| Topic: | Re:Re: Proposed closure of Wandsworth Museum | |
| Posted by: | Cedric Peachey | |
| Date/Time: | 17/03/07 12:17:00 |
| These last few weeks saw front page news items in London that confirmed, if further evidence was ever needed, the rising violence between youth gangs. Comments from residents, from experts and from politicians point to the lack of social cohesion, of facilities for the young that many believe are the root causes of such gangs. This week also saw a large demonstration by young people outside Parliament asking for better facilities for the young, for "places to go" where they aren't at risk from gangs, from drug-pushers and where they can develop their interests without the obligatory supervision of teachers and parents. It is therefore doubly and tragically ironic that the Council is so determined to close Wandsworth Museum and save the relatively modest costs of running it (compared to the millions it has set aside for leisure centres and for payment into general reserves, not to mention the very high salaries of many of its officers). The crucial difference between Wandsworth Museum and the two-man "heritage service" that is scheduled to replace it with passive displays in five libraries is that the Museum actively sets out to engage with its visitors, whatever their age and background. Anyone who knows the Museum will know that its staff come from different ethnic backgrounds and a wide age range. The "Medieval Machines" event that has just finished had plenty of children-friendly attractions. The new "Queer is Here" exhibition will tackle completely different topics and issues for a different audience. This is not just ticking boxes for educational purposes - it is a question of maximising social inclusion and community-wide cohesion. There can be no argument that the Museum achieves this: * 20% of its visitors come from black or ethnic minorities * a research study has confirmed that 55% of Wandsworth Museum's visitors are from the less well off socio-economic classes (C2 & DE), well above the national average * over a quarter of visitors to the Museum are children There can also be no doubt that the Museum has not had anything like the publicity and advertising support it should have. The neighbouring borough of Lambeth has its own equivalent of Brightside and the space and prominence it gives to events at Wandsworth Museum regularly exceeds the publicity provided by Wandsworth. If proof were needed, the very sharp rise in visitor levels in February (up 53%) can be directly linked to the upsurge in publicity provided by residents, amenity groups and other interested parties. During the same period, Brightside devoted the merest minimum of space to the Museum. Taking these factors in the round and at a time when ASBOs are being handed to 14-year old youths, does it make sense to close one of the few award-winning facilities that actively seeks to engage with the young, that has as its central remit the creation of a sense of involvement in communal history and culture and has shown time and again that it has the staff, the material, the skills and the expertise to deliver these? There are many reasons why the closure of Wandsworth Museum is wrong, from the dubious financial case to the highly questionable logic and semantics behind "improved access to culture". However, I believe we should also stand back and ask if completely dismantling a service that embraces the entire borough and encompasses the young from all backgrounds is an economy so false, so misleading that the loss will not just create a vacuum in our community. It could well damage our community and eliminate a key vehicle for social integration and communal understanding. Am I exaggerating? I don't think so - protests against the closure have come not just from white middle-class residents as Councillors have often suggested. They have come from mosques, from council estates, from ethnic groups and, most strikingly, from the young people in our community. |