"Even though the amount of damage is insignificant, given that the painting is irreplaceable, the museum has to be shut down immediately", said the police officer in an assertive tone. Two weeks after that, the investigation was still inconclusive. One more day, one more tiny piece of writing. It's better than nothing, isn't it? Thanks a lot!! Best regards :)

'Even though the amount of damage is insignificant, given that the painting is irreplaceable the museum has to be shut down immediately', said the police officer in an assertive tone. Two weeks after that the investigation was still inconclusive. One more day one more tiny piece of writing. It's better than nothing, isn't it? Thanks a lot!! Best regards :) Hey, Oscar. The only thing that troubles me is the notion of "shutting down" a museum. What would it mean? A museum is not like a factory that can be halted and that's the end of it. The assets can't be liquidated because the art generally belongs to some entity that is distinct from the museum itself. It cannot go bankrupt because museums are already permanently bankrupt and survive on charity. It cannot stop production because it produces nothing. If you close the doors and send the employees home, the art will still be there. Rather than "shutting down", perhaps you are just "closing the doors".