Talk:Removing article from place open to the public
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Cuts[edit]
The article Theft Act 1968 contained this passage:
"*for historically valid but now redundant reasons, a specific offence was created to protect art galleries, museums, etc;"
I am not going to incorporate this sweeping statement into this article until it is attributed to a source. James500 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Cut and paste from Talk:Theft Act 1968[edit]
I have moved the following discussion to this page as it is relevant to this article.
Please explain this[edit]
"for historically valid but now redundant reasons, a specific offence was created to protect art galleries, museums, etc;"
It is incredibly irritating when an article does that - hints at a reason but doesn't explain it. Please fix that by explaining. 86.132.142.246 (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- There was a strong resistance to the creation of a general offence of taking (without intention), but at the time the act was being considered there had been a spate of art thefts by people who wanted to keep them for a while (to be with them) and then return them. Francis Davey (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)