I WRITE further to a letter in last week's issue of the Wiltshire Times regarding my library saga.

To clarify a point which seems to be clouded, the appeal against my fine and conviction went ahead and was successful.

This was decided by the crown court following a preliminary hearing a week or so before and despite the council offering no opposition.

I would have been more surprised if the council continued to oppose my appeal as the strength of their case was a standard statement, signed by the head librarian with absolutely no real evidence.

Given that they entered into legal action with only this statement, I do not think the costing was the reason they chose not to oppose my appeal to put it bluntly, the odds were gigantically stacked against them.

My evidence however was substantial and included medical evidence as to why I was unable to attend the original hearing; documentation to suggest that the council misled magistrates when successfully blocking a re-hearing; proof that every effort was made to communicate to the library pre court action; proof that one book in particular was actively being lent to other users including evidence that library staff tried to mislead me about this fact; evidence regarding books being 'shifted' quickly when I established which library they were in fact in; and most importantly evidence that the council then blocked my attempts to 'dig deeper' and obtain a log of the book's lending history.

I look forward to the Local Government Ombudsmen's findings regarding the facts (not gossip) and the county council's conduct in these matters. Once published I will be more than happy to send Ms Rushen a copy.

LIAM SILCOCKS

Trowbridge