I think the press (and the EU) might well be interested to find out whether the "grassland/heathland" on farmer Eric Robinson's property at Crosby Garrett was at any time subject to any stewardship agreement at the time for seven years a group of metal detectorists was attempting to strip it of saleable artefacts. Yes or no? What kind of stewardship of the archaeological resource would that be?
The same goes for the unemployed Treasure hunter in this case who wanted to remain anonymous. Was he on a Job Seeker's benefit while he was spending time driving the eighty kilometers there and back to (several farms, it now seems, in) Crosby Garrett, and how would that reflect his ability to be "actively seeking work" and his "availability for work"? Also would any earnings from sales of metal detected items made during this time have been declared (I wonder what this guy's eBay nick was?). Remember that Margaret from Crosby Garrett was saying that "these people" had been finding "valuable" things on her land too. We remember the case recently of another metal detectorist on a "disability allowance"; he was allegedly too ill to go to work, but not too ill to go out most days tramping around fields metal detecting (I think we can all think of jobs which are less physically demanding).
To what extent is the current configuration of British law merely subsidising the stripping of its own archaeological heritage for the personal benefit of a few, and at the cost (both financially as well as the loss of information about their past) of the rest of society ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment