WIX Archives
Good posting Andy!!!
Posted by Will Fowler on Sun Jul 07, 2002 03:48:35 AM
In reply top Who owns them anyway?? posted by andy saunders on Sat Jul 06, 2002 03:49:24 AM
A good message Andy, well worth the read, congrats on the outcome of the case.
Regards,
Will
: It seems an interesting deabate has been opened up by comm
: ents arising out of my case. In a way, the issue of Crown/
: MOD ownership was central in the final analysis to the pro
: ceedings in my case. However, I will not comment further v
: ia this forum on the court case or its satisfactory outcom
: e - save to say that the RAF Press Officer Squadron Leader
: Elaine McLeod this week said that I had been "exonerated"
: . Coupled with Judge Rennie's praise of my actions isn't i
: t, surely, a case of 'nuff said on that point? Ownership t
: hough, now thats another matter!
: It is a fact that RAF aircraft wrecks, wherever they were
: in the world, were "Struck off Charge". Look at the releva
: nt Air Publications on that point and draw your own conclu
: sions. Moving on to 8th May 1972, the MOD said in writing
: that they had no further interest in these wrecks, that th
: ey had abandoned all claim to them and that they had been
: reduced into the possession of the landowner upon whos lan
: d they lay. By about 1975 the MOD were taking a different
: stance, saying they owned them after all. Despite being pr
: essed repeatedly on the matter they have never satisfactor
: ily explained the change of tack. Considering that they "a
: bandoned" them through the Struck off Charge process and c
: onfirmed the abandonment in 1972 I believe that MOD claim
: to title is tenuous in the extreme. Add to this the civil
: laws on abandonment and I fail to see they have any case a
: t all. If you or I left our property on private land for s
: ixty years or more I suspect our claim to ownership might
: be a little shaky. Ah, yes, I hear you all say, but what a
: bout the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986? Well, w
: hat about it? Can we dispel a myth here. The PMR Act does
: not confer ownership of wrecked aircraft on the MOD. It is
: entirely silent on the issue, and so were the debates on
: the matter in the Houses of Commons and Lords. The MOD wou
: ld like to have us believe that the Act does confer owners
: hip - but read it and see. It does not. All it does is req
: uire that within the UK one needs a licence to work on cra
: sh sites. As for RAF wrecks abroad, well the Act cannot ap
: ply outside the UK so only the sovereign laws of the land
: where the wrecks lie could be applicable. Of course, if as
: ked, then I am sure the MOD will claim wrecks as their own
: just in a rather opportunistic way in case they decide th
: ey want them. The Lancaster in Sweden is an interesting ca
: se.
: As for former USAAF aircraft, the written US Policy on the
: se (unlike USN airplanes) is total abandonment in exactly
: the same way as the MOD stance in May 1972. I have it in w
: riting, chapter and verse, from the US authorities. Meanwh
: ile, the MOD here untruthfully claim in writing that USAAF
: wrecks still belong to the US Government - but the US Gov
: ernment are saying opposite. Either the MOD are muddled in
: their stance over the whole ownership thing, or they are
: not playing with a straight bat.
: Sorry about the length of this, but I hope it opens up a d
: ebate. It is a serious issue. For example, what about RAF
: wrecks brought into the UK and restored? In theory, if it
: ever came to an export licence, the UK Govt could say "No"
: because Hurricane P1234 or whatever is still Crown Proper
: ty. Do I have a point? Andy Saunders.