http://action4archives.com Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:18:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://action4archives.com/home/comment-page-1#comment-7 Geoffrey Thomas Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:14:20 +0000 http://action4archives.com/?page_id=4#comment-7 Absolutely disgraceful! Has whoever is involved any idea of what it is they are doing! Absolutely disgraceful! Has whoever is involved any idea of what it is they are doing!

]]> http://action4archives.com/home/comment-page-1#comment-5 Edwin Mungo Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:55:40 +0000 http://action4archives.com/?page_id=4#comment-5 Hmm... you don't think this is a bit OTT? As you can read in the same issue of Private Eye that announced the creation of this website, the Justice Ministry (TNA's sponsoring department) is facing cuts of £70m. TNA's £4m or 10% is big but it's going to be like this or worse across public sector cultural bodies in a year or two: most are shielded by DCMS grant-in-aid, which is why TNA is getting its pruning shears out earlier. There are also, admittedly, cultural differences. But contrary to what is said in the Eye, the deleted posts are just as much low and middle managerial as record experts, and most if not all the record experts look very likely to move to new posts. Actually it is the loss of some of the managerial posts that is most likely to have an effect. As to opening - the PRO only went up to 6 days a week in the 1990s, so it's not exactly a historic right being struck down. It's a shame, but we can surely live with it. A lot of the outcry seems to be about things that are not hinted at at all in the cuts: an end to cataloguing; relegation of the physical site at Kew and eventual move out of London; etc. What's the evidence for this seriously being in prospect? I would be thoroughly opposed to these, but I think if you're going to argue against them you should establish that they are on the cards and treat theissues clearly and calmly. Calling TNA 'thieves' doesn't realy form part of this. I'd really really like them not to be doing this, but I feel that in 2 years these cuts may seem pretty small in the public sector context. Hmm… you don’t think this is a bit OTT? As you can read in the same issue of Private Eye that announced the creation of this website, the Justice Ministry (TNA’s sponsoring department) is facing cuts of £70m. TNA’s £4m or 10% is big but it’s going to be like this or worse across public sector cultural bodies in a year or two: most are shielded by DCMS grant-in-aid, which is why TNA is getting its pruning shears out earlier. There are also, admittedly, cultural differences. But contrary to what is said in the Eye, the deleted posts are just as much low and middle managerial as record experts, and most if not all the record experts look very likely to move to new posts. Actually it is the loss of some of the managerial posts that is most likely to have an effect. As to opening – the PRO only went up to 6 days a week in the 1990s, so it’s not exactly a historic right being struck down. It’s a shame, but we can surely live with it.
A lot of the outcry seems to be about things that are not hinted at at all in the cuts: an end to cataloguing; relegation of the physical site at Kew and eventual move out of London; etc. What’s the evidence for this seriously being in prospect? I would be thoroughly opposed to these, but I think if you’re going to argue against them you should establish that they are on the cards and treat theissues clearly and calmly. Calling TNA ‘thieves’ doesn’t realy form part of this.
I’d really really like them not to be doing this, but I feel that in 2 years these cuts may seem pretty small in the public sector context.

]]> http://action4archives.com/home/comment-page-1#comment-4 James Sneddon Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:09:33 +0000 http://action4archives.com/?page_id=4#comment-4 Agree with this websites purpose. Save our archives (and Archivists) from evangelical digitalists and cost cutters. A wee suggestion would it be feasible to also set up a petition on the number 10 website at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ Agree with this websites purpose. Save our archives (and Archivists) from evangelical digitalists and cost cutters.
A wee suggestion would it be feasible to also set up a petition on the number 10 website at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/

]]>