Two days ago, I went to the cinema to watch a based-on-real-life film called The Duke. As the film was about to start, I remember thinking that this film would be one which would tell the story of UK aristocracy. It turns out I was wrong. Very wrong indeed.

 

The film started with an old man (Kempton Burton) sitting on the street and protesting for free licences for OAP. Despite going to various reporters and politicians, he did not achieve his goal. He then decided to steal a painting of the Duke of Wellington from an art gallery, before asking for a ransom of 120,000. Surprisingly, he wanted the ransom to be given to charity, instead of his own pocket. When he was eventually found and charged of the theft, he pleaded guilty – but instead of accepting his fate, he pled with the jury and told them how we are all a brick of the same society: ‘I am you, and you are me’. He returned the painting and was found not guilty, but the ending came with a twist. It was his son who stole the painting, not him, and he only admitted to it to protect his son. Many then remembered the scene that showed the painting being stolen only a black figure had been shown stealing it. At the time, everyone thought it was Burton, but at the end of the film, many realized that it was in fact his son. In the end, Kempton Burton only served three months, while his son was never charged (even though he admitted his involvement four years later).

 

This is only a summary of the film. But upon reflection, the story told is more than a story. The film had so much action packed into it, that many forgot it was based on real life, let alone on an OAP. Many social movements involve several groups of people, but this one only involved one. Yes, free licences might be a smaller issue than allowing gay marriage or universal suffrage, but there is no doubt that the policy helped thousands. Without Kempton Burton, the 8 million OAP’s living in the UK today would not have TV licences.

 

But the main question in the entire story is: was the theft of the painting really theft? After all, he gave it back, and during his trial he said that he had no intention of keeping it – he just wanted to borrow it to make a point. The 1968 UK Theft Act defines a thief as: ‘ A person… dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently  depriving the other of it’. That is the point made by Burton’s solicitor during the trial: as Burton didn’t mean to keep the painting permanently, he was not a thief.

 

Instead, the so-called theft should be seen as an act which benefited society. Not only did Burton raise money for OAPs, but he helped raise public awareness for the issue of TV licenses. The judge thought during the trial that not defining him as a thief would set a precedent for the future population – who would turn to thief to make their point heard. Thankfully, this has not happened. It may be because there are other ways to raise awareness on issues e.g., social media and protests. But in the 1960s, where social media didn’t exist and large protests were put down, it seemed that only radical action would cause your voice to be heard.

 

I for one, don’t believe that Burton was a thief. Even though it was his son who took the painting, Burton shielded him and became the scapegoat. This led to no charges being pressed against the son four years later, as the police felt it would be too embarrassing to admit that they were wrong. Even if Burton did commit the crime, I do not see it as theft. In society, murdering someone will likely lead to a lengthy prison sentence, but you are never charged if you murder in self-defence. The same should be done for thieving. Of course, most thieving is wrong, but some thefts lead to society benefiting from it. Examples include stealing food if you’re hungry or stealing weapons from enemy soldiers during war.

 

‘The Duke’ showed me that theft is not always wrong. Especially if it’s for a good cause. And in this case, it was.