Actually, in that last bit, he is utterly wrong; a conviction for handling dodgy goods seems (as we have seen) to do NO damage in the collecting world to a dealer's reputation. It confirms that the artefacts handled by this guy are indeed genuine, authentic. That is what run-of-the-mill collectors want confirmed, not that they are of licit origins; most of them - unfortunately - do not give a tinkers about that. So let us not worry about such a 'market' being damaged by new legislation, let us see about cleaning up that market and changing the attitudes of its denizens by removing social approval for the dodgy activities.
UPDATE
and already a lobbyist for the no-questions-asked market promotes the non-argument:
Peter Tompa and as alwways, HE is welcome HERE to get HIS point across (he blocks me from his own scandal-mongering and snipey blogette).@Aurelius161180 1 godzinę temu
Peter Tompa podał/a dalej Ivan MacquistenConcerns raised about new UK legislation.
2 comments:
Sir Edward Garnier misses the point. The Bill passing through Parliament expects an enhanced due diligence process from those involved in the trade. There are continuing concerns about the way that so-called illicit antiquities continue to surface on the market. The archaeological contribution to the APPG in advance of the Bill made this very clear.
and the US lobbyist prefers sniping to a exchange of views and viewpoints thus chickened out of discussing the issue here. Nevertheless this is Britain and US lobbyists really have no say in what other countries 'should' be doing - no matter how much they think they are 'entitled' to stand judge over us all. The convention and agreements on the import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property arenthere to promote collaboration between nations, not to support a US-based division and dominance.
Post a Comment