The following warnings occurred: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning [2] Trying to access array offset on null - Line: 59 - File: inc/class_session.php PHP 8.3.19 (Linux)
|
![]() |
Double Standards - Printable Version +- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk) +-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7) +--- Thread: Double Standards (/showthread.php?tid=3385) |
Double Standards - kevin wooldridge - 22nd August 2010 chrysalis Wrote:... I ought to add that after the recent cuts NE are due to lose 1/3rd of their staff and as most of the archaeological community isn't aware of the vast amounts of money they pour into archaeology the in-house archaeologists are looking like an easy target - some regions are down to one staff member to cover 6 counties already. Hopefully Chrysalis you can keep us updated on the situation at Natural England when the true extent of the proposed cuts is known. It will be sad if the organisation has to shed any of it's frontline staff - I think they are a good example of how a holistic approach to both the natural and heritage environment can be beneficial to all parties concerned..... Double Standards - Unitof1 - 22nd August 2010 Defra/NE took eh NMP data and pretend that the archaeology has not been ploughed out although every time anybody ?COSMIC- has gone to look they have found even things the sizes of long barrow ditches are gone but you get to call yourselves archaeologists (part of the 2829?) and you bring archaeology into your grotty lets give money to extremely large landowners so that they can buy really big subsoilers because that?s what they do every five years when they use so called min till /zero till practises that you lot think are so wonderful. Looking out my window do I see the difference to archaeology from NE-No, tears wept- none. what was the plough practise on thefield in Staffordshire with Anglo-Saxon treasure or the Roman coins, were those fields protected in one of your schemes Double Standards - BAJR - 22nd August 2010 Chrysalis these definately need a couple of threads. Another short terms short sighted action... please tell us more (in a new thread) so we can publicise it. What Union would be involved? and the HER - why to record... Do please start that as a thread... its a good start. Double Standards - chrysalis - 22nd August 2010 Oh dear Unitof1, it must be horrible to be inside your head. One day you'll be blocked from this site and we may be able to have a grown-up discussion without fear of inaccurate ranting nonsense. Go and read the NE website on what is and isn't eligable for grants as previous efforts on this site to enlighten your ignorance on a variety of other subjects have failed and I cannot be bothered to try. You are off topic as usual. Until that day I will merely go back to the point, namely while the use of HERs by illicit metal detectorsts is reprehensible and (anecdotally) does appear to be happening the duty to report to HERs remains upon every responsible archaeologist/interested party as the HERs have many other uses. This specific case of treasure hunting in marine waters does seem to be in breach of international law http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/iarc/culturewithoutcontext/issue16/papa-sokal.htm Breaking the law is not the way to highlight problems with it, lobbying your MP, MEP or other elected representative IS the way to go, particularly if you have a more sensible proposal and have demonstrable public support e.g. via a petition Double Standards - BAJR - 23rd August 2010 Thanks for that... and yes Uo1 ranting off topic etc will be monitored. Double Standards - Stephen Jack - 23rd August 2010 chrysalis Wrote:Oh dear Unitof1, it must be horrible to be inside your head. One day you'll be blocked from this site and we may be able to have a grown-up discussion without fear of inaccurate ranting nonsense. Go and read the NE website on what is and isn't eligable for grants as previous efforts on this site to enlighten your ignorance on a variety of other subjects have failed and I cannot be bothered to try. You are off topic as usual. France is not a signatory. Try again http://portal.unesco.org/la/convention.asp?KO=13520&language=E&o Double Standards - Stephen Jack - 23rd August 2010 BAJR Wrote:In this particular case, it is very much a case in point... The archaeologist is the enemy... hostile and stupid... the detectorist a paragon of virtue, trying only to discover that which the archaeologist will never find... etc........ reverse the terms archaeologist/detectorist where appropriate. BARJ listen very carefully I will type this only once. Detecting is not illegal in France. There are classes of objects where you need authorization to search for them. Be under no illusion this authorization is not a license but a barrier its only issued to archaeologists. Double Standards - BAJR - 24th August 2010 illegal without appropriate licence.... is what i typed. So if you detect without a licence, i would say you are committing an offence... hence illegal without a licence. Does this mean you can detect without any licence From the NCMD eu law section: note that beaches are 'believed to be outside this law" but as soon as you are detecting with the intent to recover artefacts, then .. well .... give it a go and find out.:face-huh: Quote:The use of metal detectors was controlled by the use of the war time Patrimony Act 1941 but, on the 18 December 1989 Law Number 89-900 (NOR: MCCX8900 163L) was adopted. However see appendix (L542) adopted in 2004. Double Standards - Stephen Jack - 24th August 2010 You fail to recognize the fact that there are classes of object where no authorization to search is required, intent though is at the root of these laws. 'Intent' thats what its all about. Beaches are difficult to classify clearly due to overlaping laws and jurisdiction issues. Proving intent on a beach is also problematic. The law in France as it is, is said by some Archaeologists to be a complete failure. There are studies that support this, I just need to track them down. Double Standards - Oxbeast - 24th August 2010 Hello Steven, Its very easy to prove your intent. You have put it in writing: "There are some mud flats that keep coughing up silver coins with the date 1600. Its very difficult to search this area so I'm building an boat 1m long which can tow barges with different detecting equipment. " Your intent is to build a rig that can be used for area prospection for archaeological remains. The fact that the coins are of the same date suggests that you are looking for a hoard. Anyone can find this post by googling your name. A hoard, of lots of coins dated 1600 surely count as "objects of interest to pre-history, history, art or archaeology". If not, why not? I'm no legal expert, and neither are you from the sounds of it, but I should think that the 'intent' clause is there to protect people who are looking for water pipes or something and accidentally find something archaeological. Anyway, best of luck with this. |