Libraries

[bunn]

 Caught a section on the radio earlier today about the library closure protests. They were saying: use them or lose them. 

This is a call to action that works well for, say, local pubs or milkmen.  I don't think it should necessarily apply to libraries though. I live in a rural area, and am currently,  relatively time-poor and shelf-rich.  It makes sense for me to buy books rather than driving to a library during opening hours.   I am not a customer that particularly needs a library at present: in fact, using one would be something of a pain. 

However, I have certainly been shelf-poor and time-rich (or more conveniently located) in the past, and very likely will be again in future.  The fact that I am not using the library much *now* should not be interpreted as a vote to close the place!  

 I'm not using the local primary school, police station, hospital or prison either, but nobody thinks that means I never will.   Surely public services should be used primarily by those that need them, not by those that merely think that they should remain open...?

Comments

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I can certainly see the argument that in short-term financial woe, one must cut something. But what seems to be being put forward here is not temporary retrenchment or reductions and mothballing of stuff we can't afford right now, with the intention of putting it back better, later, but permanent one-way change with no intention of any restoration...

Same with the sale of the forests: I can see cutting back on staff, management and repairs, but selling them off wholesale?