New Code of Practice in Detecting

[BAJR Host]

A significant step... though perhaps more consultation is required..

The Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting has been endorsed by the British Museum, the Council for British Archaeology, the Country Landowners and Business Association, English Heritage, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, the National Council for Metal Detecting, the National Farmers Union, the National Museum Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales and the Society of Museum Archaeologists.

The Code is available online at: http://www.finds.org.uk/documents/CofP1.pdf

Another day another WSI?

[Curator Kid]

The IFA, ALGAO and RESCUE are absent from the list of endorsees. Surely this is not a coincidence, given that the code is a rather thin on the archaeological importance of context, and that the last paragraph appears to invite people to contact their local HER's to find the best places to go and detect.

I agree with you Mr. Hosty - it's a significant step, but perhaps something more robust would've provided clearer and better guidance?

[rachstebbs]

Well its a kind of a step in the right direction, although there doesn't seem to be too much consideration for the archaeology,

"Endeavour not to damage stratified archaeological deposits"

"Take extra care when detecting near protected sites"
etc etc
We will see......

[garybrun]

Also if you want to be a responsible detectorist you have to only "report" your finds to the PAS. I will record my finds with the HER and be classed as irresponsible. Time now to put the gloves on.

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

[Paul Barford]

quote: garybrun I will record my finds with the HER and be classed as irresponsible. Is this in England and Wales you mean or Norway?


I see now on Britarch that detectorists are being encouraged on UKDN to tear up the existing document and write a new one…. http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0605&L=BRITARCH&P=R10984&I=-3 Apparently they are being aided and encouraged by the archaeologists on that forum. http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0605&L=BRITARCH&P=R11119&I=-3 Hmmmm.

I would like to ask those archaeologists what actually is so very wrong with the 13 points in the existing document? To summarise these are:

Voluntary Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales

Being responsible means:
1. Get permission from landowner/user,
2. Don’t take stuff from sites protected by law.
3. Join a responsible metal detecting club or association
4. Know how to look after what you find,
5. Avoid damage to the archaeological value of the land, hunt artefacts only from ground that has already been disturbed, .
6. Minimise ground disturbance, endeavour not to damage stratified archaeological deposits.
7. Record findspots as accurately as possible for all finds. Bag finds individually.
8. Respect the Country Code.
9. Report any finds to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, so the information can pass into the HER,
10. Abide by the provisions of laws (Treasure Act & its Code of Practice, wreck law and export licensing)
11. Seek expert help if you discover something large below the ploughsoil, or a concentration of finds or unusual material, or wreck remains.
12. Call the Police if you find any traces of human remains.
13. Call the Police/HM Coastguard if you find explosives.

Consulting and informing the landowner and obtain their permission about what happens on their land and with the finds from it (clauses 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13).

Besides which a number of these points actually refer to all members of the public anyway – whether they know it or not (clauses 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13).

So actually what we are in effect discussing is clauses 3-7 and 11 . Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 11 are about not unduly doing archaeological damage (surely something nobody here wants), 7 is about making as good a record of where the stuff comes from as possible (ditto – without which its just a collection of old bric-a-brac) and 9 refers to that information getting to the HER (again, who has problems with that?). Where is there a problem? What actually here “needs further consultation”? With whom and why?

IS it actually “ill-advised, non-consultative, undemocratic and as such, utterly flawed and ill judged ” as one detectorist put it on Britarch? http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0605&L=BRITARCH&P=R10471&I=-3

Nota bene, to say this was “not consulted with detectorists” is blatantly false. First of all the basis of the text seems to be the pre-existing detectorists’ Codes of Conduct of the NCMFD and FID. Much of the archaeological resource-friendly bits (absent from the codes of conduct) comes from the successive versions of the CBA’s “advice for users of metal detectors in England and Wales” (see the online version here from 2003 for example http://www.britarch.ac.uk/cba/factsht2.shtml ). The developing Code of Practice was discussed by, with and among detectorists on UKDN in October 2004, there was a long discussion by, with and among detectorists on PAS Forum in September to November 2004. It is notable that BAJR’s resident detectorists Steve Burch and Gary Brun were both active participants, not to say contributors, in both discussions. One of the clauses was formulated exactly as it now appears in the current code within this discussion, a second in a very similar form. Several of the problems were given full airing, including the objections to the clause about not digging into sites in permanent pasture.

A major partner in all these discussions was the body which produced the original Code of Conduct, the National Council for Metal Detecting. This is “a representative body of elected volunteers formed in 1981 to provide a means whereby responsible metal detector users would have a democratic forum to discuss problems affecting the hobby and to provide an authoritative voice to counter ill -informed and frequently misleading criticism of the hobby.” http://www.ncmd.co.uk/about%20us.htm It is recognised as the voice of detecting by several organizations including the CBA and PAS. It has previously played a major role in representing the views of metal detector users to Government Departments regarding legislation affecting the hobby.

The text of this CoP was discussed among NCMD membership: http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1638 (“Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting: After much debate amongst the NCMD membership, redrafts and productive dialogue with the other partners, a final version of the document was agreed between representatives form the NCMD, The Council for British Archaeology, The Country Landowners Association, English Heritage and The Portable Antiquities Scheme at a meeting held at the British Museum on the 19th January […]”).

“ill-advised, non-consultative, undemocratic” ? Or the product of “debate and productive dialogue”?

Anyone following the earlier discussions here involving metal detectorists will be able to see the main problem is merely that certain individuals in the detecting milieu do not recognise the NCMD. This is not a meritorial matter but one involving personal enmities and ambitions. For the context, see also the BAJR thread here: http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=488 (and subsequent ten pages)

Anyone who has had the experience of creating a text like this where innumerable meetings are held between different represntatives of interest groups will appreciate how nmuch went into creating a concise and compact document. I think that deserves some recognition.

We have at last a tool for qualifying that adjective "responsible" detecting. What actually is wrong with it, and why? Is the problem here in fact partly that at last we can check out the facts behind glib statements such as "most/the majority of detectorists are responsble" - which were fine to bandy about when there was no general agreement about what that word "responsible" means in real terms. Is the real "problem" not in what the document itself actually says, but that some detectorists would prefer there now NOT to be a benchmark by which we can measure the veracity or otherwise of glib statements of this nature ?

Paul Barford

[garybrun]

As I have stated on Britarch Paul.
The only way you can be classed as "responsible" according to the CoD is by recording with PAS. This is what is wrong in my view.
The recording of finds is a voluntary scheme not compulsory.
As i also stated i will say that I am a "irresponsible detectorist" because I want to record with the UKDFD and HER and not with the PAS.


quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
garybrun I will record my finds with the HER and be classed as irresponsible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this in England and Wales you mean or Norway?
I mean when I detect in England I will record my finds and will continue to encourage others to do so.

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

[Paul Barford]

quote: garybrun

As I have stated on Britarch Paul. The only way you can be classed as "responsible" according to the CoD is by recording with PAS. This is what is wrong in my view. What is “wrong” with asking detector-using members of the public to use the scheme set up to record archaeological finds made by the general public? What do you think the PAS is for then Gary if everybody can go to the HER? And do you think HER officers have so much time on their hands that they can chat with detectorists all day and then fiddle about entering all their finds individually on the HER when there is a parallel service? You presumably know how much time FLOs spend on doing this, but you want this work to be done by HER officers on top of what they already do? How “responsible” is that?


quote:
garybrun "I will record my finds with the HER and be classed as irresponsible".
PMB: "Is this in England and Wales you mean or Norway?"
"I mean when I detect in England I will record my finds and will continue to encourage others to do so".
And what about in Norway, or do you only detect in England due to the laxer laws there? But Gary, why do you write “will record my finds”? You mean you have not actually recorded any yet with the HER?
On Britarch http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0605&L=britarch&D=1&T=0&O=D&F=P&P=14860 you wrote

”I choose at the moment not to record with PAS but with the UKDFD and HER […] Do members of this list class me or other detectorists as irresponsible because we record with the HER????”

DO you Gary, or are you INTENDING to, one day, perhaps, maybe? What is it you are trying to use these words to say – or perhaps not say?

As for UKDFD, the [u]only</u> record I can find for your finds on UKDFD is this:
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/ukdfddata/showrecords.php?product=350&sort=2&cat=58&page=1 a Durotrigian coin found “near Corfe Castle” and according to the record, its not recorded anywhere else….. is this part of that hoard that’s shown on the Minelab video you made with Pat? Which HER has the records of your other finds please? Can you point us to the other UKDFD records of your finds? And how many other finds have you made on metal detecting jaunts to the UK which you may, might, will, one day record with something or other that's NOT the PAS?

Paul Barford

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford
[And do you think HER officers have so much time on their hands that they can chat with detectorists all day and then fiddle about entering all their finds individually on the HER when there is a parallel service? You presumably know how much time FLOs spend on doing this, but you want this work to be done by HER officers on top of what they already do? How “responsible” is that?


That is very good point, actually. I've just discussed this issue with one of the HER officers in my county who said that if they are contacted by people wanting to report finds (of any type) they tend to pass them onto the FLO anyway.

They simply do not have the resources to deal with large numbers of people wanting to report finds as they have way too many duties to perform.

[Steve-B]

Mmmm, Paul without a platform would be like a fish without water.

Paul, the discussuions that you refer to me participating in on PAS were never finalised, they were a work in progress that was never completed... why, because as soon as you saw eveidence of the possibility of real progress you immediately jumped in a sabotaged the proceedings.

Any code that has now been agreed is a mere shadow of what it could and should have been.

Of course this code does little or nothing in considering either the archaeology or the hobby, it was never meant to, this is nothing more than an exercise in politics.

As the hobby organisations conducted little or no polling of their members then yes, the UKDN is discussing the possibility of a more democratically agreed code.

The UKDN is the major detcting site in the UK and although it has an excellent beginners section, promoting good practice, it has been remiss in not have a documented code of practice.... no doubt you will also find fault in this as you do in all things detecting.

[Paul Barford]

quote: Steve-B
Paul, the discussuions that you refer to me participating in on PAS were never finalised, they were a work in progress that was never completed... why, because as soon as you saw eveidence of the possibility of real progress you immediately jumped in a sabotaged the proceedings. Really? So this too is “all my fault” then? Its always somebody else's fault isnt it, so often you detectorists dont want to accept responsibility (that orrible word) for your own fate, so often want to play the part of the victim of another's vindictiveness. Just imagine it, one guy against the will of ten thousand detectorists!

I think I have the right to defend myself against such a far-reaching accusation made here, don't you?.

You obviously have a short memory Steve. On Feb 2nd 2005, little over a year ago, you wrote on the public forum of the Portable Antiquities Scheme website about the Code of Practice which had been under discussion. You wrote that there had been little recent discussion now the "arguments had [u]died down</u> to some extent" and you were hoping that PAS Forum participants could all make an effort to finalise the draft code of practice. You stated that nobody had suggested any changes recently and therefore asked " can we not draw a line under this and say this is no longer a draft but an accepted code of practice ”.

That “draft code of practice” you wanted to “draw a line under” [“now the arguments have died down” :&gt;) ] on PASF was in fact a text very similar to the existing document (do I need to post a copy here to prove the point?). Further on in that thread on the PAS website, the real reason for this not happening emerged. You expressed your anger and frustration that nobody “important” from “the establishment” would come onto PAS Forum and discuss it with you (plural) and enable you to put your plan into operation. So once again, somebody else's fault, this time the PAS Forum for not providing the tools to do what you wanted to do.


quote: Steve-B Any code that has now been agreed is a mere shadow of what it could and should have been. Of course this code does little or nothing in considering either the archaeology or the hobby, it was never meant to, this is nothing more than an exercise in politics.
Eh? I think the aspects of the effects of detecting on the archaeological resource are pretty well covered (clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11). I cant really think what else should be in this benchmark. Can you?

No, whatever it may be comfortable for you to think in rejecting it, I dont think this is “just politics” either (and after all you were urging its publication in very much this form a year back). Policy certainly, politics not really. It clearly builds on what had been discussed in archaeological and other circles since the 1995 CBA/EH report on [u]Metal Detecting and Archaeology in England and Wales </u>(and in part before it). There are very sound archaeological reasons for each of these points.

Neither am I too clear what you mean by “does little or nothing in considering [...] the hobby”, since by its nature its not intended anything other than about doing the hobby responsibly, without detriment to the archaeological resource or anything else.


quote: As the hobby organisations conducted little or no polling of their members [...] of a more democratically agreed code.
Which of the above points do you want to “vote” on.....?
Not detecting on protected sites perhaps (clause 2)?
Not digging holes in archaeological deposits (clause 5)?
Not bothering about the conservation of what you dig up (clause 4)?
Just WHICH of these 13 points Steve - as a self-proclaimed self-determining responsible detectorist - would you be happy to ditch and still claim you were being “responsible”? Tell us archaeologists, pray.

Also what is all this nonsense about detectorists not being consulted? Quite apart from the quite extensive PAS and UKDN discussions … have a look back at old NCMD news bulletins. For example: Oct 26, 2004 (so four months before you wanted to “draw a line” under the draft code on the PAS Forum) NCMD NEWS BULLETIN No.27
“ The NCMD has been consulting with its membership for comments on a new joint code of practice between the NCMD, PAS and CBA, with a view to formulating proposals, but to date has not processed these comments into an official response. A reference to the Code was made in the June 2004 NCMD News Bulletin. However, the NCMD Regions appear reluctant to progress this matter because of the continuing difficulties in reaching agreement over the conditions for the transfer of finds data records from the PAS to the HER’s ” http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=417

That seems to me to show that there was discussion going on with the NCMD members, some of whom were withholding comments due to another problem they were having at the time... But Steve, were you a member of the NCMD at that time? I seem to recall repeated comments made on UKDN and PASF that you were not. If not, you would not have had a chance to take part in that consultation – but is that the fault of the “hobby organizations” for not begging you to join them so they could discuss this with you?

And when you wanted to “draw a line under” the code discussed on PASF, were you thinking of taking into account all the comments of the above-mentioned NCMD members? You did not mention this necessity on PASF on the 2nd February. Or were you wanting to force the version you favoured without incorporating the results of this consultation? Or had it escaped your notice then that such a consultation had taken place and was taking place among NCMD members? Who here was therefore being “democratic”?

Looking at what you say and the true facts of the matter, its difficult to escape the conclusion that you and the other detectorists (and it seems to be JUST detectorists) who are taking part in this campaign against the CoP agreed with the PAS, CBA, NCMD etc etc are just trying to stir up a storm in a teacup to drown a paper tiger. Why? Perhaps because you realise that many of you (and perhaps you yourselves) are just unable to cut the mustard as responsible detectorists measured by the standards of this benchmark.

Why IN FACT cannot UKDN adopt this CoP text as their “documented code of practice”? I assume you will “democratically” decide the issue, have you done a poll on the matter yet? What are the results so far?

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

Just a quick and simple reminder that this is the BAJR forum.... and guess what...

I don't want this to turn into a he said ... they said.. but he said... but they said... etc etc etc.

short sensible posts from evryone please.... Note the title of this section is SOLUTIONS - Not point scoring from anyone. Personal discussions can take place off list... on list lets keep on topic.

This is turning into an arguement that spills between forums like a Blazing Saddles film set! ;)

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

Sorry Hosty, that was not my intention.

We are however discussing a text of fundamental importance not only for the development of detectorist-archaeologist relationships, but also determining the long term effects of detecting on the archaeological resource in the ground and the records we are accumulating above ground. A lot of people have put a huge amount of work and hope into reaching this agreement which is being deliberately and cynically swept aside by a group of detectorists who have taken a dislike to it and are attempting to ignore, bypass, discredit and dismiss the document and the work of its authors before anyone has given it a chance.

I think since this affects the work of us and our colleagues, it behoves us to determine the true facts of the justifications they cite for summarily their actions. If the CoP is being rejected allegedly merely because it "was not consulted with us" (or "we were prevented from discussing this by Mr Barford") - which as we have seen is one of the current detectorist stories, then surely it is important to check if this is in fact true. I dont believe it is, as I have tried to show above - and yes, understandably enough, I tried to document it citing my sources.

As you know, I'd be quite happy to discuss this matter further with the detectorists here and the rest of their like-minded detecting fellows on UKDN if this is not the place. However this is not an option currently open to me, they seem afraid to let me on UKDN !

Paul Barford
.

[Steve-B]

quote:Really? So this too is “all my fault” then? Its always somebody else's fault isnt it, so often you detectorists dont want to accept responsibility (that orrible word) for your own fate,

Now that is exactly where you are wrong, the very thing we do want to do is accpet responsibility for what we do, whow we do it and how we advise others to do it.

If you were to take a lok at the NCMD forum, you will see that there is an awful lot of consternation over there from their own memebers on how this whole affair has been handled from the detectorists piont of view.

A point of view that you are naturally ill equiped to appreciate.

So those of us who are not happy about this, are not hapy in the undemocratic, unconsidered, ill conceived way it has been done.

We have no problem with a code per se.

Whether you like it or not Paul is totally irrelevant, but we ARE entitled to have our say...

What you so posseviely refer to as the archaeological resource is in fact our common heritage and such we will have a say in how things progress.

[Steve-B]

quote:As you know, I'd be quite happy to discuss this matter further with the detectorists here and the rest of their like-minded detecting fellows on UKDN if this is not the place. However this is not an option currently open to me, they seem afraid to let me on UKDN !

Paul Barford


You flatter yourself, no oneis afraid of you Paul. You are not welcome on there Paul because you are destructive.....

[BAJR Host]

And the same goes for that too ... lets keep this civil and on topic...

I like a nice clean fight... but the gloves stay on.

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

Could we perhaps get back to discussing the Code of Practice and why some cannot accept it, which is all that should interest us here.

However it was written, the text exists, it seems quite a sensible benchmark: not disturbing stratigraphy, recording, reporting etc etc.

Which of the thirteen points is actually a problem for detectorists (or archaeologists)? There's nothing unduly "destructive" in asking questioons like that surely?

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

I dont see the current code as a benchmark, rather it is at the stage when we last left it on PAS.

[BAJR Host]

I guess that is wher I am coming from as well...

It may not be perfect... (perhaps not a benchmark) but it is a start. and I am still to see one of the code paragraphs actually being argued as too bad... many detectorists already seem to do them already

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

Ok, then lets kick off with section 3.


quote:3. You are strongly recommended to join a metal detecting club or association that encourages co-operation and responsive exchanges with other responsible heritage groups. Details of metal detecting organisations can be found at www.ncmd.co.uk / www.fid. newbury.net.

Why?

Why should it be strongly recommended that the individual join an organisation.

Being an independant detectorist does not negate the individual practicing in a responsible manner or recording his finds.

As an independant detectorist I have recorded finds, I have worked on a voluntary basis within a county museum, I have also helped on several archaeological digs, but despite this it is strongly recommended that I join an organisation...?

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Ok, then lets kick off with section 3. That's it? The best example of the faults of the Code of Practice you can present here is that "you are strongly recommended" to improve your abilities as a responsible detectorist and keep in touch with (and influence!) developments in and around the hobby is to join a club or association? One that "encourages co-operation and responsive exchanges with other responsible heritage groups"?

So after the mythical "this was never consulted with us" (but it was, because among other things the text was circulated by NCMD to the regions and they sent it out for discussion through the [u]CLUBS</u>), the biggest stumbling block is that the Code of Practice suggests that responsible detecting would benefit if there was contact between its practitioners.

The original draft discussed by you on PAS contained (even then as point 3!): “* Joining a recognised metal-detecting club or national detecting organisation”. This was briefly discussed for a few days on UKDN and PASF at the end of September 2004, but then the discussion circled around the question of insurance. There was no strong feeling expressed on PASF that this clause should be deleted either then or later. I would hazard a guess that this was not questioned by too many club members consulted by the NCMD either (!). Obviously those detectorists who have very good reasons for not being in clubs or associations of any kind could not make their opinions known to those reviewing this document, because… they were not in clubs or associations through which they could learn about new developments and take part in them…

I find your disapproval of clause 3 rather ironic. A constant thread running through PASF discussions throughout 2005, and a point to which you among others frequently made reference, is that so few detectorists (some 5000 only) belong to clubs. This was used to explain away poor figures for detectorists recording with the PAS (the argument being that the FLOs cannot contact the other detectorists through visiting these clubs, and thus these others simply did not know the PAS existed). This was the whole reason given in June last year by its founders for forming the UKDFD; to get the independent detectorists into an organization which could “promote good practice” for this very reason (http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/pages/news.html). This is not the first time either that detectorists have proposed forming a new organization to "promote good practice" – so it would seem that in general the idea has some acceptance in that milieu.

So why not now?

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

quote:That's it? The best example of the faults of the Code of Practice you can present

You just really cannot help yourself can you Paul...

For such a self acclaimed highly educated individual, do you really need an erk like me to tell you to read the post again..

Obviously so.... Paul please do read the post again especially this bit:


quote:Ok, then lets kick off with section 3.

Even to my semi literate detectorists mind that doesnt read as any claim to being the best that I can do.

If you wouldlike to exaplin which part of that you do not understand then I will do my uneducated best to explain.

Little wonder I usually give attempting to debate with you Paul

[Paul Barford]

quote:Steve-Bthat doesnt read as any claim to being the best that I can do. OK, though personally I would have thought it logical to start with the greatest problem... so let's stop beating around the bush, we've clearly dealt with your minor problems with clause 3 with which you kicked-off, now can you present the meatier bit of your complaint against in the CoP.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

quote:we've clearly dealt with your minor problems with clause 3

So thats it is it?

Paul posts a tirade and it is clearly dealt with....

And Paul will dictate the next issue on the agenda...

Tell me Hosty, is this guy a shining example of what we can expect when dealing with archaeologists or what... because irf so, how do you ever expect us to reach an accord?

[BAJR Host]

Paul,you could have cut out the sarcastic first two paragraphs and still been left with a valid point.

Steve was asked to voice his problems, and he begins, (in my mind logically with the first - I expect we will movethrough the paragraphs in numerical order)

the answer I have to that particular clause is the same as yours, however I might have worded it in a way that would not then provoke.

AUP reminder
Present your opinions in a tactful and moderate fashion.
Your post should be constructive
Please remember that tone can be misconstrued due to the limitations of e-media.



In my mind it is indeed a recommendation – but a sensible one – as by joining a group you have access to resources, companions who can share knowledge etc etc. Of course there are some who want to act alone, buy a detector, go out by themselves, detect by themselves or with other non club people (does that make them a non club club?) Well they are not stopped from doing that… but they are the ones missing out. More people in clubs or members of a national org… the better, and then representation will be easier to maintain.


Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

Thank you Host

To address you points, I have no mproblem with suggesting that detectorists look into the possibility of joining clubs or organisations, as you quite rightly say they are indeed a good contact point... for those that wish to join them.

The majority of detectorists in the UK are like myself independant detctorists and as I tried to point out, this has in no way limited my contact with the establishment or mainstream of the hobby.

As does membership of one of the several detecting forums that now abound. Again they are an ideal way of maintaining contact for those that do not want to be hearded towards either the club or organisation compounds.

There are also the hobby magazines and detector stores that are an excellent focal point for the hobby.

My problem was with the wording... that is 'strongly' recommended...

It should be suggested along with a couple of other suggestions.

I started with point 3 as it was indeed the first on the list.

[Paul Barford]

There was no sarcasm in those first paragraphs. In the context of my earlier suggestion that this opposition to the Code from certain detectorists was really an attempt to create a 'storm in a teacup' had expected Steve to start off with the greater problem(s). I think that there is enough evidence that the Code WAS consulted before it was publihed, so I think there is enough evidence to show that this is indeed a "myth". No sarcasm was intended, I just would like to get to the facts of the matter without beating around the bush.

Paul Barford.

[Paul Barford]

ooops, duplicate post sorry.

[Paul Barford]

quote:[i] Seem to have posted that twice... wait a mo...I'll get it right in a moment just as soon as this cat gets its .... off me keyboard. Gerofff!

[/quote]

[Steve-B]

No Paul, the problems of section 3 are not minor and neither have they been dealt with.

The implications of this section are an obvious attempt to heard the detecting community into a place that is demonstrably controlable by the establishment and unacceptable by an increasing number of the suggested number of 180,000 UK detectorists.

This is hardly a storm in a tea cup.

BTW Paul, if I was you I would let the cat do the typing...;)

[BAJR Host]

I have decided to let my cat take over..

sdiohi;dgyfgf fhwfb ff
qef

nope that was never going to work! ;)

I would suggest that herding people into a place is not the objective, but more a sensible and reasonable recomendation... I would strongly recommend it to. As I strongly recommend people join the IFA... or Rescue other similar groups. without a group there is no representation, without representation the individual is dis enfranchised (er spelling please) therefore when codes like this come out the individual thinks... hang on... nobody asked me.. but if you are in a club or organisation you have a voice, you can be asked..

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

The "180 000 detectorists" are a journalistic misquote, and one that mightily displeased the PAS, as it contrasts more unfavourably with the figures of recording detectorists than anything critics of detecting could dream up. Forunately for them, not everybody believes what they read in the Grauniad.


quote:Steve-B
The implications of this section are an obvious attempt to heard the detecting community into a place that is demonstrably controlable by the establishment and unacceptable by an increasing number of [...] UK detectorists.Hmm. In what way are they "controllable" if they are run by democratically elected people - people elected by the detectorist members? Or do you think "the establishment" rigs the elections in all these clubs and associations in their nefarious conspiracy to "control" you all? Are not however clubs and associations (and forums) place where detectorists can find the collective strength to oppose moves which they see as against their interests (like the NCMD holding out so long in getting an agreement about transfer of PAS data to HERs).

So do I understand this correctly, the problem that you are kicking off with is that you hold that parts of the CoP are the tool of a conspiracy by "the establishment" to control the independent detectorist which is why you are against it?

[Steve-B]

David, while I dont wholey disagree with you my point would be to advise and suggest to people rather than to strongly coerce.

Please appreciate that I am talking from a hobby perspective where the two groups mentioned in this code have distinctly NOT represented their members and have left many with exactly the same feelings that you prescribe to an independant detectorist, our voices have not been heard, neither have they been actively sought.

My whole issue with section 3 is the lack of democracy shown.

Neither organisation has a mandate to act as they wish, they are their to represent their members not the other way round.

The political implications of this section are indeed a herding action.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

my point would be to advise and suggest to people rather than to strongly coerceWith respect Steve, I think you are getting lost in your own rhetoric. The CoP is a voluntary Code, and says "You are strongly recommended..." which is not "strong coercion" in anybody's book. Semantically, its not even a condition, but remains a recommendation (the only one in the Code).

As David points out, its a common sense recommendation, which would facilitate co-operation and communication within the hobby and with outside bodies (including "the establishment"). There's no need to seek a nefarious ulterior motive, its a sensible resolution of the problem of dissemination of ideas (and one which I pointed out above is continually evoked by various fractions of the detecting community).

"our voices have not been heard, neither have they been actively sought. My whole issue with section 3 is the lack of democracy shown". So the first thing you would like to kick off with is "we dont want to be herded into clubs and associations" - this is what you would tell these two groups you belong to if they had asked you. Sorry, I really don't see any logic here.

"The political implications of this section are indeed a herding action". The practical implications of this is that if detectorists organize themseleves into groups, then it facilitates communication and wider and quicker exchange of ideas and experiences of all types.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

I do not think I am getting lost in my own rhetoric at all...

Are you using the term voluntary in its strictest sense or more loosley as the NCMD and Mike Heyworth would apply it?


quote:Another point to bear in mind here is what Steve Critchley, the Chairman of NCMD, said in the BM press release earlier this week:

"This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its exiting Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership".

ie the Code is not voluntary for NCMD members.

The Federation of Independent Detectorists has also endorsed the Code.

Mike


Of cousre there is a nefarious unlterior motive.

No I dont want to be herded, Paul, I want the freedom to choose.. are you impyling that this should not be the case?

There are naturally practical implications in making suggestions and offering advice, limiting the 'strongly recommended' choices to the two organisations that have, in the eyes of the people they are designed to serve, dramatically let down is hardly freedom of chioce and does indeed come across as an attemp to herd the masses.

[BAJR Host]

If they do not represent the members... I fear this is the problem... as for many detectorists they are only members of a club of one. So can't be represented, and can't have a voice... as they say, you have to be in it to win it.

and coercian is not the issue... suggestion Yes.. strong ... yes.. but up to the individual. Though as I realise now... Freedom only works when you have rules.. (deep!)

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

David, my point is that if we are to have a voice then surely this should be a voice that actually represents its members wishes and does not impose its will upon its members.

Section 3 read by someone coming into the hobby would not know any different, so in effect they are being steered in a certain and definate direction and it is easy to see why.

We are not a one party political system in this country and rightly so. Likewise members of the hobby should be able to select a party that best suits represents them, this code does not reflect this in either tone or word.

[BAJR Host]

I have you now.... that is true... I will grant you that.

But it is (in the words of UKDN )
"The great advantage of joining a club is that you recieve expert guidance and assistance in all aspects of the hobby."

So will give you that joining a club (even UKDN is a club of sorts) for a new person who reads these guidelines would seem like a strongly reccommended thing to do... it is actually no bad thing to do... A new detectorist would really need advice, guidance and assistance, and where better than a club. If later on they want to go off on their own.. then thats fine.

Another day another WSI…

[drpeterwardle]

Can people stop making personal comments or I will start editing them out.

I have avoided so far reading any of the posts on Britarch/BAJR but I know what the tone will be. Can we keep on topic and within the AUP please.

Having read the BAJR thread here are a couple of comments- The archaeologists were represented by government & the CBA.

Metal detector users are being encouraged to join a club - this makes a lot of sense to me. I really do not see the problem with this. It is a lot better than a complusory licencsing system.

The code suggests "hunt artefacts only from ground that has already been disturbed,. I think this demonstrated that the code is poorly drafted. What is meant is only hunt in ground that has been recently disturbed and not from archaeological remains. By definition archaeological remains are disturbed ground. This the code gives a green light it is OK to disturb said ground. The only exception to this being artefacts buried in peat or by say sand etc.

Peter Wardle

[drpeterwardle]

This is a test message to check the veracity of this statement on another thread.

"Well someone has made sure that there is not to be a reply to your last statement on there...

No worries...."

Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

Talk about wierd.... the topic was indeed locked, but is now sorted!

Apologies for any inconvienince.

Lets keepgoing, and as Peter says, stay focussed, on topic and in the AUP.

I find it interesting the number of interpretations of so few words there can be.

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote: drpeterwardle

This the code gives a green light it is OK to disturb said ground. The only exception to this being artefacts buried in peat or by say sand etc. Where do you see this "green light"? It actually says:
"Wherever possible working on ground that has already been disturbed (such as ploughed land or that which has formerly been ploughed), and only within the depth of ploughing. If detecting takes place on undisturbed pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land..."
And the next point is more specific:
"Endeavour not to damage stratified archaeological deposits".
It seems pretty clear to me, the Code of Practice does not give those who comply with it "a green light" to digging just anything, anywhere. So, Peter, how would you propose phrasing this sentiment in as many words and more importantly in a way which the various national bodies and detecting organizations would accept?
Perhaps this brings us back to the idea of somebody (like for example BAJR) creating a comentary on the compact wording of this document just in case there is lingering doubt in anyone's mind about what kind of "disturbed ground" the authors will have had in mind - and why.

Paul Barford

[drpeterwardle]

I have to say I have only read the summary that was posted not the main code which does in fact clarify what is meant by disturbed ground. The intent of the phrase "hunt artefacts only from ground that has already been disturbed" is clear to me in any event."

A commentary would be a good idea.

Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

I agree... I have started a new thread on this..

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:This is a test message to check the veracity of this statement on another thread.

"Well someone has made sure that there is not to be a reply to your last statement on there...

No worries...."

Peter Wardle

Pleased to see the Gremlins had a rethink....

[BAJR Host]

the locking is a complete mystery... as locked threads are no good for anyone..



Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:If you were to take a lok at the NCMD forum, you will see that there is an awful lot of consternation over there from their own memebers on how this whole affair has been handled from the detectorists piont of view.

I would like to point out that this statement has been taken out of context. On the NCMD forum there is a discussion underway on the subject of the CoP, I instigated it which is why I can say it is out of context. There is no argument about the Code itself, the "consternation" revolves round the interpretation of statements that were made at the launch.

Certain detectorists have made it clear that they will not abide by said Code. Fine - that is their choice, and one which they are entitled to. As such I think it only fair that they recognise that others have the right to abide by said Code if they wish. So it is on that point that it should be made clear that the comments made by said detectorists are personal, and not on behalf of any organisation or group. There are many members of the UKDN who abide by the new Code, and did so before the new Code was created.



quote:Are you using the term voluntary in its strictest sense or more loosley as the NCMD and Mike Heyworth would apply it?


As far as I am aware the term 'voluntary' means the same in whatever sense it is stated. I can't speak for Mr Heyworth on this but I can state that the NCMD mean it in it's most literal sense.

[Steve-B]

Of course you can alsways back track on behalf of the NCMD John, but the staement was worded very clearly and Mike quite clearly emphasised this.

Ergo, if a member of the NCMD, adherence to the code is not voluntary, membership is dependant upon it. So which ever way you might want to spin it now, means that it is mandatory to NCMD members.

The recording of finds in England and Wales is voluntary, the NCMD has the neither power or the mandate from its members to attempt to alter this.

[garybrun]

Hi John..
Thanks for coming back on this as this is the first statement or correspondence I have seen from the NCMD on this subject. It is very worrying indeed to say its compulsory as the director of the CBA seems to think the NCMD has agreed too.

I too John agree with certain parts of the code and think its a good thing.. the compulsory bit is not voluntary in my understanding. The NCMD needs to come out fast and make sure this is put right. Its like you've started a fire that's out of control and don't know how to put it out. But the archaeological community and many within the detecting community think the statement by the NCMD rep and his statement that the NCMD will change its constitution etc.
Take a look on Britarch and you will see what is being said.


quote:Another point to bear in mind here is what Steve Critchley, the Chairman of NCMD, said in the BM press release earlier this week:

"This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its exiting Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership".

ie the Code is not voluntary for NCMD members.

The Federation of Independent Detectorists has also endorsed the Code.

Mike

Someone has jumped the gun big time.
Which ever party has got it wrong... its going to take some wriggling to explain why they got it wrong. I just hope its not the NCMD.

Wish you the best of luck with this one.
regards

Gary

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

[BAJR Host]

Another question for Mike on Monday... I am sure however that the real answer willlie somewhere in the middle... betcha fiver! :)

I would appreciate some contactwith the NCMD people who worked on the Code... (anyone??) whocan answer once and for all... is it mandatory or not ...

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

I don’t really think this is the place for extensive discussion of the NCMD But since the point has been raised…..

It seems to me that the one of the purposes of the NCMD is to represent a group of people (in this case 'responsible' metal detector users, on the grounds that they ARE responsible – that has been the whole credo of the NCMD from the start).

In which case, surely it requires the NCMD to ensure (and be able to assure those it is in discussion with) that this is in fact so.

The old NCMD Code of Conduct was written (one presumes) to be applied by NCMD members ; the NCMD has also for some years had an official policy on the Portable Antiquities Scheme, one presumes for the same purpose. How many NCMD members were disgruntled they were expected to behave in a certain way laid down by the CoC ...wasnt that in the constitution?

Surely if somebody does not like the CoP which the NCMD requires its members to follow, then they can join another detecting organization or create their own….

(And, Steve before you make allegations like that about a specific meaning Mike Heyworth gives a word like “voluntary”, perhaps you should more carefully read what he actually wrote…).
Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

and yes I did edit out a couple of words, which removal did not alter the meaning

However there are some quotes which are written as Mikes actual words - I will be clarifying on Monday... easy sorted .. no fuss... etc etc

These are... as it stands words that can be taken in a million ways.. lets waittill I have a chance to chat with Mike.


Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:ie the Code is not voluntary for NCMD members.

The Federation of Independent Detectorists has also endorsed the Code.

Mike

No Paul,perhaps you should re read what he wrote.

If he wasnt endorsing this fact then perhaps he should have stated that.

[john1504]

It would seem that both Archaeologists and Detectorists have been misquoted in the Media. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that some things have been said that require explaining.

An NCMD management meeting was held this weekend at which prominent Archaeologists were present. An 'official' statement is being prepared by the NCMD Executive, and will be published in the next day or so. Until then, unfortunately, I can't make any further comment on the CoP.

What I can say is that it will make interesting reading.

[BAJR Host]

Thanks.... We look forward to it.... I hope BAJR Forum can get to see it ...



Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

Fair enough John, lets wait and see....

[john1504]

As soon as the 'statement' is published I will see about having a copy posted on BAJR, if that's OK with Hosty.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

No Paul,perhaps you should re read what he wrote.
If he wasnt endorsing this fact then perhaps he should have stated that.
Good grief.
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0605&L=BRITARCH&P=R11718&I=-3 He was adding a comment to somebody else's comment on Britarch on voluntary codes generally and neither endorses nor condemns the statement by the NCMD as quoted by the BM press release. And neither would I expect him to. He was just stating a fact. I really do not see why you have to attack anyone and anything just because somebody has written a Code of practice you dont like.

Paul Barford

[garybrun]

Today is going to be a very interesting day :D

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

[Steve-B]

quote:Good grief.
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0605&L=BRITARCH&P=R11718&I=-3 He was adding a comment to somebody else's comment on Britarch on voluntary codes generally and neither endorses nor condemns the statement by the NCMD as quoted by the BM press release. And neither would I expect him to. He was just stating a fact.


So it is a fact is it Paul....



quote:I really do not see why you have to attack anyone and anything just because somebody has written a Code of practice you dont like.

Paul Barford

Now come on Paul... tell me..... did you really keep a straight face when you wrote that? :D


www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

quote: So it is a fact is it Paul.... Oh for goodness' sake, what? You are now questioning whether it is a fact that the chairman was quoted by the BM as saying something? Give it a rest.

Tell you what Steve, why dont you get back to actually discussing the thirteen points of the new code of practice for responsible detecting instead of going off on another tangent and wasting our time on such attempted word-play on what Mike Heyworth understands by the use of the term "voluntary"?

....meanwhile, I see at least one detector dealer already has the new Code on their website; it's good to see some of them doing something concrete to encourage responsible use of the products they sell.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

I will include a code of practice on my website when I am happy with the wording.

And despite you peurile attempts Paul, I am well known for promoting responsible detecting, so I wont even bother to justify myself to you.

I note that yet again, despite the fact that one of your many accusations is that detectorists are not willing to answer direct or uncomfortable questions that in fact I am the first to attempt to answer you point by point, only to find that you quickly turn the debate into yet another them and us battle... do you reaaly want a debate Paul.... I seriously wonder...

I find your agressive repsonses quite interesting Paul.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

So let's all keep the agreesive batting down to a minimum...and the analysis of each and every comma.

AUP !

We are supposed to be looking at this COde Clause by clause, dealing with each and every aspect in a sensible way... ie clarify Disturbed Ground... that seems tobe heading in a good direction... and We should have a draft before long.

So Lets leave out the he said / she said and cutto the Code... which is what we are discussing... AFter I ahve been to the dentist (yes I have toothache... hence my slight grump :(:() I will drool down the phone with Mike... so expect stuff this evning - I also look forward to the NCMD release... though this is a bit belated... a week after the event.

Till then... play hard but be nice.... Next clause...

Steve you said you would put it up is the wording was altered... can you move on to the next problem Clause.



Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

I will include a code of practice on my website when I am happy with the wording.And despite you peurile attempts Paul, I am well known for promoting responsible detecting, so I wont even bother to justify myself to you. Actually Steve, I was not referring just to one, but dealerS. According to the list on Corinne's site, there are at least 20 (?) detector dealers in the UK, all making money out of the hobby of collecting archaeological artefacts and other relics. So far, as far as I can see one has included the Code on their website (and we all know that one is not likely to because he disagrees with the wording), I would like to see the other 18 at least give the impression they are thinking about the responsibilitiies involved in owning one of these machines and are able, for example, to give their customers some advice and answer any doubtrs. In irresponsible hands these machines have the potential of doing a LOT of damage. So, its good to see at least one dealer thinking in terms of propagating this codification of good practice.



quote: in fact I am the first to attempt to answer you point by point, only to find that you quickly turn the debate into yet another them and us battle... do you reaaly want a debate Paul.... I seriously wonder... I find your agressive repsonses quite interesting Paul. No, actually i was answering your points one by one. You called it a "tirade" when I showed that the Code was consulted, as the NCMD newsletters show. (The problem was that last year you and your fellow protestors were all tied up in knocking DEFRA and setting up UKDFD, and simply ignored it - there is a clear reference in one of the UKDN newsletters to disappointment that few replies had been received from members.)
I also answered the point about "how dare" the NCMD expect certain standards of behaviour on its members, you counter this with a tangent of making a fuss about the way Mike Heyworth allegedly used the word "voluntary".

What about taking the 13 clauses in order. Do you or your fellow detectorists have any problems with clause 1? If so, what?

Paul Barford
.

[Steve-B]

So, one dealer now chooses to post the new code... bloody good for him.

Like I said, I have no intention of justfying myself to you Mr B.

My past record on promoting responsible practice through my shop speaks for itself....

[u]And before you decide yet again to try to malign my business I suggest you visit it first to be certain of your facts.</u>


I have said all I am going to say in respect of my business I suggest you contact the other 17 businesses to ask them why.... though no dount you would prefer to draw your own conclusions.

Despite whatever the NCMD letter says, only lip service was paid to consulting the membership on this subject and as I was also a member a the time I can catagorically state that I was not consulted..... so what actual evidence do you have Paul?

I am making a fuss in general on both how the NCMD and Mike Heyworth translate the the term voluntary, but as I said last night, I will await John posting on this subject and Hosty is contacting Mike as well.

Whatever way you try to spin it Paul, the words were said and echoed.

You did not answer the points one by one at all, you merely sought to control the debate in your usual style.

I started with the first piont that I had a problem with in a logical sequence of starting with the first secrtion numerically.

If this concept is too hard for you Paul I can always go back and state that there is no specific problem with section 1 and 2. Obviously I over estimated your abilities on presuming you would understand.





www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[rachstebbs]

Give it a break, can we have a decent discussion without the bitchy asides and feuds going on. It makes me not want to contribute to any discussion on this subject. It is fine to have your own opinion, and the point of BAJR is to ensure everyone can be heard. However I couldn't give two s**ts about anyones personal feuds and snidey remarks. (Excuse the language, I'm usually very polite!).
These threads are really important and I would like to think they may help clarify certain points, and maybe help metal detecting and archaeology work together more closely, but I won't be paying any more attention to this thread until everyone grows up and talks like adults. Can someone email me when that happens please?

[Steve-B]

I do apoligise Rachael, I have attempted a couple of times to continue the thread as askeed by host.

It is baltantly obvious that this is not going to be allowed so I will back out of it..

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

Well, as I said, dealerS, one I praised for taking an approach I support. I wonder if somebody has mailed the others with the news and asked them to propagate the Code with new machines they sell.

quote: Steve-B
I started with the first piont that I had a problem with in a logical sequence of starting with the first secrtion numerically.
Great, that is not what I understood by “kick off”, but glad we’ve got that sorted out. So you are OK with 1 and 2. Number 3 is under discussion in another thread, so what is the next one of the remaining ten which you have problems with?

quote:Steve-B

I do apoligise Rachael, I have attempted a couple of times to continue the thread as askeed by host. It is baltantly obvious that this is not going to be allowed so I will back out of it..

Just because Rachael asks you to do what precisely?

Paul Barford
.

[Steve-B]

No, Rachael just reminded me that whnever you and I try to debate anything it always ends up in a tit for tat...

Its pointless Paul.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

And as we have all seen on numerous occasions when you try to debate with John, and when you try to debate with Nigel, and Rob and a number of others... but of course its always the other person's fault, that when they produce a counter argument, it "ends up in" tit-for-tat....Yes, under such conditions it makes it difficult to conduct a proper discussion. Maybe just return to the next point of the code of Practice with which you have problems...

[leg11aug]

Pretty sure this is what Rach' meant...

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[BAJR Host]

Right.... I'm back and I have lost a tooth and a half... so you can imagine how I feel...

This is important, so can we please please try and end the war and start the talking.

All we have to do is not react.

If people want to discuss things only with each other... please do it by email.

Due to the fact that I am unable to even drink tea just now and can hardly open ma mouth I was unable to talk to Mike about this, and other matters, such as presenting an appendix to the signatory parties.... NOw thats a positive step, it is what BAJR Forum does, we collectively decide what we can all agree on, then it happens... yup... this is a place to talk, to come up with solutions... then act... Note the title of this forum.... SOLUTIONS...

So can we start at Clause 1.

What is right or wrong with this wording, and do you feel that any clarification is required?

Not trespassing; before you start detecting obtain permission to search from the landowner/occupier, regardless of the status, or perceived status, of the land. Remember that all land has an owner.

To avoid subsequent disputes it is always advisable to get permission and agreement in writing first regarding the ownership of any finds subsequently discovered

and lets have no more quoting each other back at each other... ONLY debate the clause... Strict, aint I! }:))



Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote:No, Rachael just reminded me that whnever you and I try to debate anything it always ends up in a tit for tat...

Its pointless Paul.

Did I aportion blame there at all Barford?

No I think not... apologies Hosty, ---EDITED --- (no apologies needed... just don't break the AUP) no wonder so many refuse to trust archaeologists when all they see is you at the forefront.

As I said... pointless..

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[drpeterwardle]

I decided on balance not to edit the previous message.

To the discussion. By definition the permission of the free holder must be obtained if any artefacts are to be removed as they are the legal owner of them.

Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

Good call.... thats my job ;)

If its pointless... then what are we discussing... debate needs at least two people... we have hundreds here... remember that this is a public forum, open to everyone... including children..

I want debate please

Another day another WSI…

[Sheddy]

quote:[i] Note the title of this forum.... SOLUTIONS...

So can we start at Clause 1.

What is right or wrong with this wording, and do you feel that any clarification is required?

[b]Not trespassing; before you start detecting obtain permission to search from the landowner/occupier, regardless of the status, or perceived status, of the land. Remember that all land has an owner.

To avoid subsequent disputes it is always advisable to get permission and agreement in writing first regarding the ownership of any finds subsequently discovered

I see no problem with that. The land owner is the only person who can legitimatly give permission.

Next.

[john1504]

It is common courtesy to ask permission from a landowner before venturing onto his/her land. Therefore nobody should have anything against that clause. No detectorist I know personally has ever done otherwise.

Putting an agreement in writing isn't as easy as it first seems. By all means, IMO, if the landowner wishes to have an agreement in writing then go for it. But not one farmer I know thinks an agreement is necessary. Why? Trust. If I ask for an agreement, then the landowner may think I don't trust him/her. NOT GOOD. And if the farmer thinks an agreement is necessary, then the Detectorists isn't to be trusted, in which case why give permission in the first place.

Land that has been pasture for a number of years is, by far IMO, the most difficult to judge. Most land in this country was ploughed during WW2 so how far back would be considered 'safe' in archaeological terms?

It could be argued that if land hasn't been disturbed since the practice of 'deep-ploughing' first came into use, then any archaeology is unlikely to have been disturbed. In that case I would be willing to acknowledge that land should not be detected on.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by john1504

Putting an agreement in writing isn't as easy as it first seems. By all means, IMO, if the landowner wishes to have an agreement in writing then go for it. But not one farmer I know thinks an agreement is necessary.
This part of the CoP refers to the corresponding section of the PAS Landowners' leaflet (in draft still). The same appears however in other information leaflets issued to landowners and detectorists by local authorities (IOW, Essex I believe).

But surely the crux of the matter is that this Code sets out a concept of what is "responsible behaviour", not give advice "how to start metal detecting". I cannot see why it would NOT be "responsible" to enter a written agreement with the landowner. In particular about what happens to any finds made (ownership/deposit in museum/sale as well as the matter of reporting, and especially division of the reward should anything turn up which falls under the Treasure Act). But it could have other uses too. It may never be needed, most matters arising dealt with on the basis of word-of-mouth agreements and trust, but it would be responsible and a matter of commons sense to have one, just in case.

As for the question of a written agreement "showing a lack of trust", surely all the detectorist needs to do is to pull out of their pocket the CoP leaflet on the first visit and point out that your Code of Practice as a responsible detectorist says that it is advisable to have one, and that they want to do everything by the book.

There are templates of such agreements (two were on Corinne Mills' site, they may still be there) so there's no need to 'umm and ahh' too long about the wording of the text. Going over it with the landowner before they sign it invites them to reflect on their rights as landowner in such a situation.

Since we are primarily discussing here the acceptability (or otherwise) to detectorists and archaeologists of a Code of Practice defining a concept responsible behaviour, should we not be discussing that which is and is not responsible behaviour in metal detecting and leave the rest for another time?

Paul Barford
.

[BAJR Host]

Next Clause.

2. Adhering to the laws concerning protected sites (e.g. those defined as Scheduled Monuments or Sites of Special Scientific Interest: you can obtain details of these from the landowner/occupier, Finds Liaison Officer, Historic Environment Record or at www.magic.gov.uk).

Take extra care when detecting near protected sites: for example, it is not always clear where the boundaries lie on the ground.

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

I fully agree with you on this Paul. If landowners want an agreement then any detectorist who refuses isn't going to get permission to detect on that land, it's as simple as that. My point is that 'agreements' are used where there is a lack of trust, or doubt about someone's integrity. I don't know how many farmers you've been in contact with, but all the farmers I've met have been down-to-earth people where a hand-shake is as good as any written document.

[BAJR Host]

hence the
"To avoid subsequent disputes it is always advisable to get permission and agreement in writing "

rather than you MUST...

up to you, but if you end up in a dispute, its much easier to have a written template letter to show what was agreed. I often see people asking wherethey can find such a letter on the UKDN forum.

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Next Clause.

2. Adhering to the laws concerning protected sites (e.g. those defined as Scheduled Monuments or Sites of Special Scientific Interest: you can obtain details of these from the landowner/occupier, Finds Liaison Officer, Historic Environment Record or at www.magic.gov.uk).

Take extra care when detecting near protected sites: for example, it is not always clear where the boundaries lie on the ground.


No argument or discussion needed on this point, IMO. It is a requirement of Law to stay off Scheduled Monuments/Sites. Anyone who does otherwise, is not acting as a 'responsible detectorist'.

[BAJR Host]

3. You are strongly recommended to join a metal detecting club or association that encourages co-operation and responsive exchanges with other responsible heritage groups.

Details of metal detecting organisations can be found at www.ncmd.co.uk / www.fid.
newbury.net.

here we go then... now I feel the debate begins

Another day another WSI…

[drpeterwardle]

To an extent are we not re-inventing the wheel in debating some of these points? The IFA code of conduct on fieldwork covers many of these issues.

For example the IFA code of practice does require written permission from the land owner or occupier of land. (or at least it didnt a few years ago). Should we really expect dectorists to follow a stricter standard than archaeologists?

Peter Wardle

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

[b][maroon]3. You are strongly recommended to join a metal detecting club or association that encourages co-operation and responsive exchanges with other responsible heritage groups.


It is important that people new to the hobby of Metal Detecting be made aware that they could be breaking the Law if they're not careful. Joining a Club or Forum or other such group will bring them into contact with experienced people who will guide and advise them.

"...Co-operation and responsive exchanges..." Can anyone put an interpretation on what this means. In my experience the problem has been with other heritage groups not wanting any contact with detectorists, due to the bad press and 'propaganda' that has been (and in come cases still is) circulated by some archaeological groups/societies. The 'bad press' has, to a great extent, ended, but the fallout remains. Proof of co-operation between detectorists and archaeologists/heritage groups already exists up and down the country.

[BAJR Host]

valid points both....

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

valid points both....

Another day another WSI…

[Corinne Mills]

Interesting to read the new ncmd newsletter - it would appear that the recommendations in new code of practise not encompassed within the NCMD Code of Conduct are not conditions of membership.

confused? me too [:o)]

Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ourpasthistory.com/md/indexa.htm

[BAJR Host]

....so what is their take...

flannel or what?

Another day another WSI…

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

3. You are strongly recommended to join a metal detecting club or association that encourages co-operation and responsive exchanges with other responsible heritage groups.

Details of metal detecting organisations can be found at www.ncmd.co.uk / www.fid.
newbury.net.

here we go then... now I feel the debate begins

Another day another WSI�


This one I have a problem with. I have two clubs near me, one is very cliquey the other is infamous, some of its members haveing a less than honest approach to permissions.

I went to the cliquey club about 5 years ago. I went a second time. I didn't go a third time. I now know a few members of that club, they say it has changed and has a club position of "Greeter" - a good step forward. This club is not affiliated to a national body as far as I know.

The PAS is well aware of the actions of some members of the second club, but whilst there are affiliated clubs around who allow membership of less than honerable people, there is no case for encouraging newbies into joining them. It would just result in more bad practice.

[drpeterwardle]

I have a sympathy with this - I do not get on with my local archaeology society for example. Personally I would rebel against the notion of being strongly recommended to join something.

Peter Wardle

(Sheddy where are you based I am in the market for a shed at the moment - could you email me off list)

[garybrun]

When you are having a go at creating the CoP for archaeologists Mr Hosty can we be involved in that??? [:o)]

Seriously though I really don't know who is telling me the truth regarding the CoP. Some one has been spreading false information.
The NCMD have now after all this time as Corrine says say something different.


quote:Compliance with the recomendations of the Code of Practise not encompassed within the NCMD Code of Conduct are not conditions of membership. however the NCMD has endorced the code as best practise.

http://www.ncmd.co.uk/docs/NCMD%20News%20&%20Views%20Spring%202006.pdf


quote:Steve Critchley, Chairman – National Council for Metal-Detecting said


“This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its existing Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership�.
http://www.ncmd.co.uk/code%20of%20practice.htm taken from the NCMD website.


PAS gave out a statement and so did CBA. A few of us have put a lot of public pressure on the various groups... but someone is telling porkies.
UKDN have decided that its best to make a CoP for their membership and if I am honest it is looking good as there are not many changes compared to the first code. I haven't posted it on here... but maybe it would be worth comparing their notes too.
What is going to be accomplished in the end here David.
Three or Four new codes???

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

[drpeterwardle]

There are endless codes of practice and guidance about what archaeologist can and cannot do set by government, the Institute of Field Archaeologists, Association of Local Government Archaeologists, the Standing Conference of Unit Managers and the British Property Federation as well as individual local authourities.

Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

What I hope will be the end result is this

General Agreement that the first reaction to the CoP was perhaps overreaction...

however, there are some aspects of this first CoP that could be improved. to create CoP II

there is need for a (slightly) longer appendix to the CoP that makes clear what some statements and definitions actually mean.

I would certainly not just create a BAJR code.. I intend to look at the UKDN code, give out the BAJR code, and then we swap and come to a combined document that has the strength to be put to the originators of the CoP as a sensible option for a second version -

(You beter believe the COdes we have... if you have time... try this to see some of them... but very useful they are, as there is never (too much) confusion about what is meant and what is expected.

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/index.php?page=15

Bylaws
Code of conduct
Code of approved practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology
Disciplinary code
Regulations for the Registration of Archaeological Organisations
Groups by-law
Standards
Introduction to Standards and Guidance (PDF)
Standard and Guidance for desk-based assessment (PDF)
Standard and Guidance for field evaluation (PDF)
Standard and Guidance for Excavation (PDF)
Standard and Guidance for an archaeological watching brief (PDF)
Standard and Guidance for the archaeological investigation and recording of standing buildings or structures (PDF)
Standard and Guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials (PDF)
Appendices to Standards (PDF)
Policy Statements
For information on
Equal Opportunities
Health and Safety
The use of volunteers and students on archaeological projects
Environmental Protection
see Policy Statements document (PDF)
Risk Assessment Documents
Risk Assessment Template - Guidance Notes (Document in Word format)
Risk Assessment: Minor works (Document in Word format)
Risk Assessment: Larger Projects (Document in Word format)


Another day another WSI…

[drpeterwardle]

David,

You have forgotten a lot of them!

such as the BPF and SCAUM code of practice
The water industry code of practice
MAP 2
EH Archaeolmetallurgy guidelines
Guidance for the best tretament of human remains
Exploring our Past.

David how about a comprehensive of all the things we have to comply with.

Peter

[garybrun]

quote:There are endless codes of practice and guidance about what archaeologist can and cannot do set by government, the Institute of Field Archaeologists, Association of Local Government Archaeologists, the Standing Conference of Unit Managers and the British Property Federation as well as individual local authourities.

Peter Wardle
The joke was Peter... how many detectorists have been involved in the making of those??? [:o)]

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

[leg11aug]

Colour me confused..What, exactly, would detectorists bring to the table as regards archaeological codes of practice?

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[garybrun]

My point being surly the Detectorist Code Of Conduct should be made by detectorists as an archaeologists code is made by archaeologists?

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

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by leg11aug

Colour me confused..What, exactly, would detectorists bring to the table as regards archaeological codes of practice?

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."


You could make it compulsory to have detectorists on site to scan the top soil for artifacts you have missed. You will find also that maybe these detectorists wouldn't cost you anything and would be willing to do if for free.
I have been on digs with archaeologists and found material that would otherwise been missed or damaged. but maybe this suggestion would be to hard ofr some to swollow?

You see gentlemen this is a two way thing.
"Some Archoleogists" are not interested in the finds detectorists makes. But we are... and that part of the heriatge belongs to us too.
Do you see my point... you want detectorists to record... we want you to record as well.

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

[historic building]

Gary in some counties this goes into all specifications for evaluations and excavations.

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by historic building

Gary in some counties this goes into all specifications for evaluations and excavations.


But is that good enough in just some??
I'm not trying to cause trouble but would you brand those who don't as "irresponsible archaeologists" ?

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

[historic building]

Well in my patch we do and in some other counties i worked in before curating there was a requirement, sometimes this depended upon the type of site. In other counties there was not a requirement.

Sometimes the results have been good. I remember on one occasion the detectorist finding fragments of lead - which were white - on a rural site with a chalk bedrock. There was simply no way they could be distinguished by eye from the chalk pea gravel.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

My point being surly the Detectorist Code Of Conduct should be made by detectorists as an archaeologists code is made by archaeologists?
No thanks.
The Code is about protecting the resource.
On Google Scholar there are 305,000 hits for archaeology. For Metal Detecting there are 268.
As someone who is neither,I’m happy to trust archaeologists with protecting the resource - nay, as a member of the public I insist.

Nigel Swift

[garybrun]

Hello Nigel... welcome to the debate.
I am glad to see you are happy that archaeologists are protecting the resource. I also believe that the majority are too.
My question was a valid one regarding recording the spoil on digs and making detectorists a compulsory part of the archaeological dig.
To record the finds that archeology would have missed... as a member of the public so into recording heritage i can not understand how you can not agree with this point???

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

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

UKDN have decided that its best to make a CoP for their membership and if I am honest it is looking good as there are not many changes compared to the first code
No Gary, if you were being honest you would have to admit that there are quite a few SUBSTANTIAL changes to the original text - which is why you have not posted it here. What you are doing is a sick farce, an impression compounded by the apparent about-face we read of in the latest NCMD newsletter which if it reflects the real view of the NCMD totally negates the purpose of writing the thing in the first place.

Go on Gary, post it here. Show BAJR archaeologists what two thirds of the members of the largest UK detecting Forum regard as "responsible detecting". Its a real eye-opener....

Paul Barford

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by historic building

Well in my patch we do and in some other counties i worked in before curating there was a requirement, sometimes this depended upon the type of site. In other counties there was not a requirement.

Sometimes the results have been good. I remember on one occasion the detectorist finding fragments of lead - which were white - on a rural site with a chalk bedrock. There was simply no way they could be distinguished by eye from the chalk pea gravel.


I must say I am impressed with your attitude towards detecting and I take my hat off to you.


quote:Dr Mike Heyworth, Director of the CBA
says the archaeological fraternity had
changed its mind. “The Council in those
days took the view that metal detecting
(by hobbyists) should be stopped and
banned. We now recognise the detector
is a tool that can be used�.

So why doesn't someone start a campaign to get this written into the statutes. It would go along way to help with future negotiations and I believe it would help take away a lot of criticism by detectorists in this area of archaeological practise.



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

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford
Go on Gary, post it here. Show BAJR archaeologists what two thirds of the members of the largest UK detecting Forum regard as "responsible detecting". Its a real eye-opener....

£20 to Oxfam says it'll say reporting all finds to PAS is [u]not</u> a sine qua non of responsible detecting! Any takers?

Let's face it, that's what's at the bottom of all the fury about a perfectly reasonable highly authoritative joint opinion on the best way to preserve the resource.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

So why doesn't someone start a campaign to get this written into the statutes. It would go along way to help with future negotiations and I believe it would help take away a lot of criticism by detectorists in this area of archaeological practise. Its "Heyworth". And what "statutes" would they be pray? And which detectorists were meant, those who are working responsibly according to a widely-agreed code or those "differently responsible" who refuse to accept it? I think there's more than enough archaeologists saying how jolly nice and useful those artefact hunter fellows are, lets see how many can continue to do so as the majority of you (it now seems) walk away from the proferred hand of the Code of Practice. What future "negotiations" do you forseee in such circumstances? I dont see much prospect if current behaviour is anything to go by...

Paul Barford
.

[BAJR Host]

As a member of the public Nigel you should know that trusting anyone is based on facts. Quite often you don't trust archaeologists-I am glad to see you have changed your mind.

Lets keep this discussion on track or I will just delete posts that are personal bickers.

No posts that goad, provoke or are off topic. Thats a rule for everyone here.

I'll give 20 quid to Oxfam if you ALL manage to remain on topic for more than 5 posts

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford
ee&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; And which detectorists were meant, those who are working responsibly according to a widely-agreed code &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Paul Barford
.


I don't know of any detectorist who has agreed to this code. I know a hell of a lot of detectorists who have had this code foisted upon them.

Who exactly has "widely agreed" this code? A few representatives of organisations who never asked thier membership? A few arkies? please quantify your statement.

[BAJR Host]

Quite a lot of people Sheddy,

and if you disagree with it... what do you disagree with?

I would also ask the NCMD and FID why they did not ask their members..

As I say ... we are now onto Clause 4.. which bit don't you like about it. lets discuss


ps... Mike is out the office til friday.. I trie today, even with a mouth fill of blood! sympathy vote please!;)

but I am talking with other archaeologists, please can someone come back with a NCMD/UKDN/FID view

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
David, my point about archaeologists was in reponse to Gary's suggestion that detectorists should produce the code. I don't agree, A critical mass of pro-resource professional organisations has opined what's best for the resource and I'm minded to think their opinion is what matters. Call me old fashioned but there it is.

My only other posting was a prediction about the centrepiece of the UKDN code. Was I right?

[Corinne Mills]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
[I would also ask the NCMD and FID why they did not ask their members..


It would appear that Regional reps did in fact take the proposals back to the members at club level for opinions etc and feedback.

This would not appear to have happened in some areas (mine included)

Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ourpasthistory.com/md/indexa.htm

[BAJR Host]

Tricky one Nigel... pedictions are always best left until the actual truth is known..after all ... predicting an outcome is fraught with dificulty.. and often misinformed... from all directions

Thats interesting Co I wonder if the NCMD could give figures about jsut who was asked, who responded and why some areas seem to have been missed.

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

Some interesting points being raised here. But the issue is being clouded by some folk claiming the NCMD did not consult it's members. To put the record straight on this, the NCMD did ask the opinion of the members through the NCMD Regions. They were asked to put the issue to their clubs. What happened after that is unknown. The Regions sent back their comments on the draft copy of the CoP (more than once) and the final 'draft' copy was eventually reached. This was also discussed on the PAS Forum, so many non-members of the NCMD were aware the documents existence, as proven by the heated discussions that took place on the UKDN and PAS.

It would seem that there has been some confusion between the NCMD Code of Conduct and the NCMD Code of Practice. The Code of Conduct is attached to the NCMD Constitution and can only be changed at AGM's. It is agreement with this 'document' that the NCMD insists is a pre-requesit for membership of the NCMD. The Code of Practice is the document that has been agreed with the other organisations.

[Toby]

forum

/form/

• noun (pl. forums) 1 a meeting or medium for an exchange of views. 2 chiefly N. Amer. a court or tribunal. 3 (pl. fora) (in ancient Roman cities) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

quote:Originally posted by Elgin
£20 to Oxfam says it'll say reporting all finds to PAS is [u]not</u> a sine qua non of responsible detecting! Any takers?

Let's face it, that's what's at the bottom of all the fury about a perfectly reasonable highly authoritative joint opinion on the best way to preserve the resource.

I record all finds with precise locations direct to the HER, why bother with PAS?
I'm not signing up to that, what a waste of time and money. By the time the info gets on the HER the archaeology could be destroyed.

As for the NCMD consulting it's members, neither I nor anyone I know hear a sqeak.

[BAJR Host]

I am glad to hear people recording with the HER... though being a lonely HER myself, it is more work on us..

The PAS does fulfil a need, and many HERs or SMRs are in constant liason with FLOs

enough initials for one night..

be good people!

Another day another WSI…

[drpeterwardle]

David,

What are you doing posting to BAJR at 12:45?

Peter

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Swinger

I record all finds with precise locations direct to the HER, why bother with PAS?
I'm not signing up to that, what a waste of time and money. By the time the info gets on the HER the archaeology could be destroyed.

As for the NCMD consulting it's members, neither I nor anyone I know hear a sqeak.


I can only suggest you ask your club rep why this was so. If you're not in a Club you should have contacted the General Secretary for the information.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin

My only other posting was a prediction about the centrepiece of the UKDN code. Was I right?
quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Tricky one Nigel... pedictions are always best left until the actual truth is known..after all ... predicting an outcome is fraught with dificulty.. and often misinformed... from all directions
David, you are a long-term member of UKDN and have seen this text. So we may be better informed (and since Gary seems not to want to), can you not post here a copy of the alternative Code posted there yeterday morning? Voting has started, so it seems we can treat it as a final draft. It seems from the results of the poll (how does it stand this morning?) that it is strongly supported by the "differently responsible" detectorists on UKDN. So their voice expressed in that document should surely be heard in any debate here.

The UKDN alternative Code "authors" (actually most of it is a plagiarised version of the existing text) seem to confuse a Code of Practice with a "how to" guide. They have seriously tampered with the agreed text, ignore the PAS and some of its outreach material. Point 6 renders the BAJR discussion of "disturbed land" irrelevant, because it allows the "differently responsible" detectorist to blindly dig finds out of undisturbed archaeological sites as long as they use small tools to dig their holes to "minimise" damage to stratified archaeological deposits (sic !). Point nine offers a neat sidestep around an issue obviously uncomfortable to some detectorists, declaring to the landowner what they take away, point ten is the one that removes PAS to the sidelines by significant twiddling with the wording. Point five (camoflage for the removal of a very important elemnt of the original code) duplicates point 8.

In effect, most of what made the original Code that of not merely law-abiding but responsible detectorists in the eyes of the many organizations supporting it has been removed from the UKDN AntiCoP text.

If BAJR thinks (for the reasons given over the past week here) that this Forum should be discussing how the existing Code "should" be rewritten, surely as a basis for any further discussion it is of fundamental importance to show Forum members how the detectorists opposed to the existing Code would have liked to have written it and see it going "forward". It seems pointless to conduct such a dialogue here in isolation. Not all archaeologists have the possibility of registering (or desire to register) with UKDN to see the text, or take part there in the discussion with UKDN members about it.

Paul Barford

[john1504]

I agree with Paul on this Hosty. Perhaps you could also get the UKDN people to explain why they didn't consult their members or any other group during the creation of said CoP. I'm (technically) a member of UKDN and was never consulted on it, nor have I been asked to 'vote' on it. Which, in turn, puts paid to any moaning about the NCMD not consulting them, most of whom are NOT members of the NCMD - so why should they expect to be consulted.

[BAJR Host]

I recieved a personal message email from UKDN to vote... though I feel it is to early to adopt something.

What I would prefer to see is the UKDN code, merged and discussed with the BAJR appendix (all sounds a bit medical) and then presented to the originators of the CoP as an example of what is wanted.

Rather than jsut jumping straight into a new CoP

Anyway... for people to peruse and I am sure it is not secret I have started a thread with the UKDN code on it.

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I recieved a personal message email from UKDN to vote... though I feel it is to early to adopt something.


So it seems they are asking 'selected' archaeologists to 'vote' on the issue but not detectorists. If this isn't a case of 'rigging' a vote, I don't know what is....

Perhaps someone from UKDN can explain this. The new CoP has already suffered from what is perceived as mishandling and lack of communication. If the UKDN/BAJR is serious about presenting the UKDN version of it, then they should take steps to ensure it is squeake-clean....Something they have failed to do so far...

[garybrun]

It has been posted for members of UKDN to vote on John.
So if an archaeologists is a member of UKDN I cant see that as vote rigging especially when some including PAS members would most probably vote against their code.

You yourself have been banned from UKDN but keep registering under different names ( this is what I believe you mean by being technically")? I myself if i am banned from somewhere respect their wishes and no longer try to become a member of that said forum as that is what is honourable.

You have to admit John that what the UKDN has made is very good.
The NCMD have chosen not to be involved or commit anything to UKDN so what do you expect them to do.

Please feel free to take this up on email privately


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

[Steve-B]

Actually John, you are technically not a member of the UKDN.

There was no selected archaeologists to vote, the staff on the UKDN, including myself worked through the night PMing each and every member with eexactly the same message asking them to vote, regardless of affiliation, loyalties or beliefs.

So, no it isnt a c ase of rigging the vote, more a case of you yet again stirring the pooh....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

Actually John, you are technically not a member of the UKDN.

There was no selected archaeologists to vote, the staff on the UKDN, including myself worked through the night PMing each and every member with eexactly the same message asking them to vote, regardless of affiliation, loyalties or beliefs.

So, no it isnt a c ase of rigging the vote, more a case of you yet again stirring the pooh....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

This is all very peculiar.
A suggestion that members of BAJR forum come up with some appendices to be then linked with a UKDN Code that looks very much like an emasculated version of Responsibility - and then present the combination to the official signatories of the CoP as an example of what's wanted?!

Why? If the signatories ever change their minds about the text I’m sure they will do so of their own volition, without being asked to. After all, the Code is not a law, it’s not rules, it is mandatory for nobody, it’s just their joint opinion, produced over countless hours no doubt. [u]They’re entitled to their opinion.</u> Why should anyone think it appropriate to ask them to change it, why is it necessary that they do and why should this forum be involved with such a thing? Which forum members wish to be?

[Elgin]

This is all very peculiar.
A suggestion that members of BAJR forum come up with some appendices to be then linked with a UKDN Code that looks very much like an emasculated version of Responsibility - and then present the combination to the official signatories of the CoP as an example of what's wanted?!

Why? If the signatories ever change their minds about the text I’m sure they will do so of their own volition, without being asked to. After all, the Code is not a law, it’s not rules, it is mandatory for nobody, it’s just their joint opinion, produced over countless hours no doubt. [u]They’re entitled to their opinion.</u> Why should anyone think it appropriate to ask them to change it, why is it necessary that they do and why should this forum be involved with such a thing? Which forum members wish to be?

[Steve-B]

And of course vise versa Nigel.....

Which brings us right back to the beginning, as I said, pointless...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

And of course vise versa Nigel.....

Which brings us right back to the beginning, as I said, pointless...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

And of course vise versa Nigel.....

Precisely Steve.
Detectorists are perfectly entitled to think how they wish and the official signatories are perfectly entitled to think how THEY wish.

Why are BAJR forum members being invited to recommend a change of heart on the part of the latter and not the former? I don't understand it.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

And of course vise versa Nigel.....

Precisely Steve.
Detectorists are perfectly entitled to think how they wish and the official signatories are perfectly entitled to think how THEY wish.

Why are BAJR forum members being invited to recommend a change of heart on the part of the latter and not the former? I don't understand it.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin

Why are BAJR forum members being invited to recommend a change of heart on the part of the latter and not the former? I don't understand it.Especially as it seems to me that some pretty fundamental archaeological and ARM issues are bing dismissed in this self-determined detectorists' "Code of Different Resoponsibility" (responsibility to who or what?). It seems to me that this totally negates the purpose of having a Code of Practice widely agreed with a number of bodies and on the basis of which they will formulate their policies and approaches to metal detecting.

Maybe we could see a few comments from other archaeologists now we actually have the text here to study and compare in detail with the existing Code.

Paul Barford
.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin

Why are BAJR forum members being invited to recommend a change of heart on the part of the latter and not the former? I don't understand it.Especially as it seems to me that some pretty fundamental archaeological and ARM issues are bing dismissed in this self-determined detectorists' "Code of Different Resoponsibility" (responsibility to who or what?). It seems to me that this totally negates the purpose of having a Code of Practice widely agreed with a number of bodies and on the basis of which they will formulate their policies and approaches to metal detecting.

Maybe we could see a few comments from other archaeologists now we actually have the text here to study and compare in detail with the existing Code.

Paul Barford
.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

It has been posted for members of UKDN to vote on John.
So if an archeologists is a member of UKDN I cant see that as vote rigging especiallly when some including PAS members would most probably vote against their code.

You yourself have been banned from UKDN but keep registering under different names ( this is what I beleive you mean by being technically")? I myself if i am banned from somewhere respect their wishes and no longer try to become a member of that said forum as that is what is honourable.

You have to admit John that what the UKDN has made is very good.
The NCMD have chosen not to be involved or commit anything to UKDN so what do you expect them to do.

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


I am 'technically' a member of the UKDN because my name is still on the membership list, along with all the other people who have been banned or left or never returned after registering
No consultation with the members, no consultation with any other interested parties. Nothing more to say on that??

Before I ask any other questions - perhaps you could clarify whether or not you are a member of the UKDN Admin Staff? I only ask this after your letter of resignation was published, and no withdrawal has, to my knowledge, been made.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

It has been posted for members of UKDN to vote on John.
So if an archeologists is a member of UKDN I cant see that as vote rigging especiallly when some including PAS members would most probably vote against their code.

You yourself have been banned from UKDN but keep registering under different names ( this is what I beleive you mean by being technically")? I myself if i am banned from somewhere respect their wishes and no longer try to become a member of that said forum as that is what is honourable.

You have to admit John that what the UKDN has made is very good.
The NCMD have chosen not to be involved or commit anything to UKDN so what do you expect them to do.

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


I am 'technically' a member of the UKDN because my name is still on the membership list, along with all the other people who have been banned or left or never returned after registering
No consultation with the members, no consultation with any other interested parties. Nothing more to say on that??

Before I ask any other questions - perhaps you could clarify whether or not you are a member of the UKDN Admin Staff? I only ask this after your letter of resignation was published, and no withdrawal has, to my knowledge, been made.

[Steve-B]

Your name isnt on the memberlist at all and if it was your technical membershipo would now be void, as gary has said you are a banned member, despite attempting to come back under different names.

Although this does in fact demonstrate the obviouis attraction that the UKDN holds for some as you are not alone in keep wanting to come back.

I wonder why that is?

If the UKDN is a non entity as is repeatedly said then why the eagerness to continue being a part of it?



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

Your name isnt on the memberlist at all and if it was your technical membershipo would now be void, as gary has said you are a banned member, despite attempting to come back under different names.

Although this does in fact demonstrate the obviouis attraction that the UKDN holds for some as you are not alone in keep wanting to come back.

I wonder why that is?

If the UKDN is a non entity as is repeatedly said then why the eagerness to continue being a part of it?



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

First off... I think you would agree that certain aspects of the Code need definition

It is a first Code... so perhaps thinking ahead to another refined version is perfectly sensible.

People are being asked to discuss, debate and suggest... this can then be formalised and presented as a case for the rewording or clarification of certain words... THis in the end provides a stronger CoP. One which has greater support.

And Nigel... you have of course misread the whole picture.

It is not a case of BAJR fuses with UKDN to provide an alternative code... more that elements of all the discussions (I DO WISH PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE CODE instead of their own personal agendas!)can be placed into a formal and reasoned responce based upon the views of many different people...

I am not (as BAJR) saying oh we must adopt the new UKDN code... I have spent a lot of time expressing my fundamental support for the CoP. a great first step, which was sadly often misrepresented or misquoted in the News.

I am saying that several elements of the UKDN code are very interesting additions/tweaks etc that should be explored. As to the grounds of Plagerism... wel of course its going to look pretty much the same... after all.... most of it is unquestionable...

I am now warning people that any more he said she said spats will result in a weeks ban from posting... That goes for everyone... If you want to argue with each other - do it by email... this is NOT the place for it...

Get back to discussing the Code (think about what you write, think again and if in doubt... leave it out) To start with I may just highlight in Red... text which (to my mind is non relevant to the thread..and removal would have no effect on the discussion)

Looks like Oxfam won't get the 20 quid after all..

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

First off... I think you would agree that certain aspects of the Code need definition

It is a first Code... so perhaps thinking ahead to another refined version is perfectly sensible.

People are being asked to discuss, debate and suggest... this can then be formalised and presented as a case for the rewording or clarification of certain words... THis in the end provides a stronger CoP. One which has greater support.

And Nigel... you have of course misread the whole picture.

It is not a case of BAJR fuses with UKDN to provide an alternative code... more that elements of all the discussions (I DO WISH PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE CODE instead of their own personal agendas!)can be placed into a formal and reasoned responce based upon the views of many different people...

I am not (as BAJR) saying oh we must adopt the new UKDN code... I have spent a lot of time expressing my fundamental support for the CoP. a great first step, which was sadly often misrepresented or misquoted in the News.

I am saying that several elements of the UKDN code are very interesting additions/tweaks etc that should be explored. As to the grounds of Plagerism... wel of course its going to look pretty much the same... after all.... most of it is unquestionable...

I am now warning people that any more he said she said spats will result in a weeks ban from posting... That goes for everyone... If you want to argue with each other - do it by email... this is NOT the place for it...

Get back to discussing the Code (think about what you write, think again and if in doubt... leave it out) To start with I may just highlight in Red... text which (to my mind is non relevant to the thread..and removal would have no effect on the discussion)

Looks like Oxfam won't get the 20 quid after all..

Another day another WSI…

[Steve-B]

quote: (I DO WISH PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE CODE instead of their own personal agendas!)

That was my intention when I first came on here to help, promote deiscussions David... it just aint going to be allowed to happen not with all the best intentions in the world....

I wish it could as you have made tremendous efforts to this end...



quote:And Nigel... you have of course misread the whole picture.

Deliberately so....


See you in a week.....;)



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

quote: (I DO WISH PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE CODE instead of their own personal agendas!)

That was my intention when I first came on here to help, promote deiscussions David... it just aint going to be allowed to happen not with all the best intentions in the world....

I wish it could as you have made tremendous efforts to this end...



quote:And Nigel... you have of course misread the whole picture.

Deliberately so....


See you in a week.....;)



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by john1504
[br
Before I ask any other questions - perhaps you could clarify whether or not you are a member of the UKDN Admin Staff? I only ask this after your letter of resignation was published, and no withdrawal has, to my knowledge, been made.


Hi John.
I resigned my position of admin on the UKDN and I am also no longer a member of UKDN. So I have no influence at all in UKDN policies or proceedings. Part of the reason for this was that many people said I was pulling the strings on UKDN and had a lot of influence over how it conducted its business. If you do a search for Gary Brun you will not find him nor am I on the forum with another user name.

As I stated before if you want to know anything John please take it via email.


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

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by john1504
[br
Before I ask any other questions - perhaps you could clarify whether or not you are a member of the UKDN Admin Staff? I only ask this after your letter of resignation was published, and no withdrawal has, to my knowledge, been made.


Hi John.
I resigned my position of admin on the UKDN and I am also no longer a member of UKDN. So I have no influence at all in UKDN policies or proceedings. Part of the reason for this was that many people said I was pulling the strings on UKDN and had a lot of influence over how it conducted its business. If you do a search for Gary Brun you will not find him nor am I on the forum with another user name.

As I stated before if you want to know anything John please take it via email.


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

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

First off... I think you would agree that certain aspects of the Code need definition

It is a first Code... so perhaps thinking ahead to another refined version is perfectly sensible.

Why do you think there should be a 'refined version' - and where will it stop? Refined to what point?


quote:
People are being asked to discuss, debate and suggest... this can then be formalised and presented as a case for the rewording or clarification of certain words... THis in the end provides a stronger CoP. One which has greater support.


Which is the reason why I asked Gary of his UKDN status. If he can no longer officially represent the UKDN then it is pointless asking him questions about it. (Sorry Gary, but I didn't read your edited post until later)....

Greater support requires consultation. If the UKDN CoP is to be seriously considered then surely it must have been consulted with their members first - which I know it wasn't as they (the members) were presented with a choice to vote on. But the person representing the UKDN says ALL members were consulted. I would ask - for the sake of clarification - if that is correct. Then we can get on with the issue in hand.


quote:
I am saying that several elements of the UKDN code are very interesting additions/tweaks etc that should be explored. As to the grounds of Plagerism... wel of course its going to look pretty much the same... after all.... most of it is unquestionable...


Are you saying you consider some of the new Code of Practice to be questionable? Is so, could you please highlight which parts.

On hindsight it is much easier to come up with a workable agreement than it is during the actual period of negotiation. What we have here is a Code of Practice that 'best fitted' the views and wishes of ALL the parties taking part in the negotiation. FID took no part in it, even though they were invited. It was suggested that the UKDN be asked to send representation, but I have no idea how far that suggestion went. So it was left to the NCMD to voice an opinion on what, in the view of Detectorists, would be seen as a 'responsible' method of practice. Taking all the other groups who were represented, it is clear that this wasn't put together in an evening, as the UKDN CoP seems to have been (by their own admission). Shouldn't their version of the CoP be put to the various other interested parties for their opinions and feedback? Or am I jumping the gun here and this is only the first 'group' to be consulted.

On a personal note here regarding being banned from the UKDN - it was my wife and son who were banned from the UKDN - with no explantion given as to why....just to put the public record straight Mr Host....[8D]

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

First off... I think you would agree that certain aspects of the Code need definition

It is a first Code... so perhaps thinking ahead to another refined version is perfectly sensible.

Why do you think there should be a 'refined version' - and where will it stop? Refined to what point?


quote:
People are being asked to discuss, debate and suggest... this can then be formalised and presented as a case for the rewording or clarification of certain words... THis in the end provides a stronger CoP. One which has greater support.


Which is the reason why I asked Gary of his UKDN status. If he can no longer officially represent the UKDN then it is pointless asking him questions about it. (Sorry Gary, but I didn't read your edited post until later)....

Greater support requires consultation. If the UKDN CoP is to be seriously considered then surely it must have been consulted with their members first - which I know it wasn't as they (the members) were presented with a choice to vote on. But the person representing the UKDN says ALL members were consulted. I would ask - for the sake of clarification - if that is correct. Then we can get on with the issue in hand.


quote:
I am saying that several elements of the UKDN code are very interesting additions/tweaks etc that should be explored. As to the grounds of Plagerism... wel of course its going to look pretty much the same... after all.... most of it is unquestionable...


Are you saying you consider some of the new Code of Practice to be questionable? Is so, could you please highlight which parts.

On hindsight it is much easier to come up with a workable agreement than it is during the actual period of negotiation. What we have here is a Code of Practice that 'best fitted' the views and wishes of ALL the parties taking part in the negotiation. FID took no part in it, even though they were invited. It was suggested that the UKDN be asked to send representation, but I have no idea how far that suggestion went. So it was left to the NCMD to voice an opinion on what, in the view of Detectorists, would be seen as a 'responsible' method of practice. Taking all the other groups who were represented, it is clear that this wasn't put together in an evening, as the UKDN CoP seems to have been (by their own admission). Shouldn't their version of the CoP be put to the various other interested parties for their opinions and feedback? Or am I jumping the gun here and this is only the first 'group' to be consulted.

On a personal note here regarding being banned from the UKDN - it was my wife and son who were banned from the UKDN - with no explantion given as to why....just to put the public record straight Mr Host....[8D]

[Steve-B]

Not so... Mr John Wilson is banned in whatever guise he tries to asssume.

More misinformation, at no time has anyone been invited to represent the UKDN.

For the record, BAJR has taken it upon itself to examine the UKDN CoP, no consultaion was requested.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

Not so... Mr John Wilson is banned in whatever guise he tries to asssume.

More misinformation, at no time has anyone been invited to represent the UKDN.

For the record, BAJR has taken it upon itself to examine the UKDN CoP, no consultaion was requested.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

quote:Are you saying you consider some of the new Code of Practice to be questionable? Is so, could you please highlight which parts.

Nope what I said that most of the code is unquestionable.

I would refer to concepts such as undisturbed ground.. and the discussion and further definitions. or the concept of what is actually meant by written agreements etc ....

Not questionable... more requireing further definition.

As to taking apon myself to examine the UKDN code... I do apologise... I thought I had made it clear I wished to work in partnership, with BAJR giving over everything that it was doing as well for UKDN to discuss. Due to the nature of the UKDN forum, it is difficult for people to see what I assume is a public document, meant to be debated - or it could be said that it was being just what was claimed about the CoP... Apologies if I have overstepped the mark, but it is surely better for people to see rather than only 'hear' about.

As I say, there are many additional parts that I do like... including the advice about archaeological sites and what constitutes such (ie battlefields, scatters etc) which goes much further than the CoP..

:D

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

quote:Are you saying you consider some of the new Code of Practice to be questionable? Is so, could you please highlight which parts.

Nope what I said that most of the code is unquestionable.

I would refer to concepts such as undisturbed ground.. and the discussion and further definitions. or the concept of what is actually meant by written agreements etc ....

Not questionable... more requireing further definition.

As to taking apon myself to examine the UKDN code... I do apologise... I thought I had made it clear I wished to work in partnership, with BAJR giving over everything that it was doing as well for UKDN to discuss. Due to the nature of the UKDN forum, it is difficult for people to see what I assume is a public document, meant to be debated - or it could be said that it was being just what was claimed about the CoP... Apologies if I have overstepped the mark, but it is surely better for people to see rather than only 'hear' about.

As I say, there are many additional parts that I do like... including the advice about archaeological sites and what constitutes such (ie battlefields, scatters etc) which goes much further than the CoP..

:D

Another day another WSI…

[leg11aug]

"My point being surly the Detectorist Code Of Conduct should be made by detectorists as an archaeologists code is made by archaeologists?"

I see, sorry, missed your point. (also forgot to log-off)
As far as having detectorists on site as a matter of compulsion..not sure how that would work, how could you be forced to attend? :DI've worked with a few detectorists and they have, as you say been great at finding the topsoil stuff (and deeper[:I]that we miss. Even more useful is the forewarning they can provide,of artefacts in unexcavated contexts. In short I wasn't having a 'pop' at you. I can't help but wonder though, how detectorists can agree a code of practise when I read the exchanges on here. I probably shouldn't stick my head over the paraphet anyway, I'm supposed to be revising...

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[leg11aug]

"My point being surly the Detectorist Code Of Conduct should be made by detectorists as an archaeologists code is made by archaeologists?"

I see, sorry, missed your point. (also forgot to log-off)
As far as having detectorists on site as a matter of compulsion..not sure how that would work, how could you be forced to attend? :DI've worked with a few detectorists and they have, as you say been great at finding the topsoil stuff (and deeper[:I]that we miss. Even more useful is the forewarning they can provide,of artefacts in unexcavated contexts. In short I wasn't having a 'pop' at you. I can't help but wonder though, how detectorists can agree a code of practise when I read the exchanges on here. I probably shouldn't stick my head over the paraphet anyway, I'm supposed to be revising...

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[Steve-B]

I find it amazingly odd that the qords used by Steve Critchley, Chairman of the NCMD have been brushed off as being a press misquote...

If so, I wonder how the press gained access to the NCMD website as they seem to posted the very same words there... odd

http://www.ncmd.co.uk/code%20of%20practice.htm


quote:The Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting has been endorsed by the British Museum, the Council for British Archaeology, the Country Landowners and Business Association, English Heritage, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, the National Council for Metal Detecting, the National Farmers Union, the National Museum Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales and the Society of Museum Archaeologists.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a voluntary scheme to record archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal-detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. Such discoveries offer an important source for understanding our past. The Scheme is run and administered from the British Museum. More information can be found on www.finds.org.uk
Some of the greatest British archaeological finds are on display in Room 2 at the British Museum.




Steve Critchley, Chairman – National Council for Metal-Detecting said


“This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its existing Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership�.

Code of Practice

As of 17.52 pm today.....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

I find it amazingly odd that the qords used by Steve Critchley, Chairman of the NCMD have been brushed off as being a press misquote...

If so, I wonder how the press gained access to the NCMD website as they seem to posted the very same words there... odd

http://www.ncmd.co.uk/code%20of%20practice.htm


quote:The Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting has been endorsed by the British Museum, the Council for British Archaeology, the Country Landowners and Business Association, English Heritage, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, the National Council for Metal Detecting, the National Farmers Union, the National Museum Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales and the Society of Museum Archaeologists.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a voluntary scheme to record archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal-detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. Such discoveries offer an important source for understanding our past. The Scheme is run and administered from the British Museum. More information can be found on www.finds.org.uk
Some of the greatest British archaeological finds are on display in Room 2 at the British Museum.




Steve Critchley, Chairman – National Council for Metal-Detecting said


“This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its existing Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership�.

Code of Practice

As of 17.52 pm today.....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

I find it amazingly odd that the qords used by Steve Critchley, Chairman of the NCMD have been brushed off as being a press misquote...

If so, I wonder how the press gained access to the NCMD website as they seem to posted the very same words there... odd

http://www.ncmd.co.uk/code%20of%20practice.htm


quote:The Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting has been endorsed by the British Museum, the Council for British Archaeology, the Country Landowners and Business Association, English Heritage, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, the National Council for Metal Detecting, the National Farmers Union, the National Museum Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales and the Society of Museum Archaeologists.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a voluntary scheme to record archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal-detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. Such discoveries offer an important source for understanding our past. The Scheme is run and administered from the British Museum. More information can be found on www.finds.org.uk
Some of the greatest British archaeological finds are on display in Room 2 at the British Museum.




Steve Critchley, Chairman – National Council for Metal-Detecting said


“This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its existing Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership�.

Code of Practice

As of 17.52 pm today.....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.


I totally agree with you on this Steve, and is one of the points I raised on the NCMD Forum. It seems the website quoted the press release - not the other way round.

For those who may be interested, the NCMD has NO problem with the Code of Practice.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

I find it amazingly odd that the qords used by Steve Critchley, Chairman of the NCMD have been brushed off as being a press misquote...

If so, I wonder how the press gained access to the NCMD website as they seem to posted the very same words there... odd

http://www.ncmd.co.uk/code%20of%20practice.htm


quote:The Code of Practice on Responsible Metal Detecting has been endorsed by the British Museum, the Council for British Archaeology, the Country Landowners and Business Association, English Heritage, the Federation of Independent Detectorists, the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council, the National Council for Metal Detecting, the National Farmers Union, the National Museum Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales and the Society of Museum Archaeologists.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a voluntary scheme to record archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales. Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal-detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. Such discoveries offer an important source for understanding our past. The Scheme is run and administered from the British Museum. More information can be found on www.finds.org.uk
Some of the greatest British archaeological finds are on display in Room 2 at the British Museum.




Steve Critchley, Chairman – National Council for Metal-Detecting said


“This Code is both fair and practical. By adhering to this Code the vast majority of metal-detectorists will be able to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest in the past and wish to benefit from the knowledge they gain from their hobby. The National Council for Metal Detecting will be replacing its existing Code, a part of its Constitution, with the new one. Adherence to the Code when metal detecting is a condition of membership�.

Code of Practice

As of 17.52 pm today.....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.


I totally agree with you on this Steve, and is one of the points I raised on the NCMD Forum. It seems the website quoted the press release - not the other way round.

For those who may be interested, the NCMD has NO problem with the Code of Practice.

[Elgin]

David, I see you say that I “have of course misread the whole picture�.
I can live with that, having just seen what I have been saying "Responsible Detecting" means fully confirmed by an authoritative group of bodies.

Perhaps it is not I who has misread the whole picture. You say “It is a first Code... so perhaps thinking ahead to another refined version is perfectly sensible.�

On what basis of evidence do you think that? Maybe you should ask the signatories if this is meant as their interim opinion? It might save a lot of wasted time.

Also, I thought the CoP had been extremely well received (other than by some detectorists). Is this a good basis for talking about changes? I doubt if the signatories will think so nor will all those who have welcomed the code (which again, seems like everyone except a section of detectorists).

Finally – “Looks like Oxfam won't get the 20 quid after all.�
I’ve now read the UKDN code. I was right, it categorically DOES remove PAS recording as a sine qua non of responsible recording. Had you read it when you wrote that?

[Elgin]

David, I see you say that I “have of course misread the whole picture�.
I can live with that, having just seen what I have been saying "Responsible Detecting" means fully confirmed by an authoritative group of bodies.

Perhaps it is not I who has misread the whole picture. You say “It is a first Code... so perhaps thinking ahead to another refined version is perfectly sensible.�

On what basis of evidence do you think that? Maybe you should ask the signatories if this is meant as their interim opinion? It might save a lot of wasted time.

Also, I thought the CoP had been extremely well received (other than by some detectorists). Is this a good basis for talking about changes? I doubt if the signatories will think so nor will all those who have welcomed the code (which again, seems like everyone except a section of detectorists).

Finally – “Looks like Oxfam won't get the 20 quid after all.�
I’ve now read the UKDN code. I was right, it categorically DOES remove PAS recording as a sine qua non of responsible recording. Had you read it when you wrote that?

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by john1504For those who may be interested, the NCMD has NO problem with the Code of Practice.

What do you mean by the NCMD?

If you mean that the members of the NCMD do not have a problem with it, how can you justify the statement? Steve B is a member of the NCMD, he hasn't been asked officially anmd I very much doubt that you would get the required answer to qualify your statement.

Do you mean the NCMD as an entity in its own right?

Or do you mean that the hierarchy of the NCMD do not have a problem with it and that they feel that they are justified in making the decision to sign up to the CoP without proper consultation of those they claim to represent?

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by john1504For those who may be interested, the NCMD has NO problem with the Code of Practice.

What do you mean by the NCMD?

If you mean that the members of the NCMD do not have a problem with it, how can you justify the statement? Steve B is a member of the NCMD, he hasn't been asked officially anmd I very much doubt that you would get the required answer to qualify your statement.

Do you mean the NCMD as an entity in its own right?

Or do you mean that the hierarchy of the NCMD do not have a problem with it and that they feel that they are justified in making the decision to sign up to the CoP without proper consultation of those they claim to represent?

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy

What do you mean by the NCMD?

If you mean that the members of the NCMD do not have a problem with it, how can you justify the statement? Steve B is a member of the NCMD, he hasn't been asked officially anmd I very much doubt that you would get the required answer to qualify your statement.

Do you mean the NCMD as an entity in its own right?

Or do you mean that the hierarchy of the NCMD do not have a problem with it and that they feel that they are justified in making the decision to sign up to the CoP without proper consultation of those they claim to represent?



I was under the impression, from Steve's own words, that he is NOT a member of the NCMD. Perhaps he could clarify that point himself.

As I stated earlier, ALL NCMD Regions were given copies of the DRAFT Code of Practice. None of those Regions stated that there was any dispute about it. Hence, the conclusion that the NCMD, as an organisation, does not have a problem with the CoP.

Can I take it as read that you don't agree with the Code of Practice? Perhaps you would share your reasons with the others on this Forum. After all, the UKDN has finally agreed to have a Code of Practice of it's own, which has to be a good thing doesn't it? It's irrelevent which 'Code' they chose so long as they have one. That way it can be used as a basis for forming an 'official' group/body to represent those detectorists who are not members of the NCMD or FID.

PAS were asked to include the UKDN in the discussion. Why PAS didn't ask anyone from the UKDN to attend is a question I can't answer. Perhaps you or Steve could ask Michael or Dan to clarify this, seeing as it has been made clear that I am not to be believed on this.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy

What do you mean by the NCMD?

If you mean that the members of the NCMD do not have a problem with it, how can you justify the statement? Steve B is a member of the NCMD, he hasn't been asked officially anmd I very much doubt that you would get the required answer to qualify your statement.

Do you mean the NCMD as an entity in its own right?

Or do you mean that the hierarchy of the NCMD do not have a problem with it and that they feel that they are justified in making the decision to sign up to the CoP without proper consultation of those they claim to represent?



I was under the impression, from Steve's own words, that he is NOT a member of the NCMD. Perhaps he could clarify that point himself.

As I stated earlier, ALL NCMD Regions were given copies of the DRAFT Code of Practice. None of those Regions stated that there was any dispute about it. Hence, the conclusion that the NCMD, as an organisation, does not have a problem with the CoP.

Can I take it as read that you don't agree with the Code of Practice? Perhaps you would share your reasons with the others on this Forum. After all, the UKDN has finally agreed to have a Code of Practice of it's own, which has to be a good thing doesn't it? It's irrelevent which 'Code' they chose so long as they have one. That way it can be used as a basis for forming an 'official' group/body to represent those detectorists who are not members of the NCMD or FID.

PAS were asked to include the UKDN in the discussion. Why PAS didn't ask anyone from the UKDN to attend is a question I can't answer. Perhaps you or Steve could ask Michael or Dan to clarify this, seeing as it has been made clear that I am not to be believed on this.

[Sheddy]

Corinne IS a member of the NCMD and she has already stated that she was not asked about this CoP at her club. I would imagine that if someone like Corinne (who has a great interest in the propriety of detecting and likes to get involved) was not asked then other members of her club were not asked. How then can you state that the NCMD as an organisation does not have a problem with the CoP when clearly the member have not all been consulted?

organisation

n 1: an organized structure for arranging or classifying; "he changed the arrangement of the topics"; "the facts were familiar but it was in the organization of them that he was original"; "he tried to understand their system of classification" [syn: arrangement, organization, system] 2: the persons (or committees or departments etc.) who make up a body for the purpose of administering something; "he claims that the present administration is corrupt"; "the governance of an association is responsible to its members"; "he quickly became recognized as a member of the establishment"

[Sheddy]

Corinne IS a member of the NCMD and she has already stated that she was not asked about this CoP at her club. I would imagine that if someone like Corinne (who has a great interest in the propriety of detecting and likes to get involved) was not asked then other members of her club were not asked. How then can you state that the NCMD as an organisation does not have a problem with the CoP when clearly the member have not all been consulted?

organisation

n 1: an organized structure for arranging or classifying; "he changed the arrangement of the topics"; "the facts were familiar but it was in the organization of them that he was original"; "he tried to understand their system of classification" [syn: arrangement, organization, system] 2: the persons (or committees or departments etc.) who make up a body for the purpose of administering something; "he claims that the present administration is corrupt"; "the governance of an association is responsible to its members"; "he quickly became recognized as a member of the establishment"

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy

Corinne IS a member of the NCMD and she has already stated that she was not asked about this CoP at her club. I would imagine that if someone like Corinne (who has a great interest in the propriety of detecting and likes to get involved) was not asked then other members of her club were not asked. How then can you state that the NCMD as an organisation does not have a problem with the CoP when clearly the member have not all been consulted?

organisation

n 1: an organized structure for arranging or classifying; "he changed the arrangement of the topics"; "the facts were familiar but it was in the organization of them that he was original"; "he tried to understand their system of classification" [syn: arrangement, organization, system] 2: the persons (or committees or departments etc.) who make up a body for the purpose of administering something; "he claims that the present administration is corrupt"; "the governance of an association is responsible to its members"; "he quickly became recognized as a member of the establishment"


Are you speaking on behalf of the members or departments or committee?

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy

Corinne IS a member of the NCMD and she has already stated that she was not asked about this CoP at her club. I would imagine that if someone like Corinne (who has a great interest in the propriety of detecting and likes to get involved) was not asked then other members of her club were not asked. How then can you state that the NCMD as an organisation does not have a problem with the CoP when clearly the member have not all been consulted?

organisation

n 1: an organized structure for arranging or classifying; "he changed the arrangement of the topics"; "the facts were familiar but it was in the organization of them that he was original"; "he tried to understand their system of classification" [syn: arrangement, organization, system] 2: the persons (or committees or departments etc.) who make up a body for the purpose of administering something; "he claims that the present administration is corrupt"; "the governance of an association is responsible to its members"; "he quickly became recognized as a member of the establishment"


Are you speaking on behalf of the members or departments or committee?

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy

Corinne IS a member of the NCMD and she has already stated that she was not asked about this CoP at her club. I would imagine that if someone like Corinne (who has a great interest in the propriety of detecting and likes to get involved) was not asked then other members of her club were not asked. How then can you state that the NCMD as an organisation does not have a problem with the CoP when clearly the member have not all been consulted?


Thanks for the info Sheddy. I will follow this up with Corinne and the Region she is a member of.

Have you contacted Steve to clarify whether or not he is a member of the NCMD?

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy

Corinne IS a member of the NCMD and she has already stated that she was not asked about this CoP at her club. I would imagine that if someone like Corinne (who has a great interest in the propriety of detecting and likes to get involved) was not asked then other members of her club were not asked. How then can you state that the NCMD as an organisation does not have a problem with the CoP when clearly the member have not all been consulted?


Thanks for the info Sheddy. I will follow this up with Corinne and the Region she is a member of.

Have you contacted Steve to clarify whether or not he is a member of the NCMD?

[BAJR Host]

quote:Maybe you should ask the signatories if this is meant as their interim opinion? It might save a lot of wasted time.

Guess what Nigel... I have been.;)

It always helps to talk to everyone - and listen... it stops confusion as you say I quite agree... Like the information on your website, it is always best to have the full picture.....lest mistakes are made.

As a simplememberof the public, I take it you have no problem with the CoP, and feel thats it... no further action required, job done... onto the next job? I takethe view that nothing is ever complete...


quote:10. Consider recording your finds so that the information they provide is accessible to researchers and the public at large. Recording is voluntary (other than ‘Treasure’ items, see 11 below), but is strongly recommended, as it is both rewarding for the finder and beneficial to our understanding of the past. You may choose to use the self-recording scheme operated by the UK Detecting Finds Database (UKDFD) (www.ukdfd.co.uk), the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (www.findsdatabase.org.uk), your local HER or, for specific types of coin find, the Celtic Coin Index (CCI) (www.writer2001.com) or the Early Medieval Corpus (EMC) (www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/emc )

actually seems even more info than the


quote:Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier; and (with the agreement of the landowner/occupier) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, so the information can pass into the local Historic Environment Record. Both the Country Land and Business Association (www.cla.org.uk) and the National Farmers Union (www.nfuonline.com) support the reporting of finds. Details of your local Finds Liaison Officer can be found at www.finds.org.uk, e-mail info@finds.org.uk or phone 020 7323 8611.

there are words in there I would tweak, but in general the message is the same... record the finds that matter... and as both are voluntary (other than treasure items) I see no complete dropping of the PAS...?


Another day another WSI?

[BAJR Host]

quote:Maybe you should ask the signatories if this is meant as their interim opinion? It might save a lot of wasted time.

Guess what Nigel... I have been.;)

It always helps to talk to everyone - and listen... it stops confusion as you say I quite agree... Like the information on your website, it is always best to have the full picture.....lest mistakes are made.

As a simplememberof the public, I take it you have no problem with the CoP, and feel thats it... no further action required, job done... onto the next job? I takethe view that nothing is ever complete...


quote:10. Consider recording your finds so that the information they provide is accessible to researchers and the public at large. Recording is voluntary (other than ‘Treasure’ items, see 11 below), but is strongly recommended, as it is both rewarding for the finder and beneficial to our understanding of the past. You may choose to use the self-recording scheme operated by the UK Detecting Finds Database (UKDFD) (www.ukdfd.co.uk), the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (www.findsdatabase.org.uk), your local HER or, for specific types of coin find, the Celtic Coin Index (CCI) (www.writer2001.com) or the Early Medieval Corpus (EMC) (www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/emc )

actually seems even more info than the


quote:Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier; and (with the agreement of the landowner/occupier) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, so the information can pass into the local Historic Environment Record. Both the Country Land and Business Association (www.cla.org.uk) and the National Farmers Union (www.nfuonline.com) support the reporting of finds. Details of your local Finds Liaison Officer can be found at www.finds.org.uk, e-mail info@finds.org.uk or phone 020 7323 8611.

there are words in there I would tweak, but in general the message is the same... record the finds that matter... and as both are voluntary (other than treasure items) I see no complete dropping of the PAS...?


Another day another WSI?

[Steve-B]

quote:I was under the impression, from Steve's own words, that he is NOT a member of the NCMD. Perhaps he could clarify that point himself.

Correct John, I was until very recently but chose not to renew my membership. Sheddy is correct in that never during the time period that this code was under discussion, was I as a member of the NCMD asked in any way shape or form for any input or polled.


quote:PAS were asked to include the UKDN in the discussion. Why PAS didn't ask anyone from the UKDN to attend is a question I can't answer. Perhaps you or Steve could ask Michael or Dan to clarify this, seeing as it has been made clear that I am not to be believed on this.


Fair comment John, indeed perhaps we should be asking PAS why this was never done.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

quote:I was under the impression, from Steve's own words, that he is NOT a member of the NCMD. Perhaps he could clarify that point himself.

Correct John, I was until very recently but chose not to renew my membership. Sheddy is correct in that never during the time period that this code was under discussion, was I as a member of the NCMD asked in any way shape or form for any input or polled.


quote:PAS were asked to include the UKDN in the discussion. Why PAS didn't ask anyone from the UKDN to attend is a question I can't answer. Perhaps you or Steve could ask Michael or Dan to clarify this, seeing as it has been made clear that I am not to be believed on this.


Fair comment John, indeed perhaps we should be asking PAS why this was never done.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
As a simplememberof the public, I take it you have no problem with the CoP
I have a major problem with asking a prestigious unbiassed heritage friendly group to amend their carefully crafted opinion on how best to protect the resource. Particularly when it has been widely welcomed. It makes me feel VERY uncomfortable. I trust them to have got it right on behalf of the WHOLE community. I also trust them to be bright enough to amend it of their own volition if they think in due course that can further enhance resource protection.

My prediction that the UKDN document had removed PAS from it's CoP status as a sine qua non of responsible detecting was entirely accurate. Wasn't it? I did enquire whether you had read the UKDN document when you implied otherwise but you haven't responded.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
As a simplememberof the public, I take it you have no problem with the CoP
I have a major problem with asking a prestigious unbiassed heritage friendly group to amend their carefully crafted opinion on how best to protect the resource. Particularly when it has been widely welcomed. It makes me feel VERY uncomfortable. I trust them to have got it right on behalf of the WHOLE community. I also trust them to be bright enough to amend it of their own volition if they think in due course that can further enhance resource protection.

My prediction that the UKDN document had removed PAS from it's CoP status as a sine qua non of responsible detecting was entirely accurate. Wasn't it? I did enquire whether you had read the UKDN document when you implied otherwise but you haven't responded.

[Steve-B]

quote:I have a major problem with asking a prestigious unbiassed heritage friendly group to amend their carefully crafted opinion on how best to protect the resource. Particularly when it has been widely welcomed. It makes me feel VERY uncomfortable. I trust them to have got it right on behalf of the WHOLE community. I also trust them to be bright enough to amend it of their own volition if they think in due course that can further enhance resource protection.

Then why on earth are you participating in this discussion about the points of the code?

If you are comfortable with the CBA code then fine.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

quote:I have a major problem with asking a prestigious unbiassed heritage friendly group to amend their carefully crafted opinion on how best to protect the resource. Particularly when it has been widely welcomed. It makes me feel VERY uncomfortable. I trust them to have got it right on behalf of the WHOLE community. I also trust them to be bright enough to amend it of their own volition if they think in due course that can further enhance resource protection.

Then why on earth are you participating in this discussion about the points of the code?

If you are comfortable with the CBA code then fine.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Sheddy is correct in that never during the time period that this code was under discussion, was I as a member of the NCMD asked in any way shape or form for any input or polled.


I assume from this then that you were not a member of any NCMD affiliated club, and were an Independent member. The General Secretary, who was responsible for the Independent members, is supposed to have contacted them. I cannot comment on what he may, or may not, have done. Did you make any attempt to contact him on the matter?

Please don't take this as me having a dig at the UKDN, cos it isn't, but I have also been contacted by members of the UKDN to tell me they were not asked to contribute to the UKDN Revised edition of the CoP. They were asked to vote on it, but were never asked for input. Perhaps you could comment on this?

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Sheddy is correct in that never during the time period that this code was under discussion, was I as a member of the NCMD asked in any way shape or form for any input or polled.


I assume from this then that you were not a member of any NCMD affiliated club, and were an Independent member. The General Secretary, who was responsible for the Independent members, is supposed to have contacted them. I cannot comment on what he may, or may not, have done. Did you make any attempt to contact him on the matter?

Please don't take this as me having a dig at the UKDN, cos it isn't, but I have also been contacted by members of the UKDN to tell me they were not asked to contribute to the UKDN Revised edition of the CoP. They were asked to vote on it, but were never asked for input. Perhaps you could comment on this?

[Steve-B]

John, no I wasnt approached at any time and neither did I contact them, having said, I wasnt aware that I had a need to..I paid my membership onthe understanding that I would be contacted.. I also only ever received one copy of a NCMD newsletter during the wholeof last year.

As to the UKDN, I think first of all you have to appreciate that as yet, the UKDN is not a representative organisation, neither is a pay for member organisation... It is a free to join, privately owned hooby forum.

As such the owners are actually entiteld to do as they wish. They havent, to say that the members were not consulted is perhaps strictly true, however any adjustments to the code were made after consultaton with the thoughts, wishes and ideas expressed over many, many pages of posts on many, many threads, the last one proving to be one of the longest continuous threads that the UKDN has ever seen.

But this besides the point, the main point is that the owners of this private site have infact posted said code and have asked for a vote on what the members would like.

beside this they have also run a discussion thread where all members have been allowed to express their views, both those in favour of and those against.

For what is a privately owned forum and not a reprenstative organisation like the NCMD I think the owners have been extremely generous and highly democratic.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

John, no I wasnt approached at any time and neither did I contact them, having said, I wasnt aware that I had a need to..I paid my membership onthe understanding that I would be contacted.. I also only ever received one copy of a NCMD newsletter during the wholeof last year.

As to the UKDN, I think first of all you have to appreciate that as yet, the UKDN is not a representative organisation, neither is a pay for member organisation... It is a free to join, privately owned hooby forum.

As such the owners are actually entiteld to do as they wish. They havent, to say that the members were not consulted is perhaps strictly true, however any adjustments to the code were made after consultaton with the thoughts, wishes and ideas expressed over many, many pages of posts on many, many threads, the last one proving to be one of the longest continuous threads that the UKDN has ever seen.

But this besides the point, the main point is that the owners of this private site have infact posted said code and have asked for a vote on what the members would like.

beside this they have also run a discussion thread where all members have been allowed to express their views, both those in favour of and those against.

For what is a privately owned forum and not a reprenstative organisation like the NCMD I think the owners have been extremely generous and highly democratic.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

John, no I wasnt approached at any time and neither did I contact them, having said, I wasnt aware that I had a need to..I paid my membership onthe understanding that I would be contacted.. I also only ever received one copy of a NCMD newsletter during the wholeof last year.


You are right in expecting to have been sent the Newsletter etc, and to have been consulted on the major issues the NCMD were involved in. I for one won't argue that point with you. I do know that changes have been made on that front, as I've discussed with you in the past. Hopefully that situation shouldn't arise again.


quote:
As to the UKDN, I think first of all you have to appreciate that as yet, the UKDN is not a representative organisation, neither is a pay for member organisation... It is a free to join, privately owned hooby forum.

As such the owners are actually entiteld to do as they wish. They havent, to say that the members were not consulted is perhaps strictly true, however any adjustments to the code were made after consultaton with the thoughts, wishes and ideas expressed over many, many pages of posts on many, many threads, the last one proving to be one of the longest continuous threads that the UKDN has ever seen.


I do understand these points Steve, which is why I emphasised that I was not having a pop at the UKDN over it. Hopefully you guys on the UKDN will eventually decide to get your act together and form that other organisation that has been discussed many times before. Then you would be entitled to take part in any negotiations that effect the hobby.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

John, no I wasnt approached at any time and neither did I contact them, having said, I wasnt aware that I had a need to..I paid my membership onthe understanding that I would be contacted.. I also only ever received one copy of a NCMD newsletter during the wholeof last year.


You are right in expecting to have been sent the Newsletter etc, and to have been consulted on the major issues the NCMD were involved in. I for one won't argue that point with you. I do know that changes have been made on that front, as I've discussed with you in the past. Hopefully that situation shouldn't arise again.


quote:
As to the UKDN, I think first of all you have to appreciate that as yet, the UKDN is not a representative organisation, neither is a pay for member organisation... It is a free to join, privately owned hooby forum.

As such the owners are actually entiteld to do as they wish. They havent, to say that the members were not consulted is perhaps strictly true, however any adjustments to the code were made after consultaton with the thoughts, wishes and ideas expressed over many, many pages of posts on many, many threads, the last one proving to be one of the longest continuous threads that the UKDN has ever seen.


I do understand these points Steve, which is why I emphasised that I was not having a pop at the UKDN over it. Hopefully you guys on the UKDN will eventually decide to get your act together and form that other organisation that has been discussed many times before. Then you would be entitled to take part in any negotiations that effect the hobby.

[john1504]

Regarding the UKDN version of the Code of Practice...It does have it's good points, however, I wonder if they would be agreed on by the other parties who agreed the DCMS version.

If the UKDN decide to adopt it as their Code of Practice, will they be presenting it to the other Heritage Groups for comment?

[john1504]

Regarding the UKDN version of the Code of Practice...It does have it's good points, however, I wonder if they would be agreed on by the other parties who agreed the DCMS version.

If the UKDN decide to adopt it as their Code of Practice, will they be presenting it to the other Heritage Groups for comment?

[Paul Barford]

Perhaps we could get off the "fascinating" topic of the internal workings of the NCMD and look at some of the archaeological implications of the UKDN AntiCode.

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
[br As I say, there are many additional parts that I do like... including the advice about archaeological sites and what constitutes such (ie battlefields, scatters etc) which goes much further than the CoP..
But.... the purpose of a CoP is not the same as an "advice" sheet, so giving "advice" is not part of its functions. What it actually says though is:

quote:7. Make a note of your findspots so that they can be recorded with details of your finds. For finds that you believe could be of archaeological importance*, record the findspots as accurately as possible (i.e. to at least a one-hundred metre square, using an Ordnance Survey map or hand-held Global Positioning Device).
* A find of ‘archaeological importance’ is one that might indicate the presence of an archaeological site as opposed to a casual loss or discarded item. Archaeological sites include burial grounds, habitation sites, and battlegrounds. The presence of significant numbers of related items may indicate an archaeological site.
So if the AntiCoP detectorist does not "beliieve" a find is of archaeological importance, they need not record the findspot at all. But then let's go back to the Shimpling case discussed on UKDN and PASF. When was the archaeological importance of a certain piece of lead realised? Even in excavation, the importance of individual finds and the reason why they appear where they do is not always immediately apparent. It may only emerge after analysis of cumulative evidence, but of course this cannot happen if an AntiCoP detectorist has not bothered to record findspot details because at the time of discovery they did not "believe" it was important to do so. Such a detectorist is not acting as our (archaeologist and public) "eyes" in areas archaeologists where have not done yet detailed fieldwork (the standard archaeological argument for encouraging artefact hunting). By adopting such an approach, they are likely to be removing potential evidence without record. The existing CoP is very specific about the extent of responsible metal detecting and artefact collecting and what should be done with any finds.

So, in the the AntiCop view, despite thirty years discussion and literature with regard the methodology of fieldwalking, there is no distinction between 'on-site' and 'off-site' finds in the relict landscape? The UKDN AntiCode embodies the view that there is stuff which is immediately in the field interpretable (by a non-archaeologist) as "not of archaeological importance" and so need not have its findspot recorded. The future archaeological study of patterns of find loss and discarding on the basis of the data about detecting finds preserved in the documentation are of no importance to the AntiCoP detectorist - and yet precisely this is the sort of information that will be needed by projects such as the AHRC-funded project on Roman landscapes recently announced and discussed on Britarch.

Note, we've lost the individual bagging, the AntiCoP detectorist can continue bunging it all in one bag and sorting through it later. I thought that was going to be a problem for some detectorists. I wish I'd put twenty quid on it...

In archaeological terms and in terms of the arguments used by the pro-detecting lobby to support responsible detecting, this piece of self-determined text is a shambles. Its acceptance by a large number of UK detectorists is instead going to be a very good argument against those of the pro-detecting lobby.

Paul Barford

[Paul Barford]

Perhaps we could get off the "fascinating" topic of the internal workings of the NCMD and look at some of the archaeological implications of the UKDN AntiCode.

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
[br As I say, there are many additional parts that I do like... including the advice about archaeological sites and what constitutes such (ie battlefields, scatters etc) which goes much further than the CoP..
But.... the purpose of a CoP is not the same as an "advice" sheet, so giving "advice" is not part of its functions. What it actually says though is:

quote:7. Make a note of your findspots so that they can be recorded with details of your finds. For finds that you believe could be of archaeological importance*, record the findspots as accurately as possible (i.e. to at least a one-hundred metre square, using an Ordnance Survey map or hand-held Global Positioning Device).
* A find of ‘archaeological importance’ is one that might indicate the presence of an archaeological site as opposed to a casual loss or discarded item. Archaeological sites include burial grounds, habitation sites, and battlegrounds. The presence of significant numbers of related items may indicate an archaeological site.
So if the AntiCoP detectorist does not "beliieve" a find is of archaeological importance, they need not record the findspot at all. But then let's go back to the Shimpling case discussed on UKDN and PASF. When was the archaeological importance of a certain piece of lead realised? Even in excavation, the importance of individual finds and the reason why they appear where they do is not always immediately apparent. It may only emerge after analysis of cumulative evidence, but of course this cannot happen if an AntiCoP detectorist has not bothered to record findspot details because at the time of discovery they did not "believe" it was important to do so. Such a detectorist is not acting as our (archaeologist and public) "eyes" in areas archaeologists where have not done yet detailed fieldwork (the standard archaeological argument for encouraging artefact hunting). By adopting such an approach, they are likely to be removing potential evidence without record. The existing CoP is very specific about the extent of responsible metal detecting and artefact collecting and what should be done with any finds.

So, in the the AntiCop view, despite thirty years discussion and literature with regard the methodology of fieldwalking, there is no distinction between 'on-site' and 'off-site' finds in the relict landscape? The UKDN AntiCode embodies the view that there is stuff which is immediately in the field interpretable (by a non-archaeologist) as "not of archaeological importance" and so need not have its findspot recorded. The future archaeological study of patterns of find loss and discarding on the basis of the data about detecting finds preserved in the documentation are of no importance to the AntiCoP detectorist - and yet precisely this is the sort of information that will be needed by projects such as the AHRC-funded project on Roman landscapes recently announced and discussed on Britarch.

Note, we've lost the individual bagging, the AntiCoP detectorist can continue bunging it all in one bag and sorting through it later. I thought that was going to be a problem for some detectorists. I wish I'd put twenty quid on it...

In archaeological terms and in terms of the arguments used by the pro-detecting lobby to support responsible detecting, this piece of self-determined text is a shambles. Its acceptance by a large number of UK detectorists is instead going to be a very good argument against those of the pro-detecting lobby.

Paul Barford

[john1504]

I think it's a bit premature to discuss the UKDN version of the CoP. Their members are still voting on it, and I'm sure the UKDN will consider any recommendations or tweaks their members suggest to improve their Code.

But this has no bearing on the 'agreed' CoP and the questions surrounding some of the statements made here. For example, what has given some folk the impression that there will be a review of the CoP? I can only assume the people who originally suggested this did not take part in the original negotiations. If this is not the case and the suggestions were made by people who did take part in the negotiations then they omitted to tell the NCMD that this would happen.

[john1504]

I think it's a bit premature to discuss the UKDN version of the CoP. Their members are still voting on it, and I'm sure the UKDN will consider any recommendations or tweaks their members suggest to improve their Code.

But this has no bearing on the 'agreed' CoP and the questions surrounding some of the statements made here. For example, what has given some folk the impression that there will be a review of the CoP? I can only assume the people who originally suggested this did not take part in the original negotiations. If this is not the case and the suggestions were made by people who did take part in the negotiations then they omitted to tell the NCMD that this would happen.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by john1504
For example, what has given some folk the impression that there will be a review of the CoP? I can only assume the people who originally suggested this did not take part in the original negotiations. If this is not the case and the suggestions were made by people who did take part in the negotiations then they omitted to tell the NCMD that this would happen.

Just for the sake of clarity John, can you confirm that so far as NCMD was aware the CoP was not intended as a provisional document but as an agreed position statement on behalf of the signatories?

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by john1504
For example, what has given some folk the impression that there will be a review of the CoP? I can only assume the people who originally suggested this did not take part in the original negotiations. If this is not the case and the suggestions were made by people who did take part in the negotiations then they omitted to tell the NCMD that this would happen.

Just for the sake of clarity John, can you confirm that so far as NCMD was aware the CoP was not intended as a provisional document but as an agreed position statement on behalf of the signatories?

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin

Just for the sake of clarity John, can you confirm that so far as NCMD was aware the CoP was not intended as a provisional document but as an agreed position statement on behalf of the signatories?



Such is the case Nigel. After all the meetings that folk went through and the time spent analysing each word and phrase for any discrepency, the 'final' draft was the best compromise that could be reached. If others have agreed to the Code, believing it will be reviewed at a later date then someone, IMO, is pulling the wool over someones eyes.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin

Just for the sake of clarity John, can you confirm that so far as NCMD was aware the CoP was not intended as a provisional document but as an agreed position statement on behalf of the signatories?



Such is the case Nigel. After all the meetings that folk went through and the time spent analysing each word and phrase for any discrepency, the 'final' draft was the best compromise that could be reached. If others have agreed to the Code, believing it will be reviewed at a later date then someone, IMO, is pulling the wool over someones eyes.

[garybrun]

Could you confirm something for me please John as I am a little confused. Are your representing NCMD or not at this time? Soemtimes you can and sometimes you cant. Its a fair question.

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

[garybrun]

Could you confirm something for me please John as I am a little confused. Are your representing NCMD or not at this time? Soemtimes you can and sometimes you cant. Its a fair question.

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

[Elgin]

Thanks John.
So the appropriate response, as I thought, was a simple yes or no, nice and clear, not "how can we get them to change what they think to what we'd like them to think".

Detectornet, to its credit, has worked that out and has actioned it. Fair play to them, they at least understand the situation.

[Elgin]

Thanks John.
So the appropriate response, as I thought, was a simple yes or no, nice and clear, not "how can we get them to change what they think to what we'd like them to think".

Detectornet, to its credit, has worked that out and has actioned it. Fair play to them, they at least understand the situation.

[BAJR Host]

thanks john,

One of my concerns about not being open to review, are questions like this

What is disturbed ground? a question that could be answered by some to be everywhere... or is pasture the same as moor? How does a voluntary code become compulsary? Why do detectorists need written permission to detect while archaeologists often don't? etc etc...

Clarification I think is required... an appendix that elaborates on the CoP - Now so much a rewrite... as in essence it is fine and dandy... but as you see the wording is open to a myriad interpretations...

It does feel that there is a requirement for this additional available info. :)

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

thanks john,

One of my concerns about not being open to review, are questions like this

What is disturbed ground? a question that could be answered by some to be everywhere... or is pasture the same as moor? How does a voluntary code become compulsary? Why do detectorists need written permission to detect while archaeologists often don't? etc etc...

Clarification I think is required... an appendix that elaborates on the CoP - Now so much a rewrite... as in essence it is fine and dandy... but as you see the wording is open to a myriad interpretations...

It does feel that there is a requirement for this additional available info. :)

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

Could you confirm something for me please John as I am a little confused. Are your representing NCMD or not at this time? Soemtimes you can and sometimes you cant. Its a fair question.


Only a little???...:D:D;)

Yes. But I can't promise to be able to answer all your questions. I may have to refer back for further information.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

Could you confirm something for me please John as I am a little confused. Are your representing NCMD or not at this time? Soemtimes you can and sometimes you cant. Its a fair question.


Only a little???...:D:D;)

Yes. But I can't promise to be able to answer all your questions. I may have to refer back for further information.

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by john1504

Only a little???...:D:D;)

Yes. But I can't promise to be able to answer all your questions. I may have to refer back for further information.

Very good.. the best of both worlds had me laughing there. [:p]


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

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by john1504

Only a little???...:D:D;)

Yes. But I can't promise to be able to answer all your questions. I may have to refer back for further information.

Very good.. the best of both worlds had me laughing there. [:p]


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

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun


Very good.. the best of both worlds had me laughing there. [:p]


[8D]

What is your position on this now? You can't represent the UKDN and I understand you no longer represent the UKDFD. I'll answer as best I can any questions you may have about the NCMD and the Code of Practice.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun


Very good.. the best of both worlds had me laughing there. [:p]


[8D]

What is your position on this now? You can't represent the UKDN and I understand you no longer represent the UKDFD. I'll answer as best I can any questions you may have about the NCMD and the Code of Practice.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Clarification I think is required... an appendix that elaborates on the CoP - Now so much a rewrite... as in essence it is fine and dandy...
Well that at least is progress. A suggestion to the signatories that they might like to consider adding an explanatory appendix, rather than suggesting they make any alterations to the CoP itself.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Clarification I think is required... an appendix that elaborates on the CoP - Now so much a rewrite... as in essence it is fine and dandy...
Well that at least is progress. A suggestion to the signatories that they might like to consider adding an explanatory appendix, rather than suggesting they make any alterations to the CoP itself.

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by john1504


quote:Originally posted by garybrun


Very good.. the best of both worlds had me laughing there. [:p]


[8D]

What is your position on this now? You can't represent the UKDN and I understand you no longer represent the UKDFD. I'll answer as best I can any questions you may have about the NCMD and the Code of Practice.




Regarding the UKDFD you have been wrongly informed ;)
I also think my questions would be best over email instead on this open forum;)

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

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by john1504


quote:Originally posted by garybrun


Very good.. the best of both worlds had me laughing there. [:p]


[8D]

What is your position on this now? You can't represent the UKDN and I understand you no longer represent the UKDFD. I'll answer as best I can any questions you may have about the NCMD and the Code of Practice.




Regarding the UKDFD you have been wrongly informed ;)
I also think my questions would be best over email instead on this open forum;)

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

[BAJR Host]

which was the first function of this discussion

[xx(]

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

which was the first function of this discussion

[xx(]

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

thanks john,

One of my concerns about not being open to review, are questions like this

What is disturbed ground? a question that could be answered by some to be everywhere... or is pasture the same as moor? How does a voluntary code become compulsary? Why do detectorists need written permission to detect while archaeologists often don't? etc etc...

Clarification I think is required... an appendix that elaborates on the CoP - Now so much a rewrite... as in essence it is fine and dandy... but as you see the wording is open to a myriad interpretations...

It does feel that there is a requirement for this additional available info. :)

Another day another WSI?


The danger we have here is endless negotiations over the interpretation of negotiations....

The spirit of the Code of Practice is obvious to all those who already follow it, and did so before the New CoP was published. We all know what it's asking for....but some need to pick at points for clarification. Some questions asked cannot be given a definitive answer ie how deep is topsoil? A main bone of contention was How long should a field have been under pasture before detectorists have to stay off it?

All these points were covered during the negotiations, and what we have now is a compromise that ALL the parties concerned agreed to.

So if anyone is considering making changes to the CoP, be aware that the finished product may not be to the liking of the other parties who helped bring it together.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

thanks john,

One of my concerns about not being open to review, are questions like this

What is disturbed ground? a question that could be answered by some to be everywhere... or is pasture the same as moor? How does a voluntary code become compulsary? Why do detectorists need written permission to detect while archaeologists often don't? etc etc...

Clarification I think is required... an appendix that elaborates on the CoP - Now so much a rewrite... as in essence it is fine and dandy... but as you see the wording is open to a myriad interpretations...

It does feel that there is a requirement for this additional available info. :)

Another day another WSI?


The danger we have here is endless negotiations over the interpretation of negotiations....

The spirit of the Code of Practice is obvious to all those who already follow it, and did so before the New CoP was published. We all know what it's asking for....but some need to pick at points for clarification. Some questions asked cannot be given a definitive answer ie how deep is topsoil? A main bone of contention was How long should a field have been under pasture before detectorists have to stay off it?

All these points were covered during the negotiations, and what we have now is a compromise that ALL the parties concerned agreed to.

So if anyone is considering making changes to the CoP, be aware that the finished product may not be to the liking of the other parties who helped bring it together.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

which was the first function of this discussion

Aah, I had gained a different impression - that it was the CoP itself that might be the subject of suggested changes - from remarks like "a merged Code, with elements from both would be a briliant document". I'm glad it has now been clarified and it isn't so.

John's remarks are very wise. The document was a best fit between the various parties after great effort. Any writing of an explanatory appendix would be equally tortuous and the signatories may or may not wish to do so.

Also, the explanation would be of THEIR opinion so any submission to them would be best as questions - "what does this mean?". Otherwise, there would be a danger of others offering them suggestions for what they meant, which would be inappropriate.

Finally, John is equally wise to point out the dangers of an over-long appendix and the fact that some issues are incapable of concise definition. It seems to me if someone wants to act responsible they will interpret the CoP responsibly. The amount of explanation that the signatories would decide was warranted is probably very limited - as has so far been evidenced and bearing in mind peoples aversion to long convoluted rules. In any case,as John implies, the general intent of the CoP is crystal clear and this would act as a very effective interpretation aid if required.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

which was the first function of this discussion

Aah, I had gained a different impression - that it was the CoP itself that might be the subject of suggested changes - from remarks like "a merged Code, with elements from both would be a briliant document". I'm glad it has now been clarified and it isn't so.

John's remarks are very wise. The document was a best fit between the various parties after great effort. Any writing of an explanatory appendix would be equally tortuous and the signatories may or may not wish to do so.

Also, the explanation would be of THEIR opinion so any submission to them would be best as questions - "what does this mean?". Otherwise, there would be a danger of others offering them suggestions for what they meant, which would be inappropriate.

Finally, John is equally wise to point out the dangers of an over-long appendix and the fact that some issues are incapable of concise definition. It seems to me if someone wants to act responsible they will interpret the CoP responsibly. The amount of explanation that the signatories would decide was warranted is probably very limited - as has so far been evidenced and bearing in mind peoples aversion to long convoluted rules. In any case,as John implies, the general intent of the CoP is crystal clear and this would act as a very effective interpretation aid if required.

[garybrun]

And that just shows you why UKDN,UKDFD,BAJR were not invited to discussions on the code because the way it stands at the moment it would have never have got through. It was certain organisations trying to cement their political position.
I also believe because a few of us first on PAS then UKDN,MLO,BAJR, and UKDFD were in discussion about creating a code that this was taken up again and rushed through. To me it does seem a like a rushed job and the so called fatted calf was killed before it was fat. Everyone in the "chosen signatories" was quick to celebrate an historic document just like Chamberlain and his famous white paper with "Peace In Our Time".

UKDN,MLO,UKDFD are not asking for any bodies permission to make a COP.. they are making one and have made one. Just like people said we couldn't create UKDFD, we did and it exists and is running well.
As we say in plain English "So stick that in your pipe and smoke it" :D

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

[garybrun]

And that just shows you why UKDN,UKDFD,BAJR were not invited to discussions on the code because the way it stands at the moment it would have never have got through. It was certain organisations trying to cement their political position.
I also believe because a few of us first on PAS then UKDN,MLO,BAJR, and UKDFD were in discussion about creating a code that this was taken up again and rushed through. To me it does seem a like a rushed job and the so called fatted calf was killed before it was fat. Everyone in the "chosen signatories" was quick to celebrate an historic document just like Chamberlain and his famous white paper with "Peace In Our Time".

UKDN,MLO,UKDFD are not asking for any bodies permission to make a COP.. they are making one and have made one. Just like people said we couldn't create UKDFD, we did and it exists and is running well.
As we say in plain English "So stick that in your pipe and smoke it" :D

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

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun
UKDN,MLO,UKDFD are not asking for any bodies permission to make a COP.. they are making one and have made one.
Of course you have Gary. You have a legal right.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun
UKDN,MLO,UKDFD are not asking for any bodies permission to make a COP.. they are making one and have made one.
Of course you have Gary. You have a legal right.

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin
Of course you have Gary. You have a legal right.

it has nothing do with the legal right... the COP was morally wrong and flawed because it was a political decision to excommunicate various groups and cement the "power base" within the metal detecting hobby and the British archaeological system.

You will find there are not many detectorists who disagree with the basics of the code and you will also find that many put into practise what is written already.

Let me give an example.
I work for Olive Green Peace and I create a code of conduct for "Heritage Action" and anyone who does not agree with my code who works within heritage they will be classed as irresponsible. If you don't wear my rainbow sticker you will be excommunicated and classed as irresponsible.

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

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin
Of course you have Gary. You have a legal right.

it has nothing do with the legal right... the COP was morally wrong and flawed because it was a political decision to excommunicate various groups and cement the "power base" within the metal detecting hobby and the British archaeological system.

You will find there are not many detectorists who disagree with the basics of the code and you will also find that many put into practise what is written already.

Let me give an example.
I work for Olive Green Peace and I create a code of conduct for "Heritage Action" and anyone who does not agree with my code who works within heritage they will be classed as irresponsible. If you don't wear my rainbow sticker you will be excommunicated and classed as irresponsible.

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

[BAJR Host]

I would alos 'suggest' that some parts of the code do also have to be considered for revision... no document is ever perfect.

I am sure many 'wise people' gathered and thought about it... which is good... but a code such as this needs to be broader in the net of people who are asked to comment. The draft code of from the CBA, perhaps I was stupid for not realising that this was a document that would transmute directly into the CoP.

I would alos be careful of not defining what is meant (say in another 1 or 2 sides of A4) what is actually meant... As some people showon this forum, a word can mean many things depending on your position, desire or leaning.

I should clarify what I deem as a merged code... (I was unclear ) you look at the CoP, you look at the UKDN Code, you look at the suggestions here, you come to a level and present this as a sugggestion for discussion.. you also suggest (and I have already talked to people at the CBA about this) that clarification of some terms and language would be beneficial.

Anyway... as you so rightly say, I can do what I like, as others can do what they.... but to my mindit is better to act with people, rather than sniping from the heritage sidelines.

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

I would alos 'suggest' that some parts of the code do also have to be considered for revision... no document is ever perfect.

I am sure many 'wise people' gathered and thought about it... which is good... but a code such as this needs to be broader in the net of people who are asked to comment. The draft code of from the CBA, perhaps I was stupid for not realising that this was a document that would transmute directly into the CoP.

I would alos be careful of not defining what is meant (say in another 1 or 2 sides of A4) what is actually meant... As some people showon this forum, a word can mean many things depending on your position, desire or leaning.

I should clarify what I deem as a merged code... (I was unclear ) you look at the CoP, you look at the UKDN Code, you look at the suggestions here, you come to a level and present this as a sugggestion for discussion.. you also suggest (and I have already talked to people at the CBA about this) that clarification of some terms and language would be beneficial.

Anyway... as you so rightly say, I can do what I like, as others can do what they.... but to my mindit is better to act with people, rather than sniping from the heritage sidelines.

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

And that just shows you why UKDN,UKDFD,BAJR were not invited to discussions on the code because the way it stands at the moment it would have never have got through.


Perhaps this is why some folk decided inviting UKDN to the discussions might not have been such a good idea. You make it quite clear that you would have had no intention of agreeing to anything.

It may surprise you to know Gary, that going into a meeting to put your position on the table and say nothing else will do is NOT negotiating.


quote:
It was certain organisations trying to cement their political position.
I also believe because a few of us first on PAS then UKDN,MLO,BAJR, and UKDFD were in discussion about creating a code that this was taken up again and rushed through. To me it does seem a like a rushed job and the so called fatted calf was killed before it was fat. Everyone in the "chosen signatories" was quick to celebrate an historic document just like Chamberlain and his famous white paper with "Peace In Our Time".


So you're claiming credit for the creation of the new Code! I'm curious to know what gives you the impression that it was rushed through....unlike the UKDN Code that took all of an evening to put together...

BTW...excuse my ignorance on this - but who or what is MLO


quote:
UKDN,MLO,UKDFD are not asking for any bodies permission to make a COP.. they are making one and have made one. Just like people said we couldn't create UKDFD, we did and it exists and is running well.
As we say in plain English "So stick that in your pipe and smoke it" :D


I fail to see why you have to keep on about permission to form the UKDN Code. It has already been pointed out it's considered a good thing. If you only intend to keep it to yourselves then fine.
Or the UKDFD for that matter....or is it a case of "...my lord doth protest too much..."

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

And that just shows you why UKDN,UKDFD,BAJR were not invited to discussions on the code because the way it stands at the moment it would have never have got through.


Perhaps this is why some folk decided inviting UKDN to the discussions might not have been such a good idea. You make it quite clear that you would have had no intention of agreeing to anything.

It may surprise you to know Gary, that going into a meeting to put your position on the table and say nothing else will do is NOT negotiating.


quote:
It was certain organisations trying to cement their political position.
I also believe because a few of us first on PAS then UKDN,MLO,BAJR, and UKDFD were in discussion about creating a code that this was taken up again and rushed through. To me it does seem a like a rushed job and the so called fatted calf was killed before it was fat. Everyone in the "chosen signatories" was quick to celebrate an historic document just like Chamberlain and his famous white paper with "Peace In Our Time".


So you're claiming credit for the creation of the new Code! I'm curious to know what gives you the impression that it was rushed through....unlike the UKDN Code that took all of an evening to put together...

BTW...excuse my ignorance on this - but who or what is MLO


quote:
UKDN,MLO,UKDFD are not asking for any bodies permission to make a COP.. they are making one and have made one. Just like people said we couldn't create UKDFD, we did and it exists and is running well.
As we say in plain English "So stick that in your pipe and smoke it" :D


I fail to see why you have to keep on about permission to form the UKDN Code. It has already been pointed out it's considered a good thing. If you only intend to keep it to yourselves then fine.
Or the UKDFD for that matter....or is it a case of "...my lord doth protest too much..."

[Elgin]

"would alos 'suggest' that some parts of the code do also have to be considered for revision"

!!!!!!

"a code such as this needs to be broader in the net of people who are asked to comment."
Does it? You speak as though that's a certainty. The CoP defines Responsible Detecting extremely well and authoritatively. Most people seem content with what it says and who said it and are calling for nothing more.

"sniping from the heritage sidelines."
Not sniping David, just hoping the CoP isn't altered, if that's permissable. As you say, it's fine and dandy and I'd hate that to change, however subtly.
I'm content to be described as sidelined though. Not being in the loop is not something that pains me.

John, MLO is Minelabowners - Gary's other site!

[Elgin]

"would alos 'suggest' that some parts of the code do also have to be considered for revision"

!!!!!!

"a code such as this needs to be broader in the net of people who are asked to comment."
Does it? You speak as though that's a certainty. The CoP defines Responsible Detecting extremely well and authoritatively. Most people seem content with what it says and who said it and are calling for nothing more.

"sniping from the heritage sidelines."
Not sniping David, just hoping the CoP isn't altered, if that's permissable. As you say, it's fine and dandy and I'd hate that to change, however subtly.
I'm content to be described as sidelined though. Not being in the loop is not something that pains me.

John, MLO is Minelabowners - Gary's other site!

[BAJR Host]

As you say on the Heritage Action website


quote:We sincerely hope that English Heritage will continue this kind of transparency in all their dealings with Silbury, as we believe that much of the work Heritage Action has done would not have been necessary had this more active and open approach been adopted from the start.

We would also like to see English Heritage formally adopt arrangements to make the kind of openness apparent at this public meeting apply to all their work in the future, for the benefit of other public monuments.

After talking with an Inspector about your actions on Silbury, I would suggest that you can't have it both ways... Do you only pick the things to get upset about and want to comment on?



Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

As you say on the Heritage Action website


quote:We sincerely hope that English Heritage will continue this kind of transparency in all their dealings with Silbury, as we believe that much of the work Heritage Action has done would not have been necessary had this more active and open approach been adopted from the start.

We would also like to see English Heritage formally adopt arrangements to make the kind of openness apparent at this public meeting apply to all their work in the future, for the benefit of other public monuments.

After talking with an Inspector about your actions on Silbury, I would suggest that you can't have it both ways... Do you only pick the things to get upset about and want to comment on?



Another day another WSI…

[Sheddy]

I don't know where I'm coming from with this one or where it will go to, but if the NCMD do not make the CoP compulsory for thier members to abide by, doesn't that make it not worth the paper its written on? How can the NCMD ever be taken seriously if adherance to the CoP isn't mandatory for membership of the organisation?

Have the NCMD scored an own goal by putting thier name to it?

[Sheddy]

I don't know where I'm coming from with this one or where it will go to, but if the NCMD do not make the CoP compulsory for thier members to abide by, doesn't that make it not worth the paper its written on? How can the NCMD ever be taken seriously if adherance to the CoP isn't mandatory for membership of the organisation?

Have the NCMD scored an own goal by putting thier name to it?

[garybrun]

Please do not insult my intelligence and patronise me John.
I know what going to a meeting and negotiations entail.

I have made quite clear it would have NEVER gotten through as we would never have allowed people to brand detectorists as irresponsible if they didn't record with PAS and that PAS was the only way, nor call them irresponsible if the didn't agree with the NCMD constitution. I think this was the biggest shock that the NCMD caused when they started to brand their own members who they represent as irresponsible.

If I was claiming credit for the COP I would have said so and nobody would have been able to misinterpret my words. What makes me believe it is a rush job is the way the NCMD don't know which way to turn.
You website says one thing.. your chairman says another.
You've started a internal fire and don't know how to put it out.
The response to the COP criticisms shows it in the time it has taken the NCMD to come out and respond. To be honest I don't really believe we have had an official response apart from you who can play camilion when ever he likes[:p] If the press had misquoted the NCMD... why such the long delay it acknowledging that. The NCMD is caught between a rock and a hard place now. Even the FID came out and said they would never force anything on their members.
I wont quote the NCMD public statement as its been quoted enough.

The NCMD have a Code of Conduct sealed in by their constitution.
They are adopting the Code of Practice that was recently released.
They need 51 days to change anything at their AGM in June.
They are too late to do it this year, unless they have an extra-ordinary meeting with the membership.
This leaves the NCMD with not only a Code of Conduct, but an adopted Code of Practice. Blind men lead blind men into ditches!

It has been pointed out by a few that its a good thing John but others don't agree so that is why I keep bringing up the permissions argument. Please do not use the NCMD "cock-up" release of the COP and try and take the heat of the debate away and focus it on me.

You can see my views and my reasoning behind being against the present COP. I have not held back and I have told it as the way I see it and I cant make it any clearer.
I also believe you and I arguing over the NCMD with me in a public archaeological forum like this is not doing the hobby any good at all.

The NCMD needs to get a spokesperson who can officially speak for its views and members instead of adding little bits of information as it feels like. Just like a child playing "peek-a-boo"

As I have stated before around three times on this list.... if you want to discuss regarding NCMD, UKDFD etc.please contact me off-list as I will not be drawn into further arguments.

Regards

Gary

P.S. When you find I am still a member of the UKDFD I then become a case of "my lord doth protest too much..." :D

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

[garybrun]

Please do not insult my intelligence and patronise me John.
I know what going to a meeting and negotiations entail.

I have made quite clear it would have NEVER gotten through as we would never have allowed people to brand detectorists as irresponsible if they didn't record with PAS and that PAS was the only way, nor call them irresponsible if the didn't agree with the NCMD constitution. I think this was the biggest shock that the NCMD caused when they started to brand their own members who they represent as irresponsible.

If I was claiming credit for the COP I would have said so and nobody would have been able to misinterpret my words. What makes me believe it is a rush job is the way the NCMD don't know which way to turn.
You website says one thing.. your chairman says another.
You've started a internal fire and don't know how to put it out.
The response to the COP criticisms shows it in the time it has taken the NCMD to come out and respond. To be honest I don't really believe we have had an official response apart from you who can play camilion when ever he likes[:p] If the press had misquoted the NCMD... why such the long delay it acknowledging that. The NCMD is caught between a rock and a hard place now. Even the FID came out and said they would never force anything on their members.
I wont quote the NCMD public statement as its been quoted enough.

The NCMD have a Code of Conduct sealed in by their constitution.
They are adopting the Code of Practice that was recently released.
They need 51 days to change anything at their AGM in June.
They are too late to do it this year, unless they have an extra-ordinary meeting with the membership.
This leaves the NCMD with not only a Code of Conduct, but an adopted Code of Practice. Blind men lead blind men into ditches!

It has been pointed out by a few that its a good thing John but others don't agree so that is why I keep bringing up the permissions argument. Please do not use the NCMD "cock-up" release of the COP and try and take the heat of the debate away and focus it on me.

You can see my views and my reasoning behind being against the present COP. I have not held back and I have told it as the way I see it and I cant make it any clearer.
I also believe you and I arguing over the NCMD with me in a public archaeological forum like this is not doing the hobby any good at all.

The NCMD needs to get a spokesperson who can officially speak for its views and members instead of adding little bits of information as it feels like. Just like a child playing "peek-a-boo"

As I have stated before around three times on this list.... if you want to discuss regarding NCMD, UKDFD etc.please contact me off-list as I will not be drawn into further arguments.

Regards

Gary

P.S. When you find I am still a member of the UKDFD I then become a case of "my lord doth protest too much..." :D

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

[BAJR Host]

Yep... I would rather this discussion happened off list...

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Yep... I would rather this discussion happened off list...

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

As you say on the Heritage Action website...
David,a succession of diversionary cheapshots at me and Heritage Action is what happens on other forums, as you well know.

HA called for openeness at Silbury and got it in the form of the engineering reports. We didn't ask for a say in the engineering decision. On the contrary, once it was made (extremely authoritatively) we accepted it totally.

HA weren't included in the Silbury engineering decisions, just like you were not included in the CoP discussions. Should they (like you) now call for a say? Hardly. It was done by experts, they made their decision, that's it. John has told you the signatories DIDN'T intend the CoP as discussion document - how much clearer could it be? It's too late. Why not write your own like UKDN has the sense to do. At least people will be able to see exactly what you think.

Anyhow, if you snipe further at HA, I'll leave, no problem.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

As you say on the Heritage Action website...
David,a succession of diversionary cheapshots at me and Heritage Action is what happens on other forums, as you well know.

HA called for openeness at Silbury and got it in the form of the engineering reports. We didn't ask for a say in the engineering decision. On the contrary, once it was made (extremely authoritatively) we accepted it totally.

HA weren't included in the Silbury engineering decisions, just like you were not included in the CoP discussions. Should they (like you) now call for a say? Hardly. It was done by experts, they made their decision, that's it. John has told you the signatories DIDN'T intend the CoP as discussion document - how much clearer could it be? It's too late. Why not write your own like UKDN has the sense to do. At least people will be able to see exactly what you think.

Anyhow, if you snipe further at HA, I'll leave, no problem.

[BAJR Host]

That would be to easy to point out that HA wants one thing and demands others depending on the weather.

You are quite welcome to stay if you perhaps move onto other sections of the forum, and stop hovering around a single issue.

If you have nothing else to say... cheerybye then ;)

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

That would be to easy to point out that HA wants one thing and demands others depending on the weather.

You are quite welcome to stay if you perhaps move onto other sections of the forum, and stop hovering around a single issue.

If you have nothing else to say... cheerybye then ;)

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

I also believe because a few of us first on PAS then UKDN,MLO,BAJR, and UKDFD were in discussion about creating a code that this was taken up again and rushed through.
No, that is not the way this happened, nor the reason for it. The need for such a document was signalled well before the discussion started on PAS or UKDN or the rest. The period it took to create it an hardly be regarded as "rushed through".

Paul Barford.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

I also believe because a few of us first on PAS then UKDN,MLO,BAJR, and UKDFD were in discussion about creating a code that this was taken up again and rushed through.
No, that is not the way this happened, nor the reason for it. The need for such a document was signalled well before the discussion started on PAS or UKDN or the rest. The period it took to create it an hardly be regarded as "rushed through".

Paul Barford.

[BAJR Host]

Which is a valid point Paul.... what might be interesting is to see what happened in between... and how much of the PAS discussion actually contributed to the CoP.

Any takers for a PAS question?

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

Which is a valid point Paul.... what might be interesting is to see what happened in between... and how much of the PAS discussion actually contributed to the CoP.

Any takers for a PAS question?

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy

I don't know where I'm coming from with this one or where it will go to, but if the NCMD do not make the CoP compulsory for thier members to abide by, doesn't that make it not worth the paper its written on? How can the NCMD ever be taken seriously if adherance to the CoP isn't mandatory for membership of the organisation?

Have the NCMD scored an own goal by putting thier name to it?


Adherence to the Code of Practice is voluntary...it's printed on the back of the document. The Code of Conduct is embedded in the NCMD constitution, which everyone agrees to abide by on becoming members.

I fail to see your reasoning sheddy on why you think the CoP should be made mandatory.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy

I don't know where I'm coming from with this one or where it will go to, but if the NCMD do not make the CoP compulsory for thier members to abide by, doesn't that make it not worth the paper its written on? How can the NCMD ever be taken seriously if adherance to the CoP isn't mandatory for membership of the organisation?

Have the NCMD scored an own goal by putting thier name to it?


Adherence to the Code of Practice is voluntary...it's printed on the back of the document. The Code of Conduct is embedded in the NCMD constitution, which everyone agrees to abide by on becoming members.

I fail to see your reasoning sheddy on why you think the CoP should be made mandatory.

[Steve-B]

David, I think the very early discussions on PAS contributed quite a lot to the code, however it went pear shaped soon afterwards due to ongoing arguements and the development of the document halted.

What we have been presented with is basically this underdeveloped document.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

David, I think the very early discussions on PAS contributed quite a lot to the code, however it went pear shaped soon afterwards due to ongoing arguements and the development of the document halted.

What we have been presented with is basically this underdeveloped document.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

cheers john and steve.

I now have got my head around the confusion.. the CoC and the CoP are differnt and thats why the previous confusion.

I have found quite bit of evidence that the NCMD had sent out drafts for commenting on to clubs... this I suppose shows the vale of being in a club... but as the majority are not in clubs, there is a missing section of the hobby.

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

cheers john and steve.

I now have got my head around the confusion.. the CoC and the CoP are differnt and thats why the previous confusion.

I have found quite bit of evidence that the NCMD had sent out drafts for commenting on to clubs... this I suppose shows the vale of being in a club... but as the majority are not in clubs, there is a missing section of the hobby.

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

Please do not insult my intelligence and patronise me John.
I know what going to a meeting and negotiations entail.


I wouldn't dream of patronising you Gary.


quote:
I have made quite clear it would have NEVER gotten through as we would never have allowed people to brand detectorists as irresponsible if they didn't record with PAS and that PAS was the only way...


Which other officially recognised body would you recommend? It would seem that some people still can't get past the fact the UKDFD is a PRIVATE organisation and as such, CANNOT be rocommended by any Government funded institution.
It has been stated numerous times that HER ask people to record with PAS and it would therefore be sensless to recommend HER....what's left?


quote:
....why such the long delay it acknowledging that. The NCMD is caught between a rock and a hard place now. Even the FID came out and said they would never force anything on their members.


The NCMD are, and it's being looked into. But isn't it odd that you should refer to the FID, who refused to take part in the CoP negotiations, but were quick enough to have their badge attached to the final document, and then critisise the outcome....


quote:
The NCMD have a Code of Conduct sealed in by their constitution.
They are adopting the Code of Practice that was recently released.
They need 51 days to change anything at their AGM in June.
They are too late to do it this year, unless they have an extra-ordinary meeting with the membership.
This leaves the NCMD with not only a Code of Conduct, but an adopted Code of Practice. Blind men lead blind men into ditches!


What makes you think the NCMD are too late to change their constitution this year?


quote:
I also believe you and I arguing over the NCMD with me in a public archaeological forum like this is not doing the hobby any good at all.

The NCMD needs to get a spokesperson who can officially speak for its views and members instead of adding little bits of information as it feels like. Just like a child playing "peek-a-boo"

As I have stated before around three times on this list.... if you want to discuss regarding NCMD, UKDFD etc.please contact me off-list as I will not be drawn into further arguments.


I'm not the one doing the arguing or being agressive, as the rest of your post shows. I have already informed you that anything that passes between us will be in public, in front of witnesses.

[john1504]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

Please do not insult my intelligence and patronise me John.
I know what going to a meeting and negotiations entail.


I wouldn't dream of patronising you Gary.


quote:
I have made quite clear it would have NEVER gotten through as we would never have allowed people to brand detectorists as irresponsible if they didn't record with PAS and that PAS was the only way...


Which other officially recognised body would you recommend? It would seem that some people still can't get past the fact the UKDFD is a PRIVATE organisation and as such, CANNOT be rocommended by any Government funded institution.
It has been stated numerous times that HER ask people to record with PAS and it would therefore be sensless to recommend HER....what's left?


quote:
....why such the long delay it acknowledging that. The NCMD is caught between a rock and a hard place now. Even the FID came out and said they would never force anything on their members.


The NCMD are, and it's being looked into. But isn't it odd that you should refer to the FID, who refused to take part in the CoP negotiations, but were quick enough to have their badge attached to the final document, and then critisise the outcome....


quote:
The NCMD have a Code of Conduct sealed in by their constitution.
They are adopting the Code of Practice that was recently released.
They need 51 days to change anything at their AGM in June.
They are too late to do it this year, unless they have an extra-ordinary meeting with the membership.
This leaves the NCMD with not only a Code of Conduct, but an adopted Code of Practice. Blind men lead blind men into ditches!


What makes you think the NCMD are too late to change their constitution this year?


quote:
I also believe you and I arguing over the NCMD with me in a public archaeological forum like this is not doing the hobby any good at all.

The NCMD needs to get a spokesperson who can officially speak for its views and members instead of adding little bits of information as it feels like. Just like a child playing "peek-a-boo"

As I have stated before around three times on this list.... if you want to discuss regarding NCMD, UKDFD etc.please contact me off-list as I will not be drawn into further arguments.


I'm not the one doing the arguing or being agressive, as the rest of your post shows. I have already informed you that anything that passes between us will be in public, in front of witnesses.