Shafted again perhaps ?

[PHIL YNYSBOETH]

This artical was pointed out to be By Bymatt666 at last nights Rare meeting

He found it on Mick Turells Leisure Promotion web site.
Im sure Mick wont mind me posting it here as he feels the same as  do The is an Outrage  !



   * Proposed changes to the Treasure Act

The archaeologists are reported as wanting some changes to the Treasure Act and this should be of concern to everyone as it will affect you all.

1) If you collect ancient coins & artefacts and have any in your collection which come under the current Treasure Act, then you must prove that they have been declared in the past. If not, you must do so yourself or you can be prosecuted. It does not matter how long you have had your collection, you are still liable if you cannot prove it!

2) Currently, if you follow the letter of the law when finding something which comes under the Treasure Act, then both yourself and the landowner are rewarded should a Museum want it – usually the full market value. The CBA want this changed as they want to deduct some of this ‘reward’ and have it for themselves. In short they feel that they should have some of this money to pay for any archaeological work that they undertake, such as conservation and identification along with perhaps a small dig on the site of the find. I may be a bit of a cynic, but I can see that they would take quite a sizeable percentage of the landowners and finders reward for themselves – do they not already get paid to do this anyway?

3) They want the act to include single Saxon & Roman coins. Initially it was thought to include all Saxon & Roman coins, but it is now thought to be just Gold coins of these periods. So once again they are trying to change the rules to suit themselves and I am sure that they are not going to stop here.

Hopefully both the NCMD and FID are watching this move and will be fighting on our behalf if it is felt to be detrimental to our hobby.

[PHIL YNYSBOETH]

As for the NCMD and FID fighting our corner.......Dont hold your breath

[nfl]

i seriously dont believe that any organisation will stick up for the common detectorist as gerry adams was made a mp we all do what we feel we have to do in the common intrest of ourself besides with tories in power now they will want the land for fox hunting so why not chuck off the common man once again   

[beachboy (viv)]

what i would llike to know do this apply to those archaoelogist who have a private collection of their own which were never reported or are they exempt.viv

[nfl]

of course they are exempt i believe the term is....working within the system

[Chef Geoff]

Phil what is the source of the article as it smacks of scaremongering, Unfortunately there are those within the hobby who have an axe to grind with the CBA and believe attack is the best form of defence. So is this just a rumour or an official document?

[nfl]

if these new tresure laws are true i wouldent worry about it,, i mean i dont know many people that have had a idem recorded as tresure and as for saxon and roman gold not in this lifetime your having a laugh aint ya

[bymatt666 (byron)]

you will find this article on       www.leisure-promotions.co.uk     in the news section.....byron

[Chef Geoff]

Yes I checked it but there  is no reference to whether its official or not and I can find nothing about any plans to alter the treasure act so I think at the moment it's pure speculation.

[Techony]

Point 1 does seem to have been implemented in the January 2010 changes:

http://aiad.org.uk/2010/01/12/uk-treasure-trove-act-changes/

The new law, incorporated in the ‘Coroners and Justice Bill 2009′, makes it the legal duty of the possessor of any item which is or might be treasure to report it within 14 days of acquiring it or becoming aware that it might be treasure. Previously the onus was on the finder of any such item, but now the duty of reporting (disclosure) rests with the person in possession of the item. This will obviously have implications for dealers who hold stocks of coins and antiquities with significant gold or silver content. The act applies to England and Wales, but the Scottish position is slightly different due to the automatic duty to dislose which already exists in that country.
The only defence in law appears to be (i) to demonstrate that the item is not treasure or (ii) to establish that the item has already been reported when acquired. Ignorance of the law is not a workable legal defence!
The act does allow for a defence that the defendant may have a reasonable excuse for failing to notify; until this is tested in court, there is no means of knowing what will qualify as a reasonable excuse.
The punishment for being found guilty of not reporting extends to up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment and / or a fine of up to GBP 5000.
While reporting of finds of antiquities (whether treasure or not) is a laudable aim, it seems likely that this change in the law will potentially capture many people who find objects while gardening, walking the dog, making sandcastles on the beach and so on. The case law established here will be interesting!

[Chef Geoff]

That is the coroners bill, it only strengthens the powers under the "Treasure" part of the treasure act 1996. it does not widen its criteria. Nor does it have any clause about the finder paying any money for digs or on single Saxon or Roman gold.

[Techony]

Absolutely right Chef. That's why I said "point 1" was already covered, no mention of the other two.

It's quite likely that the other two issues are someone's interpretation of what they think might be happening. They are certainly worded more emotionally than the first, which is stated quite factually.

[nfl]

jus cant be arsed to detect anymore and ive got over 3000 acres to tect on, full of red tape and bull ****

[Chef Geoff]

3000 acres?? Paul would you like to adopt me
Seriously though I don't think there is any more red tape now than there ever was. We still have the most liberal detecting laws in Europe.

[waltonbasinman]

what i would llike to know do this apply to those archaoelogist who have a private collection of their own which were never reported or are they exempt.viv

My sentiments exactly Viv. I have seen a few personal collections and it would put a lot of detectorists to shame. All I feel these proposals will do is make a lot of detectorists underground in such that I see nobody declaring anything so basically having the opposite effect. Shame if that happens.