28th April 2010, 10:09 AM
I assume the get out in some cases would be 'knowingly'.
After all, and I'm sure the Unit would point this out, since the finds technically belong to the landowner they could decide to sell them on - as happened not too long ago with a Roman tombstone.
Would that therefore mean if the landowner made their intentions clear at the beginning - "this stuff all belongs to me in the eyes of the law so I am going to put it all on Ebay once you lot have finished with it" IfA members would be forced to say, "then I can't carry out the work for you", thus having to hand the site over to a non-IfA member who would not actually be in any way breaking the law (assuming no treasure was found etc) and would have no say in whether this was going to happen or not?
If the landowner only declared their intention afterwards (once they had seen what goodies there were to choose from) the IfA member would not have been knowingly involved. Until the planning conditions include a clause saying that the finds have to be deposited this could potentially put IfA members in a difficult position. Or does such a clause or way round this already exist. As far as I know that Roman tombstone ended up being purchased by the museum. What's to stop a mean landowner/developer holding all the finds to ransome? In fact, the wording of the IfA code seems to have even taken this sort of eventuality into account with the mention of material being dispersed and inaccessible. Presumably if the landowner sells it to the museum that is OK!
After all, and I'm sure the Unit would point this out, since the finds technically belong to the landowner they could decide to sell them on - as happened not too long ago with a Roman tombstone.
Would that therefore mean if the landowner made their intentions clear at the beginning - "this stuff all belongs to me in the eyes of the law so I am going to put it all on Ebay once you lot have finished with it" IfA members would be forced to say, "then I can't carry out the work for you", thus having to hand the site over to a non-IfA member who would not actually be in any way breaking the law (assuming no treasure was found etc) and would have no say in whether this was going to happen or not?
If the landowner only declared their intention afterwards (once they had seen what goodies there were to choose from) the IfA member would not have been knowingly involved. Until the planning conditions include a clause saying that the finds have to be deposited this could potentially put IfA members in a difficult position. Or does such a clause or way round this already exist. As far as I know that Roman tombstone ended up being purchased by the museum. What's to stop a mean landowner/developer holding all the finds to ransome? In fact, the wording of the IfA code seems to have even taken this sort of eventuality into account with the mention of material being dispersed and inaccessible. Presumably if the landowner sells it to the museum that is OK!