In theory that is about right. If the item was obtained lawfully then you
can within reason do as you like with it.Knowing or believing is a problem
For if you believe it is unlawfully obtained even if it is not then you are
committing an offence.
----- Original Message -----
From: "rob" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Ebay a Defence and justification
>I guess the argument is in defining in law what tainted means and what is a
> building or archaeological site. However in the case of detecting if one
> given permission to detect on private land and one finds these object then
> you have not in any way contravened the act you state. After all it is
> possible for us to argue that any find in any field is taken from an
> archaeological site and therefore tainted however this just wouldn't stand
> up in court. Then you would have to prove that a structure existed in the
> said field and how would you do that? Who would pay for a full scale
> excavation of that site and more importantly would the landowner allow it.
> The next question would then be did the seller know at the time of finding
> that any structure existed again you can't prove he did.
> The theft act states " The dishonest appropriation of property belonging
> another with the intent to permanently deprive" under the theft act one
> would need to prove that A) he dishonestly appropriated it which with
> permission to detect that land they didn't B) was the intent there to
> deprive the landowner of his property again intent is subjective and
> therefore nearly impossible to prove. My own understanding of the act you
> have quoted is based on a dealer knowingly selling cultural finds knowing
> suspecting them to have come from an archaeological site such as an open
> excavation or a SAM. It doesn't in my opinion have any strength to be
> for metal detectorists who have gained their objects in a legal manner and
> also would that find be classed as tainted anyway. As I said yesterday if
> the finds have been reported to a FLO and that same FLO doesn't deem them
> treasure then the owner and detectorist have the right to sell them or
> them. Only a law change in England and Wales will change that concept.
> So yes I don't see the Theft act or its sub section of the cultural
> antiquities act standing in any court of law where this and E-Bay are
> concerned unless you can prove they were gotten from a SAM or open area
> excavation. Maybe a lawyer can clarify my beliefs of this act.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "n/a" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:02 AM
> Subject: Ebay a Defence and justification
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005