Informationoverlord

A few months ago, I decided to leave the world of Apple and my lovely iPhone 3G and see what life was like on the Google Android side of the street, with the HTC Desire. I liked it from the off but did have some minor gripes and annoyances that some of the apps I liked best on the iPhone didn’t have Android versions. But that passed.

I am now over the iPhone. This weekend I decided to let my girlfriend have my 3G and in the process my love for the HTC Desire grew and grew and here is why.

Setting up my old iPhone 3G for my girlfriend to use.

1) Reset phone and wipe all content.
2) Download and install iTunes and girlfriends netbook – she doesn’t need to listen to music on her netbook, she doesn’t want to listen to music on her netbook, but now has a pointless piece of software taking up space on it)
3) Put girlfriend’s SIM in iPhone
4) Connect iPhone to Netbook
5) Enter unlock code for SIM
6) Unconnect iPhone
7) Re-Connect iPhone
Software updates
9) Wait for phone authorisation
10) Phone starts syncing
11) iTunes informs me that software upgrade (4.0) available. Would I like to install.
12) Phone Authorised
13) Download and install 4.0
14) Restart iPhone
15) Unlock SIM
16) Unconnect iPhone
17) Re-Connect iPhone
18) Unlock SIM
19) Wait for phone authorisation
20) Software updates
21) Sync iPhone
22)Phone authorised
23) Set up email
24) Try to remember the work around to set up Google Calendars to sync (use MS Exchange)
25) Download some apps.
26) Turn off needless sounds, set preferences.
27) Finish.

All in all this took around 2hours from start to finish. It was a huge pain in the arse, and serves no purpose other than to try and make sure you can’t do anything without Apple’s say so. I know it has been said before, but WHY do I need to do all this to use a PHONE.

I suddenly found that whilst going through the process of setting things up for my girlfriend that, whilst I had been telling people that I had no regrets moving from the iPhone to the HTC Desire because it was a better Phone, I now genuinely not only believed it but meant it too. Trying to solve the calendar problem was a case in point. I was in Calendars but there was no way to access the calendar settings from where I was on the iPhone. To do that I have to exit the application, click the Settings icon and go through there. On the Desire I hit menu from the application and I get access to the settings and various other things. (Yes, I can access them in the same way as I could on the iPhone too, but unlike the iPhone I can access them when I’m IN any app, right there and then).

I also really like having a couple of REAL buttons on my phone. The optical tracker thing on the Desire is really not needed and totally pointless, but the Menu, Home and back/search buttons are great.

I still think the iPhone is a WONDERFUL thing. I loved having one, I will probably have on again at some point in the future, but at the moment I don’t see a compelling reason to have one – especially not an iPhone 4. Hold the iPhone 4 in your hand and then hold any previous iPhone or the Desire in your hand, and I’ll tell you which will feel better, more natural and more comfortable – and it wont be the iPhone 4. The squaring up of the iPhone 4 looks good, but doesn’t feel good. Even from a software stand point, if you have the 3GS, you can get all the advantages of the new iPhone 4 without the downsides – Unless you want FaceTime, so you can have face-to-face video calls. If you do, you’re weird, but, hey. (I don’t really do this v often on my PC/Mac, so I don’t see need to do so on my phone).

But don’t I still have app envy?

The apps are better on the iPhone people keep telling me. There’s more and they’re better. Now, there are indeed some better apps on the iPhone and some that are still ONLY on the iPhone, but it’s not a one way street, and whilst I would still say that the Facebook and Twitter apps for the iPhone are still better than their Android counterparts, if I look to YouTube (The HTC has flash support. Yes Apple the world maybe moving the HTML5 but in the meantime most video is still using flash, and I own my phone now not 2-5 years from now), LastFM, Spotify and others then Android wins hands down. For lots of other things there is little or no difference. [I do miss the official Guardian app though – Android unofficial app is ok, but not the same]

Making Calls: Both less than dazzling on that front I’d say, and the generic Google Phone is better than the HTC’d version for that due to good noise cancellation – so Android wins at least, if neither phone actually does.

Now, all is not rosey. The Desire does get a little hot under the collar. Not unusual for a smart phone these days but it gets hotter than it should do. The metallic brown paint job is also starting to get scratched – despite the phone living in an HTC pouch. This is fine, but it is likely to look the worse for ware after 18 months, whereas my iPhone 3G, even after 2 years still looks brand new.

I suppose we – as consumers – are now getting lucky. When I got my iPhone there wasn’t really any genuine match for it. Now, there are several things that can match it for some things, beat it for others, and trail behind it for other things. But it is no longer an unchallenged champion. For the moment I think the HTC Desire is at least as good as if not possibly better than the iPhone. In 13 months when I need a new phone will I get another HTC? Maybe. I may get an iPhone4S. I may get a Samsung, or something entirely different again. It is an exciting time to be owning a phone/smart phone.

The Press Complaints Committee has upheld complaints against Irish Newspaper ‘The Sunday World’ for two newspaper reports about a “shocking new group sex craze” (‘bukkake’). The PCC agreed with complainant that the stories were inaccurate, intrusive, and an invasion of their privacy.

The paper, which conducted an undercover operation, alleged that the complainant charged an entrance fee to attend such events; “big money” doing so; was a “secret male escort”/”gigolo”; and that he and his wife were a “sex-for-sale” couple. The Couple refuted all these claims, saying they made very little money from their hobby – making videos for the female models’ website -and certainly did not sell themselves to members of the public for cash. not make themselves sexually available to members of the public for money.

The Paper claimed regardless of all that they had been justified in exposing the event on grounds of protecting public health: a senior medical officer had said that the participants were at risk from sexually transmitted diseases.

Hmm, tabloid paper exposes sex party story out of concern for public health. Yes, that sounds believable … if you have never read a tabloid newspaper.

The PCC said that it this case there seems to be no sufficient public interest behind the decision to use “a hidden camera to film the complainant, without his consent, in a private place in which a number of participants were about to be involved in consensual, legal sexual activity.” It had also failed provided sufficient evidence to support any of its assertions that they made big money or sold themselves for money. It concluded the “case revealed a bad editorial lapse on the part of the newspaper, compounded by an unacceptably slow response to the PCC investigation.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has vacated Mattel’s hard-won injunction on behalf of its Barbie doll, finding the remedy imposed by the District Court too broad.

In 2008, Mattel won a lawsuit claiming MGA had infringed its copyright and breached a contract because the designer of Bratz dolls was still under contract to Mattel when he developed the Bratz concept for MGA Entertainment, the makers of the rival (and currently more popular) Bratz doll range. A jury awarded Mattel $100 million.

Mattel had argued that Carter Bryant had come up with the Bratz dolls concept when he was working for Mattel. He left Mattel in or around 2000 for MGA and shortly after his move, MGA had started marketing the Bratz doll. MGA had argued that the Bryant had created the concept during a period of time when he was not working for Mattel. However, this argument fell by way side during the original case and Mattel convinced a federal jury that the employee conceived the Bratz idea whilst in its employ.

In April 2009, a federal judge upheld the jury verdict and imposed a constructive trust over all trademarks including the terms “Bratz” and “Jade,” essentially transferring the Bratz trademark portfolio to Mattel.

The Ninth Circuit has now ruled the District court erred in making this decision. “It is not equitable to transfer this billion dollar brand— the value of which is overwhelmingly the result of MGA’s legitimate efforts—because it may have started with two mis-appropriated names. The district court’s imposition of a constructive trust forcing MGA to hand over its sweat equity was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated. ” The Court pointed out that evebn the jury seemed to grasp this point when it awarded Mattel only $10 million, or about 1% of $1 billion it sought, because it found only a small portion of the Bratz dolls infringing.

The Court also took issue with the District Courts decision prior to trial, to find that Bryant’s employment agreement assigned his ideas to Mattel, and so instructed the jury. The Ninth Circuit judges however concluded that whilst the agreement could be interpreted to cover ideas, and a Mattel executive claimed during her deposition that it was common knowledge in the design industry that terms like “invention” and “design” did include employee ideas, the text doesn’t compel that reading and other Mattel employee contracts actually specified that ideas were covered.

Bryant’s 1999 employment agreement, which provides: “I agree to communicate to the Company as promptly and fully as practicable all inventions (as defined below) conceived or reduced to practice by me (alone or jointly by others) at any time during my employment by the Company. I hereby assign to the Company . . . all my right, title and interest in such inventions, and all my right, title and interest in any patents, copyrights, patent applications or copyright applications based thereon.” (Emphasis added.) The contract specifies that “the term ‘inventions’ includes, but is not limited to, all discoveries, improvements, processes, developments, designs, know-how, data computer programs and formulae, whether patentable or unpatentable.”

The court also found that the phrase “at any time during my employment” is ambiguous stating that it could easily refer to the entire calendar period Bryant worked for Mattel, including nights and weekends – or just working hours. The District court erred in deciding there was no ambiguity. It also erred in affording broad protection against substantially similar works to the original sculpt of the dolls; and whilst it didn’t err in affording the doll sketches broad copyright protection against substantially similar works, it did err in failing to filter out all the unprotectable elements of Bryant’s sketches – “Mattel can’t claim a monopoly over fashion dolls with a bratty look or attitude, or dolls sporting trendy clothing—these are all unprotectable ideas… This error was significant. Although substantial simi-
larity was the appropriate standard, a finding of substantial similarity between two works can’t be based on similarities in unprotectable elements. ”

The Court concluded ” On remand, Mattel will have to convince a jury that the agreement assigned Bryant’s preliminary sketches and sculpt, either because the agreement assigns works made outside the scope of employment or because these works weren’t made outside of Bryant’s employment. And, in order to justify a copyright injunction, Mattel will have to show that the Bratz sculpts are virtually identical to Bryant’s preliminary sculpt, or that the Bratz dolls are substantially similar to Bryant’s sketches disregarding similarities in unprotectable ideas.”

“Because several of the errors we have identified appeared in the jury instructions, it’s likely that a significant portion—if not all—of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated, and the entire case will need to be retried.”

This has always been an interesting case and it looks like we set for several more years of it. A reading of the judgment gives hope to both sides. The court doesn’t say that Mattel has lost the case, but more that the District Court ignored too many ambiguous aspects of the case, resulting in an overbroad finding against MGA.

Well it’s the funkalistic, / the blunt I twist it - Cypress Hill - ‘I wanna get High’

It’s not often that the right to go into a ‘coffee shop’ and spark up a joint comes before the courts, but at this very moment the judges at the European court of Justice are faced with just that question.

Advocate General (AG) Bot of the European Court of Justice has proposed the full court agree that the decision of the Dutch municipality of Maastricht to prohibit the admission to ‘coffee shops’ of anyone who is not a Dutch resident is legal. No, seriously, this is a real case.

Maastrict passed rules that reserved admission to the coffee shops to residents of the Netherlands only, and when one coffee shop owner, Mr Joseman got busted a couple of times for having non-residents in his shop – partaking of his wares – he was closed down –albeit temporarily. Mr Joseman decided to appeal against the decision and the Raad van State (Council of State, the Netherlands) decided to refer the question of whether European Union law precludes rules which prohibits admission to coffee shops of persons not resident in the Netherlands to the ECJ.

Mr Joseman argued that the ban on non-dutch customers was in conflict with the guarantee under the EU treaty on the free movement of services (Article 56 TFEU). The freedom prohibits restrictions on free circulation of services within Member States. Services are defined in the negative, “they are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.” (Art. 57 TFEU) Services include those activities of “a commercial character.”

However, aaccording the AG Bot drugs, including cannabis, are not goods like others and their sale does not benefit from the freedoms of movement guaranteed by European Union law, in as much as their sale is unlawful (though tolerated by the authorities in the Netherlands. Possession is, however, lawful). As such, he decided that the measure adopted by the municipality of Maastricht does not fall within the scope of the freedom to provide services – regardless of the fact that the coffee shop also sells coffee and cakes etc.

He also added that the Schengen Agreement between France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands which aimed to eliminate border checks between the countries also did not preclude the measures, especially as EU law allows Member States to determine measures necessary for maintaining public order within their borders and drug tourism represents a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public order in Maastricht, that the measure to exclude of non-residents from coffee shops is necessary to protect the residents of the municipality from trouble caused by that phenomenon.

This would be interesting if other dutch municipalities followed suit.

An Advocate General`s opinion is persuasive, but not binding on the ECJ, which will issue its judgment in due course.

There’s a stain on my notebook where your coffee cup was / And there’s ash in the pages - Squeeze ‘Coffee in Bed’

“So fuck the FCC / Fuck the FBI /Fuck the CIA / Livin in the motherfuckin USA” - Steve Earle – F the CC

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York has ruled that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) indecency policy is unconstitutionally vague and could create a chilling effect beyond “fleeting expletives” heard on broadcasts.

The case deals with an appeal by Fox (and several other broadcasters) against the FCC’s expansion of its rules – made in March 2004 - to deal with obscenity and indecency in Television (and the special addition of profanity as a separate category of proscribed speech under the law)

The same court, in 2005, ruled by 2-1 that that “the FCC’s new policy regarding “fleeting expletives” represents a significant departure from positions previously taken by the agency and relied on by the broadcast industry. We further find that the FCC has failed to articulate a reasoned basis for this change in policy. Accordingly, we hold that the FCC’s new policy regarding “fleeting expletives” is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The petition for review is therefore granted, the order of the FCC is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion”.

At that time the Court first pointed to the Supreme Court decision in Pacifica (1978) that the FCC could, consistent with the first amendment’s right to free speech, regulate indecent material, but emphasised the limited nature of the ruling saying it did not ’speak to cases involving the isolated use of a potentially offensive word in the course of a [radio] broadcast ‘

When the FCC reversed its initial decision not to sanction NBC for the broadcast of Bono saying “really fucking brilliant” at the 2003 Golden Globes the Commission it moved away from this position stating: “While prior Commission and staff have indicated that isolated or fleeting broadcasts of the “F-Word” such as that here are not indecent or would not be acted upon, consistent with our decision today we concluded that any such interpretation is no longer good law”

The 2nd Circuit argued ruled the FCC had failed to show why this was no longer good law and what had changed to warrant this new position on ’single’ fleeting expletives. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court who reversed this decision by a 5-4 margin stating that: “None of the Second Circuit’s grounds for finding the FCC’s action arbitrary and capricious is valid.
First, the FCC did not need empirical evidence proving that fleeting expletives constitute harmful “first blows” to children; it suffices to know that children mimic behaviour they observe. Second, the court of appeals’ finding that fidelity to the FCC’s “first blow” theory would require a categorical ban on all broadcasts of expletives is not responsive to the actual policy under review since the FCC has always evaluated the patent offensiveness of words and statements in relation to the context in which they were broadcast. The FCC’s decision to retain some discretion in less egregious cases does not invalidate its regulation of the broadcasts under review. Third, the FCC’s prediction that a per se exemption for fleeting expletives would lead to their increased use merits deference and makes entire sense.”

The Supreme Court however, refused to rule on the constitutionality of the rules, absent a ruling on that subject by the Second Circuit, so sent the case back to New York for examination of the constitutional issues. The 3 Judge panel has now done so an unanimously concluded “We now hold that the FCC’s policy violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here”.

What is an unconstitutionally vague law/rule? According to US law something is impermissibly vague if it does not “give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited” In this case the broadcaster argued the FCC’s indecency test was not one that made clear what was prohibited. They pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision to cut down the Communications Decency Act in Reno v ACLU where the law was found unconstitutionally vague with its use of general undefined terms such as ‘indecent’ and ‘patently offensive’, must also apply here where the identically used terms are applied.

The Court found there was additional guidance that meant the Reno decision in and of itself didn’t mean they should find against the FCC. However it did find the indecency policy impermissibly vague, pointing out that according the FCC ‘Bullshit’ – as used in an episode of NYPD Blue is indecent because it is ‘vulgar, graphic and explicit’, but ‘dickhead’ was not indecent because it was ‘not sufficiently vulgar, explicit, or graphic.’ No explanation is provided as to why, for example multiple occurrences of variants of the word ‘Fuck’ are not indecent and profane in Saving Private Ryan, but were in musical documentary The Blues.

The Court summed its vagueness argument by pointing to the FCC’s own lawyer during oral arguments whose answer to a question on whether a discussion programme dealing with the dangers of pre-matital sex aimed at teenagers would be permitted under the FCC rules replied ‘I suspect it would’. It followed this observation by listing programmes that had not been broadcast or rebroadcast and scripts that had been changed in fear of failing foul of the FCC rules.

The court concluded: ” the absence of reliable guidance in the FCC’s standards chills a vast amount of protected speech dealing with some of the most important and universal themes in art and literature. Sex and the magnetic power of sexual attraction are surely among the most predominant themes in the study of humanity since the Trojan War. The digestive system and excretion are also important areas of human attention. By prohibiting all “patently offensive” references to sex, sexual organs, and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what “patently offensive” means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive. To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster’s peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment.”

The FCC can appeal the ruling to either the full court of the 2nd Circuit or take the case back to the Supreme Court. It could also just choose the rewrite its indecency rules, and then – in all likihood – end up starting this process again with new challenges to its constitutionality. I feel it is unlikely to do the latter until a decision is handed down in a loosely related case being played out in the 3rd Circuit court in Philadelphia over the infamous 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, in which CBS broadcast the ‘wardrobe malfunction’ which saw one of Janet Jackson’s breasts was exposed for about half a millisecond. An appeal to the full 2nd Circuit and/or Supreme Court seems more likely, although in both cases I think the broadcasters will succeed.

“A good library will never be too neat, or too dusty, because somebody will always be in it, taking books off the shelves and staying up late reading them.” Lemony Snicket

I’ve writing so much about libraries recently that anyone coming across this blog might confuse me with a librarian. Oh, no, wait …

If nothing else Libraries do seem to be getting a bit of press and that can only be a good thing, right? Well, yes actually. Whilst they are only in the press again because our Libraries are facing their biggest challenge in many decades as a result of the economic situation the country finds itself in, this also proves a good opportunity for reiterating why they are an important part of our society ( ‘big’ or otherwise) and why it’s not just about books.

A couple of weeks ago new culture minister Ed ‘champion of libraries’ Vaizey set out where he see libraries playing a role in the ‘big society’, and an alliance of grass-roots library campaign groups joining together to launch a national Library Charter.

Let’s start with Mr Vaizey.

Like all good ministers he mainly talks a good talk. He declares that he wants to be a ‘champion’ for public libraries: “I am a genuine fan and I think others – in central and local government, and more members of the public, in fact – should recognise and exploit the potential of libraries.”

I think very few of us who have ever been involved in public libraries would disagree with this statement. This is the heart of the argument – not just highlighting the huge contribution libraries already contribute to our society but also exploring and exploiting the ‘potential’ of libraries to contribute even more. Indeed, Vaizey praises libraries successes “Almost 80% of 11-15 year olds visit a library and children’s borrowing continues to increase year on year. For many areas of the country there are tremendous success stories as library visits increase during the recession.” And yet cuts will mean these resources that are additionally relevant and helpful during economic downturns are going to be facing closure by councils across the country who’ll see them as an easy cost saving to meet their budget cut targets.

He continues: “I want libraries to be at the heart of the digital agenda, which is absolutely intrinsic to libraries’ information role.” It might have been an idea for the coalition government not to go back on funding recommendations from Labour’s Public Library Modernisation Review, in particular the promise to make an affirmative order , under section 8(2)(b) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, to preventing libraries from charging for internet access. If you care about the digital agenda and the digital divide then surely guaranteeing free internet access to all library uses, and providing the only internet access to many of the poorer members of our society – young and old – should be central in this digital agenda ? And let’s not forget this is the government that are also committed to connecting the whole country to ’superfast broadband’. If you don’t have any computer to start with, this isn’t an issue.

Of course by not introducing the affirmative order this allows councils to either re-start charging or increase charging for internet access as a means of income generation to perhaps keep libraries open or to finance other services.

Vaizey is also keen on Co-location ideas. ” Co-location arrangements are bringing many libraries even closer to other public services, be it job centres, primary care trusts or cultural organisations.”

Actually, I don’t think libraries should necessarily fear this idea. Many already help to provide access to education, public health, and employment advice and resources so more official ties in some instances could be positive move. Of course people will also mention private co-location tie ups too, and the much trotted out ’starbucks’ idea. Again, I think it is narrow minded to just dismiss this out of hand. Whilst I don’t think every library needs (or wants) a coffee shop attached to it, in some instances I don’t see why it couldn’t work. I remember when I worked for Swansea Libraries 15 years ago, all the staff were quite keen on the idea of a coffee shop as part of the library building. It seems it is just a matter of who is running it that get’s some people’s backs up.

Similarly Vaizey points to the George and Dragon pub in North Yorkshire. “[It] is now delivering a library service and a pint to the community in Hudswell. That sounds like a good partnership to me.” Those living in Ireland will long be familiar with the concept of pubs and other shops effectively co-locating – most often pubs and grocers/convenience stores. In smaller communities it works well. Whilst it should not be a one size fits all approach, we should not turn our backs on new ways of delivering our services, just as long as the service and the purpose of the service is not sacrificed along the way.

Vaisey also says we need to ask tough questions, like “whether there is scope for savings in reducing the number of library authorities through voluntary alliances.” That’s tight the party who hates central government and centralisation wants to encourage a bit less de-centralisation for library authorities.

That said, Vaizey seems genuine enough, to me. But as we all know, talk is cheap. So it is all very well saying he’s going to be a champion for public libraries, but if he oversees the largest closure programme of public libraries across the country his words will be hollow.

[TV SHOW IDEA: Co-location, Co-location, Co-location : Viewers propose a local library and Channel 4 get Kirstie Allsopp and Phil Spencer to come in and offer use a choice of potential co-habitors? Please send my share of the syndication rights to …]

You were allowed to read and comment on Mr Vaizey’s speech at the DCMS site, until the 8th July ( A whole week after publication). Marvellous. Annoyingly if you just want to read the speech normally there didn’t seem to be a version of the speech you could just read in one doc/page. The ONLY way to read this speech seems to be via the format set up for commenting, at ‘writetoreply’ which I find annoying. (this link no longer seems to work for me either). Sadly, unlike on the TWFY site, the speech is not all on one page but broken up.

In fact, whilst we are on the topic, the DCMS seem to have removed the ministers ’speeches’ section from their site altogether which was always useful for, you know, reading the speeches of their Ministers.

Meanwhile, the same Day Ed was waxing lyrical, the Library campaign also launched their 12 point Charter. According to them “The essential value of public libraries needs to be reinforced at both local and national level and a focused effort must be made to see libraries fulfil their role and maintain their relevance for generations to come. ”

To achieve this?

1. Make the libraries local
2. Increase opening hours
3. Improve library collections
4. Improve the library environment
5. Embrace technology
6. Liberate the library staff
7. Collaborate and share best practice
8. Don’t waste money
9. Performance feedback
10. Engage individuals and communities
11. Don’t close libraries
12. Make and keep a promise

Go back 30 years or more and you really could have been looking at the same list. To be fair each of these ideas was fleshed out a bit, but I was still left slightly disappointed that this was the best we could come up with. Maybe the problem is just that we haven’t really made enough progress in the last 20-30 years in addressing these issues? In point 12 of the charter - Make and keep a promise - it calls on Public library users call upon councils to commit themselves to achieving the aims of this charter. This looks set to be tested, especially in relation to point 11. Don’t Close libraries.

Where I live in Lewisham, the council is set to vote on proposal this week that will see it target £830,000 of saving in the Library budget, most to be achieved by closing five libraries: Sydenham, Blackheath, Crofton Park, Grove Park and New Cross. For Blackheath and Grove Park this will seem like déjà vu as both were earmarked for closure along-side Manor House Library back in 1999 – when all survived. [It was a Labour controlled council in 1999 as it is now, only then we also had a Labour government]

According to the proposal “Service co-location, community management and asset transfer are all being considered as part of these proposals… This work is being undertaken jointly with Property Services. It should be noted that the existing lease on Blackheath Library runs until Jan 2013. We will be looking at an alternative use for the facility in the interim. ”

One thing is for sure, if Lewisham is looking at closing Libraries as part of their cost cutting so will London’s other 32 councils. If they all followed suit 33×5 . It would see 165 libraries facing closure, which based on figures from the MLA would mean that almost half of the capitals current 385 Libraries could potentially be facing the axe this year, if others followed Lewisham’s lead. Once closed, libraries rarely re-open.

Of course, in Blackheath, earlier this year the Blackheath Society – tasked with protecting the village - was hawking a plan to knock the library down to create at piazza in the ‘heath although their plans did include a new library in the redevelopment that would have seen more flats built, but parking space in the ‘heath decreased.

Crofton Park are looking to form a Friends and Users Group to try and fight their proposed closure.

Ian Clark, has written a very good piece over at the Guardian site explaining why Libraries are still needed in today’s society.

“I’ve got a vendetta to destroy the Net, to make everyone go to the library. I love the organic thing of pen and paper, ink on canvas. I love going down to the library, the feel and smell of books. ” Joseph Fiennes

What is clear is that, those of us in the library profession need to make ourselves heard more, as do those who are supposed to represent our interests – such as CILIP.

With this in mind Phil Bradley has come out (no, not in that way) and announced he will be standing for vice-president of CILIP in the upcoming autumn elections, which also includes elections to the council. I think Phil would be good for CILIP. He has an understanding of the various strands of the profession, the importance of education, an openness to trying new technology to see how it might help improve the work of librarians, and in delivering services to patrons – public and private, and most of all he has a belief that the profession needs a strong advocate, and one that is not hidden from sight.

Because of this, and the economic situation we find ourselves in, I think these council elections could be the most important ones we have had in many years. Hopefully a wide range of new people will put themselves forward for the council – people with a drive and a vision to re-unite CILIP and give it the renewed focus that many of us think it lacks – be they those who think it is obsessed only with public libraries, those who think it can’t see further north than Watford, those who wonder if it even remembers it’s meant to represent Information Scientists as well as librarians, those who question the relevance of Chartership, and those who think that it is always behind rather than ahead of the curve with new technology.

This is not to say there are not many fine people in CILIP andcurrently involved in its running but it is no longer good enough to have an organisation that is afraid to take public stands on things on principle without worrying that it might annoy some of its own members – for example in relation to proposed cuts and closures, where some of its members may also be the ones that have to implement any such changes.

I’m not going to run for council myself – as I don’t think I could give it the time or do it justice - but I will support any candidates that want to help turn CILIP into an organisation that I’d want to join again. If that’s you, you have my vote.

(On libraries) “What’s great about them is that anybody can go into them and find a book and borrow it free of charge and read it. They don’t have to steal it from a bookshop… You know when you’re young, you’re growing up, they’re almost sexually exciting places because books are powerhouses of knowledge, and therefore they’re kind of slightly dark and dangerous. You see books that kind of make you go ‘Oh!’” Stephen Fry Room 101 (2001)

Checking through my feeds and shared items this morning I came across an item on libraries shared by a friend that seemed to promise bad reporting and calls to close libraries down. Better still, it was from Fox News. I was suddenly smiling, pleased to see that over in America the same quality of investigation is available on the subject of the future and worth of libraries as we saw recently from KPMG. I read on.

Boing Boing had linked to a piece by Chicago Fox news affiliate on Libraries apparently ‘ proposing that Illinois shut down its library system’, indeed the piece on Boing Boing is titled: ‘Fox Advocates Shutting Down Public Libraries’ Fox News eh. Typical. However, then I follow the link to the story; read the text of the story which starts ‘ They eat up millions of your hard earned tax dollars. It’s money that could be used to keep your child’s school running. So with the internet and e-books, do we really need millions for libraries?’ and then watched the actual broadcast story (See below: which lasts almost 6 minutes)

You know what? Boing Boing and Cory Doctorow are totally misrepresenting the story. Misrepresenting Fox News. Seriously, can you sink lower than that? Nowhere in this news piece do Fox ,as a company, or their reporter Anna Davlantes advocate shutting down public libraries. Nice attention grabbing headline, but it is in fact, a LIE.

If you actually WATCH the piece, it sets out to debate the question of ‘do we still need public libraries’

It looks at the situation is Chicago, and asks the question of whether the $120 million a year that goes to the libraries would be better spent on education, the transport authority, the police etc. What they don’t say is, yes we should. In fact the balance of the whole piece is the opposite. Yes there are some vox pops of people saying they don’t use a library but there are also ones saying how important it is to them.

Indeed reporter Anna Davlantes states :”There are 799 illinois public libraries, and boy do we use them.”

They then speak to Andrea Telli from Chicago Public Libraries who says that they are ‘busy, busy, busy’ and that visits and circulation both on the rise.

Fox do send an undercover team to the city’s main library, the Harold Washington Library in the Loop, which they say boasts 5,000 visitors a day [actually if you are ever in Chicago, it is well worth a visit]. I’ll admit this is the one really really bad bit of journalism in the piece, where they tell us they were there for an hour and reckoned about 300 people came in and most of them were there to use the free internet access, not browse the bookshelves. It added nothing to the debate and should have been edited out of the piece.

There is also a studio discussion featuring Denise Zielinski (Dupage Library System) and Jim Tobin (National Taxpapyers United, Illinois). Tobin makes clear he wants to see cuts across all public spending not just on libraries – although he is a man who thinks the internet has ‘pretty much made libraries obsolete’ (and says he argued the same 30 years ago when paperbacks started being mass produced. No, really.)

And finally, the piece ends with some viewer comments all of which are pro-libraries.

But don’t take my word for it – watch it yourselves. Who’s being more honest, Fox or Boing Boing?

I should also say that there is some great pro-library comments on the written piece, although again I would say that I feel Ms Davlantes is unfairly criticised, and would question whether all those commenting actually watched the piece.