<?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: Being economical with the truth	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2016/02/being-economical-with-the-truth.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2016/02/being-economical-with-the-truth.html</link>
	<description>What&#039;s happening to your library?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:43:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: librariesmatter		</title>
		<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2016/02/being-economical-with-the-truth.html#comment-7672</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[librariesmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:43:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/?p=10694#comment-7672</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As well as the furore over the inability of government to count the number of library closures it was disappointing that the House of Commons Briefing Paper on the Public Libraries in England failed to make clear that the &#039;comprehensive and efficient&#039; legal requirement is actually ‘to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof’ i.e. the library service must be reasonably accessible to all. The issue of accessibility is surely central to what is happening at the moment. At a common sense level the proposals by Swindon, West Berks and Lincolnshire Councils all seem to be pushing the accessibility point too far. Providing limited support to libraries outside of the statutory service is irrelevant to the legal duty.

Incidentally the House of Commons &#039;Information Service’ costs us - the taxpayers - £16.5m a year or £25,400 per MP. The Public Library Service costs £14 per head of population. Are we really all in it together?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As well as the furore over the inability of government to count the number of library closures it was disappointing that the House of Commons Briefing Paper on the Public Libraries in England failed to make clear that the &#8216;comprehensive and efficient&#8217; legal requirement is actually ‘to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof’ i.e. the library service must be reasonably accessible to all. The issue of accessibility is surely central to what is happening at the moment. At a common sense level the proposals by Swindon, West Berks and Lincolnshire Councils all seem to be pushing the accessibility point too far. Providing limited support to libraries outside of the statutory service is irrelevant to the legal duty.</p>
<p>Incidentally the House of Commons &#8216;Information Service’ costs us &#8211; the taxpayers &#8211; £16.5m a year or £25,400 per MP. The Public Library Service costs £14 per head of population. Are we really all in it together?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Julia		</title>
		<link>https://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/2016/02/being-economical-with-the-truth.html#comment-7670</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Julia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2016 09:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/?p=10694#comment-7670</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[With reference to the comment in your editorial about Wiltshire - this was in response to a specific parliamentary question: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-02-04/25858/]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With reference to the comment in your editorial about Wiltshire &#8211; this was in response to a specific parliamentary question: <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-02-04/25858/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-02-04/25858/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
