolley Dolly and Madreeves are the same person, some may say that Shirley Burnham, Trevor Craig and wornoutnow are, in fact, the same person using different accounts.

Out of interest, do you think wornoutnow's comments are any less worthy because they use the kind of 'pseudonym' you seem fixated by - and yet are actually just account usernames, which have almost exclusively been NOT people's real names since the Internet began. Indeed, it's still really only Facebook where people do use their exact real names online.
For a start, and despite the lies of a certain person, I can assure you that ChannelX, Trolley Dolly and Madreeves are not the same person. However, going back to something I mentioned earlier, you will probably still believe the lie because 'Still About' posted it first and it'll suit your agenda. Secondly, your point about transparency makes absolutely no sense. The person posting under the account 'Shirley Burnham' may not be the same person in the photo at the head of this article. Similarly, for all we know, the person posting as 'Shirley Burnham' may also have a second account and be posting as 'Trevor Craig'. You see, just as 'Still About' (who is actually a person known here as I Too / Empty Car Park and numerous other fake accounts) posited the lie that ChannelX, Trolley Dolly and Madreeves are the same person, some may say that Shirley Burnham, Trevor Craig and wornoutnow are, in fact, the same person using different accounts. Out of interest, do you think wornoutnow's comments are any less worthy because they use the kind of 'pseudonym' you seem fixated by - and yet are actually just account usernames, which have almost exclusively been NOT people's real names since the Internet began. Indeed, it's still really only Facebook where people do use their exact real names online. ChannelX
  • Score: -1

8:31am Fri 21 Mar 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
I have to agree, or at least let private contractors run them
Now you've ruined my weekend, agreeing with me!
I am most pleased to have ruined your week end :-)
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, or at least let private contractors run them[/p][/quote]Now you've ruined my weekend, agreeing with me![/p][/quote]I am most pleased to have ruined your week end :-) A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -2

8:49am Fri 21 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.
I have to agree, or at least let private contractors run them
Now you've ruined my weekend, agreeing with me!
I am most pleased to have ruined your week end :-)
In future just concentrate on keeping those toilets spotless, rather than agreeing with me :-)
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: Close all the libraries. They are an unnecessary expense for council tax payers.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, or at least let private contractors run them[/p][/quote]Now you've ruined my weekend, agreeing with me![/p][/quote]I am most pleased to have ruined your week end :-)[/p][/quote]In future just concentrate on keeping those toilets spotless, rather than agreeing with me :-) Always Grumpy
  • Score: 1

11:33am Fri 21 Mar 14

trolley dolley says...

Hello everyone, my name is Trolley Dolly.

I do not post under any other name, one is enough.

I can also state that Trevor and Shirley are real people.!!
Hello everyone, my name is Trolley Dolly. I do not post under any other name, one is enough. I can also state that Trevor and Shirley are real people.!! trolley dolley
  • Score: 3

12:50pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Davey Gravey says...

Common knowledge on this site that channelx has numerous log ins and manipulates the thumbs up and down.
Common knowledge on this site that channelx has numerous log ins and manipulates the thumbs up and down. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

1:27pm Fri 21 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Common knowledge on this site that channelx has numerous log ins and manipulates the thumbs up and down.
No, that's simply the same LIES that you like to continually repeat.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Common knowledge on this site that channelx has numerous log ins and manipulates the thumbs up and down.[/p][/quote]No, that's simply the same LIES that you like to continually repeat. ChannelX
  • Score: -11

2:06pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Davey Gravey says...

Tim newroman, ringer, CHANNELx, there's three straight away.
You are also apparently councilor Oliver donachie according to others on here.
Tim newroman, ringer, CHANNELx, there's three straight away. You are also apparently councilor Oliver donachie according to others on here. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -2

4:24pm Fri 21 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

Does anyone really care???
Does anyone really care??? house on the hill
  • Score: -3

4:34pm Fri 21 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

wornoutnow wrote:
I understand the comments made about the 2!st Century and use of the internet, BUT.... speaking as a librarian for 50 years, having worked in every type of library, and been instrumental in bringing IT to libraries I can assure you that the Internet does not yet have everything, and not all over 60s are Silver surfers yet.

Your public library, via all the branch libraries however small, has access to, and for instance:-
all local newspapers of the UK (from their inception, an amazing research tool)
photographs and music scores
maps

interlibrary loans from all over the world (I once held a competition with the British Library on what books from where were borrowed on inter library loans, the results were amazing, for a tiny library in Hereford, books on worm farming for an unemployed couple wishing to start a worm farm., borrowed from the USA., from a fine art student a book on Maori paintings borrowed from New Zealand etc. The finest collection of local history books and music scores are held in public libraries, and the elderly
use the public libraries for their reading and for the kindness and interest shown by staff (again illustrated by research). Children's books and activities are not replicated by the internet, and for many our public library reference libraries still contain much more on business and early reference material, such as Birmingham's Shakespeare collection. The smallest library can access all this and much more.

Yes things will change over time, but a place to be, to be known. to be missed if you don't show up on your regular day, or books delivered to your home or village,.and where people care, where you can join a reading club, a children's reading time, and many other activities are real in peoples lives and not the loneliness
of the all night surfer.

I make intensive use of the internet, and also a kindle but I still depend on libraries for a lot of my special and specific requirements. For the 3 degree courses I took, much of the material was from the library, and as a place to sit and work, not much is better.

What sort of country would we be with out them?

Sukkey
What sort of country are we with them then?
[quote][p][bold]wornoutnow[/bold] wrote: I understand the comments made about the 2!st Century and use of the internet, BUT.... speaking as a librarian for 50 years, having worked in every type of library, and been instrumental in bringing IT to libraries I can assure you that the Internet does not yet have everything, and not all over 60s are Silver surfers yet. Your public library, via all the branch libraries however small, has access to, and for instance:- all local newspapers of the UK (from their inception, an amazing research tool) photographs and music scores maps interlibrary loans from all over the world (I once held a competition with the British Library on what books from where were borrowed on inter library loans, the results were amazing, for a tiny library in Hereford, books on worm farming for an unemployed couple wishing to start a worm farm., borrowed from the USA., from a fine art student a book on Maori paintings borrowed from New Zealand etc. The finest collection of local history books and music scores are held in public libraries, and the elderly use the public libraries for their reading and for the kindness and interest shown by staff (again illustrated by research). Children's books and activities are not replicated by the internet, and for many our public library reference libraries still contain much more on business and early reference material, such as Birmingham's Shakespeare collection. The smallest library can access all this and much more. Yes things will change over time, but a place to be, to be known. to be missed if you don't show up on your regular day, or books delivered to your home or village,.and where people care, where you can join a reading club, a children's reading time, and many other activities are real in peoples lives and not the loneliness of the all night surfer. I make intensive use of the internet, and also a kindle but I still depend on libraries for a lot of my special and specific requirements. For the 3 degree courses I took, much of the material was from the library, and as a place to sit and work, not much is better. What sort of country would we be with out them? Sukkey[/p][/quote]What sort of country are we with them then? house on the hill
  • Score: -1

5:03pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

house on the hill wrote:
Does anyone really care???
Yes. I "care" and I hope to find out whether this is a libel or whether it is true. A councillor, if it is a councillor, should not conduct himself like this.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Does anyone really care???[/p][/quote]Yes. I "care" and I hope to find out whether this is a libel or whether it is true. A councillor, if it is a councillor, should not conduct himself like this. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -2

8:37pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Davey Gravey says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Does anyone really care???
Yes. I "care" and I hope to find out whether this is a libel or whether it is true. A councillor, if it is a councillor, should not conduct himself like this.
I don't know if he is it not. It has been claimed many times in this site that he is that councilor though.
I wouldn't let it bother you.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Does anyone really care???[/p][/quote]Yes. I "care" and I hope to find out whether this is a libel or whether it is true. A councillor, if it is a councillor, should not conduct himself like this.[/p][/quote]I don't know if he is it not. It has been claimed many times in this site that he is that councilor though. I wouldn't let it bother you. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

8:38pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Trevor Craig says...

That's me on the right:
http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/9173449
.Libraries_campaigne
r_warns_of_staff_imb
alance/

Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford.

I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.
That's me on the right: http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/9173449 .Libraries_campaigne r_warns_of_staff_imb alance/ Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford. I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves. Trevor Craig
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Does anyone really care???
Yes. I "care" and I hope to find out whether this is a libel or whether it is true. A councillor, if it is a councillor, should not conduct himself like this.
I don't know if he is it not. It has been claimed many times in this site that he is that councilor though.
I wouldn't let it bother you.
Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Does anyone really care???[/p][/quote]Yes. I "care" and I hope to find out whether this is a libel or whether it is true. A councillor, if it is a councillor, should not conduct himself like this.[/p][/quote]I don't know if he is it not. It has been claimed many times in this site that he is that councilor though. I wouldn't let it bother you.[/p][/quote]Thanks. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -1

8:04am Sat 22 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Trevor Craig wrote:
That's me on the right:
http://www.oxfordmai

l.co.uk/news/9173449

.Libraries_campaigne

r_warns_of_staff_imb

alance/

Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford.

I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.
Oxford eh? That says it all.
STOP poking your nose into the affairs of Swindon - it's none of your business. How dare you try to influence how my council tax is spent. Oxford has plenty of problems of it's own, so if you want to interfere in something, then start there.
Perhaps you can do us all a favour and can take Burnham with you and let her poke her interfering nose into Oxford's business.
[quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: That's me on the right: http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/9173449 .Libraries_campaigne r_warns_of_staff_imb alance/ Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford. I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]Oxford eh? That says it all. STOP poking your nose into the affairs of Swindon - it's none of your business. How dare you try to influence how my council tax is spent. Oxford has plenty of problems of it's own, so if you want to interfere in something, then start there. Perhaps you can do us all a favour and can take Burnham with you and let her poke her interfering nose into Oxford's business. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -1

10:31am Sat 22 Mar 14

deepimpact says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
That's me on the right:
http://www.oxfordmai


l.co.uk/news/9173449


.Libraries_campaigne


r_warns_of_staff_imb


alance/

Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford.

I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.
Oxford eh? That says it all.
STOP poking your nose into the affairs of Swindon - it's none of your business. How dare you try to influence how my council tax is spent. Oxford has plenty of problems of it's own, so if you want to interfere in something, then start there.
Perhaps you can do us all a favour and can take Burnham with you and let her poke her interfering nose into Oxford's business.
Quite - typical obnoxious behaviour by an out of touch Oxford resident.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: That's me on the right: http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/9173449 .Libraries_campaigne r_warns_of_staff_imb alance/ Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford. I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]Oxford eh? That says it all. STOP poking your nose into the affairs of Swindon - it's none of your business. How dare you try to influence how my council tax is spent. Oxford has plenty of problems of it's own, so if you want to interfere in something, then start there. Perhaps you can do us all a favour and can take Burnham with you and let her poke her interfering nose into Oxford's business.[/p][/quote]Quite - typical obnoxious behaviour by an out of touch Oxford resident. deepimpact
  • Score: -2

11:21am Sat 22 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

deepimpact wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
That's me on the right:
http://www.oxfordmai



l.co.uk/news/9173449



.Libraries_campaigne



r_warns_of_staff_imb



alance/

Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford.

I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.
Oxford eh? That says it all.
STOP poking your nose into the affairs of Swindon - it's none of your business. How dare you try to influence how my council tax is spent. Oxford has plenty of problems of it's own, so if you want to interfere in something, then start there.
Perhaps you can do us all a favour and can take Burnham with you and let her poke her interfering nose into Oxford's business.
Quite - typical obnoxious behaviour by an out of touch Oxford resident.
You concede, then, that "Burnham" - as a Swindon resident - may legitimately have a view about Swindon issues? But I didn't know that comment is barred on this newspaper to anyone who resides beyond the Town's borders. Mr Craig is a national advocate for public libraries with an impeccable reputation whose views are sought by the highest authorities. His impression of Swindon, for which he will be asked, must not have been enhanced by the rudeness you continue to express.
[quote][p][bold]deepimpact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: That's me on the right: http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/9173449 .Libraries_campaigne r_warns_of_staff_imb alance/ Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford. I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]Oxford eh? That says it all. STOP poking your nose into the affairs of Swindon - it's none of your business. How dare you try to influence how my council tax is spent. Oxford has plenty of problems of it's own, so if you want to interfere in something, then start there. Perhaps you can do us all a favour and can take Burnham with you and let her poke her interfering nose into Oxford's business.[/p][/quote]Quite - typical obnoxious behaviour by an out of touch Oxford resident.[/p][/quote]You concede, then, that "Burnham" - as a Swindon resident - may legitimately have a view about Swindon issues? But I didn't know that comment is barred on this newspaper to anyone who resides beyond the Town's borders. Mr Craig is a national advocate for public libraries with an impeccable reputation whose views are sought by the highest authorities. His impression of Swindon, for which he will be asked, must not have been enhanced by the rudeness you continue to express. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -1

11:42am Sat 22 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
deepimpact wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Trevor Craig wrote:
That's me on the right:
http://www.oxfordmai




l.co.uk/news/9173449




.Libraries_campaigne




r_warns_of_staff_imb




alance/

Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford.

I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.
Oxford eh? That says it all.
STOP poking your nose into the affairs of Swindon - it's none of your business. How dare you try to influence how my council tax is spent. Oxford has plenty of problems of it's own, so if you want to interfere in something, then start there.
Perhaps you can do us all a favour and can take Burnham with you and let her poke her interfering nose into Oxford's business.
Quite - typical obnoxious behaviour by an out of touch Oxford resident.
You concede, then, that "Burnham" - as a Swindon resident - may legitimately have a view about Swindon issues? But I didn't know that comment is barred on this newspaper to anyone who resides beyond the Town's borders. Mr Craig is a national advocate for public libraries with an impeccable reputation whose views are sought by the highest authorities. His impression of Swindon, for which he will be asked, must not have been enhanced by the rudeness you continue to express.
Who on earth cares a toss about what you or Craig think?
The pair of you are just interfering busybodies intent on wasting ratepayers money to suit your own selfish ends.
I DO NOT want my money wasted on an outdated and little used book lending service, and don't re-quote Craigs meaningless 'statistics'.
Let those who want books pay for them as I do and not expect me to pay for other people to read.
I do note you aren't still going with your ridiculous notion that libraries are for vagrants, illiterates and the ignorant. That was one of the stupidest suggestions I've ever read in the Adver.
You will ultimately fail in your quest and I do look forward to that - lending libraries are doomed.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]deepimpact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevor Craig[/bold] wrote: That's me on the right: http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/9173449 .Libraries_campaigne r_warns_of_staff_imb alance/ Although I don't live in the Wychwoods any more I live in Kennington, Oxford. I'm real, I don't use sock puppet accounts pretending to be other people to trying to misrepresent public opinion. I have no problem with robust debate and arguments but if there is councillors on here using multiple accounts then they are utter, utter scum unfit for public office and should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]Oxford eh? That says it all. STOP poking your nose into the affairs of Swindon - it's none of your business. How dare you try to influence how my council tax is spent. Oxford has plenty of problems of it's own, so if you want to interfere in something, then start there. Perhaps you can do us all a favour and can take Burnham with you and let her poke her interfering nose into Oxford's business.[/p][/quote]Quite - typical obnoxious behaviour by an out of touch Oxford resident.[/p][/quote]You concede, then, that "Burnham" - as a Swindon resident - may legitimately have a view about Swindon issues? But I didn't know that comment is barred on this newspaper to anyone who resides beyond the Town's borders. Mr Craig is a national advocate for public libraries with an impeccable reputation whose views are sought by the highest authorities. His impression of Swindon, for which he will be asked, must not have been enhanced by the rudeness you continue to express.[/p][/quote]Who on earth cares a toss about what you or Craig think? The pair of you are just interfering busybodies intent on wasting ratepayers money to suit your own selfish ends. I DO NOT want my money wasted on an outdated and little used book lending service, and don't re-quote Craigs meaningless 'statistics'. Let those who want books pay for them as I do and not expect me to pay for other people to read. I do note you aren't still going with your ridiculous notion that libraries are for vagrants, illiterates and the ignorant. That was one of the stupidest suggestions I've ever read in the Adver. You will ultimately fail in your quest and I do look forward to that - lending libraries are doomed. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -2

12:00pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

I do note you aren't still going with your ridiculous notion that libraries are for vagrants, illiterates and the ignorant. That was one of the stupidest suggestions I've ever read in the Adver.

If you read the relevant comment again, I wrote that libraries have a role in supporting literacy and that the lack of them will exacerbate illiteracy - reported to cost the UK economy £billions per year. Sorry it was unclear.

Incidentally, the proportion of your council tax bill that's earmarked for library services is tiny, only a few pence. I don't think you will be much in pocket by their loss and it could possibly cost you more, if your money is the only concern here.
I do note you aren't still going with your ridiculous notion that libraries are for vagrants, illiterates and the ignorant. That was one of the stupidest suggestions I've ever read in the Adver. [quote] If you read the relevant comment again, I wrote that libraries have a role in supporting literacy and that the lack of them will exacerbate illiteracy - reported to cost the UK economy £billions per year. Sorry it was unclear. Incidentally, the proportion of your council tax bill that's earmarked for library services is tiny, only a few pence. I don't think you will be much in pocket by their loss and it could possibly cost you more, if your money is the only concern here. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -1

12:47pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
I do note you aren't still going with your ridiculous notion that libraries are for vagrants, illiterates and the ignorant. That was one of the stupidest suggestions I've ever read in the Adver.

If you read the relevant comment again, I wrote that libraries have a role in supporting literacy and that the lack of them will exacerbate illiteracy - reported to cost the UK economy £billions per year. Sorry it was unclear.

Incidentally, the proportion of your council tax bill that's earmarked for library services is tiny, only a few pence. I don't think you will be much in pocket by their loss and it could possibly cost you more, if your money is the only concern here.Quote: "It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan."

Are you denying this is what you wrote?

As to saving pennies - more like saving pounds. 3% of my council tax is wasted on things that should be paid for by the users ie. leisure, recreation, libraries and culture. In my council tax band that's far more than a few pennies.
Explain how it could 'cost more'?
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: I do note you aren't still going with your ridiculous notion that libraries are for vagrants, illiterates and the ignorant. That was one of the stupidest suggestions I've ever read in the Adver. [quote] If you read the relevant comment again, I wrote that libraries have a role in supporting literacy and that the lack of them will exacerbate illiteracy - reported to cost the UK economy £billions per year. Sorry it was unclear. Incidentally, the proportion of your council tax bill that's earmarked for library services is tiny, only a few pence. I don't think you will be much in pocket by their loss and it could possibly cost you more, if your money is the only concern here.[/p][/quote]Quote: "It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan." Are you denying this is what you wrote? As to saving pennies - more like saving pounds. 3% of my council tax is wasted on things that should be paid for by the users ie. leisure, recreation, libraries and culture. In my council tax band that's far more than a few pennies. Explain how it could 'cost more'? Always Grumpy
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

I do not deny that the words you quote were in that order, but they were in a context which was that with every such cut there are consequences, some unforeseen. I've just dug out my latest annual council tax bill. 3% of it is £41.50, or about £3.50 a month. Probably more or less the price of a pint, or 50p per day, the price of a stamp? I am not saying that is not a lot of money for someone who is very hard up and would understand if that is the case for you. But then I reason that if you are someone who is very hard up you would probably rely on the institutions established to support your well-being and not want them erased. On the other hand, unless you live in a gated community and never come out, you will perforce have to mingle with everyone else. If those less fortunate than you have all the mats pulled out from under them, you might then want some of these put back - if only to make your own life more tolerable. The price of reinstating same, or paying for other remedial measures to deal with increased ignorance, philistinism, illiteracy etc. could be high, ultimately perhaps more costly than continuing to improve what we have.
I do not deny that the words you quote were in that order, but they were in a context which was that with every such cut there are consequences, some unforeseen. I've just dug out my latest annual council tax bill. 3% of it is £41.50, or about £3.50 a month. Probably more or less the price of a pint, or 50p per day, the price of a stamp? I am not saying that is not a lot of money for someone who is very hard up and would understand if that is the case for you. But then I reason that if you are someone who is very hard up you would probably rely on the institutions established to support your well-being and not want them erased. On the other hand, unless you live in a gated community and never come out, you will perforce have to mingle with everyone else. If those less fortunate than you have all the mats pulled out from under them, you might then want some of these put back - if only to make your own life more tolerable. The price of reinstating same, or paying for other remedial measures to deal with increased ignorance, philistinism, illiteracy etc. could be high, ultimately perhaps more costly than continuing to improve what we have. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -1

5:05pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

But may I add, Mr Grumpy, that I am not saying public libraries are the home of the feckless or the ignorant. They are for anyone, even you. They are for the child born this week who will have somewhere lovely to go with its parents and discover new things. They support lifelong learning. If you ever want to campaign for them, get in touch! #explosionanticipate
d
But may I add, Mr Grumpy, that I am not saying public libraries are the home of the feckless or the ignorant. They are for anyone, even you. They are for the child born this week who will have somewhere lovely to go with its parents and discover new things. They support lifelong learning. If you ever want to campaign for them, get in touch! #explosionanticipate d Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -1

7:05pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

50p a week, or 7pence a day. Can't do my sums.
50p a week, or 7pence a day. Can't do my sums. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -2

8:41pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
But may I add, Mr Grumpy, that I am not saying public libraries are the home of the feckless or the ignorant. They are for anyone, even you. They are for the child born this week who will have somewhere lovely to go with its parents and discover new things. They support lifelong learning. If you ever want to campaign for them, get in touch! #explosionanticipate

d
Quote: "It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan."

Are you still denying this is what you wrote?
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: But may I add, Mr Grumpy, that I am not saying public libraries are the home of the feckless or the ignorant. They are for anyone, even you. They are for the child born this week who will have somewhere lovely to go with its parents and discover new things. They support lifelong learning. If you ever want to campaign for them, get in touch! #explosionanticipate d[/p][/quote]Quote: "It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan." Are you still denying this is what you wrote? Always Grumpy
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Elizabeth A says...

Dear Shirley Burnham,

Your words are being twisted . Please don't let this get to you. Just remember that you are known well to many from across the UK who admire you for your passion and the body of evidence that you collate on all things linked to libraries.

Swindon are lucky to have you It is often the most vulnerable who are unable to speak out on these issues but you are doing a brilliant job.

And if a handful of locals cannot see how losing libraries or library hours has an impact on literacy, well being, education, knowledge, employment and community cohesion and youth engagement I wouldn't be arguing the toss with them.

You are a highly respected library campaigner, as is Trevor Craig. Just keep doing what you are doing, and thank you!
Dear Shirley Burnham, Your words are being twisted . Please don't let this get to you. Just remember that you are known well to many from across the UK who admire you for your passion and the body of evidence that you collate on all things linked to libraries. Swindon are lucky to have you It is often the most vulnerable who are unable to speak out on these issues but you are doing a brilliant job. And if a handful of locals cannot see how losing libraries or library hours has an impact on literacy, well being, education, knowledge, employment and community cohesion and youth engagement I wouldn't be arguing the toss with them. You are a highly respected library campaigner, as is Trevor Craig. Just keep doing what you are doing, and thank you! Elizabeth A
  • Score: -3

9:09pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
But may I add, Mr Grumpy, that I am not saying public libraries are the home of the feckless or the ignorant. They are for anyone, even you. They are for the child born this week who will have somewhere lovely to go with its parents and discover new things. They support lifelong learning. If you ever want to campaign for them, get in touch! #explosionanticipate


d
Quote: "It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan."

Are you still denying this is what you wrote?
Of course I'm not "denying it". You only have to scroll up about 50 yards to see it in black and white. You asked me the question before and I answered, saying: "I do not deny that the words you quote were in that order, but they were in a context ....." then blah blah about 7p a day to pay for all leisure and culture from c.tax .... "The price of reinstating same, or paying for other remedial measures to deal with increased ignorance, philistinism, illiteracy etc. could be high, ultimately perhaps more costly than continuing to improve what we have."

But you don't want to have a conversation, you only wish to bluster and bully. I am out of here now. Cheerio.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: But may I add, Mr Grumpy, that I am not saying public libraries are the home of the feckless or the ignorant. They are for anyone, even you. They are for the child born this week who will have somewhere lovely to go with its parents and discover new things. They support lifelong learning. If you ever want to campaign for them, get in touch! #explosionanticipate d[/p][/quote]Quote: "It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan." Are you still denying this is what you wrote?[/p][/quote]Of course I'm not "denying it". You only have to scroll up about 50 yards to see it in black and white. You asked me the question before and I answered, saying: "I do not deny that the words you quote were in that order, but they were in a context ....." then blah blah about 7p a day to pay for all leisure and culture from c.tax .... "The price of reinstating same, or paying for other remedial measures to deal with increased ignorance, philistinism, illiteracy etc. could be high, ultimately perhaps more costly than continuing to improve what we have." But you don't want to have a conversation, you only wish to bluster and bully. I am out of here now. Cheerio. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -5

9:26pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Shirley Burnham wrote:
But may I add, Mr Grumpy, that I am not saying public libraries are the home of the feckless or the ignorant. They are for anyone, even you. They are for the child born this week who will have somewhere lovely to go with its parents and discover new things. They support lifelong learning. If you ever want to campaign for them, get in touch! #explosionanticipate



d
Quote: "It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan."

Are you still denying this is what you wrote?
Of course I'm not "denying it". You only have to scroll up about 50 yards to see it in black and white. You asked me the question before and I answered, saying: "I do not deny that the words you quote were in that order, but they were in a context ....." then blah blah about 7p a day to pay for all leisure and culture from c.tax .... "The price of reinstating same, or paying for other remedial measures to deal with increased ignorance, philistinism, illiteracy etc. could be high, ultimately perhaps more costly than continuing to improve what we have."

But you don't want to have a conversation, you only wish to bluster and bully. I am out of here now. Cheerio.
Good riddance then and don't come back.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: But may I add, Mr Grumpy, that I am not saying public libraries are the home of the feckless or the ignorant. They are for anyone, even you. They are for the child born this week who will have somewhere lovely to go with its parents and discover new things. They support lifelong learning. If you ever want to campaign for them, get in touch! #explosionanticipate d[/p][/quote]Quote: "It is reassuring to note that you and your council tax-paying mates will be happy to pick up the costs relating to illiteracy, vagrancy and ignorance when Swindon's library services go down the pan." Are you still denying this is what you wrote?[/p][/quote]Of course I'm not "denying it". You only have to scroll up about 50 yards to see it in black and white. You asked me the question before and I answered, saying: "I do not deny that the words you quote were in that order, but they were in a context ....." then blah blah about 7p a day to pay for all leisure and culture from c.tax .... "The price of reinstating same, or paying for other remedial measures to deal with increased ignorance, philistinism, illiteracy etc. could be high, ultimately perhaps more costly than continuing to improve what we have." But you don't want to have a conversation, you only wish to bluster and bully. I am out of here now. Cheerio.[/p][/quote]Good riddance then and don't come back. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -1

9:55pm Sat 22 Mar 14

trolley dolley says...

Always Grumpy, you will find that Shirley Burnham is never more than a library door away.

She may say she is out of here but she just cannot leave things alone.

Slowly but surely she is getting bad publicity for her campaign to only staff libraries with paid council staff. She has already had a negative impact on local people who think there are other ways to keep libraries in Swindon open.

You are not alone in your views.
Always Grumpy, you will find that Shirley Burnham is never more than a library door away. She may say she is out of here but she just cannot leave things alone. Slowly but surely she is getting bad publicity for her campaign to only staff libraries with paid council staff. She has already had a negative impact on local people who think there are other ways to keep libraries in Swindon open. You are not alone in your views. trolley dolley
  • Score: 1

10:13pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Always Grumpy says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Always Grumpy, you will find that Shirley Burnham is never more than a library door away.

She may say she is out of here but she just cannot leave things alone.

Slowly but surely she is getting bad publicity for her campaign to only staff libraries with paid council staff. She has already had a negative impact on local people who think there are other ways to keep libraries in Swindon open.

You are not alone in your views.
Well, she's certainly had a negative impact on me!
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Always Grumpy, you will find that Shirley Burnham is never more than a library door away. She may say she is out of here but she just cannot leave things alone. Slowly but surely she is getting bad publicity for her campaign to only staff libraries with paid council staff. She has already had a negative impact on local people who think there are other ways to keep libraries in Swindon open. You are not alone in your views.[/p][/quote]Well, she's certainly had a negative impact on me! Always Grumpy
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Sat 22 Mar 14

D.Jones says...

It is a pity that, through following a narrow prescription of services, public libraries in the UK have made themselves vulnerable to the neoliberal and privatization ethos which is rapidly changing our country for the worse. Against the backdrop of taxpayer-funded autonomous academy schools and the fragmented privatization of the NHS, it is sadly not surprising that libraries - both as perceived, as as real, entities - are an easy target. While UK public libraries do offer more than just book loans and PC use, it's often not that much more. Easier to cull.

In the USA, there are also pressures on public library funding. However, libraries there often offer a much broader range of programs and services, including summer reading programs, maker labs, community outreach, specialist adult training, even diplomas and certificates in alliance with local colleges. Why? More funding than in the UK; but also a more positive culture surrounding libraries there. Offering such a wide range of services and facilities for their host community makes them more indispensible - unlike, sadly, many UK public libraries.

In addition, the fear that UK librarians wanting to keep their jobs have over speaking out, the startling lack of promotion that the UK library sector has done in the last few decades leading to widespread misconceptions about what libraries here actually do and offer, and UK library advocates often being at each others throats rather than being united against a common enemy, and it's not surprising that the public library sector is being rapidly hollowed out. A shame, and the country is poorer for it.
It is a pity that, through following a narrow prescription of services, public libraries in the UK have made themselves vulnerable to the neoliberal and privatization ethos which is rapidly changing our country for the worse. Against the backdrop of taxpayer-funded autonomous academy schools and the fragmented privatization of the NHS, it is sadly not surprising that libraries - both as perceived, as as real, entities - are an easy target. While UK public libraries do offer more than just book loans and PC use, it's often not that much more. Easier to cull. In the USA, there are also pressures on public library funding. However, libraries there often offer a much broader range of programs and services, including summer reading programs, maker labs, community outreach, specialist adult training, even diplomas and certificates in alliance with local colleges. Why? More funding than in the UK; but also a more positive culture surrounding libraries there. Offering such a wide range of services and facilities for their host community makes them more indispensible - unlike, sadly, many UK public libraries. In addition, the fear that UK librarians wanting to keep their jobs have over speaking out, the startling lack of promotion that the UK library sector has done in the last few decades leading to widespread misconceptions about what libraries here actually do and offer, and UK library advocates often being at each others throats rather than being united against a common enemy, and it's not surprising that the public library sector is being rapidly hollowed out. A shame, and the country is poorer for it. D.Jones
  • Score: 8

7:03am Sun 23 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Hello everyone, my name is Trolley Dolly.

I do not post under any other name, one is enough.

I can also state that Trevor and Shirley are real people.!!
You have met us, then? This was revealed to me in a dream in had last night. A biblical revelation.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Hello everyone, my name is Trolley Dolly. I do not post under any other name, one is enough. I can also state that Trevor and Shirley are real people.!![/p][/quote]You have met us, then? This was revealed to me in a dream in had last night. A biblical revelation. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: -2

9:50am Sun 23 Mar 14

Still About says...

Wow!
Looks like the troll has now mimiced Shirley's account.
All "cloned" accounts should be reported to the police.
Quote crime log number
54140009028
Also inform Craig Lyus of Swindon Advertiser 01793501862
Wow! Looks like the troll has now mimiced Shirley's account. All "cloned" accounts should be reported to the police. Quote crime log number 54140009028 Also inform Craig Lyus of Swindon Advertiser 01793501862 Still About
  • Score: -1

10:18am Sun 23 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

Still About wrote:
Wow!
Looks like the troll has now mimiced Shirley's account.
All "cloned" accounts should be reported to the police.
Quote crime log number
54140009028
Also inform Craig Lyus of Swindon Advertiser 01793501862
Sorry. What are you talking about? No-one has mimicked anything, to my knowledge.
[quote][p][bold]Still About[/bold] wrote: Wow! Looks like the troll has now mimiced Shirley's account. All "cloned" accounts should be reported to the police. Quote crime log number 54140009028 Also inform Craig Lyus of Swindon Advertiser 01793501862[/p][/quote]Sorry. What are you talking about? No-one has mimicked anything, to my knowledge. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: 2

10:22am Sun 23 Mar 14

Shirley Burnham says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
Still About wrote:
Wow!
Looks like the troll has now mimiced Shirley's account.
All "cloned" accounts should be reported to the police.
Quote crime log number
54140009028
Also inform Craig Lyus of Swindon Advertiser 01793501862
Sorry. What are you talking about? No-one has mimicked anything, to my knowledge.
Trevor and I met several people last year when he came to Swindon. We were treated well. One of them may have been Trolley Dolley. I am probably wrong. Can't be bothered to pursue it.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Still About[/bold] wrote: Wow! Looks like the troll has now mimiced Shirley's account. All "cloned" accounts should be reported to the police. Quote crime log number 54140009028 Also inform Craig Lyus of Swindon Advertiser 01793501862[/p][/quote]Sorry. What are you talking about? No-one has mimicked anything, to my knowledge.[/p][/quote]Trevor and I met several people last year when he came to Swindon. We were treated well. One of them may have been Trolley Dolley. I am probably wrong. Can't be bothered to pursue it. Shirley Burnham
  • Score: 0

11:53am Sun 23 Mar 14

FLOGGITLAD says...

if the council hadnt played pass the parcel with £400,000 of tax payers money, then this subject wouldnt have even come up, thats the waste of taxpyers money everybody should be watching out for, its called jobs for the boys..
if the council hadnt played pass the parcel with £400,000 of tax payers money, then this subject wouldnt have even come up, thats the waste of taxpyers money everybody should be watching out for, its called jobs for the boys.. FLOGGITLAD
  • Score: 1

12:29pm Mon 24 Mar 14

JLSwindon says...

Shirley Burnham wrote:
Activists of all descriptions will know that Petitions to the council have required that each signatory add his/her address, as otherwise they'd not be taken into account. This is to ensure that fraud is avoided. So WHY are those safeguards not being applied to the council's current consultations? "Sauce for the goose ..."

Please note that the one-page survey-****-flyer headed 'Old Town Library Opening Hours' which sets out 3 options for 'Old Town Library Opening Hours', one of which may be selected, does NOT require the consultee to add his name or address or any of his/her details whatsoever.

1. This nullifies the survey, as it is open to fraud. I, for example, could fill in and submit 50 copies and no-one would know.
2. When the results are analysed there can be no guarantee those who have set up the survey can prove that the responses given to it are legitimate. A fair decision on the library's Opening Hours cannot be made on this basis.

Although a link is given to the swindon.gov website on the printed flyer, residents of South Swindon have NOT been made aware of the survey's existence, its impact on their library usage or whether the Library Hours survey may be accessed remotely.

CONCLUSIONS - OLD TOWN LIBRARY HOURS:

The council should acknowledge the inadequacy of the 'Old Town Library Opening Hours' survey (which ends tomorrow!) and that it has left the vast majority of residents in ignorance of its existence. They must NOT implement any changes to Old Town Library's opening hours until full and proper public consultation has been undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS : "TOWN-WIDE" CONSULTATION

The council's "town-wide" consultation on its Libraries Strategy is similarly flawed - as it is, again, wholly anonymised and vulnerable to the same opportunities for fraud.
Consultees should have been asked for their details on the questionnaires and advised that these would be held in confidence.

When emotions run high - with some thinking libraries are a total waste of money and others the opposite - what is to stop any activist or ideologue submitting multiple copies of this Consultation to the council?

Surely I am not the only one to have identified these and other failures of this so-called consultation process?

Apathy will be rewarded with a lousy Library Service - so perhaps a few Swindonians will now decide to speak up !
Shirley Burnham is absolutely right. Contrary to the Councillor who asserts that Library hours are not being reduced is clearly wrong in terms of the Old Town facility, but, as seems to be the case with Old Town generally, perhaps those allegedly representing this area have forgotten (or do not care) about its existence. The only viable option is to consider voting them out when the next opportunity arises.
Major Bloodnok.
[quote][p][bold]Shirley Burnham[/bold] wrote: Activists of all descriptions will know that Petitions to the council have required that each signatory add his/her address, as otherwise they'd not be taken into account. This is to ensure that fraud is avoided. So WHY are those safeguards not being applied to the council's current consultations? "Sauce for the goose ..." Please note that the one-page survey-****-flyer headed 'Old Town Library Opening Hours' which sets out 3 options for 'Old Town Library Opening Hours', one of which may be selected, does NOT require the consultee to add his name or address or any of his/her details whatsoever. 1. This nullifies the survey, as it is open to fraud. I, for example, could fill in and submit 50 copies and no-one would know. 2. When the results are analysed there can be no guarantee those who have set up the survey can prove that the responses given to it are legitimate. A fair decision on the library's Opening Hours cannot be made on this basis. Although a link is given to the swindon.gov website on the printed flyer, residents of South Swindon have NOT been made aware of the survey's existence, its impact on their library usage or whether the Library Hours survey may be accessed remotely. CONCLUSIONS - OLD TOWN LIBRARY HOURS: The council should acknowledge the inadequacy of the 'Old Town Library Opening Hours' survey (which ends tomorrow!) and that it has left the vast majority of residents in ignorance of its existence. They must NOT implement any changes to Old Town Library's opening hours until full and proper public consultation has been undertaken. CONCLUSIONS : "TOWN-WIDE" CONSULTATION The council's "town-wide" consultation on its Libraries Strategy is similarly flawed - as it is, again, wholly anonymised and vulnerable to the same opportunities for fraud. Consultees should have been asked for their details on the questionnaires and advised that these would be held in confidence. When emotions run high - with some thinking libraries are a total waste of money and others the opposite - what is to stop any activist or ideologue submitting multiple copies of this Consultation to the council? Surely I am not the only one to have identified these and other failures of this so-called consultation process? Apathy will be rewarded with a lousy Library Service - so perhaps a few Swindonians will now decide to speak up ![/p][/quote]Shirley Burnham is absolutely right. Contrary to the Councillor who asserts that Library hours are not being reduced is clearly wrong in terms of the Old Town facility, but, as seems to be the case with Old Town generally, perhaps those allegedly representing this area have forgotten (or do not care) about its existence. The only viable option is to consider voting them out when the next opportunity arises. Major Bloodnok. JLSwindon
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree