2nd July 2013, 11:55 AM
Regarding the sale of NA, I have been told that that a number of organisations showed interest in buying, but through some form of selective process MOLA emerged as the 'preferred bidder' - which implies that the sale must have been advertised in some form, perhaps on one of the local gov procurement websites (this is how the Greater Manchester archy advisory service was tendered). Unfortunately I haven't got a clue what sort of money is involved........but I'd like to find out!
I gather that metromola was set up to get around the Museum of London Act, which restricted MOLA's activities outside Greater London (I get the impression that MOLA had always felt somehow inferior to Oxford and Wessex because of this restriction). When MOLA became an independent charity, they were no longer bound by the Act - and had no further need for metromola. I think MOLA make people redundant here and there anyway (mainly diggers), so a few from metromola probably wouldn't be flagged up as unusual........and given the potential embarrassment of admitting to the failure of metromola I'm not surprised that they kept it quiet......
The legal basis for the 'Great Extraction' as it became known (MOLA - molar.....................groan......) was looked into by a number of parties, including Prospect, and I don't think a legal basis to challenge to the Museum getting rid of MOLA could be found. It's probably no surprise though that the then museum director (and possibly one of the main architects of the scheme), Jack Lohman, effed off to Canada shortly after........
I suspect that the purchase of NA is intended to tap into a new geographical market and give MOLA a dispensable local work force that they can pay much less than the rest of MOLA (even accounting for London wages)..........
I gather that metromola was set up to get around the Museum of London Act, which restricted MOLA's activities outside Greater London (I get the impression that MOLA had always felt somehow inferior to Oxford and Wessex because of this restriction). When MOLA became an independent charity, they were no longer bound by the Act - and had no further need for metromola. I think MOLA make people redundant here and there anyway (mainly diggers), so a few from metromola probably wouldn't be flagged up as unusual........and given the potential embarrassment of admitting to the failure of metromola I'm not surprised that they kept it quiet......
The legal basis for the 'Great Extraction' as it became known (MOLA - molar.....................groan......) was looked into by a number of parties, including Prospect, and I don't think a legal basis to challenge to the Museum getting rid of MOLA could be found. It's probably no surprise though that the then museum director (and possibly one of the main architects of the scheme), Jack Lohman, effed off to Canada shortly after........
I suspect that the purchase of NA is intended to tap into a new geographical market and give MOLA a dispensable local work force that they can pay much less than the rest of MOLA (even accounting for London wages)..........