Save Marcus Garvey Library!

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 28, 2015 at 17:13

Alternatives?  What about the Town Hall, just because they have sold it doesn't mean they can't rent space there for much less than £3m. Then move back into rebuilt CS centre in ApexTower, or into whatever other Landmark they will have created by demolishing council houses nearby.

Or a radical solution - they work with the WCCC to restore the Wards Corner building, move the Apex staff into that (twenty yards away).  Possibly build one Apex floor of the threatened 22 as a new Customer Services centre, and move back into that when done, thus freeing the Wards building for its true purpose, a space for arts and small retailers and a decent restaurant.

The stuff about making Tottnm Green 'the new civic heart' will not be noticed by most of Tottnm's 115,000 who will just use each bit of space for whatever purpose. I don't care where I go to get my parking permit, as long as I can walk there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 28, 2015 at 17:46

They claim to have researched other options but not anything as radical as you've suggested. They've long had libraries in their sights remodelled on the hub model. You don't have to close a library building ( a vote loser) to kill a library - you just hollow them out until they're "a few books in the corner" and the primary purpose of the building is doing business with the council. But hey, they've kept the "libraries" open...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 28, 2015 at 17:47

PS Using the Town Hall would also re-introduce its use to those who live here, who don't otherwise get to see what a fabulous place it is and could even bring back some of that civic pride that has been a bit eroded lately. Slabby towers won't do that, despite the architects' belief in the magic powers of 'great design'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on August 15, 2015 at 6:38

they don't really understand what a library is or what a librarian does

Yes, I recognise this. The library services waned terribly in the late 1990s: it was attached to sport, then the service came under the Chief Executive. Then it waxed during a period of greater regard under new leadership. My local library Stroud Green & Harringay was refurbished.

Now, there are worrying signs at Tottenham's main library.

The most obvious indication are the signs:  "Library" is smaller and subsidiary to the wording of the privately-run leisure centre. Why did the Council allow this?

The injection of Apex House into Marcus Garvey will diminish the library functions. One suspects that the Council now regards libraries in the same way as they now view our parks: as non-performing – or under-performing assets.

I note the plans for Marcus Garvey include two parking ticket vending machines inside the library. Library users for some time have been described as "customers", reflecting the accepted newspeak.

Libraries should be seen as an adjunct to education (especially where study and reading at home is difficult) and as an opportunity for life-long learning.

The Council should call a halt to the start of the extended closure and perform a meaningful public consultation (rather than worthless engagement-announcment).

CDC; Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
(spokesman on Libraries)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 29, 2015 at 15:29

One feature of the way this Council regime operates is by "selling" its proposals in Orwellian Newspeak. 

The practice isn't confined to Haringey, of course. Years ago I always smiled when notices appeared on busstops just before the New Year, announcing "new" or "adjusted" fares. I assumed everyone knew this was a bad joke - a sort of reverse Christmas present - because it meant higher fares.

But I felt a need to complain formally in 2009 when notices appeared on lampposts in my street announcing: "New parking signs and lines"; and "Parking signs and road markings have been programmed to be upgraded".  It was almost entirely lies. The real reason for the work was to repaint  faded lines and to correct  many hundreds of lines which were unlawful because the were wrongly painted. (My complaint was simply ignored.)

Since then Haringey Newspeak has firmly taken hold and may be heading for epidemic levels. And the stream of propaganda is ceaseless as Haringey's so-called Communications Team seems to have stopped even pretending to follow the Recommended Code of Practice for Local Authority Publicity. There's also an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum. (Both these links download a pdf file.)

At the Marcus Garvey Library "information" event I attended on 27 March there was a four-page leaflet pinned to a notice board; with a stack of copies next to it. (If you can find the text on the Council's website please post the link.)  In my view, each  line of it contradicts what the Code of Practice sets out. For example, paragraph 2.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum reads:

"The principle of objectivity requires local authority publicity to be politically impartial. The Publicity Code acknowledges that a council has to be able to explain its decisions and justify its policies, but  this should not be done in a way that can be perceived as a political statement or a commentary on  contentious areas of public policy."

Instead Haringey staff act as the uncritical mouthpiece of the Kober regime. Is the plan to demolish Apex House; move its services; and reduce space in the Marcus Harvey library contentious?  Sure!  Are public service cuts uncontentious just weeks before the General Election when the campaign is firmly underway?  Hardly!  In any case, Paragraph 2.10 sets this out:

Finally, the principle that local authority publicity should be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity gives guidance as to how local authority publicity should be treated during period of elections and referendums, both national and local.

Impartiality and objectivity aren't just principles for council communication staff.  This should be how local government staff "do business".  And especially how we should all approach uncertain situations: where there are genuine doubts; conflicting evidence; and opposed or divergent views. And doesn't it also require a willingness to listen to and properly consider opposing views to our own?  In particular by powerful decision makers whose plans will impact on people's lives and futures?

Page four of the leaflet in Marcus Garvey is headed "Myth Busters".  It sets out in bold five so-called "myths" which it then answers with "Facts".

Here's how the Oxford English Dictionary defines "myth". 

1. A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
2. A widely held but false belief or idea.
3. A fictitious or imaginary person or thing.
4. An exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing:

So what does that say about people with genuine doubts and concerns about the plans for Marcus Garvey and other libraries?  Respecting and carefully weighing their concerns? Showing willingness to listen to and properly consider what they say?

In effect , the Council's 'fact sheet' says: "Sorry guys. We're dismissing in advance what you think. because it's  irrational; false; fictitious or imaginary; and based on an exaggerated or idealised conception. We're right and you're wrong. This is gonna happen. Get over it. Exsultate, jubilate."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 29, 2015 at 18:41

IIRC this is one of the model One Stop Shop/Library mashups that Cllr Arthur told us was one of the places he researched and was so impressed by.  Barking+Dagenham. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 29, 2015 at 23:13

To be fair, the newspaper report was in 2012. So before we criticise Jason, let's give him credit for at least doing some qualitative research visits. (Genchi Genbutsu  - Go to the actual place - as I've often suggested.)

This would appear unusual with our councillors. They seem reluctant - to the point of wilful learned ignorance - to seek out and engage with a variety of views and evidence. 

So checking back with Jason, I've just sent these tweets.

From ‏@AlanStanton_ 

@Jason_Arthur Pam Isherwood says you researched libraries before choosing the model you wanted http://www.harringayonline.com/xn/detail/844301:Comment:738482 … @elkiedee @lizIxer 1/2

@Jason_Arthur - I assume you'd be happy to share the list of your visits so people can repeat your research. @elkiedee @lizixer 2/2

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on March 29, 2015 at 23:20

He told us of at least two, both eastwards IIRC.  Didn't make notes.

Slap my wrist for old references, I do try to be more careful. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 30, 2015 at 1:03

Well, let's start by expecting the best and assuming Jason Arthur will soon tell us. I don't think he's yet caught the Haringey secrecy disease.

But if not, someone can simply send in a Freedom of Information Act question via the free website WhatDoTheyKnow.  Which would be sad.  Because every time someone has to do that; and every time this Council tries to block the request by further obfuscation, it publicly shows its true colours.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on April 1, 2015 at 12:21

On the Council's website on a page dated yesterday Tuesday 31 March 2015, Haringey have now set out their version of the Library plans. In the way Haringey's publicity machine now operates, almost every aspect of this plan is described in glowing positive terms. The words and phrases used include:

"refurbish" ... "extra services" ... "enjoying the already popular full range of library services and activities"... "trigger a range of library improvements and investment" ... "upgrade Hornsey Library and all community libraries from next year"... "using the space better"...  "no reduction to the library services on offer".  And so on.

So where does Apex House come in? The building to be demolished leading to its services and staff being moved? The webpage has a single line: "It is an ageing building which is being redeveloped to make way for much-needed housing". (My comment: Almost certainly unaffordable by the people who are in greatest housing need.)

Underlying these upbeat Library plans, are there any problems? Some tensions? Conflicts?  Job losses? Any alternative points of view to be reported - as required by a balanced local council publicity machine? Apparently there are none. Do the plans risk a hollowed-out service and a negative change in the status and skills of library staff, as Liz Ixer suggested?  Nothing about that either.

In fact there's not a word about any of that gritty, truthful, strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats  stuff.  Instead, just a warm cuddly invitation to a shining future of libraries full of sunshine and roses in the London Borough of Eden.

Please read it for yourself. You may or may not agree with me.

My personal view is that this version of the facts is a biased and ethically empty disgrace.

I also suspect it breaches the Code of Practice governing Local Authority publicity.

If I'm right, that's serious at any time. But we are now in the so-called "Purdah" period during the General Election Campaign. So it becomes a flagrant breach. Council staff should not be taking part in what seems a one-sided propaganda exercise. What's on the webpage is not neutral information, something like how to report potholes, or encouraging recycling. Or any of the wide range of ordinary, non-contentious, 'bread-and-butter' services that continue to operate - elections or not.

A really sad thing about this publicity campaign is that if our council was led by people who took care always to give the accurate and complete picture, there is a different, truthful, painful, but still positive story to tell on the website. And in the publicity leaflets and display panels. It would be a story about public services and the public service ethos; about the value of public libraries. At  time when all this is under remorseless attack. And about coming to terms with the changes in that service - not just in Haringey but across the UK and in other countries.

Instead in our borough, we have a debased political culture which 'spins' as it breathes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on September 2, 2015 at 11:19

Alan,

"refurbish" ... "extra services" ... "enjoying the already popular full range of library services and activities"... "trigger a range of library improvements and investment" ... "upgrade Hornsey Library and all community libraries from next year"... "using the space better"...  "no reduction to the library services on offer".  And so on.

It's a pack of misleading and and a tissue of distortion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on September 2, 2015 at 12:31

But, Clive, let me add a serious reservation.  Which I don't expect you to agree with. At least not publicly.  And which the LibDem propaganda machine won't tweet.

The 'But' is that the debased political culture I wrote about in April was no less prevalent among the LibDems.

Spinning-for-Kober is no better and no worse than LibDem Spinning-for-Lynne.

It's hardly any better when opinions on both sides of a political debate appear rigid, closed and impervious to rational argument and  evidence.

Each formed, it appears, in small echo-chambers of like-minded people, meeting together for mutual self-congratulation

But I agree, right now our problem is that we have rampant Kobfuscation.

Here are some tweets from Claire Kober back in January. As usual she was entirely right - everyone else got it wrong.

Interesting as well that even then SaveTottLibrary were asking - quite reasonably - when proper consultation would take place.

(Click on the image to enlarge.)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page