Upham medal sale

[drummer]

I'm from another camp. The medals are a piece of NZ history. They are 'our' heritage and as such should not go on sale. Imagine the furore if all the Britten bikes left New Zealand.

OK.. by the same token I could call your bike our heritage... ok... you can't sell it now! It's just as silly... the medals belong to someone and any person whether they pose as Govt or not who attempts to pervert justice by outlawing the sale is guilty of theft. As far as Britten bikes go... there are already a few in the hands of overseas collectors... The fact of life for all of us... even the most left of centre is that Money talks... it always has and always will...

[Skyryder]

OK.. by the same token I could call your bike our heritage... ok... you can't sell it now! It's just as silly... the medals belong to someone and any person whether they pose as Govt or not who attempts to pervert justice by outlawing the sale is guilty of theft. As far as Britten bikes go... there are already a few in the hands of overseas collectors... The fact of life for all of us... even the most left of centre is that Money talks... it always has and always will...

If we were to take your argumement to it's logical conclusion then ownership gives 'absolute' right to do what one desires no matter what. Natural landscape's, forests, private homes with signifcant history, ownership of works of art etc. All of these things that what we call our culture and history can be sold off, modified, or even destroyed simply on the basis of ownership. Such a society with these beliefs would have little or no values attached to them. Everthing is for sale. There is much of New Zealand culture and history that is in private hands. You seem to think that ownership goes no further than the right to do what one likes. On this we are in opposition. I suspect that many Kiwi's agree. Probably why when you ask these people about our heritage and culture they have no idea what you mean.

Skyryder

[Drunken Monkey]

Hmmm, but even 'freehold' ownership of land doesn't actually give you absolute ownership. There are existing strict and definite legal obligations. However, if I wish to throw this laptop that I'm typing on into the fire place, why shouldn't I? Who are you to stop me. Legally, the Upham V.C. belongs in its entirety to its current holder and owner. You may or may not think this is morally right, but it doesn't change anything. As mentioned, it raises a difficult question - there is some heritage value to it, but should a government act by muscling in stopping the sale, would it not be doing the very thing that medal was won trying to stop?

[oldrider]

If we were to take your argumement to it's logical conclusion then ownership gives 'absolute' right to do what one desires no matter what. Natural landscape's, forests, private homes with signifcant history, ownership of works of art etc. All of these things that what we call our culture and history can be sold off, modified, or even destroyed simply on the basis of ownership. Such a society with these beliefs would have little or no values attached to them. Everthing is for sale. There is much of New Zealand culture and history that is in private hands. You seem to think that ownership goes no further than the right to do what one likes. On this we are in opposition. I suspect that many Kiwi's agree. Probably why when you ask these people about our heritage and culture they have no idea what you mean.

Skyryder

You and I are simply poles apart, if what you say here is what you really think Skyrider!

I am pleased to say though despite that, I found your company very agreeable socially.

There are too many stifling socialists in this country for it ever to progress much beyond it's present level of incompetence.

Too many people making stupid rules, regulations and minding everybody else's business here. It drives me nuts!:spudgrr: John.

[Jantar]

The value of any VC to New Zealand is no more than the historical fact that it was issued to a New Zealander. Would the politicians act the same way if we were talking about MCs instead of VCs?

In this case Charles Upham could have willed that the medals pass to the country on his death. He didn't do this, but instead gifted them to his family. It is now up to his family to dispose of them as they see fit. Perhaps they could use part of the $3.3 million pay for replicas to to made and donate these replicas to the Waioru Museum.

[Ixion]

Is it even legal to buy and sell them

MILITARY DECORATIONS AND DISTINCTIVE BADGES ACT 1918
[4A. Offences in respect of military decorations—

,,,
(2)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500—

(a)Who represents himself, contrary to the fact, to be a person who is or has been entitled to wear or use any military decoration; or

(b)Who wears or uses any medal, clasp, badge, ribbon, stripe, emblem, or decoration that is intended or is likely, by reason of its appearance or in any other manner, to cause any person to believe, contrary to the fact, that it is a military decoration; or

(c)Who, without reasonable excuse, supplies or offers to supply—

(i)Any military decoration; or

(ii)Any medal, clasp, badge, ribbon, stripe, emblem, or decoration that is intended or is likely, by reason of its appearance or in any other manner, to cause any person to believe, contrary to the fact, that it is a military decoration—

to any person who is not authorised to wear or use that military decoration.

(3)In a prosecution under this section, the burden of proving that any person is authorised to wear or use any military decoration shall be on the defendant.]

So strictly, it would appear that it is an offence to sell the medal of the VC to anyone who has not been awarded the VC.

The medal itself is of course NOT the Victoria Cross, it is just a medal that signifies that the wearer has been awarded the Victoria Cross - as is the coloured cloth tab thingy worn in undress uniform.

It is of course completely improper, and illegal, for anyone to wear such a medal, other than the original recipient. Which makes it hard to understand why anyone would want to pay such a large sum for something completely useless to them.

[Skyryder]

You and I are simply poles apart, if what you say here is what you really think Skyrider!

I am pleased to say though despite that, I found your company very agreeable socially.

There are too many stifling socialists in this country for it ever to progress much beyond it's present level of incompetence.

Too many people making stupid rules, regulations and minding everybody else's business here. It drives me nuts!:spudgrr: John.

This has nothing to do with socialism, facisism, or any other political ideology. So can not figure why a political idealogy was used in response to my post. The medal was awarded for an act of bravery in defence of the realm. Now that statement can be subjected to interpertation but the simple fact is that the british Government presented the award to an indavidual who has now died. To me the question is one of ownership. I dispute that military awards are owned by the recipeant. This may sound like pin pricking but the fact that Upham was at war and the medal won was the result of a political decision by both the New Zealand and Bitish Government. Now just think about this for a moment and I'm sure that you can see why I raise the question of ownership.
If the Upham family are unable to see the bigger picture, honour bestowed to one of their own etc. then the Government has every right to express their concern. Now that is all that they can do. They have no legal right to stop the sale. They are after all doing nothing than expressing an opinion which in essence is what we all do here.

Skyryder

[Wonko]

And here lies the issue


"(c)Who, without reasonable excuse, supplies or offers to supply— "

what is "reasonable excuse"

Also $3.3 million vs $500 fine. Worth the expense?

[Skyryder]

Is it even legal to buy and sell them



So strictly, it would appear that it is an offence to sell the medal of the VC to anyone who has not been awarded the VC.

The medal itself is of course NOT the Victoria Cross, it is just a medal that signifies that the wearer has been awarded the Victoria Cross - as is the coloured cloth tab thingy worn in undress uniform.

It is of course completely improper, and illegal, for anyone to wear such a medal, other than the original recipient. Which makes it hard to understand why anyone would want to pay such a large sum for something completely useless to them.

Good point Ixion.

Skyryder

[slimjim]

Is it even legal to buy and sell them



So strictly, it would appear that it is an offence to sell the medal of the VC to anyone who has not been awarded the VC.

The medal itself is of course NOT the Victoria Cross, it is just a medal that signifies that the wearer has been awarded the Victoria Cross - as is the coloured cloth tab thingy worn in undress uniform.

It is of course completely improper, and illegal, for anyone to wear such a medal, other than the original recipient. Which makes it hard to understand why anyone would want to pay such a large sum for something completely useless to them.

gee this seem's a law that someone has forgotten to have a look at ,,1918 wow