Sir – When is a consultation not a consultation? Not when it proposes only one option for the future of Oxfordshire’s libraries.

Council leader Keith Mitchell was reported to have assured the county that all options would be ‘on the table’ when the consultation paper was published. In fact only one proposal has been offered.

That might not matter if there were no other options worthy of consideration, but there are.

One has always been to scale down the opening times of all the libraries to achieve the required saving which is now understood to be down from £2m to £800,000.

Another would be to use volunteers at the city and town libraries where they could support the professionals. Another, recognising the significant costs of changing to a volunteer-based system, would be to relegate the net savings, if any, to the ‘too small to be worth the effort in the county scale of things’ basket.

And there is always the ‘Southampton solution’: reduce the pay of the library service professionals. There are probably more. They should all be offered. And they should be described fairly.

At present the consultation paper skews the arguments to favour urban people at the expense of dispersed rural communities. It even hints at increased funding for the website: surely expansion and improvements should await more affluent times when the future of all our libraries is secure?

The armed services have long understood the dangers of ‘situating the appreciation’ instead of ‘appreciating the situation’.

Politicians may think differently but we should always demand accurate analyses and fair presentations of all options by our officials. An overwhelming response on the library cuts issue will help to ensure we get them. Let’s all provide that response.

Geoff Feasey, North Leigh