It looks rather that the cultural vandalism that has been rife in Waltham Forest for some time has now crossed the borough boundary.

It is absolutely monstrous that there should be an assumption (a) that every resident of the borough can simply go "on line", and (b) that those who cannot should have to travel to Ilford - itself a somewhat "no go" area due to the lunatic traffic management policies being implemented in Ilford Town Centre, and at both Gants Hill and Barkingside through which many residents must travel to meet the traffic choked slum called Ilford.

Redbridge council's cabinet is clearly failing in its duty to provide services to, and protect the interests of, residents of the borough. They have allowed unelected, overpaid officers to take over. If those councillors are not prepared to do their duty to residents then they should resign and make way for others who will.

So Mr Nameless Spokesman, just how is it cheaper to sell off existing books versus subscribing to webdirectories then?

Give us OUR books back! Half a dozen online directories are hardly going to suffice if any schoolkid, student or adult needs to properly research anything other than the most basic common information. Next thing you'll be able to buy duplicate essays and dissertation direct from Google.

While you're at it stop selling off our CD and record libraries too. Or are the Council proposing replacing this resource with i-tune tokens and i-pods on loan? That would be typical of the current Council's 'joined up thinking'.

So what is more important, the words or the paper? Mr Walker complains that printed books are not available for every title he wants, just like has enjoyed for the last 44 years, he defends the computer illiterate (take away the word 'computer' from that sentence and see how it sounds Mr Walker) and yet you of course, the complainer are able to register, login and post a message on this forum. Move with the times, we can't go on chopping down trees to fill every local library with every book forever, it is forward thinking to make computers available in libraries, it is the words that are the important thing, not the paper.

The "shock horror" "getting rid of books" reaction to this non-story demonstrates a sad ignorance of the needs of modern library users and the resources of today's public libraries. The fact is that most reference books are changing to be online resources. In this form they can be constantly updated - a printed reference source becomes out of date as soon as it hits the presses. Some are not even being published as paper books anymore. The majority of UK public libraries are now doing very good deals with consortia of publishers to get access to multiple titles. If you explore the Redbridge website/online library resources (which, contary to Mr Walker's comments, are nothing to do with Google), you won't find just a few titles; through Credo Reference & KnowUK you get access to HUNDREDS of online reference books. These can also be accessed (for free) by library members at home 24hours a day, instead of only when the library building is open. So to sum up: the library now provides constantly updated reference information, 24hrs a day at a time and place to suit the library member, for less money than buying paper books. Isn't that a better deal??? The people who criticise this should move into the 21st Century - everyone else in Redbridge has. PS. If you can't use a computer at all, why not use another of the services libraries provide - LIBRARIANS; they will find the information you need or can even show you how to use a computer.

Fine, unbelievable again - if you can find a librarian. Ask the users of Gants Hill library, for example, whether their reference library is even open for the whole of the branch hours.

There are clearly exponents of the view that computers are the contemporary source of all knowledge. The web and its rich range of global material is an invaluable tool but ultimately computers are simply just that, a tool, and are always limited by the nature and range of information that has, or hasn’t, been added to them. There are thousands of books that are never going to be digitised in some instances due to copyright issues or the specialist nature of the information that they contain. Mr Walker does, apparently, use the online reference library – he says this in the article - but clearly it has its limits for his research. Why do researchers, across all disciplines, still visit the British Library and other rich historic or specialist library sites (which can include local libraries)? Because the material they are seeking can’t be found on the web. Can a digital image compare to the paper that Samuel Johnson wrote on or the back of an envelope used by John Lennon? What about the smell and tactile quality of the book (one that others have read), the thing that you hold in the palm your hand? Obviously the material the words are on does matter – otherwise 20,000 new titles would not be published on paper this month. Children (and clearly some adults) need to step away from the screen and learn how to use other sources of knowledge.

It shouldn’t be assumed that all those who are in favour of the library as a depository of real books in the real environment (with its social, embodied experience of a quiet reading space) are Luddites. I teach at a London University using a multiplicity of approaches from a range of Virtual Learning Environments to complex computer programmes such as Final Cut Pro. Nonetheless I value my pencil as much as my Mac.

Some of the above correspondents should get out more, drop by a library and read The Machine Stops by H G Wells (available online if the library have disposed of it), and be reminded that there is a world out there. Wells’ words from around 100 years ago have a rich resonance with our culture today. Paul Virilio’s writing might enlighten too (nice books, just the right size for your pocket).

And, finally, there is an arrogance in the assumption that everyone can afford a computer or that those who haven’t had the opportunity to use them are illiterate.

In the mid 80s we were promised the "paperless office"

I agree with much of what AJE says, but the reference books removed at South Woodford are not unique, irreplaceable texts (such as held by the British Library), or texts only available in print form. They are regularly printed, usually annually updated reference books. They seem to have been replaced by a form that is better suited to modern reference needs. That's information needs, not reading for pleasure or enlightenment or understanding. Those sorts of books are for the moment anyway, still printed on paper because that's what their readers like and want & what the publishers like and want (and because no-one has developed a better alternative yet, not even Sony with their e-reader, and because publishers are afraid they won't make any money from e-books).

If you go to Gants Hill Library (as I do), you'll find that the reference library is a depressing, poorly ventilated room (not a separate building) with a small collection of reference books that has clearly been starved of funds for decades. It is usually full of students revising for A levels (or socialising), who never even look at the books let alone use them, because they're not useful to them. The librarian's desk is outside this room, so if you close the door, you'll still find a librarian at Gants Hill. The only time you won't find a staff member there to help you is when the whole library is closed. I've been told that the reference area is "closed" for a few hours in order to use it for adult education classes, which seems a practical use of the space. Although it means some people can't use the space then, a public library is centre shared by the whole community so compromises always have to happen because of lack of resources or space. It would be nice if the (whole) library could open seven days a week, but as Redbridge Council can't seem to afford to do simple things like empty litter bins or repair pavements, I doubt they could find the money to do this. As they do seem to have money to commission useless ugly and irrelevant "public" artworks, perhaps the libraries in Redbridge should declare themselves to be conceptual artworks, and then they'd get pots of cash thrown at them to buy enough books and buildings and online services to satisify everyone's needs. We can but hope.

And finally, one more thought in the digital vs. printed debate. The blind and partially sighted cannot use printed books. The contents are forever hidden from them. Less than 3% of books published every year are also released in audio versions. But there are several programs that will translate what is on a computer screen into speech, so by making reference books available online libraries are enfranchising people who previously could never access this material. I think that's one very positive thing to come from new technology.

nbelievableagain - your point about Redbridge spending priorities is well made.

When it comes to money wasted you could have included the enormous sums paid to cabinet members and others with "special responsibilities" - a payroll vote to ensure that the leader of the council clings on to the position year in, year out; the money wasted on the manufacture of permanent traffic jams in Barkingside High Street, Gants Hill, Clements Road Ilford, and High Road South Woodford; the money wasted on a useless allegedly 'award-winning' website; money thrown at an alleged 'great conversation' that is corrupted by information in the on-line version that is inconsistent with the paper version, corrupted by pressure put on schools to participate in order to ensure that the outcome favours expenditure on schools, and the outcome of which was entirely predictable - to establish spending and fund-raising priorities that the council's incompetent cabinet first decided.

In Redbridge we come closer to home than a Whitehall farce - we have our own town hall farce.

The proponents of getting rid of paper books seem to think they have a good argument. If it is so good, why did they not make it to the public in advance of these changes?

Like the majority of Redbridge's other residents who've moved into the 21st century and who CAN use a computer AND consider themselves not illiterate, taking the effort to actually use decent reference books can be more appropriate for certain applications. Having that opportunity should surely not be a privelege we lose as readily as unbelievableagain suggests.