August 7, 2011
No more Xenophobia
Everybody in the library world gets very cross about LSSI, which is the American firm that operates a small company to run public libraries.
When they are given the chance LSSI tries to cut needless overhead and direct the resources granted to the library service in the direction of providing a better managed and better quality service. Because they are a private commercial company, with owners and investors in place of government grants, they need to operate at a profit; otherwise they would close.
I haven't seen any of their library operations, but I have met the people involved, both the Americans, and Stuart Fitzgerald, who represents the company in the UK from his office in Liverpool. They all seem perfectly sensible and reasonably experienced people and much of what they say and attempt to do, seems totally right to me.
Over here they are described as if they all had three horns and puffed smoke from their noses. That is ridiculous and amounts to bigotry and xenophobia.
The public library service needs improved management- and if these guys are offering to provide that, they are in marked contrast to the public operations of national and local government here - and indeed the meandering so called library profession, which has about as much understanding of and takes as much interest in good management as Albert Steptoe did.
English people can be as daft as Americans, I think - it doesn't go with the nationality. Please- such name-calling ill-becomes a worthy campaign.
Shock horror- the Americans allow English people to work in their country, you know
Incidentally, the US public library service is something to behold. Book reading per head of population is greater than here and has grown in the last decade in marked contrast to the falls we have seen here. ... it would be interesting to analyse the reasons why.
Posted by Perkins at August 7, 2011 9:13 AM
Do you have any examples of this bigotry and xenophobia? There's no need for that in library campaigning.
Posted by: Ian at August 7, 2011 10:03 AM
I think you'll find LSSI are as mistrusted in the US as they are by British library campaigners, which suggests that labelling their British critics as xenophobes is not accurate.
The website Stop the privatisation of UK Public Libraries documents the experiences of both British and American campaigns.
Posted by: Tom Roper at August 7, 2011 10:43 AM
Yes, Ian, - the comments, widely made, about LSSI.
Posted by: perkins at August 7, 2011 10:53 AM
I am disappointed to read this. I am not anti-American (was resident there for several years), but many would not welcome "for profit" companies from the UK or abroad taking over our public library service, for reasons that have been explained quite fully and intelligently; well enough to satisfy me, anyway. The use of such emotive language as "bigotry" and "xenophobia" does not, to me, seem either fair or particularly helpful under the circumstances.
Posted by: Shirley Burnham at August 7, 2011 11:03 AM
Tim - where? I've looked around and can't see anything apart from concerns raised by library users in America and some questioning of their methods. Can't find anything attacking them for their nationality though. Do you have any links to such suggestions?
Posted by: Ian at August 7, 2011 11:05 AM
So - who is going to improve the UK public library service?
Will it be the minister? the councils? the profession? The chinese? Who?
Are we going to resist all suggestions?
Do we go on for another five years whingeing about 'cuts' and 'privatisations' and 'volunteers' -objecting to everything - because the cuts are going to go on and on.
Who is going to get a grip on things? Or shall we just let the whole thing decline totally?
Posted by: perkins at August 7, 2011 11:09 AM
We will NOT roll over and go for privatisation (with or without a 'z') merely because we have no stomach for insisting that the Minister responsible for the public library service performs his statutory duties properly.
So reluctant are some that from time to time a "nobody" is asked to write a critical comment on an article because more prominent people prefer not to offend. It is quite ridiculous.
One cannot be a defender of libraries and then sup with those who seek to destroy them. "Stand up!" all you people who are closer to, or IN the 'establishment' and tell Mr Vaizey face to face that he's reigning over a disaster. Risk becoming a pariah, what the hell does it matter ? Pass that message on to all the men and women in suits please, Perkins, so that it's in their in-box or on their wretched Twitter tomorrow.
Posted by: Shirley Burnham at August 7, 2011 11:56 AM
We don't agree - this is not about 'private' versus 'public' . It is about good management or bad management. If LSSI are unsuitable it is because they will manage libraries badly and waste public money- not because they are a private company or because they are Americans
I don't like the political dogmatism that distinguishes private management from public management- I only recognise good from bad. In the end, in both, people want to be paid. It doesn't make any difference who owns them- it is ancient political claptrap that highlights the difference. Why shouldn't the libraries in Croydon or Swindon be run by managment who pay them from their own bank account? - in my view they might be a lot better libraries than those that are there now
And Ian, I am pleased for that you can't see either Xenophobia or Bigotry in what is written about LSSI, most of it, but I can, and I don't like it
Posted by: perkins at August 7, 2011 12:47 PM
To return to my request that Perkins ask those people close to or IN the 'establishment' to insist that Mr Vaizey do his job properly -- Is there a reluctance to do so because of putting gongs in jeopardy, or what ? What is the barrier ? Humour me. Let's see if any of them move their posteriors.
On the other matter, I do not think Swindon would benefit from LSSI, nor would the firm's shareholders -- there's not money to be made from our libraries (that's why they are a public service) but there is money to be made from entering into contracts with councils. I've that on good authority from a Consultant. It's a superb gravy train.
Posted by: Shirley Burnham at August 7, 2011 1:08 PM
Shirley. Why ask ~Perkins to do that? You know was well as I do that no one in the Minister's office or in any 'establishment' listens to, or has ever listened to what I say. Why ask me to waste my brains on them. They are not worth the bother.
But that doesn't mean that the problem of libraries isn't still there. Of course it is.
What I mean is that someone has to do something concrete and positive. All the complaining is getting us nowhere. I'm getting close to the James Christie position. March on Hexham etc
And as for LSSI, you know very little about them,. I hold no candle for them at all, but if I were them, I would be distressed at why you constantly feel able to say such extraordinarily rude things about them, without even meeting the people first. People strive to earn a living - and that doesn't entitle other people to abuse them.
Posted by: perkins at August 7, 2011 1:27 PM
I do not recall being rude to Mr Fitzgerald personally. Mr Vaizey, too, is probably a nice man and well-liked by people who know him. However, the positions people occupy and the agendas they pursue will lay them open to criticism as well as praise. If they did not occupy such positions I would have no interest in them at all.
Posted by: Shirley Burnham at August 7, 2011 2:14 PM
"People strive to earn a living - and that doesn't entitle other people to abuse them." Unless of course they are librarians?
Posted by: Member of the "so called profession at August 7, 2011 2:24 PM
"I would be distressed at why you constantly feel able to say such extraordinarily rude things about them, without even meeting the people first. People strive to earn a living - and that doesn't entitle other people to abuse them"
Extraordinarily hypocritical Tim! Shame you do not give the same consideration to librarians and the distress you cause them by repeatedly making sweeping statements that put down the whole of the profession, without having met many of the people working hard within it. You do not spare a thought for them so why be so wounded about criticism of LSSI?
I echo Ian's request for some references of where you have seen "bigotry" and "xenophobia". I too am opposed to both, and if any of it features somewhere in the criticism of LSSI I would like to see where it is so I too can express my dislike of it.
Oh and Shirley. I totally agree with you. I also can not find any evidence of "rudeness" or abuse" in anything you have said.
Posted by: Jo at August 7, 2011 2:33 PM
It's only ever the public library professionals in the UK I criticise. Not professional librarians in other specialisms or other countries.
Shirley. The position of Stuart Fitzgerald and Ed Vaizey are completely different. Ed Vaizey is elected and a minister. Stuart is a bloke paid to try and persuade councils to try out the work of the firm who employs him. He has no record other than of doing that politely and responsibly. He can't answer your public observations about his firm- because he has no public platform. He has to stay silent and so he should.
I actually have no idea whether LSSI would do a good job or not in any council - but there are occasions when I feel sorry for them, because they have tried hard to get a fair hearing, and all they can be certain of is that, when their name is mentioned, they will come in for a load of abuse, most of which is totally unreasonable and political.
Privately operated management of the library service is an option we ought to be allowed to consider. I say that simply because the public management of them has and continues to be so poor that it is driving them out of existence.
i criticise the public library profession, with its leaders and its chief librarians, because it falls to them to create some constructive improvement. At present I see no attempt to do that, other than to complain about closures. I think they should be doing much more.
Posted by: perkins at August 7, 2011 3:55 PM
"I would be distressed at why you constantly feel able to say such extraordinarily rude things about them, without even meeting the people first. People strive to earn a living - and that doesn't entitle other people to abuse them"
Public servants in DCMS and MLA who are just doing their jobs as they are required to by law are fair game for abuse however? They also have no recourse to a public platforms, despite what the author of this blog and and contributors to the comments think. Yet they are routinely abused in the most vitriolic of terms, even when some of them face the dole queue, shattered careers and the loss of family homes.
Posted by: Public Servant at August 7, 2011 4:07 PM
Now we have an unhappy 'public servant' who seeks to defend the behaviour of the DCMS and MLA in respect of their conduct of public libraries in the past few years.
If ever there were candidates for the stock and bad tomatoes, it is those officials in these two departments who have left the service in ruins. Whinge away. There is no sympathy here. I just think you should hand back the wages you drew.
Posted by: perkins at August 7, 2011 6:23 PM
It was only on the 11th of June that this report was published about your meeting with campaigners in Croydon. Has something drastically changed since then ? http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Message-clear-Labour-s-open-meeting/story-12747932-detail/story.html
Perkins, the people I feel sorry for are the ordinary members of the library-using public who are constantly being sold pups by DCMS and the MLA. Look, LSSI is a business not an underdog being trampled under the feet of government. A company can make widgets, but it should not complain if some people don't want to buy them and say so.
You will disagree, but I'm darn sure the main thing that is driving the library service out of existence is a longstanding mindset in Westminster and Whitehall that proper libraries are of no value: currently Ed Vaizey and Jeremy Hunt, and prior to them the equally destructive Margaret Hodge and that crew.
In earlier posts I was not saying Perkins should tug the ear of Mr Vaizey. I hoped she would ask her influential friends in publishing and the trade, even in councils, who have made statements in the past in support of libraries [but who have now vanished into the shadows] to form a powerful lobby. They have left good people like Johanna high and dry and should be ashamed.
Please please don't start the slanging match over librarians again. The polar bear is at the door of the tent. Bitterness about the past is pointless. It is now that matters. Ignore the bad eggs, unite all the good eggs, and sock the wretched bears in the eye [We're not allowed to shoot 'em]
Posted by: Shirley Burnham at August 7, 2011 6:38 PM
I'll tell you one thing that's happened in the past few weeks. I was approached by a medium size council with a generous library budget in which the council have asked the library service to find an extremely modest saving in the next budget round. The Chief Librarian, who is one of those most well known in the country, who parades himself with authority, has told the councillors that the only way the savings can be met is be drastic reductions in hours, the introduction of volunteers, fall in the book fund etc. The councillors know no better and say they depend on him to run the service.
Already (in August) there are nonsensical 'consultations' asking people whether they would give up their library service or their grannies.
It is complete rubbish- there is no need to cut anything, in fact there is an abundance of spending of a kind that most councils, like Gloucester or Doncaster would die for. Yet we have a librarian leading the whole round of disaster all over again.
So we have to go into battle- (don't imagine for one minute that anyone will pay for this) but councillors have to have elementary finances and spread sheets explained to them at secret meetings, positions will be taken and the winter will be long and hard. All because the chief libraian- here as in so many other places- wants to protect his empire in his office - and his 'capacity' for coping with councillors
It is all total rubbish - and we have a choice of three years fighting - or hand the whole thing over to someone who can manage it better
Of course it is nonsense to hand it to a private company- but my goodness, with chief librarianss,overpaid and opinionated like we have, the idea is very tempting.
Posted by: perkins at August 7, 2011 6:58 PM
Mr Coates. You fail to understand how public service works, as evidenced in numerous posts on this blog over a number of years. You also fail to deal in common decency, as evidenced by your dismissive attitude towards those who have lost their jobs, and the hardships that they are their families are going through.
Every now and again you say something with sense in it, but it is lost in the vitriol and the bile, and the sheer lack of common decency, which I hope arises from ignorance alone.
And you wonder why no one listens to you?
Posted by: Public Servant at August 7, 2011 7:15 PM
Ms Public Servant. I care very little how much public servants listen to what I say, but I do know how public service works. It works only for the interests of public servants and very little for the public benefit.
It concerns me however to recall that, in the matter of public libraries in the last year, in the case of Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset, Leeds, Warwickshire, Brent and Lewisham - in my view- in all these cases, which have turned out to be the most difficult and most entrenched, it was the chief librarians who proposed the cutbacks.
That means that while we blame councillors, Ed Vaizey, the LGA, Roy Clare and lots of others- for not correcting the actions that were being taken, the actions in the first place were proposed - it appears to me- by the librarians whose job it was to advise the councils how to address their budget issues.
Nobody likes me saying that, Ms Public Servant- but I said it before the year began -in fact I have been saying it for years. It is the chief librarians who believe collectively that we do not need small community libraries.
Until swe sort that out, they will continue to advise councils that libraries should be closed, and libraries will indeed shut down. For ever.
Posted by: perkins at August 7, 2011 8:19 PM
I, like Shirley, read every single news article on UK libraries available online. I would say that, although, there is a kernel of truth in what you say (Indeed, I have written "There is also some disquiet, unarguably present regardless about what one thinks of its trace of xenophobia, about an American company taking over a British local government service" on the link quoted below) the over-riding concerns about privatising libraries have absolutely nothing to do with LSSI being American.
There is a very strong feeling that privatisation has no place in public libraries. For many, they see the reasoning, instinctively, contained in the very words "public" library.
LSSI has the highest public profile for a private library company in the world. It is also attracting attention, presumably, because they have gone on record as wanting to run 15% of UK library services, and that they are extremely controversial in the USA.
Please see the page http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/p/privatized-and-volunteer-libraries.html for a full analysis of the issue, including the positive aspects.
Posted by: Ian Anstice at August 7, 2011 10:14 PM
By playing devil's advocate, Perkins has made a valid point which should be taken up even by those who do not agree with her : chief librarians are, indeed, advising councils that small community libraries should be closed, divested or otherwise wrecked. This is NOT a new thing, by the way. And they are still doing it ! Now, that's not the whole profession, but it's those at the top of it. Do hard-working library assistants and librarians agree with it ? No, they most likely don't, but are gagged. I wish that even one individual in the SCL who disapproves would speak up, that CILIP would publicly condemn it, that UNISON would recognise and address it -- as it affects their members livelihoods. No-one has ever said a dicky-bird about it, except Perkins, mostly because she's a cat and eats birds for breakfast.
Posted by: Shirley Burnham at August 8, 2011 6:24 AM
"It's only ever the public library professionals in the UK I criticise. Not professional librarians in other specialisms or other countries."
I am well aware of who it is you criticize Tim. The fact is you make sweeping statements about the hard work of a whole group of people, many of whom you have never met. You cause distress to these people by frequently attacking them, so forgive me if I see this concern for LSSI as crocodile tears. You are still being a hypocrite.
In this very post you say and "indeed the meandering so called library profession" that is clearly a sweeping attack. Attacks similar to those you are accusing people of here, which incidentally you have still failed to provide any references for.
And you are also not entirely correct on this,
"I criticise the public library profession, with its leaders and its chief librarians, because it falls to them to create some constructive improvement. At present I see no attempt to do that, other than to complain about closures. I think they should be doing much more"
I could agree with some of the points you make if you did not make them in such a derogatory, sweeping way. You criticize public librarians for not being constructive but fail to put your arguments across in a constructive way yourself choosing instead to rile people with unsubstantiated accusations of xenophobia and bigotry - both of which I consider serious accusations not to be made lightly
You clearly have no idea what has been going on in Glos - which has been very publicly shouted about. There has been relentless work by public librarians, who have not been just "complaining about closures", but have done a whole lot more - have offered to look at alternatives, have travelled to see the DCMS in London looking for a constructive solution and have been ignored as it does not fit in with the government's or local authorities agenda.
Ali G sprang to mind when I read this post. "Is it cos I is black?"
Posted by: JoJo at August 8, 2011 9:28 AM
I follow what you have done and achieved in Gloucestershire with total admiration. You, and your colleagues and friends, have done a wonderful job. There is no question about that. I would, and do, sing it from the rooftops. I may not see it all - but what I have seen is truly wonderful.
My argument with the library profession is quite separate. I am criticising a corporate entity for its failure on a number of scores. I challenge both the leadership for what it has and has not done, and the membership collectively for failing to address the leadership matters. I believe that you, too, should join my desire to improve the operation and function of the library profession. You have the energy and ability to do that. I urge you to contemplate that. Then we would get on the right path
I contend that this is not a private matter for librarians to discuss behind closed doors- it is a matter of major public concern. The influence that the profession has is pervasive and has responsibilities that must be addressed
The profession have let you down in Gloucestershire- as they have caused severe difficulties for campaigns across the country. That has to change. I can see that you and Lauren and those of you who work so hard, find it hurtful when I say that, but I believe it is true.
Posted by: perkins at August 8, 2011 9:42 AM
Please also desist from making inaccurate comments about Glos. The plans were made by Councillor Noble and not just a senior member of library staff. Several other senior staff saw no other option but to leave as they had not control over what was happening, being leaned on so much by the administration their hands were tied. Situations are more complex than you make out - which is why it is silly to make sweeping statements. They have lost their livelihoods, choosing instead to campaign for public libraries, from a position where they are free to do so, which is sad and they should be admired. These people have not been acknowledged here in your attacks.
"There is no need to cut anything, in fact there is an abundance of spending of a kind that most councils, like Gloucester or Doncaster would die for" You mean the people of Glos "would die for" I assume? the council have the money but chose not to invest it in libraries.
Shirley, I think you answered your own question - they are gagged - and you are wrong that no-one has ever said a dickey bird about it, they just had to leave the job to do so or they would have been sacked for publicly criticizing their employer - the county council - speaking out against your employer is difficult to do if it is your livelihood and that goes for every profession. many of the library staff here also risked their jobs when they were made to "register" their membership of FoGL. They are being bullied enough as it is without this.
Anyway, I have wasted enough of my energy on this blog post. I have a first birthday to celebrate and I will spend it celebrating all of the hard work and dedication of the majority of the public library staff in Glos and in the country who are being attacked from every direction
Posted by: jo at August 8, 2011 10:11 AM
You visited Croydon, sat in a Shadow Cabinet meeting, and advised of the huge back office costs in Croydon - stating that they were not just the worst in London but worst in the country...and even going as far as saying possibly worst in the world.
Your attack on library staff and librarians is quite unbelievable and unnecessary. You heard Croydon residents share their concerns regarding the already eroded library service on offer in Croydon after a saving of ~£350K when an 'internal reshuffle' realised staff, both qualified librarians and those without qualifications, 'reshuffled' right out the door! Back office staff have been re-badged as 'Reading and Learning librarians' with no obvious training or experience.
Libraries like mine have access to a qualified librarian only one day a month or not at all if this person is ill, as was the case this month. Staffing is so tight now that our libraries have not opened or had to close on numerous occasions now when just one member of staff does not show for whatever reason. In fact, the morning following the Shadow Cabinet meeting, my local library did not open as not only was their only one member of staff available they did not even have a key to access the building themselves, let alone give access to the public. Mothers with babies and toddlers were turned away.
We spoke of a huge reduction in the service - no liaison with schools regarding the library service or the needs of the children and the topics studied, no time to help library users (we regularly now see people leave quietly without being served), chaos in the system where loans, returns and reservations are regularly being mismanaged across the network, staff deployed all over the network (not knowing the library in which they are placed let alone the needs of that community or even where to locate materials. The lessons of the past have been lost as most libraries don't have a core of librarians who managed the particular library. Organisation and information is dealt with at distance leading to errors and misinformation. Events are cancelled without notice and incorrect information is rife.
Returns pile high in libraries, staff dash from one job to the next, books and resources cannot be located on the shelves and books are not processed correctly.
Activities for young children are run by a string of different faces which certainly does not help with continuity or building up a rapport with the little ones.
Groups for older children have been run down in a matter of months, waiting lists exhausted. Now the Summer Book Trail limps along, lacking the volunteers the council felt sure would materialise and being cancelled without notice due to lack of staffing. We've never seen such low numbers.
The Teen activity in our library is not advertised, those who have requested details are told wrong activity name, wrong Saturday of the month and wrong time! Only two teens showed up this month as there is no other contact with the librarian who runs the activity which usually drummed up interest, and there was no usual reminder. The librarian was not there so the activity did not run. A week on still no information as to why it didn't run, whether it is being rearranged or whether there will be another next month. Are any teens likely to show up in future? I doubt it.
The fact is we had none of these problems prior to the reshuffle as there were sufficient staff who knew and served the local communities well, particularly important for the young, the elderly and the vulnerable.
None of this is the fault of the librarians or the library staff who, you may recall we were at pains to point out, work under extreme pressure now, which is heartbreaking to watch.
Staff cannot speak up, not just for fear of their jobs, but they have been gagged. They know the problems,and residents feel sure that they know the solutions, yet are powerless to do anything about it. We suspect that the Head of library services is equally frustrated by the situation but is unable to comment and, although attending meetings, is rarely invited to speak.
The real problem is that the councillors seem intent on cost cutting without any regard for the service on offer. Hubs have been created and some libraries are better staffed than others.
You'll recall that the Cabinet member responsible offered her assurance to look into the concerns and report back. She has, after a long drawn out process, requiring requesting the information again and then having to put it in writing. She came back on just two points - two children's activities in just one library and incorrect information at that. This shows the council's sheer lack of regard for, and understanding of, the service on which they are taking decisions and dismantling in the process.
I'm really surprised also at your support of LSSI. There are clearly huge concerns about this company and others, both here and in America. You gave a clear message in Croydon that outsourcing and privatisation would not work, that if councils could not run their libraries effectively what hope was there for them to oversee another running it effectively, yet this is the prospect Croydon now faces with LSSI meeting with Croydon and Wandsworth (although Wandsworth deny this)only days after the decision to market test. There are as few as ten or as many as 30 expressions of interest in running Croydon libraries, depending on source, in just a fortnight of market testing. Residents and campaigners have no information still and the decision will be taken at Cabinet in September before most residents are even aware that the whole network is involved and not just the original six involved in the consultation.
Staff suffer, residents suffer but the council save funds. It is an unwieldy mess that will be hard to unpick unless we draw breath now and plan for the future.
Posted by: Elizabeth at August 8, 2011 12:58 PM
I don't support LSSI -- I just say that they are entitled to be listened to. I don't think a council should need to resort to private management, but it may not harm to hear what private management would propose to do.
There is vast humbug in the stories told about what goes on in library services, particularly to the money that council taxpayers have spent and where it goes. I regret to say that I don't believe any of the stories that you have been told. There is so much money allocated for the Croydon library service by the council, that in truth none of the privations you describe should ever have happened.
They do happen because the management of the service is very poor. That is why it might be worth listening to what a private outside management might propose. I criticise the librarians because the service is, at its heart, run by them. A large part of their role- which they insist only they can play- is to advise the council what should be done.
Croydon library service has been ruined over the past decade by people who didn't understand the importance of books and had a crazy notion about the relationship between the central library and the community libraries.
I also don't believe in itinerant or specialist staff shared between libraries. It is a hopelessly inefficient way of working. The staff in all libraries should be trained and capable of doing all the jobs in a public library- there is no point in the demaracation between qualified and unqualified staff-- they should all be trained and qualified to help the public - in so far as their experience permits
I think you are being told a tale. I'm sure the person who tells you these things believes them, but a senior manager in the council should not allow nonsense of this kind, when the service is funded as well as it is.
I attended a meeting as a guest of your opposition. They asked the cabinet to let me look more closely at the situation, but, so far as I am aware, the council declined the offer.
Posted by: perkins at August 8, 2011 2:25 PM
Thank you for your comments but I think we are talking at cross purposes. You say you "... attended as a guest of your opposition" i.e. Labour Shadow Cabinet. So did I!
I am a resident and I spoke up on behalf of the Sanderstead Library Campaign Group, on behalf of users of Croydon libraries, not just Sanderstead. We are in touch with users from across the borough and, whilst a sole voice I made clear that I spoke on behalf of a large body of the community of library users and library lovers in Croydon.
If you think Croydon library service has been ruined over the years it has been totally destroyed since the internal reshuffle in April. Reduced staff numbers,shared staff not knowing community, cancelled events, processing problems for loans, reservations,misinformation and closed libraries or events due to a staffing structure so finely balanced just one absence throws it into chaos!
The situation is complex and difficult to unpick! Contrary to the view you seem to express here we feel that library staff DO know how to best run the library service and how efficiencies could be made. We are prevented from discussing this with them and feel in all likelihood they are prevented from expressing their views to councillors.
The greatly reduced service that has now been set up is likely to be replicated or reduced further by anyone tendering for the library service and if the council is unable to manage what you claim to be(I'm not privy to the figures!)a well resourced service, what hope is there that the council can oversee or judge how well another provider's tender for or provision of the service?
You have my email. I'm happy to send you the information I have. Please get in touch if you are interested to know more. In the meantime you might like to check out www.insidecroydon.co.uk, soslibrary.blogspot.com and www.savesandersteadlibrary.co.uk
Thanks for your time.
Posted by: Elizabeth at August 11, 2011 12:18 AM