Advertisement
Advertisement
"The third, equally intractable problem is that Act relates to objects taken 'during the Nazi era,' as section 3(2)(b) makes perfectly obvious."The final nail in the coffin is that the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 is not an act under which it is possible to sue for the return of anything! The Act merely authorizes the above-mentioned public institutions to 'deaccession' an item from their collection for return to a victim of Nazi persecution in the event that something called the Spoliation Advisory Panel (which was set up to consider requests from victims of Nazi persecution and their families for the return of objects taken or constructively taken during the Nazi period that ended up in UK collections) recommends this and the relevant Secretary of State approves the recommendation.As for making a claim under "trespass to goods," only the owner (or the person claiming to be the owner) can claim for trespass to goods, and none of the people suing was ever the owner of the Koh-i-noor diamond. Any such owner's title has been extinguished by failure to sue within the specified limitation period, which is six years. The Koh-i-noor diamond passed into the Queen's hands in 1850!"In short, the supposedly proposed case is, in British parlance, bollocks."Read on Broadly: The Evolution of Indian Arranged Marriages