Section 6: Complaints to Fife & Metropolitan police (Updated 2021)

UPDATE 13/08/2021

Visitors to this blog will know that in 2004 and 2009 I complained to the Metropolitan Police on the basis that the British Museum contained stolen property and also to the Fife Police that Broomhall House, the home of the Earls of Elgin, also housed stolen property, which constituted the crime of ‘reset’ in Scots law. Full details of these complaints are set out below.

In early May 2021 an event occurred that re-focused my mind on these earlier complaints and convinced me to complain again, this time only to Police Scotland (the single unitary force that had replaced the county forces) asking that they revisit my earlier complaints in light of new evidence/events and a changing attitude towards imperial looting in the world in general and in Scotland in particular.

There were in fact two sparks that reignited my fire on this subject, the first was the vandalising of a Children’s Memorial in Dunfermline Cemetery. There, in April 2021, vandals had spray-painted insulting graffiti on the memorial and had removed some toys etc. The local newspapers ran a very strong condemnation of the acts of the culprits and called for their conviction and punishment. LINK

As hostile as the press were the views of some ordinary people I heard made them pale by comparison, as these normally placid citizens would have carried out immediate and violent retribution on those responsible if they could have laid their hands on them. In contrast to the hostile reaction there was kindness, like that of the local building company who immediately cleaned the memorial without waiting for the local authority to act.

A second troubling incident had taken place some months earlier, when I had listened with sadness to my son-in-law describe his disappointment and anger after he and a friend had climbed 1,155m to the peak of Lochnagar to view a painted memorial stone they had placed on a previous visit in memory of my son (who had climbed there with them shortly before he lost his life to cancer) on a cairn at the peak, only to find it had disappeared.

I was not surprised as my son was a Celtic supporter and the stone had the club colours and crest, but his two friends who weren’t football fans didn’t expect this and were shocked and angered. However they replaced it with another similar one, but this time hidden from view. That they had to resort to this is a sad indictment on the anti-Irish racism and anti-RC bigotry which shames Scotland.

 

As Iain Livingstone, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland lives just a short distance from me and I was told by a mutual friend that he was a reasonable man, I wrote to him setting out the above reasons for me wanting to revisit my earlier complaint and also citing new evidence that I wanted to discuss with him in person. LINK

I sought a meeting with Iain Livingstone as I wanted to convince him of my sincerity, as I perceived that in the past my very detailed and reasoned arguments had been met by a perfunctory—‘nothing to see here, now move along’ attitude, and also because the supporting evidence I provided to the crime I alleged is detailed and voluminous and may need clarification.

In the event the reasonable Iain Livingstone didn’t agree to meet me or directly respond to my letter addressed to him personally, but delegated the matter to his Assistant, Tim Mairs, Executive for Local Policing (East), the area in which I live. Mr. Mairs in turn delegated the matter to Tony Rogers, a Community Inspector in the area that covers Broomhall House.

So I wrote and E-mailed his delegate with two important updates. LINK

Regardless of to whom Iain Livingstone delegated the complaint to, he must take ownership of the resultant response and here it is:- LINK

I will briefly set out what evidence was given to Iain Livingstone and the reasons he dismissed it and my comments on his reasoning, such as it is, as follows:-

I submitted new evidence of loot additional to that reported in 2009 from the looting and burning of the Yuanmingyuan or Old Summer Palace in Peking. This was provided in the form of newspaper articles showing that Broomhall House had two bronze storks and various silks on the premises taken by James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin who commanded the Anglo French troops at Peking. Since looting of countries under occupation by foreign troops is now a war crime it follows that harbouring the proceeds of such a crime is classed as ‘reset’ in Scots’ law.

Iain Livingstone’s view is that “this does not change the assessment made by the previous Chief Constables’ offices (in consultation with the Area Procurator Fiscal) that there is no crime to investigate under Scottish Law.  As such the Police Service of Scotland will not be undertaking any further investigation into the matter.”

That Iain Livingstone relies on the decision of Peter Wilson, Chief Constable of Fife in 2004 to assess new evidence and pleadings I have presented in 2009 and now in 2021 says as much about the Chief Constable Iain Livingstone as it does about Police Scotland. Are we to believe that Peter Wilson and the Area Procurator Fiscal in 2004 could foresee my new evidence?

In effect Iain Livingstone’s decision rewrites history, and by deciding that as there were no proceeds of a crime (reset) at Broomhall House, it follows that the looting and burning of the Yuanmingyuan was, according to Iain Livingstone, not a crime.

I would be foolish to take Iain Livingstone seriously and compare his inane logic to the wisdom of Victor Hugo who remarked on the looting and burning thus:-

“One day two bandits entered the Summer Palace. One plundered, the other
burned. Victory can be a thieving woman, or so it seems. The devastation of the
Summer Palace was accomplished by the two victors acting jointly. Mixed up in
all this is the name of Elgin, which inevitably calls to mind the Parthenon. What
was done to the Parthenon was done to the Summer Palace, more thoroughly
and better, so that nothing of it should be left. All the treasures of all our
cathedrals put together could not equal this formidable and splendid museum of
the Orient. It contained not only masterpieces of art, but masses of jewellery.
What a great exploit, what a windfall! One of the two victors filled his pockets;
when the other saw this he filled his coffers. And back they came to Europe,
arm in arm, laughing away. Such is the story of the two bandits.
We Europeans are the civilized ones, and for us the Chinese are the barbarians.
This is what civilization has done to barbarism.”

 

The second claim I made was that there was evidence of reset at Broomhall House where proceeds of mass grave robbery carried out by persons under the instruction of Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin in and around Athens and Piraeus between 1800 and 1813 are housed.

Again, Iain Livingstone relies on the decision of Peter Wilson, Chief Constable of Fife in 2004, to assess new evidence and pleadings I had presented in 2009 and more recently in 2021

Once more Iain Livingstone’s decision rewrites history by deciding that as there were no proceeds of a crime (reset) at Broomhall House. So it follows that the hundreds, perhaps over a thousand instances of violation of sepulchre and plunder of contents therein, that are recorded in the Elgin family archives as being carried out by Elgin’s agent, Giovanni Battista Lusieri’s team in and around Athens and Piraeus, were not crimes.

Again I would be foolish to take Iain Livingstone seriously and compare his inane logic to the recorded evidence of Thomas Bruce, the 7th Earl of Elgin given to the 1816 Parliamentary Committee which examined his activities while ambassador. In an effort to recover his costs from the parliament Elgin provided a Catalogue which detailed his loot as being:-

Some hundreds of large and small earthenware Urns or Vases, discovered in digging in the ancient Sepulchres round Athens.

There is also evidence from another source, albeit a more cryptic one, from the poet Lord Byron who was in Athens at the time of the grave excavations carried out by Elgin’s agent Lusieri, who as a close friend of Lusieri’s brother-in-law Nicolo Giraud was privy to first-hand details of the grave robbery. Byron wrote about Elgin:-

But most the modern Pict’s ignoble boast,
To rive what Goth, and Turk, and Time hath spared:
Cold as the crags upon his native coast,
His mind as barren and his heart as hard,
Is he whose head conceived, whose hand prepared,
Aught to displace Athena’s poor remains:
Her sons too weak the sacred shrine to guard,
Yet felt some portion of their mother’s pains,
And never knew, till then, the weight of Despot’s chains.
(XII)

Cold is the heart, fair Greece! that looks on thee,
Nor feels as lovers o’er the dust they loved;
Dull is the eye that will not weep to see
Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed
By British hands, which it had best behoved
To guard those relics ne’er to be restored.
Curst be the hour when from their isle they roved,
And once again thy hapless bosom gored,
And snatched thy shrinking gods to northern climes abhorr’d!
(XV)

But then what do Victor Hugo and Lord Byron know of the crimes of the Earls of Elgin? Nothing compared to Iain Livingstone, Chief Constable of Police Scotland who says there is no evidence of reset at Broomhall House, ergo, there were no crimes committed in looting the Greek stele or Chinese silks and bronzes that are pictured and described in newspaper articles about Andrew Bruce, the current, 11th Earl of Elgin. Despite the fact that the Earl openly admits that they are booty from his ancestors adventures abroad.

I would be a bigger fool than Iain Livingstone if I continued to pursue my complaints with him.

N.B. It is currently reported widely in the Scottish press that the taxpayer is likely to have to pick up the tab to the tune of £200m in compensation for malicious prosecutions carried out by Police Scotland and the Crown Office Prosecution Service in the Rangers liquidation cases. The former owner of Rangers has openly claimed that Police Scotland and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service are corrupt and he expects criminal charges to be brought against them. LINK

Given my experiences in dealing with these public bodies over the course of the three complaints I have made in 2004, 2009 and 2021 this news doesn’t surprise me in the least.

BUT THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS!

While Iain Livingstone’s response completely failed to examine my complaint in detail or offer any rational for his adherence to a diktat from his predecessor in 2004, he did conclude by advising me to “direct any future correspondence in relation to this matter to The Right Hon. Angus Robertson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture”. I took Iain Livingstone’s advice, and was pleasantly surprised by the result. LINK

In his letter of response to mine, Angus Robertson reinforced the recent declaration by the National Museum of Scotland that they would return looted artefacts to their country of origin, by confirming:-

We recognise in Scotland that there is a growing public conversation
about repatriation and historic collection methods.
Given that this issue is of increasing significance for the sector, museums are working hard to follow best practice and ensure that decisions in respect of requests for the return of objects of cultural significance from a museum’s collection conform to international standards. The Scottish Government supports Scottish museums efforts to respond to these important and consequential matters in a transparent and responsible way.”

 

So in a roundabout way the bungling Chief Constable of Police Scotland has helped to elicit an endorsement by the Scottish Government that loot from our shameful imperial past will be repatriated.

2021 UPDATE ENDS.

 

 

 

I first made a formal complaint to the Chief Constable of Fife Police in 2004 as it appeared to me that the crime of reset was committed by looted sacrilegious articles from Greece being housed in Broomhall House; this was in the form of a 247 page letter setting out my grounds of complaint and supporting documentation LINK

Sadly the Chief Constable, Peter M. Wilson, after passing the matter to the Area Procurator Fiscal decided that “it appears that no criminal act can be proved and there are therefore no grounds to investigate the matter further” LINK 

Mr. Wilson also declared: “In light of the publicity given to the submission of your file, l feel it appropriate that I also apprise Lord Elgin of this turn of events. I am therefore copying this letter to him.”

I strongly disagreed with Mr. Wilson’s decision that there were no grounds to investigate my complaint and in 2009 when further evidence of loot being housed at Broomhall came to light and a new Chief Constable was in place I revisited my complaint as follows:–

 

94 Victoria Terrace
Dunfermline
Fife
KY12 0LU
Tel: 01383 729869
E-MAIL: tomminogue@btinternet.com
For the attention of Norma Graham
Chief Constable
Fife Constabulary
Police Headquarters
Detroit Road
Glenrothes
Fife
KY6 2RJ
Scotland

By first-class post and E-mail Monday 7th December 2009.

Dear Mrs Graham,

A report of possession of stolen property, arising out of theft, grave desecration, bribery and corruption.

In February 2004 I wrote a letter of complaint to your predecessor, Mr Peter Wilson, regarding the above and in due course he responded by stating that “there was no proof of theft” in connection with my complaint. I understood there only had to be evidence of a crime and not proof, which was a matter for a court to determine, but in any event I let my complaint be for the time being.

Given the passing years, the evolving wisdom on what is, and what is not acceptable regarding the possession of artefacts held by museums, and the fact that there is also new evidence since my last complaint, I think there is a need to address these matters afresh.

I would therefore ask you to consider the Parthenon or so called “Elgin” Marbles as stolen property, and other funereal relics taken from Greece and elsewhere at the same time as being booty, sacrilegiously plundered from graveyards. I would also ask you to investigate the possibility that booty from the sacking of the Old Summer Palace in Beijing may be of similar status.

I am of course aware that my claims that the late Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, and 11th of Kincardine (Elgin) committed crimes will be greeted with scepticism by some. Even if I am correct in my assertions–which are difficult to prove conclusively after the lapse of so many years–the man is dead and his crimes died with him. That does not alter the question of his descendants, the British Museum, and others being in possession of stolen property. These matters are not affected by the passage of time, are serious, and must be investigated.

If I were to make a serious complaint that property belonging to me was stolen last week and was in the possession of thieves at a given address you would be obliged to investigate my complaint. If those I had accused of being in possession of stolen goods could not give a satisfactory account for their ownership they would have to be charged with theft and/or possession of stolen goods.

Of course if those I had accused of theft could produce evidence that the goods belonged to them, such as genuine receipts of purchase, then they could not have committed a crime, and you would probably charge me with wasting police time. This will not happen in this case as there is no clear documentary link between the Porte (Ottoman Turkish government) and Elgin authorising him to take possession of his collection of marbles.

Other than the passage of time there is no difference in the situation with regard to the Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum, the stele on show at Broomhall, and the hypothetical situation I describe above. In the case of the Parthenon frieze and the numerous stele and other funereal items, if the current owners cannot provide proper proof of ownership from authorised sellers, the goods cannot be theirs.

As well as the two examples cited above, there were many other relics brought from Greece and elsewhere that were detailed in a Catalogue by Elgin and offered for sale to Parliament in 1816. The entire contents of the Catalogue were bought by Parliament, but it is clear from the magazine articlesa&b that some were “not wanted by the museum“. This matter should be investigated, the missing items quantified and traced, and if no written authorisation for their purchase from the proper authorities can be provided they should also be considered as being of dubious title and confiscated by the police pending a decision regarding their return to the British people, or their repatriation to Greece or other country of origin.

There are those who say that Parliament was satisfied that Elgin legitimately owned the goods he sold them–even though this was a highly controversial matter at the time–and that is the end to the matter. That is not good enough. To accept what happened in 1816 as being set in stone and never open to review would be unprecedented in criminal investigation. Advances in criminal investigation techniques and new evidence must never be ruled out.

It is my submission to you that there is new evidence in this case. Evidence from several sources that was not available to the government of the day, which shows that Elgin committed fraud by intentionally deceiving Parliament for personal gain. Lord Justice Denning famously quoted the centuries old legal maxim: “Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything”, and went on to explain this as meaning that: “No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

As fraud unravels everything, the propriety of the purchase made by Parliament in 1816 is now brought into question. There is strong evidence to suggest that Elgin acquired his collection of marbles and other items from Greece and elsewhere illegally and duped the Select Committee into believing otherwise. Evidence that up to now has not been tested. Consequently these items should not have been purchased on behalf of the people by the British Government in 1816.

The new evidence shows that:

1/. There is no proof of authorisation from the Turkish authorities to allow Elgin to remove the Parthenon and other marble sculptures. On the contrary there is evidence to show that Elgin had no business removing these items and consequently they were illegally obtained—stolen.

2/. Having committed theft Elgin then lied to the Select Committee of Parliament, which purchased the Marbles on behalf of the people of Great Britain, in doing this he committed fraud.

3/. Elgin excavated graves and took hundreds of funereal and religious objects and by so doing committed sacrilegious acts. A crime which of itself would surely negate any semblance of legality of purchase.

4/. Elgin used a bogus, anonymous Memorandum written by himself or his Chaplin/Occasional Private Secretary, Dr Philip Hunt, (Hunt) as supposedly objective evidence to support his petition of Parliament. In so doing he deceived and defrauded Parliament.

5/. Elgin and/or his staff bribed Turkish occupation officials and Greek clergymen to allow the removal of sacred material that belonged to the Greek people.

Because substantiating the five allegations set out above involves reference to a considerable amount of documentation I have provided links for these papers in sections 1-5 of my website “Elgin Cheated at Marbles”; see Elgin Cheated at Marbles.

In light of this new evidence I would formally ask you, the Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary to consider the following three serious allegations from me?

Firstly, a complaint of possession of stolen goods against the occupants of Broomhall House, Charlestown, Fife.

There is anecdotala and photographicb evidence that Greek stele, or grave markers and other precious items bought by the British Government in 1816 are currently housed in Broomhall House, Broomhall Estate, by Charlestown, Fife. This address is the home of the descendants of Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin. I would respectfully ask you, as Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary to investigate what appears to be a Prima Facie case of possession of stolen goods by the occupants of Broomhall House, there being no Statute of Limitation for such matters in Scotland.

Additionally and quite separately, the stele and other items described in the above articles and shown in the photograph appear to be some of those clearly described and catalogued by Elgin for the Select Committee. The Select Committee set a price of £35,000 for all of these items, and they were bought by the government on behalf of the people. Even if you do not accept that these items were illegally removed from Greece and fraudulently sold to Parliament, they belong to the British people and not Elgin’s descendants–unless they can show written authority for their ownership.

I would also ask you to establish the provenance of a large bronze crane sculpturec said to have been “captured at the Chinese Imperial Palace” which is now at Broomhall.

Secondly a complaint of possession of stolen goods against the owners of the British Museum London.

If fraud negates everything in law, there is a Prima Facie case that the British Museum in London is housing property stolen from Greece at a time when that country was under illegal foreign occupation.

This property, which I allege was illegally obtained and sold to Parliament, includes the Parthenon frieze bought by Parliament for the nation from Thomas Bruce 7th Earl of Elgin as part of a job-lot for £35,000.00 in 1816. I would respectfully ask you as Chief Constable of Fife Police to liaise with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to establish beyond doubt the provenance of these and other articles bought by the government under the terms of the Report from the Select Committee of Parliament dated 25 March 1816.

Thirdly that the 7th Earl of Elgin, acting as an Ambassador for the British Government bribed and corrupted foreign officials and clerics to illegally obtain sacred objects.

There is evidence in the Report for the Select Committee in 1816 that Elgin paid bribes to officials and clerics to facilitate the illegal removal of sacred objects and funereal items. This would nullify the title of such items.

Summary: I would respectfully ask you as the Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary to investigate these matters and/or pass this information on to your colleagues in London for action in those matters where you have no locus. The determination of which crimes falls into which locus is a complex matter. It seems straight forward to me that the possession of the Greek stele, and the Chinese bronze crane at Broomhall are matters for you and the possession of the Parthenon frieze held by the British Museum on loan from the government is a matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, but there are some issues that are not so clear cut.

In the serious matter of the looting of graveyards. Where are the hundreds of funereal urns? We know from the Select Committee Report that they were catalogued, offered for sale, and bought by Parliament, but were they like the stele, bought but not loaned to the British Museum and taken by Elgin or others?

There are those who would argue that the nation that we now know as Greece did not exist at the time Elgin’s party took their booty and so it cannot be returned. That may be so in a technical sense, but the home for grave markers, sepulchral columns or funereal urns is beside the remains of the body they honoured or contained. Grave markers should be returned to the resting place of the dead, be that in Athens or Argos, there can be no justification for having them adorn the walls of Broomhall or Bloomsbury.

I have written separately to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in terms similar to this letter and would be obliged if you would cooperate with him on this complaint. Such cooperation would be beneficial to all concerned.

Plea for understanding.

I would respectfully ask you to consider my three complaints with an open mind. As a woman you will be aware of the inequities that existed in 1816, a full century before the suffragettes, and as a Scot you will appreciate how items such as our own Stone of Destiny have totemic importance that is immeasurable. If a rough old stone such as this was craved by us as a symbol of our national identity how must the Greeks feel when the finest marbles honouring their dead and their gods are taken to another land?

With these examples in mind I would ask you to be conscious of the fact that times, and values, change. What was acceptable yesterday, yesteryear or two centuries ago is not acceptable today.

Then: British companies under Royal Charter were involved in the production of opium in India and Afghanistan, and in 1840 the Royal Navy’s warships blew out of the water junks that attempted to block the importation of this drug into Chinese ports.

Now: UK and NATO soldiers destroy opium poppy crops in Afghanistan and Royal Navy warships in the Caribbean apprehend drug smugglers ships, arrest the smugglers and blow their vessels out of the water.

Then: It was common for anthropologists, museum-collectors, souvenir hunters, and grave robbers who simply wanted items of value to dig up graveyards where the Raj held sway. Being a British subject in foreign countries where the natives were often considered as sub-human allowed this. Britain was not alone in this and the emerging American nation treated Native Americans; their lands, possessions, and sacred burial grounds in a similar manner.

Now: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), a US law passed in 1990 mandates the return of Native American cultural items such as “funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to their peoples”, and those breaking this law have received custodial sentences. And in this country the return of human skulls and other funereal objects has begun. Scotland has led the way in this when in 2000 Glasgow City Council returned a sacred relic -the Ghost Dance Shirt to Native Americans. This year museums in Scotland agreed to cooperate with Chinese officials in identifying sacred items looted from the Old Summer Palace in 1860. Such actions are only right and there must be existing Scottish/UK legislation that makes the looting and possession of such sacred items a criminal act.

This complaint is not a stunt. Please treat it seriously and have the courage and ingenuity to find a way of righting an obvious anachronistic wrong in a twenty-first century manner.

Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Minogue.

Attachments: 3

a/ Lord Elgin interview in The Independent

b/ Freemasonry Today winter 1998

c/ White Eagle Magazine article 2006

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

94 Victoria Terrace
Dunfermline
Fife
KY12 0LU
Tel: 01383 729869
E-MAIL: tomminogue@btinternet.com
F.a.o. Sir Paul Stephenson, QPM
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG

By first-class post and E-mail Monday 7th December 2009.

Dear Mr Stephenson,

A report of possession of stolen property, arising out of theft, grave desecration, bribery and corruption.

With the discovery of new evidence I believe the police should now consider the Parthenon or so called “Elgin” Marbles as stolen property, and other relics taken from Greece and elsewhere at the same time should be treated as being booty.

Given the passing years, the evolving wisdom on what is, and what is not acceptable regarding the possession of artefacts held by museums, and the fact that there is also new evidence to consider, I think there is a need to address these matters afresh.

I would therefore ask you to consider the Parthenon or so called “Elgin” Marbles as stolen property, and other funereal relics taken from Greece and elsewhere at the same time as being booty, sacrilegiously plundered from graveyards. I would also ask you to investigate the possibility that booty from the sacking of the Old Summer Palace in Beijing may be of similar status.

I am of course aware that my claims that the late Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, and 11th of Kincardine (Elgin) committed crimes will be greeted with scepticism by some. Even if I am correct in my assertions–which are difficult to prove conclusively after the lapse of so many years–the man is dead and his crimes died with him. That does not alter the question of his descendants, the British Museum, and others being in possession of stolen property. These matters are not affected by the passage of time, are serious, and must be investigated.

If I were to make a serious complaint that property belonging to me was stolen last week and was in the possession of thieves at a given address you would be obliged to investigate my complaint. If those I had accused of being in possession of stolen goods could not give a satisfactory account for their ownership they would have to be charged with theft and/or possession of stolen goods.

Of course if those I had accused of theft could produce evidence that the goods belonged to them, such as genuine receipts of purchase, then they could not have committed a crime, and you would probably charge me with wasting police time. This will not happen in this case as there is no clear documentary link between the Porte (Ottoman Turkish government) and Elgin authorising him to take possession of his collection of marbles.

Other than the passage of time there is no difference in the situation with regard to the Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum, the stele on show at Broomhall, and the hypothetical situation I describe above. In the case of the Parthenon frieze and the numerous stele and other funereal items, if the current owners cannot provide proper proof of ownership from authorised sellers, the goods cannot be theirs.

As well as the two examples cited above, there were many other relics brought from Greece and elsewhere that were detailed in a Catalogue by Elgin and offered for sale to Parliament in 1816. The entire contents of the Catalogue were bought by Parliament, but it is clear from the magazine articlesa&b that some were “not wanted by the museum“. This matter should be investigated, the missing items quantified and traced, and if no written authorisation for their purchase from the proper authorities can be provided they should also be considered as being of dubious title and confiscated by the police pending a decision regarding their return to the British people, or their repatriation to Greece or other country of origin.

There are those who say that Parliament was satisfied that Elgin legitimately owned the goods he sold them –even though this was a highly controversial matter at the time–and that is the end to the matter. That is not good enough. To accept what happened in 1816 as being set in stone and never open to review would be unprecedented in criminal investigation. Advances in criminal investigation techniques and new evidence must never be ruled out.

It is my submission to you that there is new evidence in this case. Evidence from several sources that was not available to the government of the day, which shows that Elgin committed fraud by intentionally deceiving Parliament for personal gain. Lord Justice Denning famously quoted the centuries old legal maxim: “Fraus omnia vitiate, Fraud vitiates everything”, and went on to explain this as meaning that: “No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.

As fraud unravels everything, the propriety of the purchase made by Parliament in 1816 is now brought into question. There is strong evidence to suggest that Elgin acquired his collection of marbles and other items from Greece and elsewhere illegally and duped the Select Committee into believing otherwise. Evidence that up to now has not been tested. Consequently these items should not have been purchased on behalf of the people by the British Government in 1816.

The new evidence shows that:

1/. There is no proof of authorisation from the Turkish authorities to allow Elgin to remove the Parthenon and other marble sculptures. On the contrary there is evidence to show that Elgin had no business removing these items and consequently they were illegally obtained—stolen.

2/. Having committed theft Elgin then lied to the Select Committee of Parliament, which purchased the Marbles on behalf of the people of Great Britain, in doing this he committed fraud.

3/. Elgin excavated graves and took hundreds of funereal and religious objects and by so doing committed sacrilegious acts. A crime which of itself would surely negate any semblance of legality of purchase?

4/. Elgin used a bogus, anonymous Memorandum written by himself or his Chaplin/Occasional Private Secretary, Dr Philip Hunt, (Hunt) as supposedly objective evidence to support his petition of Parliament. In so doing he deceived and defrauded Parliament.

5/. Elgin and/or his staff bribed Turkish occupation officials and Greek clergymen to allow the removal of sacred material that belonged to the Greek people.

Because substantiating the five allegations set out above involves reference to a considerable amount of documentation I have provided links for these papers in sections 1-5 of my website “Elgin Cheated at Marbles”; seeElgin Cheated at Marbles.

In light of this new evidence I would formally ask you, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to consider the following three serious allegations from me?

Firstly, a complaint of possession of stolen goods against the occupants of Broomhall House, Charlestown, Fife.

There is anecdotala and photographicb evidence that Greek stele, or grave markers and other precious items not bought by the British Government in 1816 are currently housed in Broomhall House, Broomhall Estate, by Charlestown, Fife. This address is the home of the descendants of Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin. I have asked the Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary to investigate what appears to be a Prima Facie case of possession of stolen goods by the occupants of Broomhall House, there being no Statute of Limitation for such matters in Scotland. I would respectfully ask you as Chief of Police for the Metropolis to liaise and assist the Fife Police with parliamentary matters that fall within your jurisdiction.

Additionally and quite separately, the stele and other items described in the above articles and shown in the photograph appear to be some of those clearly described and catalogued by Elgin for the Select Committee. The Select Committee set a price of £35,000 for all of these items, and they were bought by the government on behalf of the people. Even if you do not accept that these items were illegally removed from Greece and fraudulently sold to parliament, they belong to the British people and not Elgin’s descendants–unless they can show written authority for their ownership.

I would also ask you to liaise with Fife Police in their investigations to establish the provenance of a large bronze crane sculpturec said to have been “captured at the Chinese Imperial Palace” which is now at Broomhall, near Charlestown, Fife.

Secondly a complaint of possession of stolen goods against the owners of the British Museum London.

If fraud negates everything in law, there is a Prima Facie case that the British Museum in London is housing property stolen from Greece at a time when that country was under illegal foreign occupation.

This property, which I allege was illegally obtained and sold to Parliament, includes the Parthenon frieze bought by Parliament for the nation from Thomas Bruce 7th Earl of Elgin as part of a job-lot for £35,000.00 in 1816. I would respectfully ask you as Chief of Police for the Metropolis to establish beyond doubt the provenance of these and other articles bought by the government under the terms of the Report from the Select Committee of Parliament dated 25 March 1816. If you find that there is doubt as to the provenance of these items it is your duty to act on it.

Thirdly that the 7th Earl of Elgin, acting as an Ambassador for the British Government bribed and corrupted foreign officials and clerics to illegally obtain sacred objects.

There is evidence in the Report for the Select Committee in 1816 that Elgin paid bribes to officials and clerics to facilitate the illegal removal of sacred objects and funereal items. This would nullify the title of such items.

Summary: I would respectfully ask you as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to investigate these matters and/or liaise with your colleagues in Fife for action in those matters where you have no locus. The determination of which crimes falls into which locus is a complex matter. It seems straight forward to me that the possession of the Greek stele and the Chinese bronze crane at Broomhall is a matter for the Chief Constable of Fife and the possession of the Parthenon frieze and other items identified in the Catalogue are held by the British Museum on loan from the government is a matter for you as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, but there are some issues that are not so clear cut.

In the serious matter of the looting of graveyards, where are the hundreds of funereal urns? We know from the Select Committee Report that they were catalogued, offered for sale, and bought by Parliament, but were they like the stele, bought by Parliament but not loaned to the British Museum and taken by Elgin or others?

There are those who would argue that the nation that we now know as Greece did not exist at the time Elgin’s party took their booty and so it cannot be returned. That may be so in a technical sense, but the home for grave markers, sepulchral columns or funereal urns is beside the remains of the body they honoured or contained. Grave markers should be returned to the resting place of the dead, be that in Athens or Argos, there can be no justification for having them adorn the walls of Broomhall or Bloomsbury.

I have written to the Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary in terms similar to this letter and would be obliged if you would cooperate with her on this complaint as that would be beneficial to all concerned.

Plea for understanding.

I would respectfully ask you to consider my three complaints with an open mind. I would also ask you to be mindful of the fact that times, and values, change. What was acceptable yesterday, yesteryear or two centuries ago is not acceptable today.

Then: British companies under Royal Charter were involved in the production of opium in India and Afghanistan, and in 1840 the Royal Navy’s warships blew out of the water junks that attempted to block the importation of this drug into Chinese ports.

Now: UK and NATO soldiers destroy opium poppy crops in Afghanistan and Royal Navy warships in the Caribbean apprehend drug smugglers ships, arrest the smugglers and blow their vessels out of the water.

Then: it was common for anthropologists, museum-collectors, souvenir hunters, and grave robbers who simply wanted items of value to dig up graveyards where the Raj held sway. Being a British subject in foreign countries where the natives were often considered as sub-human allowed this. Britain was not alone in this and the emerging American nation treated Native Americans; their lands, possessions, and sacred burial grounds in a similar manner.

Now: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), a US law passed in 1990 mandates the return of Native American cultural items such as “funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to their peoples”, and those breaking this law have received custodial sentences. And in this country the return of human skulls and other funereal objects has begun. In London the British Museum as recently as 2007 has fallen into line following the passing of the Human Tissue (2005) Act by returning two Tasmanian cremation ash bundles. Also this year they agreed to cooperate with Chinese officials in identifying sacred items looted from the Old Summer Palace in 1860. Such actions are only right and there must be existing UK legislation that makes the looting and possession of such sacred items a criminal act.

This complaint is not a stunt. Please treat it seriously and have the courage and ingenuity to find a way of righting an obvious anachronistic wrong, in a twenty-first century manner.

Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Minogue.

Attachments: 3

a/ Lord Elgin interview in The Independent

b/ Freemasonry Today winter 1998

c/ White Eagle Magazine article 2006

Summary. Fife Police and their Metropolitan counterparts were polite in their refusal to treat sacrelegious plunder from Greece by the 7th Earl of Elgin and plunder from the Old Summer Palace in Beijing by the 8th Earl of Elgin as being stolen and consequently the complaint I made that the residents of Broomhall House in Fife, Scotland and the British Museum in London, England could be guilty of the crime of ‘reset’ and ‘handling stolen goods’ respectively.

LINK1

LINK2

Further efforts to achieve justice end when Fife police say it’s not their job to investigate whether or not loot from Yuanmingyuan (the Old Summer Palace) was stolen.

当法夫警方说这不是他们的工作去调查圆明园的掠奪品是否被盜时,进一步实現正义的努力就結束了。

I was disappointed, but not entirely surprised by the police reaction to my complaints and request for investigation into the reset at Broomhall House and handling stolen goods at the British Museum.

With regards to the latter my complaint to the British Museum was rejected and this resulted in my further complaint to Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. I summarised my complaint as “The deception of Parliament in 1816 by the 7th Earl of Elgin & Dr. Philip Hunt. I enclosed my C.D. containing specific details of this deception with links to supporting documentation but this was also rejected. LINK

I didn’t accept the findings of Fife Constabulary and wrote again to the Chief Constable on 11th August 2010 specifically on the subject of the Bronze Crane looted from the Old Summer Palace by James, the 8th Earl of Elgin asking that this item be considered stolen as unlike the Parthenon Marbles there was not even a pretence of it being saved from barbarians damaging it, rather the opposite.

By way of response Fife Constabulary deliberately misinterpreted my complaint of the Elgin family harbouring stolen goods (reset) as being a request by me that they repatriate the Bronze Crane. They washed their hands of the whole affair stating this was a matter for the two governments concerned and not the police and suggested I contact Ms Fiona Hislop, Minister for Culture and External Affairs with the Scottish Government. LINK 3

I did as suggested but Ms Hislop took the view that to repatriate such items would see Scotland’s museums emptied. Which says as much about Scotland’s role in Empire as it does about Ms Hislop’s ethics.