Well lots has changed for me now and I'm no longer working. I'm thinking of buying a campervan and going camping/detecting all over the country ;)
I had a great result at Coroners court earlier this month. The museum had taken two of our Celtic Staters after threatening us with arrest if we didn't hand them in!
After months of strained exchanges with the british museum we went to coroners inquest where who should turn up for the bm..... Roger Bland - Head of Antiquities and treasure and creator of the PAS!
He was very confident, saying at one point that he had written this particular part of the act......
"the Act does not have retrospective effect: for example, if a finder
discovers first one coin on a particular site, which will not be treasure, and
then subsequently discovers more coins on the same site, which will then
qualify as treasure, the original discovery will not be considered as treasure."
Mr Bland was claiming that when they wrote 'subsequent discoveries' they meant items found years not days apart...
.....it was quite funny when the coroner told him that if he meant that, then he should have written it but he hadn't so my understanding was correct.
The coroner went on to decide that neither should be treasure anyway because as we said from the start they were two separate single coin finds. Mr Bland took it quite well. I thought it was weird they sent their top man or he sent himself!
I think it was because I wouldn't concede to them when they were stretching the law to suit them. They also got up to some surprisingly dirty tricks.....not what I expected from a respected organisation.
I had a great result at Coroners court earlier this month. The museum had taken two of our Celtic Staters after threatening us with arrest if we didn't hand them in!
After months of strained exchanges with the british museum we went to coroners inquest where who should turn up for the bm..... Roger Bland - Head of Antiquities and treasure and creator of the PAS!
He was very confident, saying at one point that he had written this particular part of the act......
"the Act does not have retrospective effect: for example, if a finder
discovers first one coin on a particular site, which will not be treasure, and
then subsequently discovers more coins on the same site, which will then
qualify as treasure, the original discovery will not be considered as treasure."
Mr Bland was claiming that when they wrote 'subsequent discoveries' they meant items found years not days apart...
.....it was quite funny when the coroner told him that if he meant that, then he should have written it but he hadn't so my understanding was correct.
The coroner went on to decide that neither should be treasure anyway because as we said from the start they were two separate single coin finds. Mr Bland took it quite well. I thought it was weird they sent their top man or he sent himself!
I think it was because I wouldn't concede to them when they were stretching the law to suit them. They also got up to some surprisingly dirty tricks.....not what I expected from a respected organisation.