<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Liverpool	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/01/liverpool.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/01/liverpool.html</link>
	<description>What&#039;s happening to your library?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:09:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Lewisiom		</title>
		<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/01/liverpool.html#comment-231</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lewisiom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:09:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://83.170.89.36/~publicli/2012/01/liverpool.html#comment-231</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Libraries should not vanish... Books should not be forgotten. When technology fails we&#039;re left with nothing.I&#039;m a fan of technology and science. I know that in 5-10 years I&#039;m gonna be carrying a library load of data/information on my wrist.. Still, I&#039;m worried...Since human stupidity is infinite, unlike human wisdom.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Libraries should not vanish&#8230; Books should not be forgotten. When technology fails we&#8217;re left with nothing.I&#8217;m a fan of technology and science. I know that in 5-10 years I&#8217;m gonna be carrying a library load of data/information on my wrist.. Still, I&#8217;m worried&#8230;Since human stupidity is infinite, unlike human wisdom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: LibraryWeb		</title>
		<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/01/liverpool.html#comment-208</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LibraryWeb]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://83.170.89.36/~publicli/2012/01/liverpool.html#comment-208</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The press release for the library service budget for next year can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://liverpool.gov.uk/news/details.aspx?id=212066&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  (The original proposals which were passed in full from what I can gather can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1201&amp;MId=11968&amp;Ver=4&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, note C&amp;T/6)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Interesting is the merging of One-Stop-Shop staff with library staff in three libraries - will library use fall as a result? (There hasn&#039;t been a professional librarian directly managing these libraries for a long time.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;An equality impact assessment is mentioned but not linked to - one of the three library closures is in a multicultural area, another an economically inactive area.  The cost of meeting DDA requirements is given as a reason for closures of these libraries but this is misleading as it only applies to one of the libraries.  The crux of the matter I think is an estimated £3 million required to refurbish these libraries so as to ensure they do not drain the maintenance future budget.  As usual we get the assertion that these cuts fall within the requirements of the 1964 Act (merging One-Stop-Shop staff!!), the rub appears to be the councillor whose portfolio the libraries fall under has been advised by the DCMS that all they need provide is a comprehensive service, not necessarily efficient for anyone to use in particular (so the value of using it will have to be proportionally higher for an individual to put the time and resources into using it) - the DCMS were instructed by the department for local government and communities to &quot;drop&quot; the standards for public library service in 2007 to ease the financial burden on local councils, meanwhile the public are wondering what happened to democracy that all their community libraries are on the way out!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As to staffing levels -- I am not sure if the ~50 staff losses the past year are unfilled posts.  Around 25 posts I think will be Sunday staff (very possibly including myself).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As to the budget - Nov. 11 the picture was for a million in cuts each of the next three years.  The current passed proposals seem to be saying £2.2 million next year, and if the council want to any further cuts to be made there is a further option.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The press release for the library service budget for next year can be found <a href="http://liverpool.gov.uk/news/details.aspx?id=212066" rel="nofollow">here</a>.  (The original proposals which were passed in full from what I can gather can be found <a href="http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1201&#038;MId=11968&#038;Ver=4" rel="nofollow">here</a>, note C&#038;T/6)</p>
<p>Interesting is the merging of One-Stop-Shop staff with library staff in three libraries &#8211; will library use fall as a result? (There hasn&#8217;t been a professional librarian directly managing these libraries for a long time.)</p>
<p>An equality impact assessment is mentioned but not linked to &#8211; one of the three library closures is in a multicultural area, another an economically inactive area.  The cost of meeting DDA requirements is given as a reason for closures of these libraries but this is misleading as it only applies to one of the libraries.  The crux of the matter I think is an estimated £3 million required to refurbish these libraries so as to ensure they do not drain the maintenance future budget.  As usual we get the assertion that these cuts fall within the requirements of the 1964 Act (merging One-Stop-Shop staff!!), the rub appears to be the councillor whose portfolio the libraries fall under has been advised by the DCMS that all they need provide is a comprehensive service, not necessarily efficient for anyone to use in particular (so the value of using it will have to be proportionally higher for an individual to put the time and resources into using it) &#8211; the DCMS were instructed by the department for local government and communities to &#8220;drop&#8221; the standards for public library service in 2007 to ease the financial burden on local councils, meanwhile the public are wondering what happened to democracy that all their community libraries are on the way out!</p>
<p>As to staffing levels &#8212; I am not sure if the ~50 staff losses the past year are unfilled posts.  Around 25 posts I think will be Sunday staff (very possibly including myself).</p>
<p>As to the budget &#8211; Nov. 11 the picture was for a million in cuts each of the next three years.  The current passed proposals seem to be saying £2.2 million next year, and if the council want to any further cuts to be made there is a further option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: LibraryWeb		</title>
		<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/01/liverpool.html#comment-207</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LibraryWeb]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:34:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://83.170.89.36/~publicli/2012/01/liverpool.html#comment-207</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the coverage of Liverpool Ian.  It&#039;s not clear whether the £2.2 million is over 1 or 2 or 3 years yet.  The other major strategy announced was the merging of 4 (I think) libraries with One-Stop-Shops (i.e., staff wise - it is unclear whether this is all staff or just management).  There is a council meeting today (Friday) to finalise the cuts, so things should become clearer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would add 2010/11 we have already had £90 million council cuts (~ 50 library staff have left) bringing the library budget down to the current £8 million.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the coverage of Liverpool Ian.  It&#8217;s not clear whether the £2.2 million is over 1 or 2 or 3 years yet.  The other major strategy announced was the merging of 4 (I think) libraries with One-Stop-Shops (i.e., staff wise &#8211; it is unclear whether this is all staff or just management).  There is a council meeting today (Friday) to finalise the cuts, so things should become clearer.</p>
<p>I would add 2010/11 we have already had £90 million council cuts (~ 50 library staff have left) bringing the library budget down to the current £8 million.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: James Hargrave		</title>
		<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/01/liverpool.html#comment-206</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James Hargrave]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 06:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://83.170.89.36/~publicli/2012/01/liverpool.html#comment-206</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I suspect the reason that the Chairman of Suffolk County Council does not intervene to stop the rude behaviour of Conservative Portfolio Holders is that she is herself a former Conservative portfolio holder. It is sadly the case that it appears normal practice at SCC for Portfolio holders to both fail to answer questions asked by opposition members and members of the public and to be rude and disrespectful to anyone who offers a dissenting view. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;With their huge majority the Conservatives are going to win anyway so I fail to see why they can&#039;t at least answer questions and listen to what people are saying to them. They may even learn something if they did!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect the reason that the Chairman of Suffolk County Council does not intervene to stop the rude behaviour of Conservative Portfolio Holders is that she is herself a former Conservative portfolio holder. It is sadly the case that it appears normal practice at SCC for Portfolio holders to both fail to answer questions asked by opposition members and members of the public and to be rude and disrespectful to anyone who offers a dissenting view. </p>
<p>With their huge majority the Conservatives are going to win anyway so I fail to see why they can&#8217;t at least answer questions and listen to what people are saying to them. They may even learn something if they did!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
