This article
is a follow up to this
article exploring the
aftermath of the 2013 Riesco
sale
my many vexatious complaints
to Government organisations
and a vague attempt to
identify which of the 89
lost and 39 stolen
pieces of the collection
existed when and at what time
...and indeed where they may
be found
and if anyone called the PoPo
(spoilers
: short answers dunno and
no)
In November 2013 Croydon
Council sold 24 pieces of the
Riesco
Collection - a large
volume of ceramic pottery ....
...left to Croydon Council by
eccentric millionaire and
businessman Raymond
Riesco....
...donated to
the Corporation on the
condition that they were not
split up...
...at Christie's in Hong
Kong. Of course this isn't
the first time Christies has
been accused of dealing in
stolen works of Chinese art
...and it wont be the
last. Apart from the
Riesco sale possibly the most
high profile sale of knocked off
artifacts in recent times is
probably 2 bronze fountainheads
that were looted from Beijing's
Summer Palace during the second
Opium War in 1860.
These somehow came into the
possession of Yves Saint
Laurent, the late fashion
designer and when he popped it
they were flogged by Christie's
for £14 million each.
Said
protestor against the sale Jackie
Chan: "This behaviour
is shameful. They
remain looted items, no matter
whom they were sold to.
Whoever took it out (of China)
is himself a thief. It was
looting yesterday. It is still
looting today."
Yes,
Christie's have form...
Fortunately the Riesco
collection china was
manufactured mainly for export
so there is very little danger
that it might have been looted
except by Croydon Council its
self.
Those who could be bothered to
read the previous article may
remember Tim Pollard's famous
statement on the Croydon Citizen
website that the Council is
absolutely sure that it owns all
the items...
... and that
there were no conditions applied
to the gift Mr Riesco made to
the council. You can read
the full text of the original
agreement between Mr Riesco and
the Council by downloading the PDF here of the original
agreement as retrieved from the
council by FOI by Mr David White
@davidwhite020 and in the
absence of any legal training
just let your imagination run
riot.
In short Mr
Riesco did a deal with the
corporation whereby he gave them
Heathfield House, some land and
his collection of porcelain and
in return ... the Treasury
agreed to exempt him from paying
some death duties. This
meant that when he died his
collection and some of his
property went to the Corporation
of Croydon instead of a huge tax
bill from the Treasury going to
his widow. One almost gets
the impression reading about the
saga via the various documents
available that actually the
Council didn't either want or
give a toss about the collection
just his money.
The promise
that the collection once moved
from Heathfield House would be
displayed adequately elsewhere
was never honoured fully.
Following on from an initial
exhibition in the Arnhem Gallery
of the Fairfield Halls in the
1960s (the Halls were
build in 1962) a small
percentage (147 items) was put
on permanent display at
Fairfield until the Museum of
Croydon opened and was able top
display considerably more in the
new Clocktower building in
1994. During this period
457 items were put "in
storage".
With the opening of the
Clocktower and some National
Lottery money a Museum and a new
room was built specifically to
house the Riesco collection in
2006. Following the
closure of the Braithwaite Hall
in 2011 when its funding was cut
by the Council, the Clocktower
it lost its Arts Council RFO
status. The National
Lottery grants database lives here and
reveals that since 1996 the
Museums service has recieved £1,061,950
in Lottery Grants.
The bulk of which was in 2003.
In the mean time Croydon Council
had flogged off 180 pieces in
1970 and 112 were sold in
1984. 39 were
"stolen at an unspecified
date". And 89 are just
"missing".
So where are these other
pieces?
The reason
the 2013 sale was more
controversial than previous
sales was that the pieces
remaining had gone from just
being in a council building to
being in a Museum so selling
them was a breach of the Museums
Asscoiations code of
ethics. And, of course,
there are now visibly less items
on display in the Riesco
room. The attempt to take
the decision to Judicial Review
ran out of both money and
time. Of course to
properly interpret if these
sales were legal you'd probably
have to have his will to hand
and stuff but...
"The Council
does not hold a copy of Mr.
Raymond Riesco’s Will,
however the Council does hold
copies of agreements entered
into regarding its purchase of
Heathfield House, (and
surrounding land in Addington)
and a collection of Oriental
China known as the as the
Reisco Collection. Please find
attached copies of those
agreements entered into
between the Council, Mr.
Raymond Riesco (dated 1945 and
1959) and his personal
representatives (dated 1964).
The report of the Corporate
Services Committee dated 24
July 2013, can be found here:
https://secure.croydon.gov.uk/akscroydon/images/att2420.pdf"
So there
are, as far as we are aware no
written agreements post dating
1959 with the Riesco family held
by the Council and the Council
has no copy of his will.
There may be verbal agreements
though and I'm sure a verbal
agreement is fine when parting
with several million. Mind
you when I asked the specific
question "So are
you saying that apart from
the documents attached the
Council has no other legal
agreements with other
members of the Riesco
family either in writing
or verbally?" of Mr Nigel
Spalding Libraries and Culture
Project Officer Children,
Families and Learning the reply I got
was a rather alarming: "Yes,
that is correct".
"According to council records,
out of the original
collection, 180 pieces were
sold in 1970, 112 were sold in
1984 and 39 were stolen at an
unspecified date. This
leaves 89 items apparently
missing with no record as
to their whereabouts.
Regarding the 39 stolen items,
it is unclear when the theft
was detected or what steps
were taken to recover the
objects".
This is
such an extraordinary claim I
asked the Council if they could
clarify the situation
further. Perhaps give some
time window to the theft may
have occurred in or when the
pieces might have gone
missing. Were the 89
objects lost before or after the
collection was moved to the
Clocktower from the Fairfield
Halls for example? They
responded along the lines that
the data that there was was
already in the public domain...
somewhere in the Local Studies
Library. After
asking former leader of Council
and ex-Croydon Central MP
Geriant Davies what he could
remember about the number of
pieces ...
...I eventually pottered down
the Local Studies Library (now
in part of what used to be the
Museum of Croydon ...just past
the Riesco Room on the ground
floor of the Clocktower) myself
to view this data where the
curator Mr Sam Smith supplied
me with the following
copies of the original
catalogues which I gave a
peruse.
As I passed the Riesco china
room I also noticed that without
any seeming irony at all the
council are now displaying only
a single object in the vast main
central display case. So
here for posterity (picture stolen
from the Council) is
what the cabinet used to look
like when it had more than one
thing in it:
Obviously
actually cross referencing every
single item in the catalogues
would involve me spending every
Saturday in the Local Studies
Library but here's what I could
work out with very little
thought. There are several
different versions of the
catalogue from different times
in the collections
history. They are:
1
Facsimile copies of
Riesco’s own handwritten
catalogues. This is a 3
volume list of the original
collection before it was given
to the council. Not all of
Riesco’s China went to the
Council – some went to other
museums. Originally some
909 pieces existed. Some
were given to the V and A, some
to ...well, who knows without a
copy of his will...?
2
A catalogue by Sir Harry
Garner (1964) This one
is blue and does not have a name
on it but by a process of
elimination I deduced that it
must be the Garner
catalog. We know
that 25 are definitely stolen
(see below) - this leaves
103. If 39 have been
stolen (as stated in the
Council’s 2013 statement) then
89 are missing. This
matches the Coucil’s 2013
statement.
It is typed
with some interesting pencil
notes at the top.
Written at the bottom of the
cover page on the right hand
side in coloured ink are the
words: “25 Stolen, 168
Fairfield, 457 store”.
According to
the Council 39 items were
“stolen at an unspecified
date”. So why would
this volume record only 25
being stolen? Were
there actually two or more
thefts? Or is there a
numbering issue whereby more
than one physical item
constitutes more than one
catalogue item (for example
a pair of plates or a set of
cups?).
3
A sale
catalogue by Sotheby’s
(1970). Lists 180
pieces sold at
auction. These are
presumably the 180 pieces
sold in 1970. Taking
the original collection to
be 650 pieces this depleted
the collection to 470.
4
A
catalogue of the permanent
collection at Fairfield
Halls by Anthony Woolfenden
(September 1984). This
catalogue is typed and lists
617 pieces although the last
5 pages note at the bottom
that they have been “hand
amended in 1985”.
Obviously this list was
compiled in preparation of
the later sale in December
1984 of 112 of the
items. This catalogue
doesn’t seem to have been
made for external
consumption. Maybe
some pages are missing but
even accounting for the 25
“stolen” items this leaves
the question – where are the
other 8 of the 33 difference
between 650 and 617?
Were they stolen while the
457 items were in
storage? Anyway it
appears there were still as
many as 617 items as late as
1984. By 1987...
5
A sale catalogue by
Sotheby’s (December
1984) This catalog
contains items for sale
from the Croydon Riesco
collection and other
items being flogged off
by the V and A during
the era when Mrs
Thatcher started
charging us entry to
such places. 112
items were sold from the
Riesco collection in
1984. This should
deplete the collection
to 358 items (25->33
of which are stolen).
6
A handlist by Anthony
Woolfenden (1987) This
published hand booklet
puts the collection at
202 pieces. Maybe
this doesn’t include
stolen pieces? Or
pieces in store?
Maybe some pieces are
counted twice? But the
collections stays at 202
items from now on.
According to the
council’s statement to
the Croydon Natural
History and scientific
society 230 pieces
remained in council
ownership in early 2013
before the latest sale.
In
short the 89
"lost" pieces were
lost some time
between 1984-1987
7
A catalogue by Clayton (1991)
This list collated in
anticipation of the transfer of
the collection from the
Fairfield H alls to the new
Croydon Clocktower puts the
collection at 202 items and
describes problems with the
design of the old cases along
with suggestions on the
design of the new cases.
8
A schedule of the collection on
display at the Fairfield Halls
by Bluett and Sons (1992) This
list puts the collection at 202
items and estimates the value of
the collection at £1,696,550
9
A catalogue by Rosemary Kerr
(1993) This also list puts the
collection at 202 items
10
A sale catalogue by Christie’s
(2013) and "our current
catalogue which I can export for
you from our database...".
So who can we blame for the lost
and stolen items? Or
failing that who's
responsibility should it have
been? The Council says it
has no idea who is to blame for
the loss and misplacement of the
items so ...er ... perhaps some
of the following people might
know the answers :
Lord Bowness (above) was the
Conservative leader of the
Council during the period the 89
missing pieces china went
walkies. Of course these
lost pieces may not be stolen -
merely misplaced. Perhaps
lent to another institution and
never returned ... or stored
somewhere and forgotten.
Perhaps they have been sent to
Warehouse 51 in the Nevada
desert along with the Ark of the
Covenant ...or perhaps the UK
has a similar facility on an
industrial estate
somewhere. Perhaps they
are in a government office at
the moment ignored by the
potentate who walks past them
every day. But anyway I've
emailed him and he writes...
Dear Mr.
Miller,
Thank you for your message. I
recall the decision to sell
items from what was then
described as the reserve
collection and of course the
decision to house the
collection in the special
gallery in the Museum but as
to your specific questions in
the last two paragraphs of
your message
Which I
Presume were: Can you think of
anyone who might know where
these items might be? It seems very odd that
a Council can just lose
several million pounds worth
of priceless
porcelain. However,
the council has “no records”
other than those we have
discovered in the local
studies library?
I am
unable to help you.
Yours sincerely
LORD BOWNESS CBE DL
House of Lords
Westminster
London SW1A 0PW
Anthony Woolfenden the curator
of the collection from 1984 to
1987 might also have a clue if
he is still with us?
What about Sir Harry
Garner? Well, possibly
he's a bit of a dead end as far
as information goes having
passed on in 1977. But a
lot of these people seem to be
connected by the Oriental
Ceramic Society so maybe
someone involved with them knows
something...?
Leaving aside the fact we dont
actually know how many pieces
were on display at the Fairfield
Halls at any one time and which
were in store but assuming that
they're the same pieces most of
the time that gives us a graph
of pieces that (and bare in mind
there are error bars on this of
up to 30 pieces) may look
something like this:
I've put the
estimated size of the total
number of pieces possessed by
the council at the bottom of
each column in brackets.
Of course if there was a theft
someone might have called the
PoPo ...so I asked the PoPo or
two if anyone had reported the
theft of the "stolen" items at
the time.
They said...
Following receipt of your
request searches were
conducted within the MPS
to locate information
relevant to your request.
EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO
LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information
relevant to your request
searches were conducted
within the Arts and
Antiques Unit, Records
Management Branch and
Croydon Borough.
RESULT OF SEARCHES
The searches failed to
locate any information
relevant to your request,
therefore, the information
you have requested is not
held by the MPS.
Regarding the last sentence of
your request which states -
"If not I would like to call
on the police to investigate
this matter - I think I did
mention it to my safer
Neighbourhood team but I'm not
sure they thought I was
entirely serious." If you
would like to make an
allegation that a crime has
taken place, please either
attend the front counter of
any police station or visit
the MPS website at
www.met.police.uk or
alternatively you could write
to the Borough Commander of
Croydon direct at Croydon
Police Station, CR9 1BP, and
report a crime.
Freedom of Information is not
the correct medium to make an
allegation of a crime as it is
regarded as a public
request.
...no. The Council haven't
even bothered to contact the
Arts and Antiques Unit of the
Metropolitan Police in the hope
that, as Micawber might way,
....
....
"something's bound to turn
up". Gavin Barwell
MP writing from the email
address of deselected
ex-Mayor Eddy
Arram (so it could
be Mario
Creatura as
virtually everyone uses
Gavin's email and twitter
account when he's not
using theirs) writes:
Photofit of sender:
Eddy Gavin Mario Creatrura
Arram Barwell
Dear
Mr Miller,
In your email to me of
the 22nd November 2013
you raised two issues
relating to the Riesco
collection held by
Croydon Council – the
auctioning of 25 items
from the collection and
the alleged
disappearance of 89
items.
With regards to the 25
items of the collection
recently auctioned, in
an ideal world the
Council would retain the
whole collection, but
given that:-
a) the
items concerned are too
expensive to insure [the
items were never
insured anyway.
Of course you could
look to other Museum
would want to take on
responsibility for
them - for example the
British Museum made a
big deal of exhibiting
the Cloisonné vase
commissioned by Zhu
Zhanji (Ming emperor
from 1426 to 1435)
back in April
2013. This
was not sold in 2013
...so presumably still
has to be
insured? What
exactly was sold and
at what price is
listed here.]
b) it
is no longer feasible to
display these 25 items [the
empty display case
tells a different
story]
c) the
Fairfield Halls are in
need of investment; and
[this
is true; but]
d)
far more people
benefit from arts
provision at the
Fairfield Halls than
would view the
collection even if it
was all on display I can
see why the Council has
reached this decision.
Over 200 items of the
Riesco collection will
remain in the ownership
of Croydon Council.
These items will be
displayed in the Riesco
Gallery at the Clock
Tower on a rotation
basis.
It
would seem by the
empty cabinet that the
turntable is at
present broken but
leaving aside the
absurdity of the
attempt to evaluate
performing arts which
are by nature
ephemeral with fine
art that is by its
nature concrete ...
the Council's
statement that it
desperately needs the
money to refurbish the
Fairfield Halls would
seem somewhat at odds
with its sudden
decision pre the May
22 local elections to
offer everyone a £25
rebate off their
Council Tax.
£25 may not sound much
but if there are
149,700 households in
Croydon
then the Council has
just given away
£3,742,500. Erm
... if you sell the
Riesco china for £6,450,000
then ... that's half
the sum that Cllr Mike
Fisher has just given
away.
If it intends to
freeze Council Tax at
this new lower level
for 4 years that would
be £14,970,000 in lost
revenue. One
does wonder what other
services are going to
be cut in order to
achieve these magical
Council Tax
cuts. Not that
all Tories are
intrinsically wedded
to a mantra of low
taxation beyond the
point of any logic.
One might also wonder
why the problem of
re-housing the
collection more safely
(if there is one) was
not addressed when
then Council decided
to build it's self a
new HQ at the cost of
£140,000,000.
As far as the ‘lost’ 89
items are
concerned, you
mention in your email
that you are going back
some 40 years or
so. Croydon
Council are aware of the
suggestion that 89 items
were handed over to the
Council and have since
gone missing, hence they
have undertaken
considerable research in
the Council’s records.
Unfortunately there are
some gaps in the records
held by Croydon Council
going back that length
of time and pre date the
knowledge and employment
of the present staff.
Consequently the Council
do not hold and are
therefore unable to
provide you with any
details on this issue.
[Since I
have managed to narrow the
time window of the
dematerialisation down to
30 years do we get a
re-evaluation of
this? Clearly also
the Council did hold
information on this issue
(because I found it) they
just couldn't be arsed to
look for it and have
displayed a herculean lack
of curiosity. Also
we have managed to
identify at least one
person who's job it was to
curate the collection -
was this beyond the
Council?]
I am
sorry that I am unable
to clarify or resolve
the issue of the ‘lost’
89 items. As you
will see from the
information that Croydon
Council have given me,
the Police will take the
view that there is no
evidence that a criminal
offence has taken place
with regards to these
items.
Yours sincerely,
Gavin Barwell
It is good and
enlightening to know that
Gavin Barwell knows the
mind of the Police before
they know it themselves.
Of course
because 89 items are
missing does not mean they
are stolen. But if
39 items are stolen then
one might suggest that
there was indeed at some
point a crime even if the
likelihood of catching
anyone for it is minimal
because it was a long time
ago and they were middle
class.
As to the items sold in
1970, 1984 and 2013
although the Council does
not seem keen to prove
they own them they are not
actually stolen.
However even if we accept
the fact they might not be
stolen this does not fully
close the issues around
their provenance -
provenance is an
important part of
the value of such items
and some buyers would we
interested in whether the
items were obtained
"ethically" ...not
everyone wants to purchase
art works merely as an
"expensive gloat". I
dont think I am stretching
credulity to say it is
possible that in
some cases the question as
to provenance (whether
the items being disposed
of are being disposed of
ethically) may
affect how much the items
would fetch at
auction.
So it's
possible them that
misleading statements by
Cllr Tim Pollard (or
"Pollardisms" as they are
known in Chavdon) should
not be featured in their
advertising of the
collection. Inspired
by the success of Mr Peter
Jonas's campaign
against Inkey Jones
I put in a complaint to
the Advertising Standards
Authority on the basis
that the Christies website
insinuated that the items
were purchased
from Riesco when in fact
they were a gift.
They replied that
although the
Christie's website may
contain clearly
misleading statements
...
Dear
Mr Miller
Christies Inc
Thank you for contacting
the Advertising
Standards Authority.
As you may know, we
recently began to
regulate some material
on companies’ own
websites or in other
non-paid-for online
space under their
control. The CAP
Code now applies to any
online marketing
messages or direct
appeals for donations in
such space.
However, some online
material remains outside
the ASA’s remit,
including:
-
editorial content
- news
or public relations
material
-
corporate reports
-
natural listings on
search engines and price
comparison sites
-
material directed at the
financial community
(shareholders, investors
etc.) and
-
“heritage advertising”,
i.e. obsolete
advertising that it not
part of a current
campaign and is placed
in an appropriate
context on the company’s
website.
The material to which
you object is a press
release and as such, is
not covered by the
Code. I note that
your concerns also
relate to the legality
of the sale of certain
items, which, as a
non-statutory
organisation, we would
not be able to comment
on. We therefore
cannot take any action
on your complaint, but
if you would like to
pursue the matter, you
may wish to contact the
Citizens Advice consumer
service for free,
confidential and
impartial advice.
You can contact their
helpline on 08454 040506
(Monday to Friday from
9am to 5pm) or you can
find further information
at
www.adviceguide.org.uk.
I hope you find this
useful and are able to
pursue your
complaint. Our
website, www.asa.org.uk,
contains more
information about the
ASA and the work we do.
Yours sincerely
Jo Davis
Complaints Executive
Follow
us on twitter: @ASA_UK
Legal,
decent, honest?
and truthful
...these are fine
as the pages on which
they featured were not
"advertising" but
"editorial".
Ms Davies,
I dispute that it is a
press release – I would
state that it is clearly
an advertisement for the
sale in the same way that
http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/Listings.htm
this page is an advert for
ticket sales …not just a
press release about comedy
listings
The page exists as a sales
promotion for the
collection. To argue
that it is divorced from
the purpose of
advertisement is
nonsensical. Perhaps
then we can complain about
the actual sale listings
which are economical with
the truth to the point of
deception reading:
“The majority of the
remaining pieces from
Riesco's Chinese ceramic
collection were acquired
by the London Borough of
Croydon when the Council
purchased
Mr Riesco's home,
Heathfield House, and
surrounding land in
Addington, south London,
following his death in
1964.”
This gives a misleading
impression to the buyer
that the property is not
the subject of a specific
bequest and that there
were no Caveats placed on
the Bequest …suggesting
that the council “just
happened to come into
ownership” of the China
via the purchase of
Heathfield House. In
fact the Council's own
website said it was a
bequest and there is a
condition of that bequest
that the collection should
not be split up. The
page http://thecroydoncitizen.com/politics-society...
"In 1958, Riesco made
another agreement with
the Corporation under
which he would make a gift
of his collection of
Oriental China, complete
with 15 showcases and a
collection of etchings -
mezzotints and
watercolours,to the
Corporation on the
condition that they were
not split up."
You can see this page has
now been edited by the
council as a result of my
pointing out these words
in public
But they have forgotten to
delete the paragraph that
follows
“Due to lack of security
at Heathfield the Riesco
collection was moved to
Fairfield Halls in
Croydon. Those parts of
the collection still on
show are housed in a
gallery in Croydon
Clocktower.”
With the result that the
article now makes no
logical sense. The
original paragraph that
has been deleted can be
viewed here http://web.archive.org...
It is misleading
advertising to inform
people that the
acquisition of the pieces
by the Council is simply
the result of the purchase
of Heathfield. It
was a bequest.
Cheers
Anthony Miller
Okay it wasn't a bequest
in the strictest legal
sense but neither was it a
no-strings-attached gift
and the Council did not
come into the possession
of the items simply by the
purchase of
Heathfield. Indeed
one could argue Heathfield
was not exactly
"purchased" either?
Whatever. It's
clearly misleading to
claim or insinuate the
council "bought" the
collection.
I pointed out that
similar claims were made
on other pages of the
website that might not
be classed as press
releases and indeed in
the hard copy catalogue
which surely cant be
classed a "press
release" ? but they just
re-intoned:
Dear
Mr Miller
Thank you for your
email.
I’m afraid our
position remains that
the material concerned
falls outside our
remit on this
occasion. The
document to which you
object is a press
release, appearing in
the “Press Center”
section of the
website, under the
heading “Press
Releases” and this is
editorial material
which is not subject
to the CAP Code.
I understand your
objections but the
issues raised concern
matters that would be
best assessed by a
statutory
organisation. We
do not consider that
the sale listing is
likely to breach the
CAP Code for the
reasons you state and
do not consider that
there are sufficient
grounds for us to take
further action under
the Code. I
would advise that you
seek legal advice or
contact Trading
Standards, who may be
able to provide legal
advice regarding this
matter. If you
think that the
material breaches the
Museums Association
Code of Ethics, it may
also be advisable to
contact this
organisation with your
concerns.
I appreciate this
response will be
disappointing, but I
hope that you’re able
to pursue your
complaint with the
organisations
suggested above.
Kind regards
Jo
Jo Davis
Complaints Executive
So there you
are. If
you're Inkey
Jones and
you make false
claims on your
website it is
false
advertising but
if you are
Christie's
that's just a
press
release.
On the plus side
as the items
were actually
sold in Hong
Kong we were
able to put in a
similar
complaint to
their government
too... which is
ongoing:
If you too would
like to complain
to the Hong Kong
government
please email customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk
quoting reference
number A13424200
I did ask them
recently if they had
given up on this
enquiry and they
assured me that
Our
reference :
A13923600
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your
e-mail on
25.3.2014.
Your enquiry is
forwarded to the
officer in charge
of your case for
follow up action.
Which even if it
means 走開，你傷心的人 is
very polite.
Of course for those
who cant afford
court there is the
much ridiculed
Council Ombudsman
but this process
takes at least 3
months.
However, I have
moaned to them
...not just about
the sale but about
the strange lack of
curiosity that the
council seems to
have in whatever
happened to its
missing items.
Unfortunately the
LGO is glacially
slow at anything but
if you write to the
CEO of the Council
and wait 12 weeks
you can get a letter
like this:
Dear
Mr Miller
Complaint
against London
Borough of Croydon
I
have now formed a
provisional view
about your
complaint. I am
sorry to tell you
I consider this is
not a matter the
Ombudsman will
investigate.
The
enclosed statement
sets out my
provisional view
and explains my
reasons for it. If
you wish to let me
have any comments,
I shall take them
into account
before making a
final decision.
That means that my
view might change
after I have
considered what
you say.
Because
we usually publish
our decision
statements on our
website, they do
not contain names
or details which
could allow people
to identify you or
others involved.
In the statement I
have referred to
you as Mr B. If
you are concerned
about the enclosed
statement being
published, please
let me know.
Please
let me have your
comments by 15
April 2014. If I
have not heard
from you by then I
shall make a
decision based on
the information I
already have. If
you need more time
please let me know
the reason.
Yours
sincerely
Jane
Beck
Investigator
Accompanied
by another document
that says:
To
which I replied:
Ms
Beck,
In reply to you
provisional
view…
“The
injustice Mr B
has suffered
in this case
is not
significant
enough to
justify the
cost of the
Ombudsman’s
involvement”
How does the
Ombudsman
quantify
injustice? And
is this an
admission by the
Ombudsman that
an injustice has
or may have
taken
place? As
I understand it
the Local
Governments
Ombudsman’s
remit is to
consider
complaints about
Local
Authorities
(also known as
Councils) and
certain other
Authorities
where they may
have been guilty
of
‘maladministration
leading to
injustice’.
It seems to me
that the loss of
89 pieces of
precious
oriental china
and the theft of
39 others is at
the very least
maladministration
and if people
are unable to
look upon items
that are
collectively
owned because
they have been
lost or stolen
this is an
injustice?
Is it the view
of the LGO that
the victims of
theft do not
suffer
injustice?
I am not asking
for the Council
to do anything
unusual – just
to come up with
a definitive
list as to what
has been lost
and stolen …
this is surely
just good
administration?
Once such a
definitive list
is compiled
steps may be
taken to recover
the items.
All the data on
which items
existed and when
is available in
the Local
Studies Library
it simply needs
compiling from
many different
catalogues into
a single
coherent
list. I
could do this
myself but it
would take many
many man hours
and I do not see
why I should
perform tasks
which are surely
the
responsibility
of the local
authority – such
as knowing what
they actually
own, what
they’ve actually
lost and what’s
actually been
stolen from
them? This
is surely not a
difficult matter
to
resolve? I
also thought
that the role of
the LGO was to
arbitrate
Wednesbury
unreasonableness.
It seemed to me
that the
Council’s
decision not to
compile a list
of what it
thinks it may
have lost is so
unreasonable
that no
reasonable
person acting
reasonably could
have made it.
“Mr
B has also
said that all
council tax
payers are
affected but
the Ombudsman
cannot
investigate
something that
affects all or
most people in
the Council’s
area.”
One could argue
that if the
Council intends
to keep the
collection in
its Museum then
only a small
number of people
would be
affected by the
loss/misappropriation
of these assets
– those
interested in
viewing Oriental
china.
However one
could conversely
argue that if
the council
wishes to pursue
what seems to be
a new policy of
public disposal
for financial
gain then all
council tax
payers are
affected.
The council’s
recent rebate of
£25 per person
to all council
tax payers cost
somewhere in the
region of
£3,000,000
(multiply the
number of
council tax
payers by the
flat
rebate).
The sale of 24
pieces of the
collection in
2013 by
Christies in
Hong Kong raised
over £6,000,000
and could be
used to reduce
Council Tax by
£50.
However, the
council has
“ring fenced”
the £3,000,000
for the
renovation of
the Fairfield
Halls. The
Council seems to
have a policy of
ring fencing
Arts spending
and profits from
the sale of fine
art towards its
budget for
cultural
activities and
the performing
arts.
Therefore by my
estimation those
suffering from
the failure to
recover the 89
missing and 39
stolen items
from the Riesco
collection are
actually those
who access the
Council’s
performing arts
provision.
These are not,
by definition,
all or most
people in the
Council’s area
–only those who
enjoy music.
I would also
like you/them to
examine and have
criticised the
Council’s sale
of the 24 items
in 2013 on the
grounds that
they do not have
adequate proof
that they own
the
collection.
Mr Riesco’s
agreement with
the Council is
complex and the
Council seem not
to either have a
copy of Mr
Riesco’s will or
any written
agreement from
any
representatives
of the Riesco
family about the
sale of
items.
Should the
Council be
allowed to
dispose of
£6,000,000 of
assets purely on
the basis of a
verbal agreement
unknown to
Council
officers?
I understand
that the Council
have taken legal
advice over
their ownership
of these items
but one is not
inspired by
their reluctance
to put this
advice in the
public domain to
believe that the
ownership issues
are black and
white.
Cheers
Anthony Miller
To which they
responded:
To which I
responded:
Ms Beck
Thanks.
One of problems is
that the
Catalogues which
would need to be
cross referenced
only exist within
the Local Studies
Library – so I
cannot cross
reference them
myself.
Without actually
being in the
Library and
neither can I get
digital copies off
the council
because they claim
an FOI exemption
because the
Catalogues are in
the Local Studies
Library. If
I could get
digital copies off
the Council it
would be so much
easier. I am
greatly impressed
by the efficiency
with which you
have reached a
final decision a
good 5 days before
you need to
Cheers
Anthony Miller
To
which they
replied:
Dear
Mr Miller
Thank you for your email.
If you have not already done so you can ask the Council
to review its
decision on
your FOIA
request. After
that the
Office of the
Information
Commissioner
(www.ico.org.uk)
may be able to
help.
Yours sincerely
Jane Beck
Investigator
The
thing is
someone has
been here
before.
A previous
enquiry
for the
Catalogues in
digital form
reads:
So there the truth
as to exactly what
we do and dont own
and exactly what
has and has not
been stolen shall
remain entombed in
the bowels of the
Croydon Clocktower
on 2000->4000
pieces of paper
unless some local
Indiana Jones is
prepared to sit in
there all day
every day cross
referencing them
all manually at
their own time
expense. I
would also
question the
Council's claim
that the data is
too difficult to
scan ... and if it
is ...might it not
be an idea for
someone to
re-transcribe
these lists?
Then again ...Who
needs several
million pounds
anyway? It's
only clay and
money. Much
like people and
society.
Never-the-less we
have asked the
Information
Commissioner if
they can do
anything to force
the Council
collate a
comprehensive list
of what it has
actually owned and
lost. They
said:
24th
April 2014
Case Reference
Number
FS50538139
Dear Mr Miller
Thank you for
your
correspondence
dated 14th
April, regarding
the London
Borough of
Croydon.
In your email
you ask if 'it
is possible for
the Information
Commissioner to
either get the
Council to
digitise its
catalogues or
collate a proper
inventory of
items which it
thinks it has
lost'.
Regrettably this
is not something
which falls
under the
Information
Commissioner's
remit.
The Freedom
of Information
Act allows
members of the
public to
request
recorded
information
held by a
public
authority at
the time a
request is
made. However
the Act does
not dictate
what
information a
public
authority must
hold or in
what format
information is
stored, nor is
a public
authority
required to
generate new
information in
response to a
request.
Therefore, in
light of the
above, the
Information
Commissioner's
Office is unable
to order Croydon
Council to
digitally scan
its catalogues
or collate an
inventory in
order to fulfil
your request.
I am sorry we
are unable to be
of assistance in
relation to this
matter. If you
require further
advice regarding
the Freedom of
Information Act
and the role of
the the
Information
Commissioner
please visit our
website
www.ico.org.uk
or contact our
helpline on 0303
123 1113
Yours sincerely
Mike Chamberlain
Case Officer
Information
Commissioner's
Office
As
Chris Ames would
say if the
government wants
to avoid
complying with a
freedom of
information
request the huge
variety of
available
exemptions in the
Freedom of
Information Act
available mean
that it is "spoilt
for choice".
The Council claims
to still be
actively looking
for the 89 missing
and 39 stolen
items but how can
it be when it
doesn't even know
which items these
were? The
data from which to
deduce which items
these were/are
clearly exists but
the Council simply
cannot be bothered
to cross reference
it? It has
never reported the
matter of the
thefts to the
police as far as
anyone knows
including the
police. And
it has hidden the
data away in the
Local Studies
Library and
refuses to make it
public so that
anyone else could
investigate the
matter on the
spurious grounds
that the various
catalogues are of
too poor a quality
to digitise or
scan but the
articles I saw
though of variable
quality are on the
whole perfectly
scannable.
Certainly the
council's
facsimile of
Riesco's original
hand written notes
was good enough to
be used in the
Christie's sale
catalogue.
Of course these
items although
rare are
non-specific so
might be harder to
recover than say a
totally individual
oil painting by an
old master but
none-the-less the
Council displays a
truly staggering
lack of curiosity
about what it its
self and indeed
its taxpayers
actually
own. One
might almost think
there is a reason
the Council ...
then again maybe
it is time to 莫惹是非
Updates
Following
the election of Cllr
Tony Newman's new
Labour regime on the
22nd of May we finally
recieved this piece of
correspondence from
the council on the
30th of May who had
previously written on
the 28th of April
saying "Please
accept my apologies
for the delay in our
reply.
Unfortunately we
have been
experiencing issues
with some e-mails
having being stuck
in our e-mail server
which has now been
resolved."
...in which they
purport that it
impossible to allow
the dissemination of
the catalogues in
other forms than
their original for
"copyright reasons".
Well,
it's new one...
InformationTeam
Business
Support
Bernard
Weatherill House
7thFloor
- Zone C
8
Mint Walk
Croydon
CR0 1EA
Tel/typetalk:
020 8726 6000
Minicom:
020 8760 5797
Mr
Anthony Miller
SENT
BY
EMAIL
Contact: Lynda Fay
information@croydon.gov.uk
Our
Ref: F/CRT/10002478
Date:
30 May 2014
Dear
Mr Miller
Freedom
of Information Request
Your
request has been
considered under the
provisions of the
Freedom of Information
Act. Please
accept my apologies
for the delay in
responding to you
request. For
ease of reference, I
will address each of
your questions in
turn.
“I wish to put in
an FOI to see All
the Catalogues of
the Riesco
collection in some
form of digital form
in so far as is
humanly possible to
achieve. With regards to
the multiple
conflicting copies
of the Riesco
catalogues in the
Local Studies
Library I notice you
say in an answer to
a Freedom Of
Information request
that you cannot
provide the public
with digital copies
of the Catalogues
"due to their age
and condition"
however having been
and seen them I
would comment that
many are indeed of
good enough quality
to scan or
photograph. Is it
possible that the
council could
attempt this for all
the catalogues or
indeed a
retranscription of
them because to my
reconing it cannot
be right that the
Council still has no
clear idea of which
items the 89 lost
and 39 stolen items
actually are? I have
tried cross
referencing the
catalogues manually
and this is too time
consuming and also
requires me to be
physically present
in the Local Studies
Library while doing
so. Is there nothing
the Council can do
to expedite the
process. Surely some
of the catalogues
are of good enough
quality to be
scanned ...as is
evident by the
inclusion of
sections of them in
the Christies sale
catalogs? It surely
cannot be right that
no one knows what is
and is not missing?
How does the Council
expect to recover
the items if it does
not know what they
are?”
The
Catalogues of the
Riesco are held in the
local studies library
in hard copy format.
It is possible to
access these
Catalogues and
view/and or use them
for research in the
same manner as any
material held within
the Local Studies
Archives. I understand
that you have done
this in the recent
past. Under
Section 11 of Freedom
of Information Act
(FoIA) “Means by which
communication to be
made” the Council is
required to consider
your request for
digital copies of the
catalogues. In
considering your
request the Council
may consider all the
relevant issues
including cost.
With
the exception of the
current records on the
museums database all
other catalogues and
documentation relating
to the collection are
held in hard copy
format, and have never
been held in a digital
format by the Council.
These form part of a
public archive that
for the most part was
acquired before the
storing of records in
a digital format was
widespread practice.
The items relating to
the Riesco collection
are:
• 3
volumes of the original
Riesco catalogue, 504
pages
• 1964
catalogue, 46 pages
• 1984
catalogue of objects
exhibited in Fairfield
Halls, 66 pages
• 1987
handbook, 21 pages
• 1991
new catalogue, 258 pages
• 1992
records 31 pages
• 1993
reinterpretation of the
collection 89 pages
• 2
Sothebys sales
catalogues from 1970 and
1984.
Due to
issues of copyright I
regret that these
cannot be copied
either in paper format
and/or
digitally.
However, the Council
is able to provide you
with digital copies of
the current catalogue
records and these are
attached.
Lastly
while FoIA provides a
general right of
access to information
held by public
authorities in the
second paragraph of
your request you have
sought views/opinions
which by their very
nature are not
recorded
information.
FoIA is only
applicable to
information held by
the public authority
in recorded format and
the Council is not
expected to provide
opinion or speculate
in order to answer a
FoIA request.
Therefore the Council
is unable to provide
you with a response in
respect of those
issues.
If you are
dissatisfied with the
way the Council has
handled your request
under the Freedom of
Information Act you
may ask for an
internal review.
This should be
submitted to us within
40 working days of
this response.
You can do this by
outlining the details
of your complaint by:
Email:
information@croydon.gov.uk
Writing:
Information Team
London Borough of
Croydon
Bernard Weatherill House
7thFloor - Zone C
8
Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
Any requests received
after the 40 working day
time limit will be
considered only at the
discretion of the
council.
We also recieved a
very nice email from
our friends in
Hong Kong...
Dear
Mr Miller,
Notification
on Result of Complaint
(File Ref.: A13923600)
Having
followed up and
carefully assessed the
relevant evidence
pertaining to your
complaint against
“Christie’s” on
suspected
contravention of the
Trade Descriptions
Ordinance (TDO) (Cap
362), our Complaint
Assessment Panel has
concluded that there
is insufficient
evidence to prove
that the trader had
violated the
provisions of the
TDO. To
instigate a
prosecution, the
prosecutor has to
prove a case beyond
reasonable doubt
in any criminal
proceedings.
In
this regard, we have
closed the complaint
case. In case
you have any
questions, please
contact Ms Ng Wai-yin,
Senior Trade Controls
Officer at 23985180
during office hours.
(
HM Wong )
for
Commissioner of
Customs and Excise
Photo Credits
A J Raffles illustrations by Frederick Coffay Yohn
(1875-1933)
Sleeping dog
by this
bloke Area
51 by X51
Everything on
this page is
stolen from
somewhere
except Jakie
Chan by Gage
Skidmore
