As we mentioned yesterday (and have banged on about for years), Britain’s concept of “Heritage Crime” is irrational. Under the definition, if you harm heritage when trespassing it’s a heritage crime but if you have permission to be there it’s not. But maybe things are finally changing, for the new Advice to Landowners says

Anyone removing objects from land without the landowner/farmer occupier’s permission is committing theft” and farmers shouldcall the police, and also make it clear to any attending officer/s that action should to be taken against the offender/s….”

NB “anyone” who removes objects without the farmer’s permission is a thief and should be reported to the police. That must include those who’ve been allowed on the fields. 

.

One of these chaps is currently guilty of “Heritage Crime” as officially defined, the other isn’t as he has permission to be there. But which? Well, Officialdom has just confirmed to farmers that both are thieves and the police should be told. Same action, same damage to heritage, same law breaking, same action required. So, isn’t it high time that the official definition of Heritage Crime was re-written to include both of them?

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________