4 ms·

No it isn't about safety this guy would've been left empty handed if he found that sword in his own backyard. They have arbitrary rules to smother any type of f

• wutwutwat 3y ago
  Bro, someone found an old hunk of metal in a river, and you're losing your shit here. Maybe the person who found it doesn't care that they didn't get a reward and is just happy to have an amazing story and to have helped all of humanity learn a little more about the collective past that somehow all of man managed to forget about after it happened. There are much more important things in this world besides fortune, and not everything is a conspiracy by the shadow government to oppress you.
  • scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
    There was a time you pulled a sword out of a lake or a rock and you got to become a king. The UK just ain’t what it used to be.
    • bullox 3y ago
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
      • porkbeer 3y ago
        This is not reddit
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • beti123 3y ago
    [dead]
• mytailorisrich 3y ago
  If he had found it in his own backyard it would have been his unless deemed a "treasure" but in that case the museum acquiring the sword would have had to buy it. Here my issue is the plain threat to make the finder give away the sword.
  • bdhcuidbebe 3y ago
    he wasnt allowed to magnet fish at this spot, so he was basically unlawfully looting
    • mytailorisrich 3y ago
      Let's not go over the top. Fishing for metal junk in a river is not "looting" whether allowed or not. This is the sort of 'crime' that should carry a penalty of a telling off and a £50 fine at most, not a threat of prosecution and thousands in legal costs and fines, not least when the River Trust's main argument is 'safety', thereby implicitly acknowledging that magnet fishing has no negative impact on the river's environment.
      • bdhcuidbebe 3y ago
        Ianal, and I suspect neither are you. i am simply refererring to facts stated in the article: > There was a little dispute with the landowner and the rivers trust who don't permit magnet fishing. The latter sent a legal document saying they wouldn't take action on the condition that the sword was passed to a museum, which I had done.
        • mytailorisrich 3y ago
          Yes, we've all read it, hence my comments.
      • UncleEntity 3y ago
        IDK, people finding bombs in the river seems a valid 'safety' argument to me. I've read stories where they evacuate whole blocks when someone digs up a 500lb bomb in their basement until they can properly evaluate how safe it is.
• MrJohz 3y ago
  Given your comment, I suspect there's not much correcting you, but for the sake of others who are interested in how treasure works in the UK: If you find something that might be treasure, you must report it to a coroner, who will first determine whether it really is treasure. Typically treasure is something valuable or historically significant. If it is treasure, an independent body will then value the treasure, and also make decisions about who the treasure belongs to - typically it will be split between the finder and the landowner. At this point, the treasure will be offered to a museum for the price set by this independent body. If the museum doesn't want it or cannot afford it, then the finder/landowner get to keep the treasure, otherwise the museum buys the object and pays the finder and landowner. So ultimately, assuming you find something, you'll always get to either keep the item, or have someone buy it off you. That said, there are stipulations around not being able to just go around and dig up anyone's ground, and you always need to get permission from the landowner before going treasure hunting. In this case, magnet fishing is apparently not allowed on rivers, hence why they figured out an arrangement to donate the sword rather than be paid for it. EDIT: And if you want to watch a light-hearted comedy series about metal detecting, you can't go wrong with Detectorists!
  • wil421 3y ago
    I’m guessing a UK coroner is not the same as the US coroner. Seems odd to have to give your treasure to the dead body investigators.
    • cjrp 3y ago
      It's the same here (coroners investigate deaths); they weirdly also handle these treasure finds.
    • jfengel 3y ago
      The word "coroner" means "on behalf of the Crown". They were originally responsible for representing the government in matters that seemed suspicious. Mostly, that means deaths, but it has also expanded to include findings of treasure. The US inherited the term before it gained that treasure-inquest aspect. The connection to the "crown" has been completely lost, but we kept the word.
• gravescale 3y ago
  > They see success as a threat to their artificially fair society Bro, this is in the UK. Fair play is a long way down the government list of priorities these days.
• vidarh 3y ago
  I did not mention safety because the reasoning for the relevant authorities to set the policies they have was irrelevant to my point. You're arguing against a strawman of your own making. I addressed your point about incentives, and nothing else: The incentives here are exactly as the relevant authorities want them to be. You're free to disagree that is not how they should be, but that is an entirely separate discussion.
• tsukikage 3y ago
  Dude. I own my back yard. It's mine. Property ownership means something. If I say I don't want you digging there, you shouldn't dig there. I don't go around /your/ property taking random stuff and calling it a fortune. Get your metal detector off my lawn.