It is
being alleged that one of the largest of Britain's commercial metal-detecting-rally organizers ("Looters Grab Artefacts") refused to pay a Yorkshire farmer for access to his land so they could walk off with his artefacts. Apparently this is because they claimed it had been detected before and therefore they were looting a site that was not pristine. The farmer on the other hand, reportedly claimed that gates were left open by the artefact hunters and his cattle escaped. Legal action has been threatened by both sides. This "escaped cattle" story sounds a bit fishy, no? Can't be true, all RESPONSIBLE metal detectorists "fill there 'oles and shut the gates" don't they? NCMD sez so.
But, like many of my colleagues I expect, if this is true, I hope the legal costs on top of the lost earnings in lockdown mean that the commercial looting business goes to the wall.
.jpg)
4 comments:
Legal nightmare. The question arises how much financial loss was suffered if a field was falsely said to be undetected? Is the judge to be asked to assess the value of what might have been found had it not been previously found?
(I hope they sell tickets for the hearing.)
"Unknown" I will publish your comment if you put your name under it. I am not publishing allegations like that anonymously.
Are you sure of the facts? If you castigate me for "not researching both sides of the story", include a link to where I can find the version you are propagating. Otherwise don't have a go at me for not researching what is only accessible to you and not me. Thanks.
Besides which, the story as written makes no sense. Get a dictionary and look up what "tenant" means, say how you know this, and then ask somebody to look at the punctuation. Sign it with your name, and I'll publish it and we'll talk about it. OK?
"Unknown"? You had a story that you wanted to share. What actually is the problem putting your name under these allegations?
Post a Comment