30th June 2006, 08:05 AM
This quote is from the Heritage action site
âYou are entitled to seek whatever reassurance you wish that no harm will be done to archaeology, that the detectorist will report all finds to PAS and that he is motivated by love of history not financial gainâ.
But Mr Swift and Mr Barford do not discuss the aspects of an FLO on Britarch that went against the âmoralsâ of the PAS system do they Steve??? Nor does Nigel show the mistake of the FLO on his website yet is so quick to publish detecting matters which he says the public have a right to know.
You see in the end whether youâre an FLO, Archaeologist, metal detectorist etc. Does not make you immune from thinking about financial gain.
The funny thing is that certain persons have a habit of dragging all detecting related stories around various archaeological forums, through the media if they can and cashing in on the mistakes of the minority etc. Mr Barford as usual does not understand the facts of the situation and is as usual trying to plug his own reasoning so others can feel the same way about his own personal agenda.
Have you asked Mr Bland how he came to find out about the activities of the FLO??
If I personally wanted to "cash in" on the "bad case of judgement" I would have done it a long time ago which at that time would have caused maximum damage to the PAS system and would have fitted in well into the Barford/Swift campaign.
Bajrs Mr Hosty has a lot of respect within the detecting community for his openness and understanding and looks at the issues with an open mind. I do sympathise that this is not an easy thing to do when some parts of the detecting/archaeology reasoning can not gel, but we agree to differ to save the heritage.
I personally was very disappointed in the FLO and I also have to admit that I made the common mistake that many make when something is found out to be wrong. I put the FLOâs and archaeologists in the same category and branded them all the same when in reality there is only a minority, I have come to realize that there are a lot more archaeologists who are for metal detecting than there are against⦠its just that the âodd fewâ have been shouting and making louder noises thinking it would drown out the voice of reason.
Yes I am not personally happy with the PAS system since they rolled out the CoP.
That they are trying to make the hobby of metal detecting fit into their structures and want a monopoly on the recording of finds. That they âPASâ can dictate who is responsible and who isnât. That only a detectorists who records with the âPAS Systemâ can be classed as responsible. A lot more evidence is coming out which shows that various things in CoP were not agreed with the NCMD and that persons were miss quoted deliberately. So the famous âwhite piece of paperâ that was branded about as an historic agreement was in fact⦠just a white piece of paper like Chamberlains.
In the previous Treasure Annual Report you will find that 91.6% of those finds were found by a metal detectorist. The PAS system relies on the metal detectorists for its existence. âYou donât bite the hand that feeds youâ.
Mr Bland has deliberately tried to monopolise the recording sector and has failed to take into account the âresentmentâ such a strategy would cause and bypass the opinions of different groups by just using the âselectâ that fitted into the PAS ethos.
The PAS forum is an example of how posts can be deleted and manipulated to suit ones own needs and agenda. A governmental forum that infact is not open to criticism or freedom of speech but chooses what it wants people to see.
I also believe that Mr Barford and Mr Swift have done more damage to the heritage (detecting related) by turning many a detectorist from archaeology and the PAS system.
The only thing I can see that was good that came out of their ânegative propagandaâ was the birth of the UKDFD which can be seen to have evolved from the PAS system and the poison that was pouring from Mr Barford and Mr Swifts mouths as well as the constant criticism of the PAS system at that time was diverted onto the detecting recording initiative, which I am sure allowed the PAS some breathing space and that PAS could give out a large sigh of relief. I love it when a plan comes together
The UKDFD has given PAS and some members of the archaeological community a right kick up the jacksy. Where a system of voluntary recording supported by millions of pounds has in fact been shown how it should have been done in the first place. The very people who give the PAS system life (see 91.6% statistic) were not consulted on the design or its usabilityâ¦.yet it was undertaken just with an academic viewpoint.
I asked a fair questionâ¦.
âHow does archaeology police its own if you have a bad apple amongst your ranks. What systems are in place to deal with such things and what discipline is brought to bareâ.
It was to point out gaps in the system of archaeology and metal detecting. A Hit and Miss situation.
âYou are entitled to seek whatever reassurance you wish that no harm will be done to archaeology, that the detectorist will report all finds to PAS and that he is motivated by love of history not financial gainâ.
But Mr Swift and Mr Barford do not discuss the aspects of an FLO on Britarch that went against the âmoralsâ of the PAS system do they Steve??? Nor does Nigel show the mistake of the FLO on his website yet is so quick to publish detecting matters which he says the public have a right to know.
You see in the end whether youâre an FLO, Archaeologist, metal detectorist etc. Does not make you immune from thinking about financial gain.
The funny thing is that certain persons have a habit of dragging all detecting related stories around various archaeological forums, through the media if they can and cashing in on the mistakes of the minority etc. Mr Barford as usual does not understand the facts of the situation and is as usual trying to plug his own reasoning so others can feel the same way about his own personal agenda.
Have you asked Mr Bland how he came to find out about the activities of the FLO??
If I personally wanted to "cash in" on the "bad case of judgement" I would have done it a long time ago which at that time would have caused maximum damage to the PAS system and would have fitted in well into the Barford/Swift campaign.
Bajrs Mr Hosty has a lot of respect within the detecting community for his openness and understanding and looks at the issues with an open mind. I do sympathise that this is not an easy thing to do when some parts of the detecting/archaeology reasoning can not gel, but we agree to differ to save the heritage.
I personally was very disappointed in the FLO and I also have to admit that I made the common mistake that many make when something is found out to be wrong. I put the FLOâs and archaeologists in the same category and branded them all the same when in reality there is only a minority, I have come to realize that there are a lot more archaeologists who are for metal detecting than there are against⦠its just that the âodd fewâ have been shouting and making louder noises thinking it would drown out the voice of reason.
Yes I am not personally happy with the PAS system since they rolled out the CoP.
That they are trying to make the hobby of metal detecting fit into their structures and want a monopoly on the recording of finds. That they âPASâ can dictate who is responsible and who isnât. That only a detectorists who records with the âPAS Systemâ can be classed as responsible. A lot more evidence is coming out which shows that various things in CoP were not agreed with the NCMD and that persons were miss quoted deliberately. So the famous âwhite piece of paperâ that was branded about as an historic agreement was in fact⦠just a white piece of paper like Chamberlains.
In the previous Treasure Annual Report you will find that 91.6% of those finds were found by a metal detectorist. The PAS system relies on the metal detectorists for its existence. âYou donât bite the hand that feeds youâ.
Mr Bland has deliberately tried to monopolise the recording sector and has failed to take into account the âresentmentâ such a strategy would cause and bypass the opinions of different groups by just using the âselectâ that fitted into the PAS ethos.
The PAS forum is an example of how posts can be deleted and manipulated to suit ones own needs and agenda. A governmental forum that infact is not open to criticism or freedom of speech but chooses what it wants people to see.
I also believe that Mr Barford and Mr Swift have done more damage to the heritage (detecting related) by turning many a detectorist from archaeology and the PAS system.
The only thing I can see that was good that came out of their ânegative propagandaâ was the birth of the UKDFD which can be seen to have evolved from the PAS system and the poison that was pouring from Mr Barford and Mr Swifts mouths as well as the constant criticism of the PAS system at that time was diverted onto the detecting recording initiative, which I am sure allowed the PAS some breathing space and that PAS could give out a large sigh of relief. I love it when a plan comes together
The UKDFD has given PAS and some members of the archaeological community a right kick up the jacksy. Where a system of voluntary recording supported by millions of pounds has in fact been shown how it should have been done in the first place. The very people who give the PAS system life (see 91.6% statistic) were not consulted on the design or its usabilityâ¦.yet it was undertaken just with an academic viewpoint.
I asked a fair questionâ¦.
âHow does archaeology police its own if you have a bad apple amongst your ranks. What systems are in place to deal with such things and what discipline is brought to bareâ.
It was to point out gaps in the system of archaeology and metal detecting. A Hit and Miss situation.