|
Title: treasure act - the 1st prosecution Post by: handyman [Alan} on March 03, 2010, 09:21:17 PM details of how it got to this stage can be found on this link.
cheers http://www.shropshirestar.com/?s=piedfort&searchsubmit=Search (http://www.shropshirestar.com/?s=piedfort&searchsubmit=Search) Title: Re: treasure act - the 1st prosecution Post by: Neil on March 03, 2010, 10:23:32 PM A very, very interesting case Alan. It sets a bit of a precedent as far as we are all concerned and raises far more questions than answers.
Theres a lot more to this than we have been allowed to know! Great post Neil Title: Re: treasure act - the 1st prosecution Post by: Al.Thepastfinder, ( Alan ) on March 04, 2010, 02:53:53 PM NIce one Alan, still no explanations though, ?????? why arn't they telling us the rest of the story, i was thinking of writing to them myself, but didn't get the time,
Title: Re: treasure act - the 1st prosecution Post by: nfl on March 04, 2010, 04:22:25 PM i always thought treasure consisted of 3 or more {silver} coins found together and they had to be 300 years plus ,if this person has got done i better start hiding my hammereds under the matress. :D
Title: Re: treasure act - the 1st prosecution Post by: Chef Geoff on March 04, 2010, 04:39:42 PM Well it looks as if they would of brought the case on the grounds of it being a presentation piece and never intended for circulation, thus not a coin of the realm. I do think she would of had a case, with a reasonable chance of winning, but she pleaded guilty so we shall never know.
I also think that it wasn't just not reporting the find, it was an "expert" advising her to report and she still didn't do it. Title: Re: treasure act - the 1st prosecution Post by: nfl on March 04, 2010, 06:45:15 PM just seems to be another turn of the screw to police metal detecting, this case could well be a cause for debate amongst archis,govt,detectorists,,, i wonder if detecting is banned before i get to old to walk about????????.
|