Search results

The purpose of this paper is to propose that to survive and thrive the library needs to aim for a more active role in people’s lives and in the communities that surround them. Public libraries are places of learning. They strive to enrich, empower and inspire people to support their full participation in society. But our fast-changing society (Pink, 2005) requires people to develop new competencies, such as creativity, empathy, collaboration and big-picture thinking. However, current processes of the public library are still primarily aimed at providing and improving access to information produced by others. Although of great importance, these processes are fundamentally passive and do not actively stimulate people to share knowledge and insights or to engage in conversations. It explores how this can be done and what effect this change might have on library space based on the ideas and perspective of the Dutch Ministry of Imagination.

The Ministry, a cooperation between architect Jan David Hanrath and librarians Rob Bruijnzeels and Joyce Sternheim, conducts research and realizes new types of libraries and library architecture. To turn the public library into a more dynamic and active social setting, the Ministry has developed a new work process supported by matching criteria for the layout of library space.

The new concept has been brought into practice in the Chocolate Factory in Gouda, The Netherlands, which since then has become a permanent testing ground for new library work.

This paper is a thought piece that will be of interest not only to those concerned with public libraries, but also to everyone who is searching for ways to turn the library into a learning environment in which a continuous process of knowledge creation takes place, through interaction with the collection, but – most importantly – through interaction between people.

A re‐opening of negotiations for Britain, either unilaterally or with other States, to enter the European Economic Community appears distinctly likely in the coming year. It is more than four years since we discussed, in these columns, the subject of the Common Market and its possible effects on food standards and legislation generally, if Britain linked its economic fortunes and future with the Community. The main obstacles at the time were a chariness to accept the full implications of the Treaty of Rome and the agricultural policy of France. In fact, one gained the impression from all the reports that but for the intransigence of France, we might have joined in 1963.

In the Court of Appeal last summer, when Van Den Berghs and Jurgens Limited (belonging to the Unilever giant organization) sought a reversal of the decision of the trial judge that their television advertisements of Stork margarine did not contravene Reg. 9, Margarine Regulations, 1967—an action which their Lordships described as fierce but friendly—there were some piercing criticisms by the Court on the phrasing of the Regulations, which was described as “ridiculous”, “illogical” and as “absurdities”. They also remarked upon the fact that from 1971 to 1975, after the Regulations became operative, and seven years from the date they were made, no complaint from enforcement authorities and officers or the organizations normally consulted during the making of such regulations were made, until the Butter Information Council, protecting the interests of the dairy trade and dairy producers, suggested the long‐standing advertisements of Reg. 9. An example of how the interests of descriptions and uses of the word “butter” infringements of Reg. 9. An example af how the interests of enforcement, consumer protection, &c, are not identical with trade interests, who see in legislation, accepted by the first, as injuring sections of the trade. (There is no evidence that the Butter Information Council was one of the organizations consulted by the MAFF before making the Regulations.) The Independant Broadcasting Authority on receiving the Council's complaint and obtaining legal advice, banned plaintiffs' advertisements and suggested they seek a declaration that the said advertisements did not infringe the Regulations. This they did and were refused such a declaration by the trial judge in the Chancery Division, whereupon they went to the Court of Appeal, and it was here, in the course of a very thorough and searching examination of the question and, in particular, the Margarine Regulations, that His Appellate Lordship made use of the critical phrases we have quoted.

First January 1973 will not only mark the beginning of a New Year but a year which history will mark as a truly momentous one, for this is the year that Britain, after centuries of absence, re‐enters the framework of Europe as one of the Member‐States of the enlarged European Community. This in itself must make for change on both sides; Britain is so different in outlook from the others, something they too realize and see as an acquisition of strength. There have been other and more limited forms of Continental union, mainly of sovereignty and royal descent. Large regions of France were for centuries under the English Crown and long after they were finally lost, the fleur de lis stayed on the royal coat of arms, until the Treaty of Amiens 1802, when Britain retired behind her sea curtain. The other Continental union was, of course, with Hanover; from here the Germanized descendants of the Stuarts on the female line returned to the throne of their ancestors. This union lasted until 1832 when rules of descent prevented a woman from reigning in Hanover. It is interesting to speculate how different history might have been if only the British Crown and the profits of Tudor and Stuart rule had been maintained in one part of central Europe. However, Britain disentangled herself and built up overwhelming sea power against a largely hostile Europe, of which it was never conceived she could ever be a part, but the wheel of chance turns half‐circle and now, this New Year, she enters into and is bound to a European Community by the Treaty of Rome with ties far stronger, the product of new politico‐economic structures evolved from necessity; in a union which cannot fail to change the whole course of history, especially for this country.

From a recently published letter addressed to a well‐known firm of whisky manufacturers by Mr. JOHN LETHIBY, Assistant Secretary to the Local Government Board, it is plain that the Board decline to entertain the suggestion that the Government should take steps to compel manufacturers of whisky to apply correct descriptions to their products. The adoption of this attitude by the Board might have been anticipated, but the grounds upon which the Board appear to have taken it up are not in reality such as will afford an adequate defence of their position, as the negative evidence given before the Select Committee on Food Products Adulteration and yielded by the reports of Public Analysts is beside the mark. The introduction of a governmental control of the nature suggested is not only undesirable but impracticable. It is undesirable because such a control must be compulsory and is bound to be unfair. It would be relegated to a Government Department, and of necessity, therefore, in the result it would be in the hands of an individual—the head of the Department—and subject entirely to the ideas and the unavoidable prejudices of one person. It is impracticable because no Government or Government Department could afford to take up a position involving the recommendation of particular products and the condemnation of others. No Government could take upon itself the onus of deciding questions of quality as distinguished from questions merely involving nature and substance. A system of control, in order to be effective and valuable alike to the public and the honest manufacturer, must be voluntary in its nature in so far as the manufacturer is concerned, and must be carried out by an independent and authoritative body entirely free from governmental trammels, and possessing full liberty to give or withhold its approbation or guarantee.

This case describes the challenges faced by Amul in organising dairy farmers into a co-operative and creating continuous opportunities for value addition. Participants in the case discussion are required to review the developments in the organisation and recommend a strategy for the future.

Fumes, grit, dust, dirt—all have long been recognized as occupational hazards, their seriousness depending on their nature and how they assail the human body, by ingestion, absorption, inhalation, the last being considered the most likely to cause permanent damage. It would not be an exaggeration to state that National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) provisions, now contained in the Social Security Act, 1975, with all the regulations made to implement the law, had their birth in compensating victims of lung disease from inhalation of dust. Over the years, the range of recognized dust disease, prescribed under regulations, has grown, but there are other recognized risks to human life and health from dusts of various kinds, produced not from the manufacturing, mining and quarrying, &c. industries; but from a number of areas where it can contaminate and constitute a hazard to vulnerable products and persons. An early intervention by legislation concerned exposed foods, e.g. uncovered meat on open shop fronts, to dust and in narrow streets, mud splashed from road surfaces. The composition of dust varies with its sources—external, atmospheric, seasonal or interior sources, uses and occupations, comings and goings, and in particular, the standards of cleaning and, where necessary, precautions to prevent dust accumulation. One area for long under constant scrutiny and a subject of considerable research is the interior of hospital wards, treatment rooms and operating theatres.

With regard to the output of canned food in European Russia, it is stated by Rubinstein that the statistics are not altogether reliable. We conclude therefore that they must be accepted with caution. If the accuracy of statistics in relation to the output of European Russia is questioned, then, we submit, those relating to Asiatic Russia and the Far East will be still more open to challenge. These figures refer to things done! What value in these circumstances must be assigned to estimates of what it is hoped will be done?

This Bill was read a second time without a division in the House of Commons on July 23rd after a debate lasting nearly five hours. Opposition speakers, including particularly Dr. Edith Summerskill and Mr. Willey (former Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Food between 1945 and 1951), attacked the Government for having whittled down, very extensively, the contemplated Regulations (to be made when the Bill is on the statute book) dealing with cleanliness in the handling of food. As is generally known, the draft regulations have for several months been the subject of many discussions between trade organisations and the Ministry of Food. As a result, the Minister has decided to modify or drop several of the proposals which he had at first intended to carry into effect by regulations, and to substitute for some of them “codes of practice.”