It is irritating if the reference to 66 letters from concerned Brent residents comes from DCMS, which has been curious in its responses to letters sent. The JR lawyers, Bindmans, were informed at one stage that only 66 letters had been received. The campaigners were dubious about this 66 figure at teh time, , having had direct knowledge of letters being set (and of course sending them themselves). Many more letters have been sent since - so many that the writers receive essentially proforma responses from members of the "Ministerial Support Team" Many of the most recent letters ask taht the Minister or his team meet the representatives of teh library campaigners. Although DCMS officials have met with the officers at Brent, there is no plan to meet any representatives of the Save our 6 Libraries campaign – unless, that is, we can come up with "pressing and substantial reasons" why the officials should meet with us. That, despite the distinctly uneven playing field we are stumbling about on, considering we have been told in these proforma letters precisely nothing of the arguments and reasons put forward by the Brent officers to DCMS for the closure programme. Or rather, frustratingly, we suspect we do know the reasons given, which are those set out in the officers' Report to the Council Executive on the basis of which the Executive resolved to close our libraries. Arguments which - the campaigners believe, on sound bases - are fundamentally flawed.
So we say that it should be pressing and substantial reason enough that we are the residents who use the libraries, who live here in Brent, and who pay the Brent Council tax - and whose campaign has managed to raise over £27,000 towards the required £30,000 community contribution to the legally aid funded JR – raised in one of the poorest Boroughs in London. Money raised in pounds and fivers and through many and varied events, door to door collections, standing outside libraries, supermarkets and stations and contributed by those self same people who petitioned and wrote and demonstrated - - in incredulity but with passion to save our libraries.
So we think that should be reason enough for Jeremy Hunt or his "support team" at least to put the case to us and allow us to give our version of events. Perhaps Mr Hunt doesn’t want to hear us, in case we turn out to be persuasive that Brent has failed in its duties under the 1964 Act?
Gaynor Lloyd