Gwen is clearly a girl’s name. Surely “Sir” is an inappropriate title to be using?

An academic library is no place for any noisy activity at any time of day, and it is certainly not the place of those in statu pupillari to take it upon themselves to determine otherwise. It is also unacceptable for someone to take it upon themselves to film in a library without obtaining appropriate permission in advance.

Ms Nash was grossly negligent in having failed to prevent — or at the very least report — this breach of the peace. Given that she is a graduate student, I am led to assume that she is not a permanent employee of the library, and therefore probably does not have any highly skilled librarianship duties within her remit.

In fact, the purpose of these student assistants is to maintain order within the library outside office hours, something which Ms Nash blatantly failed to do or even attempt. Therefore, I am of the opinion that her sacking is proportionate and justified (if on the other hand she were also being rusticated and thus unable to complete her degree, that would be disproportionate). It is also worth bearing in mind that there might be a surplus of graduate students interested in invigilating for the library (especially if the work were paid), in which case the unsuccessful applicants deserve a chance to prove themselves better at maintaining order.

St Hilda’s College is to be commended for taking discipline within its library seriously. It is a pity that many of their students do not appreciate that a library has rules that are strict for good reason: to protect the inalienable right of all members to a safe and peaceful place of study (and crucially, without the need for a member to explicitly request this or complain about the lack thereof); and to protect their privacy. This sacking would not have been controversial if it had been on account of theft (or failing to prevent overt theft), or if the disruption had happened in an official examination.

I sincerely hope that the College authorities (to be honest, given we are not talking about a permanent employee, it is probably an internal matter for the library directorate) stand firm in defending the sanctity of the library, and do not bow to the tyranny of popular opinion.

Kay Dent is mistaken in thinking that Pembroke is the only College that provides composting facilities. At Girton, the gyp rooms also have bins for compostable food waste. I find myself rarely needing to use them because I avoid at almost all costs wasting food, unless it were utterly inedible. That said, I rarely cook for myself, since the gyp room in my corridor is unbearably small and has inadequate storage space.

Meanwhile, I think Ashley Chhiber is exaggerating the dietary requirements issue. Girton almost always has a vegetarian option, often two or even three, and on the very rare occasions that I have found such options have been exhausted, they are always prepared to make an omelette or something on the spot (I know because I am a vegetarian). I think I am right in saying that the even smaller minority with dietary requirements that do not fit any of the options are catered for on an individual basis, so I am not convinced that this alone would justify doing away entirely with KFC.

I am also totally unconvinced by Chhiber’s rant about Cambridge cramping our independence by providing accommodation and catering. It is a big leap to go from living with family as a dependant to living alone in another city, and I think it is absolutely right that Cambridge eases that by offering accommodation to undergraduates for at least three years. Would Chhiber rather have the Colleges turn all their undergraduate rooms into conference/hotel rooms instead? It would be a perverse way to treat the students, not least because rents in the private sector (I presume this is what Chhiber meant) are exorbitant in Cambridge. The very small minority who really feel strongly about wanting to live “independently” can opt to find their own accommodation, but most take up College rooms for the entirety of their undergraduate degrees.

Finally, I think that the absence of “market system elements” is a good and appropriate thing for an academic institution.

I am not saying the present system is perfect, but I do think it has many benefits (I should disclose that at Girton, the KFC is not shown as a specific heading, it being part of the rent or — for those living out — “facilities charge”).

Of course the internet and electronic resources can sometimes be remarkably useful and versatile. However, they should not be construed as an outright replacement. This is partly because I find spending too much time reading off a screen is uncomfortable, but more importantly, electronic resources tend to comprise a single point of failure. This issue has at least two facets:

1: To operate, electronic resources require an electricity supply, appropriate hardware, and often proprietary software and an internet connection as well. The infrastructure underlying this, whilst fairly reliable, is very interdependent, meaning that a failure in the system (e.g.: a server crash; a power cut; loss of internet connection) has the potential to render everything inaccessible. The probability of such failure is considerably higher than the probability of all the legal deposit and academic libraries going up in flames and losing the entirety of their collections. There are also considerable issues with the long‐term preservation of digital media, especially that in proprietary formats.

2: Much digital content is stored on big central databases/servers owned and controlled by a small number of large for‐profit corporations (e.g.: Google; Amazon; Apple). This poses a danger to freedom of expression, insofar as such centralisation increases the comprehensiveness and efficacy of redactions. This means that if somebody writes something that offends anyone with enough money to initiate libel action, the whole written record of the offending text can be completely purged, whereas with books, whilst attempts will undoubtedly be made to suppress the material, the chances of a record surviving are far greater. There are plenty of precedents to demonstrate the gravity of this problem, including a notable case involving our very own University Press. More widely, some universities have actually forced their own academics to retract controversial opinions (here is one example) and even threatened dismissal.

One issue the author has not taken into account is that many British independent bookshops operate out of very small premises. If they were to start making space for electronic readers, this will further limit the amount of shelf space for books. Since many such shops are characterised by being of a specialist nature or possessing a considerable stock of rare/antiquarian/out-of-print/second-hand books, this would be to the detriment of fulfilling the purposes for which people patronise them. When I visit such shops, I like to spend hours browsing the shelves, in the hope of stumbling upon something of interest (which usually does happen!).

By contrast, most chain stores (and supermarkets) tend to stock recently published books that they anticipate selling in large quantities, and will probably not retain books that do not sell for years (in other words, they have much higher turnover of stock). They tend to have more floor space for large displays and electronic gadgetry. Internet retailers, whilst they might have a larger stock, can still be useless for out-of-print or old books.

In conclusion, what I am saying is that the functions and operating models of independent booksellers differ from those of chain stores and the internet. Therefore, I would be wary of suggesting that the former should simply try and resemble either or both of the latter, for to do so is likely to be to the detriment of the service they currently offer, a service which — owing to its more specialised and smaller remit — is less profitable yet of greater importance to its customers.

Technology does have its uses, but it should be treated as a means to an end: good examples might include online catalogues or websites, which might enable shops to reach a customer base from a wider geographical area than might otherwise be possible. For an independent bookshop, I would have thought that the end is to make available and preferably browsable a large and interesting stock (either generally or in a specialist area) alongside knowledgable staff.

Bryony Dixon is right when she praises Asquith. In fact, I’d go further and say he was a superior filmmaker to Hitchcock in the late 1920s (some of Hitchcock’s silent films, like The Manxman, are very dull affairs indeed). His last silent film, A Cottage on Dartmoor, doesn’t merely surpass Hitchcock’s silent efforts, but arguably equals the great films from Hitchcock’s mature period and deserves a spot at the apex of the silent canon with Murnau’s Sunrise, Vidor’s The Crowd, Sternberg’s Docks of New York, Epstein’s Cœur fidèle, and Borzage’s Lucky Star. Few films rival it as a suspense thriller, and only Max Ophüls’ Letter from an Unknown Woman comes close as a study of unrequited love.

It’s a shame that Asquith’s name is only recognised because he was the son of an important Liberal Prime Minister. Beyond the silent era he directed the finest of the Gainsborough melodramas, Fanny by Gaslight (starring Peterhouse alumnus James Mason), a sublime adaptation of Terence Rattigan’s The Browning Version, and an unbeatable film of George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion. He’s probably our most unfairly forgotten filmmaker and it’s a crime that so much of his work isn’t yet commercially available, but there’s plenty that is and the rewards are rich.

For those of you who (like me) cannot make it to a screening of Underground at Southbank, the BFI will be releasing it on DVD and Blu-ray on June 17th (which, knowing the BFI, will be top-drawer). A Cottage on Dartmoor is already out in an excellent DVD from the BFI, and can usually be found inexpensively in Fopp (while it remains open!)