I VIVIDLY remember a tense, moving production of George Orwell’s 1984 at the Playhouse. I can’t believe it was five years ago. My, doesn’t time whizz by as we get older?

But what called it to mind this week?

Ah yes, the Thought Police, and one particular phrase in last week’s Journal report about people’s perfectly reasonable fears for our library once it moves to smaller premises in Fisherton Street.

It was this: “The Journal approached the library manager to discuss the plans, but Wiltshire Council would not allow an interview and said Cllr Church was their nominated spokesman for the project.”

This was a reference to Pauline Church, who represents Wilton and Lower Wylye Valley and is cabinet member for economic development and south Wiltshire recovery.

I don’t really know Cllr Church. I don’t have a problem with her. She’s spoken of as future leadership material, and it might be nice to have someone local in charge.

(I wonder whether Baroness Scott will indeed step down by May as she promised last year? But I digress.)

It is, however, insulting and unrealistic to expect us to accept the view of any one person - politician or not – in forming an opinion about the future of a treasured community asset.

Particularly when she’s described the current library as “not fit for purpose”. What’s wrong with it? Other than its inconvenient location in terms of the Great Masterplan (er, what’s that, then?).

The Wiltshire Thought Police got this one wrong.

Only after a protest was announced did cabinet members inform their astonished fellow-councillors on Thursday that the inadequate space marked ‘library’ beneath the new Travelodge in their planning application isn’t intended to be its final resting place.

Oh no. Great minds are at work on plans for our new ‘cultural quarter’ and when they’ve got all their ducks in a row we’ll be told more about it and how the library will fit in. Told, or consulted???

For now, what concerns me is to highlight the Soviet-style clampdown on communication imposed by the controllers of County Hall. The other ranks are scared stiff they will lose their jobs if they say anything, even “Jane for Prime Minister!” (well, you never know, someone might) to the press.

It’s been like this ever since the abolition of the district council. And I’m sure that the unpopularity of that reform had a great deal to do with it, encouraging a bunker mentality in the cabinet.

I sense a fear of having to engage seriously with those who hold differing views, a fear of losing control of the agenda. Yet their own communications strategy didn’t exactly work very well on this occasion, did it?

I think we’d all accept that sometimes those in power have to ‘work up’ projects without sharing every last detail with us along the way.

But if that was the case in this instance, why didn’t they just say so at the outset?

anneriddle36@gmail.com