NCMD statement regarding IoD (14/08/2020

[Jamesey1981]

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.

With respect, the comparison to restocking fish and pheasants is nonsense, these aren't put there by nationwide organisations looking to keep the natural balance of an imported non native species, (that would be pheasants), they are put there by businesses that charge people to catch them or shoot them, and organisations like BASC and the Countryside Alliance aren't contributing towards the cost of regulation, they are there to stick up for the right to continue with the country pursuits, and fight organisations that want to ban them. On our part, we have the NCMD to do this for us.

The rod licences do help fund river bank upkeep, but try fishing on a river that's choked with weed and brambles, the upkeep is necessary to enable the hobby, and it benefits those paying for it, the existence of the PAS in no way affects whether we are able to detect, only that we are allowed to do so, this is an important distinction.

Your point about us having to accept the PAS or have detecting banned illustrates my point perfectly, it isn't there to benefit us, if it was then there would have been no need for the threat.

The PAS is a tool to regulate detectorists, not to benefit them, if it is underfunded then the people that benefit from it, researchers, museums, archaeologists, need to think about whether the benefit that they get from it is worth funding, and if they believe that the benefit they get is worth the cost then they are free to put more in.

If I contribute to a magazine the magazine will pay me, and the people that want to read it will pay to do so.

The PAS archives are free to view, they could always charge a subscription for those that want to view it, then the people that are benefiting most from it will be paying for it.

I have no problem reporting finds at all, and I'm proud to have my finds displayed in the archive, but being forced to pay extra to fund an organisation that isn't there to benefit me is not something I'll take lying down.

[Pete E]

I often see the Valletta Convention quoted as the justification of needing PAS to enable us carry on detecting...If that is the case, why is reporting volunteery?

Also, what about other signitories such as France which don't has a PAS equivalent but still allow detecting?

[jcmaloney]

I often see the Valletta Convention quoted as the justification of needing PAS to enable us carry on detecting...If that is the case, why is reporting volunteery?

Also, what about other signitories such as France which don't has a PAS equivalent but still allow detecting?

Valletta says something akin to "there must be an NGO to report/record finds". It doesn`t make it mandatory to use it.
The UK exception to that is land under stewardship schemes where recording is mandatory.

France had a slightly different approach to detecting under their Code Du Patrimoine Article L542-1.
Effectively (although open to interpretation) it made detecting legal, unless you are detecting a historical site, but such sites are less obvious than in the UK as there isn`t a similar scheduling system.
Then in 2016 they threw into the mix Article L. 541-4 of the Heritage Code, where archaeological discoveries made on land, which has changed hands after the 7th of July 2016, will now belong to the state.
Prior to this change, any such artefacts would go to the landowner or, like the UK 50/50 split landowner and finder depending how they were found. https://ecmd.eu/metal-detecting-in-france-a-new-law/
Like the UK you need the landowners permission and also written permission from the local prefecture (Mayors office).

Whilst it maybe "EU Law" its interpretation and application is at best varied!

[Steve RC]

John is correct in that without the Treasure Act and the PAS the UK would have, when ratifying the Valletta Convention had to ban metal detecting and make it illegal to search for archaeological items unless you have a permit which would have been more directed at archaeologists rather that metal detecting.

I have the details of the discussions that went on at the time and it was only the pragmatic approach taken by the Government on the advice of the BM and others that the Government could say it had in place a mechanism to deal with archaeological finds made by members of the public and so on.

There are some organisations which still see the Valletta Convention still having a place in British Archaeology and it was discussed at the last RESCUE AGM which took place in April 2019 where Keith Westcott was a speaker. A comment at the time on their Facebook page stated that "Would the Institute of Detectorists aid revision of the Treasure Act and implementation of the Valletta Convention". It is easy to see where this pressure group are going with their interpretation and support of the I o D.

Thankfully in England and Wales the ownership of all non Treasure archaeological items is vested in the landowner which is not the case in many EU countries where such material is owned by the State.

[Steve_JT]

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

From my previous post I would like to add that if we are underrepresented under this new body from my understanding and our voice is not heard, what can we do? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, or we are in danger of ending up with a pigs breakfast if what is proposed gets its way and its fait accompli

Should we lobby our MP's to intervene, or may be contact the culture secretary, the current role holder The Rt Hon Oliver Dowden CBE MP and demand a fair represented voice, the proposed set up is nothing more than a Quango and we should not be ignored or discounted.

Should the NCMD contact the culture secretary directly with some urgency, or start a petition perhaps we can all sign to have a greater say in these matters through Change.org

Regards Steve

[jcmaloney]

We are far from "under represented" for a very small hobby.
The NCMD do hold some sway especially as part of SRA (Sports & Recreation Alliance) https://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/contact-us
They also attend lots of the background political meetings and Parliamentary groups that may impact on the hobby so speak to the right people at the right time.
Folk also tend to forget that this hobby has a massive amount of "churn" with folk buying kit, finding it difficult to get permissions, finding lots of tat and quitting in months. Not many stick with it, just look at forums for "active" members.
The reality is that, in normal times, some football clubs have far more people in one stadium than regularly go detecting.

[Bors]

To be honest I think the Government has a great deal more important things on its agenda to deal with ,than thinking about shall they crack down on metal detectorists or not I think in these present times . Of course you`ll always get the Fanatical anti detectorists who will never cease until they bring metal detecting under the strictest controls possible , but they have been ardently trying to do just that since the mid 70`s and so far its still evaded their desires , so, if in 40 odd years they havn`t pulled it off ,I should imagine they still have a very long time to go before anyone thinks its in the category of a high importance .
Calm down guys ,were still detecting and from the past 40 + years of hearing this same old story I don`t think any sleep needs to be lost over worrying about what "might" happen. Just go out and do your detecting and stop worrying about the bogey men.

[TheFenTiger]

If you bury your head in the sand you can pull it out to see a very different world. I am sure there were a lot of gun owners with the same attitude who suddenly saw their sport decimated overnight. Detecting is a very minority hobby which effects a very small number of voters so politically is not important to the government. However, it just takes someone with a bit of influence to talk to the right MP and before you know it those wheels start rolling. If you happen to be in the right club steering those conversations, like the IoD, then before you know it, it is a fait complete.

I am still not sure if the IoD is purely concentrating on the commercial archaeology dig qualifications and not the general hobby but there could be unintended (or even intended) consequences for the general hobby if the those with influence and agenda have a say.

Just because it hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it won't happen.

[Steve RC]

I agree very much with you on this. The I o D runs the risk of being hyjacked to suit other agendas far removed from the original theme of looking to base competent detectorists within the commercial archaeological world where detecting is carried out piecemeal at best or not at all with varying degrees of activity in between.

That was a more prgamatic ideal ,but could only ever be aimed at a very small number of detectorists and the goodwill of those who set the tender terms and conditions for each job. Hence it would only apply to a few dozen detectorists. Now with the involvement of other parties it has morphed into something very different at their behest so there are already unintended consequences at work.

The chap who started the ball rolling may well find that he gets a tap on the shoulder to move aside and let the professionals see the goal.

[Bors]

If you bury your head in the sand you can pull it out to see a very different world. I am sure there were a lot of gun owners with the same attitude who suddenly saw their sport decimated overnight. Detecting is a very minority hobby which effects a very small number of voters so politically is not important to the government. However, it just takes someone with a bit of influence to talk to the right MP and before you know it those wheels start rolling. If you happen to be in the right club steering those conversations, like the IoD, then before you know it, it is a fait complete.

I am still not sure if the IoD is purely concentrating on the commercial archaeology dig qualifications and not the general hobby but there could be unintended (or even intended) consequences for the general hobby if the those with influence and agenda have a say.

Just because it hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it won't happen.

Well ,I base my post on 40+ years of whingeing by the "Anti detecting " establishment and continual writing up to MPs by them ,and they STILL havn`t succeeded ,so what FACTS have changed to make you fear anythings going to make any difference now ??Its ALL sabre rattling .
Honestly believe me, I`ve heard for donkey`s years Detectings going to get restricted, Detectings going to get banned, detectings going to get regulated , and so far none of its happened, so I say again on that basis ,stop worrying ,and just let things go with the flow. Because you`ll just be worrying unnecessarily and sowing the seeds of disharmony and all you`ll do is have detectorists worrying for nothing.
If you feed the anti detecting brigade with fuel they`ll love to hear your fears and whimpering. Ignore them,and that will hurt them more than all this sabre rattling and hot air .
Just Chill out.

[Saffron]

Well ,I base my post on 40+ years of whingeing by the "Anti detecting " establishment and continual writing up to MPs by them ,and they STILL havn`t succeeded ,so what FACTS have changed to make you fear anythings going to make any difference now ??Its ALL sabre rattling .
Honestly believe me, I`ve heard for donkey`s years Detectings going to get restricted, Detectings going to get banned, detectings going to get regulated , and so far none of its happened, so I say again on that basis ,stop worrying ,and just let things go with the flow. Because you`ll just be worrying unnecessarily and sowing the seeds of disharmony and all you`ll do is have detectorists worrying for nothing.
If you feed the anti detecting brigade with fuel they`ll love to hear your fears and whimpering. Ignore them,and that will hurt them more than all this sabre rattling and hot air .
Just Chill out.

The world now is very different to 20 years ago, let alone 40 years ago. EVERYTHING is now much more regulated.

Living in the countryside when I was young a significant percentage of households had somebody that had a shotgun, and they were often just put in the back of a cupboard, and it was easy for anybody to get a shotgun certificate. Now very few have shotguns, and those that do have to have then in secure gun cabinets, and as for getting a shotgun certificate you now have to jump through a lot of hoops.

A couple of years ago I had BT engineer come out to a pole in the back garden. He went all of 3 feet above ground level on a short ladder. He HAD to wear 1) a harness to attach himself to the pole, 2) a hard hat, 3) a highvis jacket, 4) the tools he used all had to be tethered so he could not drop them. He even said it was a complete farce, but if he was caught not following the rules he would instantly be fired. A person doing the same job 20 years ago would have had to follow none of these rules and had a good laugh at the current chap.

Times have significantly changed. Everything is becoming much more regulated, and will continue to be more so. Eventually metal detecting will be, if we like it or not!. We need to act NOW to ensure that changes brought in are suitable for the vast bulk of detectorists, rather than just an elite few.

Evan

[alloverover]

The world now is very different to 20 years ago, let alone 40 years ago. EVERYTHING is now much more regulated.

Living in the countryside when I was young a significant percentage of households had somebody that had a shotgun, and they were often just put in the back of a cupboard, and it was easy for anybody to get a shotgun certificate. Now very few have shotguns, and those that do have to have then in secure gun cabinets, and as for getting a shotgun certificate you now have to jump through a lot of hoops.

A couple of years ago I had BT engineer come out to a pole in the back garden. He went all of 3 feet above ground level on a short ladder. He HAD to wear 1) a harness to attach himself to the pole, 2) a hard hat, 3) a highvis jacket, 4) the tools he used all had to be tethered so he could not drop them. He even said it was a complete farce, but if he was caught not following the rules he would instantly be fired. A person doing the same job 20 years ago would have had to follow none of these rules and had a good laugh at the current chap.

Times have significantly changed. Everything is becoming much more regulated, and will continue to be more so. Eventually metal detecting will be, if we like it or not!. We need to act NOW to ensure that changes brought in are suitable for the vast bulk of detectorists, rather than just an elite few.

Evan

Well said saffron, exactly why I cant stand the idea of the Institute of Detectorists its just a joke name for a start
But as has I am sure allready been said, the regulations only apply to those who abide by the rules, absolutely pointless, just another organization to try and regulate the masses, they will have a bloody big battle I can assure you if Mr westcott thinks he is going to be the big dictator, Off with his head

[Jamesey1981]

The tactics have changed as well, for years people have been trying to get shooting banned and failing.

Now well funded groups are using the courts to stop shooting, not by going after shooting, but by going for the fringe legislation, general licences as an example, they even managed to get them revoked for a short period and are still mounting challenges.
This meant that although shooting was legal, as it was out of season for game no live quarry shooting of birds could take place, including corvid control, and as this happened during lambing it was a disaster for sheep farmers.

I would guess that there are more people against shooting than detecting, but there are also bigger and better funded organisations sticking up for shooting than there are for detecting, BASC alone have a fighting fund that runs into millions.

Don't underestimate the power of hate, and don't be under any misconceptions that there aren't people that hate us.

I for one would be happy to chuck a bit extra the NCMD's way to help give them a slush fund and a bit of cash to splash to help stick up for us, even if the membership fee doubled it would still be peanuts, I could find enough loose change to pay double the current membership fee in an hour or two at the beach.

Although we are a pretty low priority and government have more important things to do than ban detecting, they also aren't going to lose many votes if they do, and if they can be convinced that it would be a good political move to do so it will seem like an easy win with only a few people complaining about it.
I personally don't even think an outright ban is the aim, I think the aim is to squeeze where we can detect and keep squeezing it until there's nothing left, that can happen slowly and with very little fuss, and before you know it it is too late to stop it, still legal to detect, but not anywhere you would want to, and you will need to jump through so many legal hoops that it won't be practical for most of us.

[DaveP]

Using Pete E's example of shooting restrictions and revoking the General Licence.

The opposition was very obvious (has been for years and years and from many quarters)
Their aims were clear
They had a public voice
Our (shooting) position was very clear - there was a proven need for the General Licence
Our representatives (BASC) were very clear on their actions.
BASC communicated regularly with their members on what they were doing
BASC had set out clear goals.

With detecting we don't know what the opposition want (IoD or Treasure Act Revue - it's all proposals for discussion)
We don't know who's engaged to counter any proposals (organisation or individuals).
We don't know what is being done to counter proposals (what actions)
As a hobby we don't appear to know where we want to be (a general free for all, partial regulation, or regulated)

@Pete - I had more corvid shooting last year and this year during the GL fiasco by moving quickly on my licences and, interestingly, I've had better discussions with a couple of antis who now understand why some things are done and they understand the need - they still don't like it but have moved a long way in their own views.

I just feel we need much better information and communication.

[Dave77]

The ultimate authority is the landowner. If he says I can dig I will, and that will be the end of it!
I will not be needing any more validation than that!

Same for me.
All my permissions are for me but I try and take out someone who has no land and show what is possible when they get it. I have been to a few rallys over here but there is maybe 1 a year. I like having the 3rd party liability cover from NCMD but thats it.