Indian widow of George Cross hero told to pay £12,000 to get medal back

#2
I thought the 'bought in good faith' thing only did away with you being done for handling stolen goods (s22 Theft Act)? I didn't think it allowed title to pass?
 
#4
surely the bottom line is that the medal is stolen property? I find the court's decision surprising.
 
#6
I thought the 'bought in good faith' thing only did away with you being done for handling stolen goods (s22 Theft Act)? I didn't think it allowed title to pass?
Must be different in India, in the UK it would be returned to her no charge and the buyer would be out of pocket or looking from redress off the shop where he bought it. I don't understand why she needs to raise £12k when the bloke only spent £4k on it?
 
#7
Must be different in India, in the UK it would be returned to her no charge and the buyer would be out of pocket or looking from redress off the shop where he bought it. I don't understand why she needs to raise £12k when the bloke only spent £4k on it?
Because it wasn't stolen, she sold it.
 
#9
OK, not well worded on my behalf but if the 'buyer' used deception to obtain the medal from her surely the situation would be similar to 'theft'?
 
#10
Her hubby was a good bloke it seems, yet I can't seem to care either way......I don't trust any of them and an Indian army officer who shells out £4000 in an indian antique shop.....mmmhhhh..I'll bet he did! If that makes me a racist then so be it!

£4000 is more than four months pay and allowances for the average Indian Officer!
 
#11
Obtained under false pretenses if she was told and believed she was merely signing for accepting the obviously fake award of 250 quid which was supposedly by way of thanks for the service performed by her husband. Why the medal was even involved in that transaction is beyond me. Obtained under false pretenses is surely equivalent to theft.
 
#12
Obtained under false pretenses if she was told and believed she was merely signing for accepting the obviously fake award of 250 quid which was supposedly by way of thanks for the service performed by her husband. Why the medal was even involved in that transaction is beyond me. Obtained under false pretenses is surely equivalent to theft.
Is it?
 
S

syledis

Guest
#13
Could it be a case of the money was good at the time and now she, or her children realise its worth a lot more, and they want it back again?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Perhaps David Cameron will apologise and give her the money.
 
#17
The story of her "losing" it is not exactly clear and to be honest, it was sat in a trunk out of sight and mind with probably little value to the family until some chap allegedly came to and duped her into "giving" it to him.
Not really sure how I feel about this one.
 
#18
I agree, The officer showed up with the intent on getting the medal for £250 and resell it for profit.
She fell for it, Pensioners here get help when they are fleeced, She should get the same help from her government.

That officer should be under investigation, Thieving little c*nt with no respect for the fallen.
 
#19
That officer should be under investigation, Thieving little c*nt with no respect for the fallen.
Depends. If it's on display somewhere, there's possibly more respect being shown than when it was stuffed away in a trunk (and handed over to somebody following receipt of £250, which suspiciously sounds like "sold").

On the other hand, if the Indian Army Officer has it attached to his No. 2s...
 

Similar threads

Top