7 ms·

It's not a 'government guidelines' it's law! For those interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_199

It's not a 'government guidelines' it's law! For those interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996

pmyteh 5y ago
Yes! And the definition of Treasure given in the article is not only incomplete, but isn't the clause that would apply to these objects. (Bronze isn't gold or silver, but these are probably covered as multiple associated prehistoric base metal objects).
OJFord 5y ago
In fairness, the actual (slightly odd perhaps) phrasing is: > When treasure is found, the finder does not own it, and it is illegal to try to sell it, according to government guidelines. There could well be guidelines that say that, about the law ('it is illegal', as it says). HMRC has plenty of guidelines on what tax you owe and how to pay it etc. for example, but it also comes down to law at the end of it.
- juanani 5y ago
  Huh, I wonder if they wrote that in after they looted dry their former colonies..
  - OJFord 5y ago
    Why, what difference would it make? The law is that the crown (potentially) owns it, so assuming you're meaning that it's hypocritical... no not really? (Unless 'they' is 'the British people' who democratically/collectively looted and then later (or whenever it was) wrote laws?)
    - tata71 5y ago
      I thought this thread was already goofy, and then you started talking about the UK as if it was a democracy.
      - OJFord 5y ago
        Well, it is, but I didn't assert that anyway, that was a hypothetical interpretation of the other commenter's 'they' after I'd initially assumed they (the commenter) meant HM's Government.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
fnordian_slip 5y ago
And it's law for a reason. While interested hobbyists are often appreciated by archaeologists, there are quite a few people who are small-scale Schliemanns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann#Criticism). And with metal detectors being rather cheap, the damages these people cause do add up.
shmde 5y ago
Quite funny they have this act considering they stole a lot of very rare and precious artefacts from India. Maybe they should return those too.
- unfunco 5y ago
  So what?! Finders keepers! Shut up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY
ralfd 5y ago
The NYT article is behind a paywall, but does the landowner gets something too?
- pmyteh 5y ago
  Payments are ex gratia at the discretion of the Secretary of State, so in principle it's entirely up to them. There is a legally-guiding Code of Practice[0], though, which gives a starting point of 50% to the finder and 50% to the landowner. That proportion can change if there's an agreement about how to divide any spoils between the landowner and the finder in advance of the find, if there's misconduct on behalf of any party (e.g. trespass, failure to report in the legal time limits), etc. The occupier (e.g. tenant) is eligible too, sometimes. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/treasure-act-1996-code-of-practice-2nd-revision-england-and-wales https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/treasure-act-1996...

It's not a 'government guidelines' it's law! For those interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996

pmyteh 5y ago

Yes! And the definition of Treasure given in the article is not only incomplete, but isn't the clause that would apply to these objects. (Bronze isn't gold or silver, but these are probably covered as multiple associated prehistoric base metal objects).

OJFord 5y ago

In fairness, the actual (slightly odd perhaps) phrasing is: > When treasure is found, the finder does not own it, and it is illegal to try to sell it, according to government guidelines. There could well be guidelines that say that, about the law ('it is illegal', as it says). HMRC has plenty of guidelines on what tax you owe and how to pay it etc. for example, but it also comes down to law at the end of it.

juanani 5y ago
Huh, I wonder if they wrote that in after they looted dry their former colonies..
- OJFord 5y ago
  Why, what difference would it make? The law is that the crown (potentially) owns it, so assuming you're meaning that it's hypocritical... no not really? (Unless 'they' is 'the British people' who democratically/collectively looted and then later (or whenever it was) wrote laws?)
  - tata71 5y ago
    I thought this thread was already goofy, and then you started talking about the UK as if it was a democracy.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      Well, it is, but I didn't assert that anyway, that was a hypothetical interpretation of the other commenter's 'they' after I'd initially assumed they (the commenter) meant HM's Government.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

fnordian_slip 5y ago

And it's law for a reason. While interested hobbyists are often appreciated by archaeologists, there are quite a few people who are small-scale Schliemanns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann#Criticism). And with metal detectors being rather cheap, the damages these people cause do add up.

shmde 5y ago

Quite funny they have this act considering they stole a lot of very rare and precious artefacts from India. Maybe they should return those too.

unfunco 5y ago
So what?! Finders keepers! Shut up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY

ralfd 5y ago

The NYT article is behind a paywall, but does the landowner gets something too?

pmyteh 5y ago
Payments are ex gratia at the discretion of the Secretary of State, so in principle it's entirely up to them. There is a legally-guiding Code of Practice[0], though, which gives a starting point of 50% to the finder and 50% to the landowner. That proportion can change if there's an agreement about how to divide any spoils between the landowner and the finder in advance of the find, if there's misconduct on behalf of any party (e.g. trespass, failure to report in the legal time limits), etc. The occupier (e.g. tenant) is eligible too, sometimes. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/treasure-act-1996-code-of-practice-2nd-revision-england-and-wales https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/treasure-act-1996...