Talk:Removing article from place open to the public

Cuts

The article Theft Act 1968 contained this passage:

"*for historically valid but now redundant reasons, a specific offence was created to protect art galleries, museums, etc;"

I am not going to incorporate this sweeping statement into this article until it is attributed to a source. James500 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste from Talk:Theft Act 1968

I have moved the following discussion to this page as it is relevant to this article.

Please explain this

"for historically valid but now redundant reasons, a specific offence was created to protect art galleries, museums, etc;"

It is incredibly irritating when an article does that - hints at a reason but doesn't explain it. Please fix that by explaining. 86.132.142.246 (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a strong resistance to the creation of a general offence of taking (without intention), but at the time the act was being considered there had been a spate of art thefts by people who wanted to keep them for a while (to be with them) and then return them. Francis Davey (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]