Tube station book swap ban 'ridiculous'
A decision to end free book exchanges at London Underground stations on safety grounds has been branded "ridiculous" by a former fire chief.
The benefits of these mini-libraries, which have operated in stations across London for years, outweigh the fire risks, according to former London Fire Brigade (LFB) borough commander Steve Dudeney who called the ban "overkill".
LFB said "combustible material poses a fire safety risk", while Transport for London (TfL) said it would work "to see if book swaps can be reintroduced".
Tian, who commutes from Oval Tube station in south London, said: "It's not a tragedy compared to other things happening in the world but it's disappointing for local residents."
A source close to mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, told BBC London that the mayor had "stepped in".
"We are looking to reverse this decision as soon as possible. TfL are working urgently with LFB to ensure this happens," they added.
Section 7 of the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) (England) Regulations 2009 states: "All parts of station premises must be kept clear of any accumulation of combustible refuse."
Mr Dudeney said: "Bearing in mind those regulations have been in place for 16 years and there hasn't been a fire… I think it's a ridiculous application. It's overkill.
"If you've got a small bookshelf on a platform and in the upstairs area, the risk is there but it's negligible.
"Someone has taken the legislation to the nth degree without using experience and skill to use a proper assessment of the risk."
Tian added: "I'm obviously quite dismayed and disappointed.
"Firstly, it feels heavy-handed particularly because where the book exchange is is at the street level and, secondly, there are still the daily free newspapers in the station.
"It just felt very sudden and it wasn't really clear why it was a fire safety issue."
Kamal Shah, chair of North Harrow Community Library, said he "could see both sides".
He said: "I can see why people are upset. It's unfortunate but I feel that TfL are not entirely to blame here.
"The biggest problem is people being inconsiderate; if people hadn't been vandalising them or dumping stuff around the shelving, TfL would have been happy to carry on the scheme
"There are other places where [book swaps] happen which are more sustainable than stations."
Tube fan ranks every stop on the London Underground
Library waives 48-year fine after Canada book return
The wise words inspiring Tube commuters
An LFB spokesperson said: "We are working with TfL with regards to their responsibility to remove all book libraries from subsurface stations.
"This is due to combustible material posing a fire safety risk if it is stored on these premises.
"Non-subsurface stations have been asked to remove book libraries from display until they have the correct fire safety plans in place."
A spokesperson for TfL said: "We work very closely with LFB and other emergency services to ensure our services run safely and, following guidance from the fire service, we have advised our staff to remove book swaps from stations.
"We will also work with local communities to redistribute books to alternative local locations in the meantime."
Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Yahoo
Five key points for London from Spending Review
It is no secret that the mayor of London was not pleased with what was - or rather, what was not - in the government's recent Spending Review. Sadiq Khan's wish list, including money for new transport infrastructure projects, was surrounded by tumbleweed. An increase in police funding - unlikely to fill the Met's budget black hole - offered cold comfort, and there were slim pickings for council finances. The government would disagree with his outlook, pointing to investment in affordable homes, free school meals and the NHS. So let's take a closer look at the offerings for the capital. Transport Transport for London (TfL) is getting a four-year spending settlement of £2.2bn. It's a big deal because in recent years, not knowing how much government funding it would be getting beyond the next year TfL has struggled to plan ahead. TfL commissioner Andy Lord said having four years of cash guaranteed meant TfL could now complete the introduction of new trains on the Piccadilly line and Docklands Light Railway (DLR), and new signalling on 40% of the Tube. He said it can now procure a new tram fleet, progress discussions on new Bakerloo line trains and can get to work on renewing some of London's critical roads, tunnels and flyovers. Infrastructure In bad news for City Hall, no cash was allocated for the new transport infrastructure projects Sir Sadiq had been pinning his hopes on. These included the DLR extension to Thamesmead, the Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham and the West London Orbital between Hendon and Hounslow. This spending review was about the government's priorities and it was clear new London-based transport projects were not on that priority list. Instead, it pointed at old infrastructure announcements we already knew about -Heathrow expansion and HS2 to Euston. I asked the mayor's team whether it was an anti-London spending review. The answer was unequivocal: "Yes it is". However, an olive branch to City Hall was offered in a Treasury document, which said "the potential growth and housing benefits" of the DLR extension was recognised, and that the government "is committed to working with TfL to explore options for delivery". Sir Sadiq, who spent the run-up to last year's General Election telling journalists a Labour government working with a Labour mayor would mean London would get what it needs, was clearly not pleased. In the statement, he said it was "disappointing" there was no commitment to invest in the new infrastructure. He warned that without such investment, it will be unable to build "the new affordable homes that Londoners need". Housing The good news on housing was the £39bn for affordable homes over 10 years, which has been welcomed by the G15 group of the capital's leading housing associations. Chair, Ian McDermott - who is also the chief executive of the Peabody housing association - said it was clear ministers understood the issues. "In London the challenge remains considerable, but this settlement offers a real opportunity to turn the tide." Antonia Jennings, chief executive at the Centre for London thinktank, agreed it will bring more certainty to home builders, although did specify "the devil is in the detail". That brings us to the not-so-pretty side of this £39bn funding - we do not yet know what proportion of the funding will actually come to London. Ms Jennings warned a 10-year plan does not help Londoners today who are struggling to find affordable homes. She added that it would have been "very helpful to see… an uplift to the Local Housing Allowance" to help private renters. The Spending Review did include £950m to help councils pay for what the government described as "good-quality temporary accommodation" instead of "costly bed-and-breakfasts and hotels". London's boroughs have welcomed that, but again, it is not clear how much will come to London. London's councils now collectively spend £4 million a day on temporary accommodation to house homeless Londoners, and it is unclear if this sum would make much of a dent in that. Policing Yes, the chancellor did announce an increase of 2.3% for policing, but - and it is a huge but - the Metropolitan Police is facing a black hole in its funding of £260m this year. Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, warned of potential cuts to officer numbers and said they might be forced to choose which crimes the Met can afford to focus on. So is a 2.3% increase enough? The mayor of London thinks not. The statement he issued to us read: "I remain concerned that this Spending Review could result in insufficient funding for the Met and fewer police officers." In response, the chancellor Rachel Reeves told the BBC: "I really don't accept that there need to be cuts when we're increasing the money the police force gets." Clearly all is not harmonious between London's Labour mayor and the Labour government on this issue. Local government Put simply, London boroughs wanted more. The Treasury did announced an increase of around 3.1% per year in local authority core spending power, but London Councils has been warning it expects a collective funding gap of £500m this year. Chair of the group, Claire Holland, who also leads Lambeth Council, said boroughs' finances remain "extremely difficult" and the funding "will remain very tight." She said the critical issue going forward would be whether the government includes the cost of housing in how it decides the funding formula that determines the proportion of money each council receives. Pointing to research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that suggested London local government funding was 17% lower than its relative need, Holland said the distribution of funds "can be make or break for us in London". She added it was "vital" a new funding formula is implemented, that matches resource to need. Then there is council tax. Treasury documents for the spending review suggest council tax is expected to rise by 5% a year to pay for local services and that bills are also expected to rise further to pay for an increase in police funding. In London that has already been happening for years. Most councils here raised their council tax by the maximum 5% allowed this year and the mayor has, for several years, raised the council tax precept (the amount the Greater London Authority adds to your council tax bill) to provide more funding for the Met Police. Londoners can probably expect that trend to continue. From next year London will get an integrated settlement, bringing it in line with how funding works for combined authorities in some other parts of the country. So instead of the Greater London Authority getting different pots of cash from central government for, for example, housing or policing, which has to be spent on those areas, the mayor will get one budget pot and the GLA will decide how to spend it. Winners and losers: Who got what in the spending review? Why London councils want more Spending Review cash Could this be London's property hotspot in 2040? Leaks and crumbling ceilings: Met says half its buildings face closure
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Yahoo
How Trump's Africa strategy may become a double-edged sword
With US President Donald Trump on a cost-cutting warpath since starting his second term, aid to Africa has been slashed and now defence spending is in his sights - but could these approaches cost more in the long run? The phrase his administration presses on Europe to assume more of the costs of its own defence is "burden sharing". This is the challenge that Washington is now throwing down to African armies too - and they are far less comfortably resourced to take it on. Moreover, having paid dearly in lives and money, in the struggle to hold back the spreading reach of jihadist armed groups across the Sahel, the Lake Chad basin and Somalia over recent years, they could be forgiven for feeling that they already carry much of the burden - and for the sake not just of their own continent but the wider international community too. Benin, which has lost more than 80 soldiers in jihadist attacks since the start of the year, is just one example. "The epicentre of terrorism on the globe" is how the Sahel was described a few days ago by Gen Michael Langley, who as head of US Africa Command (Africom) oversees the American military presence south of the Sahara. In briefings and interviews over the past few weeks, he has graphically outlined the threat that jihadist groups will present if their push southward towards the Gulf of Guinea succeeds. "One of the terrorists' new objectives is gaining access to West African coasts. If they secure access to the coastline, they can finance their operations through smuggling, human trafficking and arms trading. This not only puts African nations at risk but also raises the chance of threats reaching US shores." Gen Langley has admitted that the current upsurge in militant attacks is "deeply concerning". Yet he has also repeatedly hammered home a core message: the US is minded to rein back its own sub-Saharan military operations, leaving local armies to take on more of the defence burden. Some 6,500 personnel are currently deployed in Africa by the US military and a 2019 list published by Africom mentioned 13 "enduring" American bases across the continent and a further 17 more temporary facilities. But some of these installations, including the purpose-built drone base at Agadez in Niger, have already been shut down, in particular after military juntas seized power in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso since 2020. And it now looks as if the once-ambitious American operational footprint will be pruned back quite a lot more. Perhaps we will see more air power deployed from offshore to hit militant targets - Gen Langley says there have been 25 strikes in Somalia this year, double the 2024 total - but a much thinner permanent on-the-ground military presence. "Some things that we used to do, we may not do anymore," he recently told a conference in Kenya's capital, Nairobi, that brought together chiefs of defence staff and other senior officers from 37 countries. "Our aim is not to serve as a permanent crutch, but to achieve US security objectives that overlap with our partners. We should be able to help African nations build the self-reliance they need to independently confront terrorism and insurgencies." In the bluntness of his language Gen Langley reflects the stark change of outlook and policy that has come from January's change of power at the White House. "We have set our priorities now - protecting the homeland." What matters to the no-longer-so-new Trump II administration, the general made clear in a Pentagon publication last week, is fighting terrorists - particularly those who might attack the US. Other priorities are countering the spread of Chinese military influence across Africa and protecting freedom of maritime navigation through key trade choke points such as the Strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal and the Bab el-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea. In some respects, the focus on training and capacity building that Gen Langley now expounds is not so very different from the approach of previous American administrations, Republican as well as Democrat. He lauds the National Guard State Partnership Program, through which individual US states have been helping to build the capacity of government security forces across Africa and other parts of the world - for the past three decades. France too is pursuing this approach, with the closure of bases in Chad and Senegal, while those in Ivory Coast and Gabon have been handed over to their governments, with only small French training teams left behind to work alongside African colleagues. However, in other respects, the Trump administration's Africa strategy represents a drastic shrinkage in outlook and - critics might argue - a conscious retreat from addressing the factors that drive instability, conflict and terrorism, particularly in the Sahel, which is among the poorest regions on the planet. For under President Joe Biden the US looked far beyond the military realm alone in its efforts to counter the both the growing reach of jihadist groups and other sources of violence. And Gen Langley, as Africom chief, was an articulate exponent of this much broader thinking. Only last year, in an interview with the Associated Press news agency, he outlined what he described as a "whole of government" response to the proliferation of conflict, stressing the importance of good governance and action to tackle the fragilities of African states and the impacts of desertification, crop failure and environmental change. This approach openly recognised that recruitment by armed groups and the spread of violence is fuelled not only by jihadist ideology, but also by a host of social and economic factors, including the stresses now afflicting farming and pastoralist livelihoods. Gen Langley himself does not seem to have abandoned this analysis, recently noting how Ivory Coast had countered the jihadist threat to its northern border areas by complementing security force deployments with development projects. He could equally have pointed to the success of a similar approach pursued by the president of Niger, Mohamed Bazoum, before he was deposed in the July 2023 coup. But of course, these days Africom must operate within the context of a US foreign policy radically reshaped under Trump. There are even rumours that it could be downgraded to become a subsidiary of the US command in Europe and Gen Langley suggests African governments should tell Washington what they thought of this idea. Already the separate Africa unit at the radically slimmed down National Security Council at the White House is reportedly being wound up and integrated into the Middle East-North Africa section. Its director, Gen Jami Shawley, an Africa specialist appointed to the role only in March, has now been assigned to more general strategic functions. Addressing Congress this week, Gen Langley warned about China's and Russia's African ambitions: Beijing's agility at capitalising on the US's absence and Moscow's ability to seize military opportunities created by chaos and instability. Given these concerns, some might wonder if the general is discreetly signally his doubts about a slimmed down Africa strategy. Meanwhile, under the "efficiency drive" led, until recently, by tech billionaire Elon Musk, the American government's main international development agencies, USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, have been effectively shut down. The spine of the new US economic engagement with Africa is now private sector trade and investment. But business generally needs to operate in a stable and secure context - which Africa's most fragile and violence-prone regions cannot offer. And in winding up the American development agencies, the Trump administration has stepped aside from funding the rural projects and social programmes that sought to address land and water pressures and lack of economic opportunity, the key drivers of conflict - and the jihadist groups' recruitment of frustrated rural young people. For the fragile regions that are the main sources of jihadist violence the US response is reduced to the purely military, and now it is seeking to shift even most of that on to the shoulders of African states that already struggle to respond adequately to a plethora of challenges and responsibilities. Paul Melly is a consulting fellow with the Africa Programme at Chatham House in London. The region with more 'terror deaths' than rest of world combined Freed captive tells BBC of life in West African jihadist base Why Trump is on the warpath in Somalia 'My wife fears sex, I fear death' - impacts of the USAID freeze Trump's tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Focus on Africa This Is Africa
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Yahoo
Reeves hands NHS £29bn extra per year and pledges to end asylum hotels
Day-to-day spending on the NHS will increase by £29bn a year, Rachel Reeves has announced as she accepted voters are yet to feel an improvement under Labour. Delivering her spending review, the chancellor also declared an end to the use of asylum hotels this parliament by investing in cutting the backlog and returning more people with no right to be here - which she said would save the taxpayer £ Reeves acknowledged that almost a year on from Labour's landslide election victory, "too many people" are yet to feel their promise of national renewal. She said the purpose of her spending review is "to change that", with total departmental budgets to grow by 2.3% a year in real terms. Key settlements include: • NHS: The health service gets £29bn for day-to-day spending - a 3% rise for each year until the next election;• Defence: Spending will rise from 2.3% of GDP to 2.6% by 2027 - an £11bn uplift;• Housing: Social and affordable housing will get £39bn - the biggest cash investment for 50 years;• Science and tech: Research and development funding will hit £22bn with AI plans getting £2bn;• Transport: £15bn for new rail, tram, and bus networks in the North and the West Midlands, a new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester, and a four-year settlement for TfL, plus the £3 bus fare cap extended to 2027;• Nations: Scotland gets £52bn, Northern Ireland £20bn, and Wales £23bn, including for coal tips;• Education: Free school meals extended to 500,000 children, while the extra £4.5bn per year will also go on fixing classrooms and rebuilding schools Ms Reeves drew a distinction between her plans and the Tories' austerity agenda in 2010, saying they cut spending by 2.9%. She said austerity was a "destructive choice for the fabric of our society" and "different choices" would be made under Labour. Read more: The chancellor also attacked Reform UK, claiming the party want an "insurance-based system" for the NHS. She said the money she was announcing today would fund more appointments, more doctors and more scanners. "The National Health Service: Created, by a Labour government, protected by a Labour government and renewed, by this Labour government," she said. This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version. You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
