Commenting on the Sekhemka case on the Cultural property Observer blog, representing the interests of the IAPN and PNG we read that “According to UNESCO’s 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property [...] Egypt has no right to claim the recovery of the statue, as the statue left Egypt before this convention was put in place”. Hmmm. The writer of those words then goes on to taunt:
I'm sure ALL supporters of the UNESCO Convention on such matters, especially a Mr Barford of Warsaw, will clammer to prevent this important UNESCO ruling from being undermined or overturned by the humbug shown by the generals.The author of those words claims to be in "publishing" and a feature writer, he will know then that clammers are people who comb beaches for bivalve shellfish. For those for whom English is not their first language - or people, as Minister Lammy once memorably characterised PAS partners, "people challenged by formal education" - the verb is 'clamour'.
My comments on the UNESCO Convention and Northampton philistinism will be found here . (In addition, this post seems relevant to this communication on Peter Tompa's blog too).
There are many people who do not want to see the Sekhemka statue sold off, it beats me why in that case the IAPN and PNG lobbyist persists in publishing ridiculously puerile and inflammatory comments referring to me (but only after forbidding me the right to reply on his blog, only a coward debates in such a fashion). Meanwhile, as I pointed out earlier, the "observer" neglects to report one important fact about the recent developments in this case.
Vignette: Beach hunting (Scott Moore)