Letter: Thieves' market
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I write as chairman of the British Art Market Standing Committee, a body with senior representatives from the auction houses Christie's, Phillips, and Sotheby's and, on the dealers' side, the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association, the British Antique Dealers' Association and the Society of London Art Dealers.
In your issue of 2 December ('On loan to the connoisseurs of crime'), you point out the problem of the doctrine of market overt, which protects certain sorts of stolen property in some fairs and markets. It is the unanimous view of our committee that the doctrine of market overt is now an unhelpful anomaly, and is positively harmful as an encouragement to criminal practices in relation to stolen goods.
It was abolished in Wales in 1542, and the trade would welcome an extension of the repeal to England as a small contribution to reduction of the crime rate.
Yours faithfully,
STEPHEN TUMIM
Chairman
The British Art Market Standing Committee
London, SW1
2 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments