Bad Apple

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Swinger

Crikey, you're a nasty piece of work aren't you?

Am I? All I asked is where else this is being discussed. But as for "answering the question", it seems to me that this has already been covered above by Hosty (who pointed out that this was rather a museum matter rather than a purely archaeological one). Another answer was given on PAS Forum.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Even though a specific recent event may well have been the inspiration for this thread, its more wider general concept is of serious interest at to at least myself as a detectorist in light of CoPs and calls for increased responsibility, it is important for the hobby as a whole to look at ways of policing and dealing with miscreants.


Although it no doubt has proven to be an uncomfortable question to some given the higher moralistic attitudes that have in the past and indeed are currently aimed at the hobby, in light of the fact that the recent specific case is exemplary of some of the worst accusations thrown at the hobby, would it not be natural for us to look towards archaeology for an answer?






http://www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

would it not be natural for us to look towards archaeology for an answer?

What happened to "self-determination"?

So let me get this right, you are telling us that Gary is dragging this round the forums (except it seems his own), going to the County Council and newspapers in order to get archaeology to give you an answer how to deal with "bad apples" in detecting?

Well, that's a novel interpretation of this course of action. I had assumed this thread was related to Gary's recent manifesto on UKDN where he declares (among other things):
"I have soon come to past caring what some of the Archaeologists think... as they have only proved themselves to be as dishonest as they accuse many detectorists to be. [u]I have info that would bury a few of them</u>...". Would it not be more logical to assume that he posted this question here on how to "bury" archaeologists in order more easily to carry out his threat?


Yes, by all means lets stamp out dishonesty in archaeology, but I have yet to see a case made here that [u]dishonesty</u> was involved in the specific case which Gary is pursuing with such vigour at the moment. But anyway, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", mote in the eye and all that...


Paul Barford



.

[Steve-B]

I said lets look to archaeology for an answer, seems the answer expected is deplorably lacking.

Self determination, damn right...

No I am not telling you anything Paul. I am not saying that Garys other activities have anything to do with this post at all, I CLEARLY stated that it may well have provided the inspiration for it.

Paul, whatever your personal agenda is with Gary, I made it clear that my personal interest is lies in the more general aspect of his original post.

I take it that the policing of archaeology is an uncomfortable subject for to discuss... fine.

http://www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

quote:[i] I take it that the policing of archaeology is an uncomfortable subject for to discuss... fine.

No, it is not. The topic is discussed earlier in this thread (including an answer to Gary's original question), and indeed is discussed qquite freely in a number of other threads on this Forum. Its not an uncomfortable subject at all. If you look at the threads here and on Britarch, you will see that many of us freely discuss the need to have much closer controls in archaeology.

Paul Barford

[garybrun]

This quote is from the Heritage action site
“You 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 gain”.

But Mr Swift and Mr Barford do not discuss the aspects of an FLO on Britarch that went against the “morals” 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 you’re 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 FLO’s 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 “odd few” 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 “PAS” can dictate who is responsible and who isn’t. That only a detectorists who records with the “PAS System” 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 “white piece of paper” 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. “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Mr Bland has deliberately tried to monopolise the recording sector and has failed to take into account the “resentment” such a strategy would cause and bypass the opinions of different groups by just using the “select” 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 “negative propaganda” 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 usability….yet it was undertaken just with an academic viewpoint.

I asked a fair question….
“How 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 bare”.

It was to point out gaps in the system of archaeology and metal detecting. A Hit and Miss situation.

[Steve-B]

I have to say Gary, that I have been very surprised not to see this being discussed there and based on some of Mr Barfords past criticisms of the PAS I am equally surprised that he has not jumped on this golden opportunity to dennounce the scheme... but then I guess that this a bit too close to home for comfort...

http://www.detector-distribution.co.uk

[Paul Barford]

Nigel Swift currently has some problems logging on to BAJR (Hosty have any settings been changed?) and asked me to post this on his behalf. I do so verbatim from what he sent:

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

This quote is from the Heritage action site
“You 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 gain”.

Ummm... is this not a true and reasonable statement? The signatories to the CoP seem to think so, so any disgruntlement had better be directed to them, not us.

quote:but Mr Swift and Mr Barford do not discuss the aspects of an FLO on Britarch that went against the “morals” 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.”

The text pre-dated your "revelation". And it was advice to landowners about what they should do if asked for permission to detect, no more and no less. Are you seriously saying we should have also advised landowners that there had been an alleged instance of a FLO acting unethically, something that PAS appear to have dealt with? Come off it. Quite how our failure to mention that can be interpreted a deliberate omission of relevant facts or evidence of pro-archaeologist bias I don't know. We're not even archaeologists! You're flogging a dead horse here. You should start supporting Heritage Action. It's attitude towards detecting seems a lot more liberal than EH's.
[Nigel Swift]

[garybrun]

When Heritage Action get of their "High Horse" and give a fair view of relevant situations. I think more people would support them.
I think I gave you and Paul the Golden Bulldozer award once before didn't I on the PAS forum???

The sole aim of you and Paul is to cause disruption.
If I could choose a cartoon characters to represent you both I would have chose Beavis and Butthead and the PAS would have been Beauty and the Beast. Heritage being the beauty of coarse.
David would be Popeye [:o)]




http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

I have to say Gary, that I have been very surprised not to see this being discussed there and based on some of Mr Barfords past criticisms of the PAS I am equally surprised that he has not jumped on this golden opportunity to dennounce the scheme... but then I guess that this a bit too close to home for comfort...

Hmm. Steve, as I said on PASF before the thread disappeared, I disagree on several grounds with the decisions taken here - though understand the motives behind them. I also stated that I disagree with Gary's interpretation/presentation of the situation. But you must appreciate its very difficult discussing something like this in public when it refers to a third party's employment history and the results of an internal investigation by his employer etc. As far as I am concerned, at this stage this is primarily a matter between the person concerned and their employer and apart from drawing attenion to the perceived problem, actually none of Gary's business. I am perfectly willing to express my opinion while we remain within the bounds of propiety (and the AUP), but also as long as it does not involve me revealing privileged information. If the situation had been presented on Britarch in a manner allowing discussion of the aspects which I would wish to raise without me revealing such information, then I would not hesitate to do so. It was not, so I am not at liberty to say too much there or anywhere else, and its a shame that others do no take the same approach. On the other hand, on PASF on the basis of information presented there, I made a number of points about Gary's presentation which he studiously avoided answering.

Gary asked here a question, it was answered, now we are getting off topic, back to UKDFD matters, the CoP etc etc, could this not be saved for the "Understanding Detecting" Section?

Paul Barford