<?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: E-Lending: the end of the library?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/09/e-lending-the-end-of-the-library.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/09/e-lending-the-end-of-the-library.html</link>
	<description>What&#039;s happening to your library?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:15:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Shirley Burnham		</title>
		<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2012/09/e-lending-the-end-of-the-library.html#comment-5502</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shirley Burnham]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/?p=2372#comment-5502</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The choice of calling for a review and determining its nature lies in the hands of the minister.  But by the same token he gets the opportunity to narrow the discussion to the matters which suit him or to limit the panel to those who will not upset his apple-cart.   The BA chief executive Tim Godfray, who requested a &quot;seat at the table&quot; at the review, said:  &quot;Any decision taken around e-book lending has such potential to make or break our book retailing landscape&quot;   : http://www.thebookseller.com/news/sieghart-lead-e-lending-review.html   He is but one who is excluded -  and would you say that the SCL represents librarians and staff ?

I wonder whether this Review have a greater impact than the many dozens of reviews undertaken since 1998.  I suggest, Ian and others, that you note some evidence which could suggest that such reviews have (historically) appeared to be the means of kicking an issue up the road into the long grass !  Viz:- 

24th October 2008 - &#039;This is the 24th national review of public libraries in 10 years&#039; :  
&quot;It falls to a senior civil servant: a Permanent Secretary of any integrity and common sense, to understand why nearly all these reviews have failed to make any effective change and to make sure that a new review is a worthwhile endeavour&quot; : http://www.goodlibraryguide.com/blog/archives/2008/10/we_deserve_bett.html  and 30th June 2009 - &#039;Nearly 30 reviews and given up counting&#039; : http://www.goodlibraryguide.com/blog/archives/2009/06/over_thirty_rev.html

So, yes,  we *should* look on the bright side,  Mr Vaizey must indeed have the &quot;thumbs up&quot; at this stage, as you say.  But, with so much at stake - and given this Minister&#039;s general apathy towards all the issues affecting the Library Service - your thumbs up Ian  may be a little premature.  I hope that you and other optimists are right.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The choice of calling for a review and determining its nature lies in the hands of the minister.  But by the same token he gets the opportunity to narrow the discussion to the matters which suit him or to limit the panel to those who will not upset his apple-cart.   The BA chief executive Tim Godfray, who requested a &#8220;seat at the table&#8221; at the review, said:  &#8220;Any decision taken around e-book lending has such potential to make or break our book retailing landscape&#8221;   : <a href="http://www.thebookseller.com/news/sieghart-lead-e-lending-review.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.thebookseller.com/news/sieghart-lead-e-lending-review.html</a>   He is but one who is excluded &#8211;  and would you say that the SCL represents librarians and staff ?</p>
<p>I wonder whether this Review have a greater impact than the many dozens of reviews undertaken since 1998.  I suggest, Ian and others, that you note some evidence which could suggest that such reviews have (historically) appeared to be the means of kicking an issue up the road into the long grass !  Viz:- </p>
<p>24th October 2008 &#8211; &#8216;This is the 24th national review of public libraries in 10 years&#8217; :<br />
&#8220;It falls to a senior civil servant: a Permanent Secretary of any integrity and common sense, to understand why nearly all these reviews have failed to make any effective change and to make sure that a new review is a worthwhile endeavour&#8221; : <a href="http://www.goodlibraryguide.com/blog/archives/2008/10/we_deserve_bett.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.goodlibraryguide.com/blog/archives/2008/10/we_deserve_bett.html</a>  and 30th June 2009 &#8211; &#8216;Nearly 30 reviews and given up counting&#8217; : <a href="http://www.goodlibraryguide.com/blog/archives/2009/06/over_thirty_rev.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.goodlibraryguide.com/blog/archives/2009/06/over_thirty_rev.html</a></p>
<p>So, yes,  we *should* look on the bright side,  Mr Vaizey must indeed have the &#8220;thumbs up&#8221; at this stage, as you say.  But, with so much at stake &#8211; and given this Minister&#8217;s general apathy towards all the issues affecting the Library Service &#8211; your thumbs up Ian  may be a little premature.  I hope that you and other optimists are right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
