NCMD statement regarding IoD (14/08/2020

User avatar
coal digger
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:07 pm
Has thanked: 330 times
Been thanked: 578 times

Right you orrible lot. ..from now on under section 18155/and in accordance with guidelines BS 089 of the subsections 1 and 3 (please see data sheet with a load of big words)you must pay to log in to the forum. I'm having some of this creating answers and revenue that hasn't even got a question. PayPal me @ avinalaff.
Divide and Conquer
Steve RC
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:20 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 453 times

DaveP wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:12 am Well, in British Archaeology, May-June 2019, in a section that looks to be authored by Keith Westcott, it says:
A possible approach, currently stage funded by Historic England from a feasibility perspective, is to develop a national Institute (for detectorists) in support of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, a balanced approach steered by archaeologists and detectorists, developing standards and guidance while offering archaeologically based education. A fundamental objective would be for detectorists to financially contribute towards supporting the pas, with a percentage of the membership fee being used for this purpose.

"A fundamental objective..." To play this through. If we are only talking about the few detectorists helping out on official archaeological sites then that won't contribute much money to the PAS. You will need a lot of detectorists to make a substantial financial contribution to help the PAS. That requires a "membership" far larger than that required to work on official sites. If I don't work on official sites I won't need to be a member. Or, will there be some other requirement put in place that means I have to be a member?

And it isn't only Westcott in the publication "A licence to own and use a metal detector would be a good first step.Tom Redmayne is an independent detectorist and self-recorder from Lincolnshire
Yes i remember reading it and if i had the time i could say a great deal about the article.

There have been over the years a number of reinventions of the PAS with reports from consultants to give it a steer. Some were intitiated by organisations who were looking to dispense with the PAS and move the recording aspects to hub museums. Thankfully that failed ,but the PAS has remained a resource limited scheme and is likely to do so for the future.

There has been a lot of nonsense from some organisations and individuals suggesting that the hobby should pay for the PAS. Well we already do through our taxes, but to be realistic to achieve any more in the recording levels the PAS would need a very large increase in funding. Remember much of the funding for the PAS goes in salary and administration costs and the only way to increase recording levels is to increase the number of FLO's and their helpers all of whom would require salary or administrations costs from any increase in funding. A million of two would go nowhere and the PAS does its best on a lot less than that at the moment.

Every Spending Review has trimmed or at best stagnate the PAS funding so the bright sparks who represent themselves call for a licening scheme for detectorists to fund the PAS and some detectorists without thinking through the situation consider that they would be happy to pay a licence fee of a tenner. To make any impact the fee would have to be in the thousands and how many detectorists would be up for that?

Licence schemes would do no more than introduce a red tape layer and hoops to jump through whilst the criminals wont be in the market for one. Beware the unintended consequences of looking at this option.
MudMax MD
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:56 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Blackadder43 wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:16 am Not all newcomers, in fact i would hazard a guess at a very small element of newcomers have the attitude you speak of.

Just look at the members we have here
A few are relatively new to our hobby, yet show great awareness when out in the fields, are making huge efforts to record their finds, and making even more effort to learn the ways of the hobby

The language we use to talk about our hobby needs to change
Its not always newcomers that are putting the hobby at risk.

Very true Blackadder. All the newbies I have got to know are keen to do things right, and I have met a fair number of long in the tooth detectorists who never declare anything and stick two fingers up to archaeologists and things like PAS.
Pete E
Posts: 2698
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:05 pm
Location: North Wales
Has thanked: 3505 times
Been thanked: 2294 times

As somebody long involved with shooting and deer stalking in the UK I have seen similar "voluntary" schemes introduced that ended up becoming mandatory by the back door.

I took part in one of the early ones and it cost me about £35 but now the same scheme cost a couple of hundred pounds for part one, and potentially much more fort part two..

Also remember any licencing scheme introduced for detecting would first have to pay for itself before any funds could be generated for the PAS...
User avatar
Allectus
Posts: 4400
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:05 pm
Location: Essex
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 4713 times

I see Jan's 'got it'(as she always does) :thumbsup:

I've said this before, I'll say it again......All that being nice to Archi's & pretending everything's cushty just aint gonna work!

Most would ban tecting tomorrow given half a chance...fight fire with fire!! :thumbsup:
Steve RC
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:20 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 453 times

Very true. The pragmatic approach taken when the Treasure Act and the PAS were introduced has resulted in a world class database of mundane finds mostly rescued from out of context plough soils plus of course lots of bling to adorn the BM and many other museums.

If the preTAct attitudes to detecting finds had continued the resulting cold shoulder treatment would have not had the same affect. However there are some sectors of archaeology who have never warmed to the Act and consider it to be a Treasure Hunter's charter and are trying hard to effect changes to the Act to suit their agendas to this day.

We need to consider that all those PAS finds would never have been found should the areas that they were located in had been subjected to development. The consequent archaeological excavations, if there were to be any, would have see the out of context small finds considered to be of no consequence and dumped into spoil heaps following machine stripping.
User avatar
DaveP
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:40 pm
Location: Spread in England
Has thanked: 663 times
Been thanked: 1940 times

Steve RC wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:44 pm
Licence schemes would do no more than introduce a red tape layer and hoops to jump through whilst the criminals wont be in the market for one. Beware the unintended consequences of looking at this option.
Agree. It would be helpful if someone could get access to the PLA data on number of permits issued, income and cost to run the scheme. You can't do a FoI request - I've tried.
The PLA scheme is, perhaps, closest to our situation but has important differences:
1. All the searchers go to the same place and are in plain sight.
2. Searchers are limited on when they can go there.
3. The area is already patrolled (I know they have better things to do)
4. It would be straight forward to survey permit compliance.

None of the above apply to the solo detectorist and only rallies come close. If the PLA scheme (£85 for 3 years?) is making money (which I doubt) then I suggest we could have a data based problem. If it is losing money then we have a good, data based example, of why a permit doesn't work. Just a thought.
Steve RC
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2020 3:20 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Has thanked: 636 times
Been thanked: 453 times

Yes that would be interesting information to have. In my opinion the PLA permit scheme is more about limiting numbers than an income generation exercise so the fee may be just to cover the basic admin costs.

The Crown Estate beach permits are or were free whilst you had to get one and i understand that when these were set up the terms and conditions mirrored the PLA scheme and included digging no more that a few inches into the sand until it was pointed out that beaches are an active erosion/deposition zone.

The only other scheme that i know of was the Duchy of Cornwall beach access which though probably still mentioned on their website, never really seemed to get up and running. Lots of rumours on how it was to be run and no doubt being the Duchy is would have been a money generating scheme and one that would have been very hard to police. The cost of having wardens scanning the beaches with a pair of bins for people detecting would negate any benefit. From comments made by detectorists from that part of the world i have met at rallies, it seems that the Duchy are none to popular with the locals and would charge for building sandcastles if they could get away with it.
User avatar
DaveP
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:40 pm
Location: Spread in England
Has thanked: 663 times
Been thanked: 1940 times

Steve RC wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:49 pm Yes that would be interesting information to have. In my opinion the PLA permit scheme is more about limiting numbers than an income generation exercise so the fee may be just to cover the basic admin costs.
I think you're right and I did see a comment from the PLA that they don't want to encourage more people on to the foreshore. "Anyone wishing to search the foreshore in any way needs a permit from the PLA. The permit is required for searching, metal detecting, digging, scraping etc. The PLA does not wish to encourage unlicensed access to the foreshore."
If you changed foreshore for field and PLA for anyone who wants to restrict detecting then you have a very similar situation. I think we know that's what plenty of others want. Adding funding to the PAS is, in my opinion, a red herring but it's a good sound bite.

The question in my mind is what penalty would need to be in place to make a large number of detectorists get a permit to cover off the "just in case I get asked for it" moment.

And a thought on how they would make a permit work - target only commercial digs and advertised rallies. As a parallel, fishing licences are checked on commercial waters and trout fisheries i.e. fixed locations. One visit gets lots of checks and it makes the books look good. They are rarely, if ever, checked along major waterways or quiet canals simply because the bailiffs are exposed to injury and can't check many people. So, ignore the detectorist somewhere in the middle of Norfolk and just check 100 people at the next rally, and the next .... Don't underestimate the potential for people to put something daft, stupid or otherwise in place.
User avatar
TheFenTiger
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:46 pm
Has thanked: 259 times
Been thanked: 1214 times

The hobby has been around for so long now it would be hard to convince people they need to have a licence . Old timers wouldn't bother, some landowners wouldn't care, new to the hobby or dabblers might not know. Its not as if shops that sell detectors even promote responsible detecting or advise on permissions. A sale is a sale and there are enough second hand detectors and online sellers that would negate anyone checking or advising.

Unless a lone detectorist is stopped by the police (as i have been once in 7 years) they wouldn't be caught. Only place it could be policed is on rallies.
Dave
User avatar
Jamesey1981
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:09 pm
Has thanked: 740 times
Been thanked: 475 times
Contact:

Had a nice argument elsewhere with Mr W when I called him out on his awful attitude and bad faith "debating" recently, which was then moderated by someone involved in his project, can't say I'm a big fan of that.

Fact is, I don't trust him or his organisation as far as I could chuck my scrap lead bucket and I want nothing to do with it.

Even if his intentions are good he has all the reasoned and nuanced debating abilities of a drunken monkey and he will just get rolled over by archaeologists that hate detecting and have spent their entire lives on committees, and consequently know how to win an argument, even when they're wrong.
Whether he has good intentions or not, the result will be just the same for the rest of us and I won't have any part in his project.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.

I'm a Mortgage Broker, please visit my website for help with your mortgage:
https://denariusmortgages.co.uk/
User avatar
Bors
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:18 pm
Has thanked: 161 times
Been thanked: 516 times

Quote Steve_JT...................." Perhaps a licence of some type is needed??? "

NO No No No No , many many detectorists have been fighting for years to not let it get to Licencing ,because once a licence is in "power" then your under the thumb forever to whatever the licence issuers deem shall happen ,whether you like it or not.A bit gets added here then a bit gets added on there. A bit like any licence, there are many rules and regulations that come with it,and so often for the bad reasons are heaped in . The Money side of of it for starters. The licence is a Tax collector in disguise ,nothing more .
No!! most definitely not, licencing is a non starter .Don`t let a percentage of bad apples ,cloud your judgement of the whole barrel.
WE DON`T NEED A LICENCE to metal detect, and we don`t need one brought in now .You`ll just open Pandora's Box.
Think! very carefully before you ask to be taxed & controlled by request.
Things aint cooking in my kitchen
User avatar
Jamesey1981
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:09 pm
Has thanked: 740 times
Been thanked: 475 times
Contact:

Bors wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 11:23 am Quote Steve_JT...................." Perhaps a licence of some type is needed??? "

NO No No No No , many many detectorists have been fighting for years to not let it get to Licencing ,because once a licence is in "power" then your under the thumb forever to whatever the licence issuers deem shall happen ,whether you like it or not.A bit gets added here then a bit gets added on there. A bit like any licence, there are many rules and regulations that come with it,and so often for the bad reasons are heaped in . The Money side of of it for starters. The licence is a Tax collector in disguise ,nothing more .
No!! most definitely not, licencing is a non starter .Don`t let a percentage of bad apples ,cloud your judgement of the whole barrel.
WE DON`T NEED A LICENCE to metal detect, and we don`t need one brought in now .You`ll just open Pandora's Box.
Agreed.

Unless a licence is restricted on who can get it then it is just tax, and won't change anything short of pricing people out, depending on how much it costs.
If it is restricted on who can get one then giving people that hate us because they see us as uneducated peasants a mechanism that they can use to sneakily get rid of us without them having to outright say that this is what they're doing is insane.

We already pay tax on our income, VAT on our equipment, the dealers pay tax on their profits, we pay tax on our fuel and the vehicles we use to get to sites, we pay tax on the insurance for those vehicles, tax on the electricity you used to make your flask of tea, tax tax tax tax.

We have already paid for the PAS, the PAS is ostensibly for the benefit of the british public, not for detectorists, we didn't ask for it and we could detect happily with it or without it, so I don't think we should be paying any more than anyone else towards it.

If it is for the benefit of the British public then it is only fair that the British public, of which most of as are a part, pay for it, but with everyone taking their fair share, not forcing the people that it is there to control to pay extra.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.

I'm a Mortgage Broker, please visit my website for help with your mortgage:
https://denariusmortgages.co.uk/
jcmaloney
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:29 pm
Has thanked: 278 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Jamesey1981 wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 11:45 am Agreed.

Unless a licence is restricted on who can get it then it is just tax, and won't change anything short of pricing people out, depending on how much it costs.
If it is restricted on who can get one then giving people that hate us because they see us as uneducated peasants a mechanism that they can use to sneakily get rid of us without them having to outright say that this is what they're doing is insane.

We already pay tax on our income, VAT on our equipment, the dealers pay tax on their profits, we pay tax on our fuel and the vehicles we use to get to sites, we pay tax on the insurance for those vehicles, tax on the electricity you used to make your flask of tea, tax tax tax tax.

We have already paid for the PAS, the PAS is ostensibly for the benefit of the british public, not for detectorists, we didn't ask for it and we could detect happily with it or without it, so I don't think we should be paying any more than anyone else towards it.

If it is for the benefit of the British public then it is only fair that the British public, of which most of as are a part, pay for it, but with everyone taking their fair share, not forcing the people that it is there to control to pay extra.
I`m sure Steve will correct me if I am wrong but, if PAS hadn`t been set up the hobby would have been toast under the Valletta Convention. Considering all the "old" EU Law will be shuffled onto the Statute books post Brexit the tool to do away with the hobby sits nearby for anyone wishing to pick it up.

When you consider any country pursuit (Shooting, fishing etc) they all contribute to the upkeep of their hobbies through either national organisations or licences. Fish & pheasants are re-stocked in the millions.................. anyone putting their finds back?

As previousl,y we need to be on the front foot offering an acceptable option before an unacceptable one is placed upon us.
I`m Marmite me. Opinionated, obstinate and somewhat tenacious.
User avatar
Steve_JT
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:10 am
Location: Salisbury
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1052 times

Steve_JT wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:40 pm
Perhaps a licence of some type is needed??? but it needs co-operation from all the bodies in dialogue to determine a way forward before it all runs into disrepute and possible ban
The full sentence in my quote above to give it some context;
Why did I put three question marks to that very question? it indicates the urgency of it, I am not saying it does need a licence.

If that is mooted by those with the power to impose such a licence with a fee we as detectorist or those that represent us and our interests need to be involved, from the start to be able to either negotiate a way forward or to simply oppose it, we cannot sit back and just let things happen.

Good dialogue works, and the more people add their thoughts the better the outcome, when a comment causes a reaction the reply is with passion, which is good, we all have a voice, make it heard and count.

Very Kind regards Steve
A foolish faith in authority, is the worst enemy of truth." Albert Einstein
Post Reply