Letters

Your editorial in Felix 1075 on the bookstore situation asks "to what lengths would you have been prepared to go". I ask what lengths can the Union go to now? There are several good book shops in Kensington High Street, and a great deal accessible by public transport in central London. Since the only unique feature of Waterstones (IC) appears to be books, is there any real need to use it at all? A sufficient lack of customers would obviously cause any outside firm to pull out eventually.

The choice of who runs the bookstore makes little practical difference to me personally. In particular I have always regarded Waterstones as one of the better book shops. It seems that the union might have been hard done by, and I wonder how much it wants to fight further.

Yours sincerely,

E.J.Hutton

This attitude - which basically amounts to a boycott of the new Waterstone’s in all but name - has already been suggested by many, and certainly would be a clear way to force the College’s hand. However, for this plan to be successful the vast majority of IC students would need to shun the new bookstore, and, quite frankly, with exams imminent and gaps in lecture notes looming large, the compulsion to finally buy some course texts may prove stronger than principles.

Yet, to be able to exercise any real power over College, the Union needs the power to believably threaten action - even if none is taken. If the Rector had truly believed that the Union had the power to organise an effective boycott (or any other effective protest for that matter) then this decision would never have been made in the first place. The threat of action is a far more potent weapon than any single act.