Kate Harding was nine years old when she helped her Mother dig over their garden in Tenbury Wells. Her Mother found this object, which looks like a coin, walks like a coin, quacks like a coin, but is apparently, not a coin.

Her Mother died shortly after this event, and young Kate kept the ‘not a coin’ as a keepsake.

14 years later, she idly wandered into the Ludlow museum and asked jobsworth Peter Reavill whether he could tell her anything about it.

He told her that it was a piedfort, a rare piece struck for presentation purposes, and one of only four ever found in the UK.

Ms Harding didn’t want to part with the coin, it was of great sentimental value to her, but the museum were keen to possess it. They bombarded her with calls and letters telling her that under the Treasure Act 1996, she had 14 days in which to report her ownership of this item to the Coroner.

The Act defines as treasure, any item at least 300 years old which is not a coin but has a precious metal content of 10% or more. Even the Royal Mint describes a Piedfort as a coin – albeit not one in general circulation.

If Ms Harding had done any research she would have felt quite safe ignoring the pleading letters from Ludlow museum.

The museum were not to be thwarted though, when she ignored Peter Reavill, he reported her to the Coroner, who in turn called in the Police.

Yesterday she was up before the Ludlow magistrates – who ordered her to hand the coin over, AND pay £25 towards the cost of prosecuting her.

Quite apart from the technicality of whether this is a coin or not – and I hope that some kind hearted barrister offers to mount a spirited appeal for her – the State have just forcibly taken a precious memento from a young girl who lost her Mother at a tender age – for what?

1
JuliaM February 27, 2010 at 14:19

In order to prove that they hold all the cards, and the lowly serfs hold none, of course.

And how come this Act is retrospective anyway?

2
Rog February 27, 2010 at 15:09

I was reading this yesterday and got utterly hacked off at it.
I believe the only recourse left to Kate Harding is to kick Peter Reavill in the crutch as hard as possible.

3
Rightwinggit February 27, 2010 at 15:22

I do hope no one googles this cunts name and then clicks on the top link http://www.finds.org.uk/people/profile.php?personID=56

…which reveals the arseholes non job history as well as a rake of contact details.

4
Anna Raccoon February 27, 2010 at 15:34

What a find Rightwinggit!
It would be a real shame if anyone took advantage of those details to let him know what they think of him wouldn’t it?

5
Gloria Smudd February 27, 2010 at 15:50

No more than he’d deserve, I’d say.

6
Fred Thrung February 27, 2010 at 15:50

Yes, excellent Rightwinggit. I haven’t taken advantage of your discovery and if anyone says I did I shall deny being associated with the email address I used. Sorry – didn’t use

7
Fred Thrung February 27, 2010 at 18:32

This is the response I got (nice work if you can get it):

I will be out of the office starting 22/02/2010 and will not return until 15/03/2010.
I currently working part time following a period of paternity leave. I will endevour to reply to your email as soon as possible – but this maybe longer than usual.
Peter Reavill

8
Ancient and Tattered Airman February 27, 2010 at 20:11

It is safe to assume that he clearly knows his rights and entitlements.
Bit wobbly on the rights and entitlements of others though.

9
Dick Puddlecote February 27, 2010 at 21:46

Just when you thought the state and its cohorts couldn’t be more of a …

10
tuppennyblue February 28, 2010 at 20:20

Quite apart from any dispute as to whether this artefact is a coin (“a flat disc or piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money” – Oxford English Dictionary) or not, there may be a question as to whether the Treasure Act 1996 was in force at the time the coin was found. If the coin was found before the Act came into force, (the story states that the coin was found in 1996 and the Act is dated 4th July 1996, though it may have actually come into force later) then it would be a breach of the finder’s human rights (article 7) to convict under this Act. What is more, it seems the finder was not Kate Harding, but her deceased mother. All of these points seem to be strong grounds for appeal. Best of Luck Kate!