The difficulty with dubious policies is ensuring everyone on your team stays on-message. So it is with British law and policy on portable antiquities. Sometimes organisations are visibly embarrassed by the fact positions they feel are right to adopt conflict with the official one. The very existence of such inconsistencies is persuasive evidence that something’s wrong.
*************************************
A star example is displayed in English Heritage’s official definitions. Heritage Assets are (inter alia): “Undesignated but acknowledged heritage buildings and sites” and Heritage Crime is “Any offence which harms the value of England’s heritage assets”. Who could disagree? Heritage Crime is an offence that harms the value of undesignated but acknowledged heritage buildings and sites.
However, as they and everyone know, the target of desire of all legal metal detecting is undesignated but acknowledged heritage buildings and sites and not reporting finds from those assets harms their value. So the only thing that prevents legal metal detecting without reporting finds from fitting the definition of Heritage Crime is the fact it isn’t an offence!
That’s an inescapable and embarrassing inconsistency for our country for it means that for 15 years we have had a policy designed to avoid criminalising something which, in all respects other than being a crime, is considered a crime! And it’s not us that are saying so, it’s the Government’s own designated heritage champions. (Over to you, Houdini Department. Bon chance!)
PS….
For avoidance of doubt, our complaint is not against those who are conducting the fight against heritage crime – we are members of ARCH, the Alliance to Reduce Crime against Heritage and we’ve always been fully supportive of everything they do and always will be. Our complaint is against the Government – for not regulating metal detecting and not legislating to designate “metal detecting and not-reporting” a crime. The damage caused by the latter dwarfs that caused by nighthawking at a probable ratio of 7,000 : 300 so they really have no excuse.
[For more, put embarrassing inconsistencies into the search box.
A question: if someone can come up with a series of such inconsistencies and no-one denies they exist does it signal a fundamental defect in policy?]
_______________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
19/09/2013 at 15:22
Wilt
So, the ONLY thing to prevent something legal from being a crime is because it is not an offence – 100% Correct.
19/09/2013 at 16:15
heritageaction
Yes, but the unusual aspect of this situation is that the Government has signalled that something OUGHT to be designated as a crime but has failed to do it.
Imagine if they had publicly defined shoplifting as theft from shops but then left shoplifting legal! It would be illogical and an embarrassing inconsistency wouldn’t it?
19/09/2013 at 16:38
Wilt
I am not being flippant but where has the government signaled that ‘something’ ought to be a crime and what exactly is ‘something’. This is puzzling me??
19/09/2013 at 16:59
heritageaction
“I am not being flippant but where has the government signaled that ‘something’ ought to be a crime and what exactly is ‘something’. This is puzzling me??”
It has signalled (through its designated heritage spokespersons) that not reporting finds from undesignated but acknowledged heritage buildings and sites harms their value and that harming the value of undesignated but acknowledged heritage buildings and sites, when designated an “offence” is a heritage crime.
So the difference between “not reporting metal detecting finds” and “crime” is “designation or not as an offence”, nothing else, so the Government hasn’t a logical or moral leg to stand on thanks to EH’s carefully prepared definitions!
Interesting innit? It’s what some of us have been saying for years, non-reporting may be legal but it’s morally wrong. It’s good to have EH supporting that view.
19/09/2013 at 17:24
Wilt
Is this not stating the obvious though? When something is an “offence” it then becomes a crime is what you are saying??
As much as I agree with most of the points made on the journal, this one has got me stumped as to the logic used, because it is a circular argument.
19/09/2013 at 17:37
heritageaction
“When something is an “offence” it then becomes a crime is what you are saying?”
The crux is that “offence” and “crime” are interchangeable but neither applies to “not reporting metal detecting finds” whereas EH says the latter is indistinguishable from the former two. The obvious implication is that if it is indistinguishable from them the Government ought to make it legally identical to them.
19/09/2013 at 17:50
Wilt
I would love to see you try and argue that one in a court of law.
I just Googled ‘Heritage Asset’ and up pops EH’s definition;
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/hpg/hpr-definitions/h/536274/
Sadly, one can harm a Heritage asset but unless someone actually perpetrates a crime, there is no offense. A good example is building close to a stone alignment. The alignment meets the criteria of a Heritage asset and the proximity of the building ‘harms’ that asset by changing its environmental setting but if planning laws are met there is no offense.
Until the government brings in tighter and better defined legislation and regulation then nothing will change.
19/09/2013 at 18:07
heritageaction
“I just Googled ‘Heritage Asset’ and up pops EH’s definition;
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/hpg/hpr-definitions/h/536274/
Sadly, one can harm a Heritage asset but unless someone actually perpetrates a crime, there is no offense. A good example is building close to a stone alignment. The alignment meets the criteria of a Heritage asset and the proximity of the building ‘harms’ that asset by changing its environmental setting but if planning laws are met there is no offense.
Until the government brings in tighter and better defined legislation and regulation then nothing will change.
Agree with every word, in fact that’s the whole point of the article.
As for whether the government will ever bring in tighter legislation, who knows? They didn’t 15 years ago as detectorists claimed (falsely) that nighthawking would rocket and all subsequent attempts to improve things have been met with threats of “recording strikes”. (17 so far).
26/09/2013 at 15:49
Wilt
I can’t seem to see HA on the member list of ARCH?
http://www.theheritagealliance.org.uk/our-members/
Are you actually members as the records seems to say otherwise??
26/09/2013 at 16:14
heritageaction
Yes we’ve been in it for some time http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/a-e/archmembers-sep13.pdf
(Your link was to the Heritage Alliance).
26/09/2013 at 16:47
Wilt
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. It’s confusing having two similarly named organisations.