4 ms·

Does anyone know what the other side of the issue is? The fact that this article paints a totally rosy picture, does not mention downsides to the system, only

Does anyone know what the other side of the issue is? The fact that this article paints a totally rosy picture, does not mention downsides to the system, only quotes government side sources (they couldn't even find a metal dectectorist to say "yeah it's not perfect but it's good enough"?) is setting off red flags for me.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rwmj 7y ago
We usually get a few news articles a year about either someone not declaring treasure to the coroner (and occasionally ending up in prison for substantial lengths of time, see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-50516329 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-505...), or about landowners and detectorists fighting over who has the right to finds which can be worth a substantial sum of money (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11510037 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11510037 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-48366616 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-48366616). This seems to indicate to me that the system is broadly working as intended.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Well when the new rules came in, there was a massive increase in reported finds - around tenfold. That seems to indicate the detectorists quite like it, landowners seem to approve of their share too. There was a news story that beggared belief quite recently of a pair of detectorists who found a major Viking hoard, sold bits piecemeal trying to to go the illicit sale route, but got caught and now face years in prison and no bounty. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/21/detectorists-hid-find-that-rewrites-anglo-saxon-history https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/21/detectorists... The biggest problem, that I'm aware of, is in giving a representative commercial value to found treasure trove, many museums struggle to afford. There have been many calls for museums and trusts to get more formal government assistance to pick up major finds, though they can get lottery assistance I think. Here's a piece from nearly 20 years ago, when I think the new rules were still quite recent: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/aug/15/education.arts https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/aug/15/education.arts
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Well when the new rules came in, there was a massive increase in reported finds - around tenfold. That seems to indicate the detectorists quite like it, landowners seem to approve of their share too. Compliance doesn't mean they like it, just that the risk reward of telling the state to shove it isn't worth telling the state to shove it (after all, this is just a hobby for most people). What I'd like to hear is someone who was metal detecting back before the law change describing how things changed and the pros cons. I googled around but couldn't find anything (which is unsurprising considering how niche this is and the timeline involved).
  - simonh 7y ago
    From a practical point of view, the increase in reported finds is a pretty good indicator of success. After all we're balancing the interests of detectorists, land owners and the public. Success isn't necessarily about completely satisfying any of them.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  If an 'antique' gold coin is more valuable than its weight in gold there may be practical benefits in complying with the law as it may be difficult (and less profitable) to sell these coins without the correct paperwork. Indeed, I suppose that any serious dealer will want to check the status of these coins, and any dodgy dealer will buy at a discount.
Accujack 7y ago
My questions would be what oversight is there of the coroners' decisions and what ensures their qualifications? A scientific discovery might have no gold or silver but be much more valuable at sale than shiny metals. A coroner who decides entirely based on his/her knowledge of the value of the find risks making incorrect decisions based on a lack of specialist knowledge.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  The normal court process I would suspect it could end up in the Lords / Supreme court
- tialaramex 7y ago
  A coroner is basically a type of judge. They have a court, they can summon a jury (but obviously you don't need a jury to make treasure decisions, that's for stuff like an inquest after a person dies in police custody to avoid even the appearance of a cover up by the state) they can force witnesses to turn up and give evidence to them. So their qualifications are primarily legal like other judges (in the UK you can't get a job as judge by having the Head of State just give it to you, our judiciary actually is politically independent rather than just having a pretence)
- matthewheath 7y ago
  Coroners must be legally qualified solicitors or barristers, or a Fellow of the Charted Institute of Legal Executives, and must have 5 years worth of experience [1]. They are appointed by local authorities with the consent of the Chief Coroner and the Lord Chancellor. For oversight, you must submit a judicial review to the High Court. A senior judge there will decide the lawfulness of the coroner's actions [2]. You used to be able to appeal to the Chief Coroner instead of seeking judicial review, but this mechanism was removed by the Public Bodies Act 2011 [3]. --- [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/13/section/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/13/section/2 [2] https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/office-chief-coroner/ https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/office-c... [3] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/40 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/40

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rwmj 7y ago

We usually get a few news articles a year about either someone not declaring treasure to the coroner (and occasionally ending up in prison for substantial lengths of time, see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-50516329 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-505...), or about landowners and detectorists fighting over who has the right to finds which can be worth a substantial sum of money (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11510037 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11510037 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-48366616 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-48366616). This seems to indicate to me that the system is broadly working as intended.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Well when the new rules came in, there was a massive increase in reported finds - around tenfold. That seems to indicate the detectorists quite like it, landowners seem to approve of their share too. There was a news story that beggared belief quite recently of a pair of detectorists who found a major Viking hoard, sold bits piecemeal trying to to go the illicit sale route, but got caught and now face years in prison and no bounty. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/21/detectorists-hid-find-that-rewrites-anglo-saxon-history https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/21/detectorists... The biggest problem, that I'm aware of, is in giving a representative commercial value to found treasure trove, many museums struggle to afford. There have been many calls for museums and trusts to get more formal government assistance to pick up major finds, though they can get lottery assistance I think. Here's a piece from nearly 20 years ago, when I think the new rules were still quite recent: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/aug/15/education.arts https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/aug/15/education.arts

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Well when the new rules came in, there was a massive increase in reported finds - around tenfold. That seems to indicate the detectorists quite like it, landowners seem to approve of their share too. Compliance doesn't mean they like it, just that the risk reward of telling the state to shove it isn't worth telling the state to shove it (after all, this is just a hobby for most people). What I'd like to hear is someone who was metal detecting back before the law change describing how things changed and the pros cons. I googled around but couldn't find anything (which is unsurprising considering how niche this is and the timeline involved).
- simonh 7y ago
  From a practical point of view, the increase in reported finds is a pretty good indicator of success. After all we're balancing the interests of detectorists, land owners and the public. Success isn't necessarily about completely satisfying any of them.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
If an 'antique' gold coin is more valuable than its weight in gold there may be practical benefits in complying with the law as it may be difficult (and less profitable) to sell these coins without the correct paperwork. Indeed, I suppose that any serious dealer will want to check the status of these coins, and any dodgy dealer will buy at a discount.

Accujack 7y ago

My questions would be what oversight is there of the coroners' decisions and what ensures their qualifications? A scientific discovery might have no gold or silver but be much more valuable at sale than shiny metals. A coroner who decides entirely based on his/her knowledge of the value of the find risks making incorrect decisions based on a lack of specialist knowledge.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
The normal court process I would suspect it could end up in the Lords / Supreme court
tialaramex 7y ago
A coroner is basically a type of judge. They have a court, they can summon a jury (but obviously you don't need a jury to make treasure decisions, that's for stuff like an inquest after a person dies in police custody to avoid even the appearance of a cover up by the state) they can force witnesses to turn up and give evidence to them. So their qualifications are primarily legal like other judges (in the UK you can't get a job as judge by having the Head of State just give it to you, our judiciary actually is politically independent rather than just having a pretence)
matthewheath 7y ago
Coroners must be legally qualified solicitors or barristers, or a Fellow of the Charted Institute of Legal Executives, and must have 5 years worth of experience [1]. They are appointed by local authorities with the consent of the Chief Coroner and the Lord Chancellor. For oversight, you must submit a judicial review to the High Court. A senior judge there will decide the lawfulness of the coroner's actions [2]. You used to be able to appeal to the Chief Coroner instead of seeking judicial review, but this mechanism was removed by the Public Bodies Act 2011 [3]. --- [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/13/section/2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/13/section/2 [2] https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/office-chief-coroner/ https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/office-c... [3] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/40 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/40