5th July 2013, 07:37 PM
What legislation is needed to free the properties. Not new legislation. Just why has the properties to be freed to be put in a charity. It seems clear to me that the National heritage act tells the commissioners to form companies to exploit the properties
The legislation seems pretty specific to me but its interesting that Kev has brought up the museum of London shenanigans onto this thread only in as much that it would seem to me that it should be important what is in and what is not in the respective Acts. I presume that if the MPs had wanted the museum of London to form companies that powers to do so would have been put in the act. The act says that the musem can provide archaeological services. It does not say The museum can form a company to perform archaeological services. All that we can work out from the acts about the museum of London is "in so far as it is a charity". And it was exempt and then it wasn't. They also did not put any accounts into the charity commission for years and changed the names, had this metromola and...still have this statutory provision which says that they (who) can provide archaeological services down old London town.
And now you suggest that theres a conspiracy. The only conspiracy going on there is who is in and who is out of the pension fund, just what do they spend 26million on a year in what is basically a concrete shed for the lord mayors cart. It never was archaeologists. Don't tell me theres urchins involved. And whats all this million pound loan. Where does it say that the board is a bank and sets interest rates for its subsidiary isn't that a bit like fixing the libor rate.
Quote:Power of Commission to form companies.
(1)The Commission may form or take part in forming one or more bodies corporate which (or each of which) has as its main object or objects one or more of those mentioned in subsection (2).
(2)The objects areâ
(a)the production and publication [F14,or sale,] of books, films or other informative material relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings,
[F15(ab)the provision (whether on payment or otherwise) of advice, assistance or other services in respect of, or information relating to, ancient monuments or historic buildings,]
(b)the production F16. . . of souvenirs relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings [F17, or sale of souvenirs],
[F18(ca)the exploitation of any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings, and]
(d)the provision in England of catering or car parking or other services or facilities for members of the public visiting ancient monuments or historic buildings.
(3)The Commission may hold interests in any such body, exercise rights conferred by the holding of interests in it, and provide financial or other assistance to or in respect of it (including assistance by way of guarantee of its obligations).
The legislation seems pretty specific to me but its interesting that Kev has brought up the museum of London shenanigans onto this thread only in as much that it would seem to me that it should be important what is in and what is not in the respective Acts. I presume that if the MPs had wanted the museum of London to form companies that powers to do so would have been put in the act. The act says that the musem can provide archaeological services. It does not say The museum can form a company to perform archaeological services. All that we can work out from the acts about the museum of London is "in so far as it is a charity". And it was exempt and then it wasn't. They also did not put any accounts into the charity commission for years and changed the names, had this metromola and...still have this statutory provision which says that they (who) can provide archaeological services down old London town.
And now you suggest that theres a conspiracy. The only conspiracy going on there is who is in and who is out of the pension fund, just what do they spend 26million on a year in what is basically a concrete shed for the lord mayors cart. It never was archaeologists. Don't tell me theres urchins involved. And whats all this million pound loan. Where does it say that the board is a bank and sets interest rates for its subsidiary isn't that a bit like fixing the libor rate.
Reason: your past is my past