Clause 7

[Sheddy]

7. Recording findspots as accurately as possible for all finds (i.e. to at least a one hundred metre square, using an Ordnance Survey map or hand-held Global Positioning Systems (GPS) device) whilst in the field. Bag finds individually and record the National Grid Reference (NGR) on the bag. Findspot information should not be passed on to other parties without the agreement of the landowner/occupier (see also clause 9).

If the information is not to be passed on to others without consent, then why go to the trouble of making the record in the first place? I have farms I detect on where the permission to detect is on condition that I do not record anything.

This clause is one of a couple that make me smile. It makes me smile because it shows just how worthless having the NCMD as a co-signitory is. The NCMD's own constitution states that a detectorist should do nothing to bring the hobby into disrepute (or suchlike words). Surely if the NCMD have backed this CoP then they have to tell thier membership to follow it. If they do that then one can assume they will see amassive drop in membership. There are NCMD clubs which do not want the FLO's to visit them, so why would they want to record? If thier governiong body tells them they [u]have</u> to make records and submit them to the FLO's there would be an exodus of clubs from the organisation.

On the one hand the NCMD have said that it is not neccessary to follow the CoP, which renders thier backing pointless. On the other hand, if they commanded thier members to follow it, the organisation would possibly collapse, rendering thier aquiesence moot.

Another point is who is going to supply the GPS's and maps and the training days on how to use them correctly? There is no lawful reason to recrd in this way, so surely the onus lies with the organisation (PAS) who compiled the document. Can The PAS afford to permanently loan out this equipment so that detectorists are able to comply with thier wishes?

[BAJR Host]

Now I am going to have ma tea... be nice and talk with my wife... but tommorrow AM... I do have plenty to say on this...!

oh yeah... educate is all I will say

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

"I have farms I detect on where the permission to detect is on condition that I do not record anything".
"Another point is who is going to supply the GPS's and maps and the training days on how to use them correctly? There is no lawful reason to recrd in this way, so surely the onus lies with the organisation (PAS) who compiled the document".
We discussed this with the detectorists on Britarch. So if you are prevented from doing it responsibly, and you have not got the equipment to do it properly, why attempt it? "Can The PAS afford to permanently loan out this equipment so that detectorists are able to comply with thier wishes?" Hmm. Dont you WANT to detect responsibly? Its almost as if you see this as just some crazy idea of the PAS thought up to make your hobby more difficult.

Perhaps you'd like the PAS to subsidise the cost of your metal detectors next and give you petrol money....

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

perhaps we can remember the AUP;)

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

Sorry, but the convoluted reasoning apparently intended to place clause 7 (central to the CoP) into question seemed to need a comment.

"surely the onus lies with the organisation (PAS) who compiled the document." DID they? Hmm. since the GPS is clearly mentioned in this Code of Practice as an alternative to reading off NGRs from a large scale map, I do not see why this question arose. It seems yet another expression of the idea certain members of the detecting milieu have that the sole function of the PAS has been to service the hobby of metal detecting....


It seems not only "the PAS" sees GPS as a useful adjunct to use of a metal detector: http://www.findmall.com/list.php?16
Corinne mentions it on her website, but I am sure I saw it discussed by detectorists on UKDN too. Metal detecting meteorite hunters are urged to take GPS into the deserts to plot strewnfields, but also as a navigation aid (or to tell rescuers of their locations) if they get into trouble. The same goes for sea fishermen. I really do not see why anyone taking up such a hobby should expect to be supplied by the state with the equipment to do it properly.

As I say, in my opinion, if somebody has not got the possibility (lack of permission, lack of map, lack of equipment) to do the job properly, then would it be responsible (for THAT is what the CoP is about) to do it regardless?

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

quote:As I say, in my opinion, if somebody has not got the possibility (lack of permission, lack of map, lack of equipment) to do the job properly, then would it be responsible (for THAT is what the CoP is about) to do it regardless?

My opinion is also that it wouldnt.

The cost of maps is minimal and if a GPS can be afforded then it is no more difficult than some detectors to operate....

It is then upto the individual to decide whether to adhere to the code or not.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

I was slightly concerned by the staement that some farmers only allow detecting if you don't record. This brings up the Education thing again... where farmers seem to believe that having a site on their land means the Time Team move in, it is Scheduled and then excavated over the next 40 years by a university and he has no say in the matter.... (extreme but I have heard worse!)

Providing farmers with the truth, should be part of the process...

Apart from that... I can't accept a partial - I record on that land and not on that... as it is all or nothing (by which I don't mean record every nail- unless of course it makes up part of an entire medieval ship ;)) but do record significant artefacts .. Do record spreads as well please



Another day another WSI…

[kevmar]

The thing is David,not all farmers who say (see above)
are Range rover driving millionaires,who say it out of spite.
The old boys I'm talking about,are in their late 80's,one tooth
in their heads,and live in their overalls,they won't have anything to do with know it alls telling them what they can and can't do on their land.
Was bad enough with the suited ones from defra,telling them what and where they can plant crops,trees etc.
In this situation,it's best imho,to carry on,and hope you don't find a treasure item,all other stuff can be logged on your pc/note book and be saved,as I say,I know some very old farmers,so it's only a matter of time.....;)

[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.

[Steve-B]

As Kev says, many farmers are not going to tolerate being told what they can and cant do on their land.

Education, yes, but carefully... I have seen a document aimed at land owners that would in my opinin do nothing more than encourage the landowner not to bother giving permission to detect.

Surely it is better to find out what the land contains, keep personal recors ready for a time when they can be recorded properly, bearing in mind that land does change ownership.


www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[BAJR Host]

Ah... sorry I might have misunderstood.. so records are kept... just not passed to PAS or UKDFD etc until such times as the old boy [xx(]s

I saw it as no records were kept at all... thus these artefacts were just collected anyway..

Phew! ;) I feel a [:o)]

I agree that farmers have a tricky time (my wife is from farming stock.... no she's not a cow!!) and I live in the country and work with farmers.... so yes... is true... my next door neighbour is 83... overalled and dirty and just won't stop working.. :face-approve: what a guy!

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Surely it is better to find out what the land contains, keep personal recors ready for a time when they can be recorded properly, bearing in mind that land does change ownership.
I don't follow your meaning fully here either Steve.
If Clause 9 is read in conjunction with Clause 7 the signatories are saying the question of finding out what the land contains and making records doesn't arise as going ahead and finding finds without being able to report them doesn't arise aren't they?

Are you (and David)saying go ahead and detect?

[Steve-B]

quote:If Clause 9 is read in conjunction with Clause 7 the signatories are saying the question of finding out what the land contains and making records doesn't arise as going ahead and finding finds without being able to report them doesn't arise aren't they?


So.....?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin

Are you (and David)saying go ahead and detect?
Sounds to me rather like deciding to excavate a site while planning from the outset to stick the site notebooks and rolls of plans etc. in a box under your bed. One day perhaps somebody will come across them and process them and make the information available - if they can make sense of them and still match them with the other evidence, such as the finds.... Is it the opinion of those on BAJR that research on archaeological assemblages and contexts without even the intention to report is in any way "responsible"? Or is it just self-centred erosion of a part of the resource?

[BAJR Host]

This seems to be one of these conflicting points in the CoP..

a) Record the finds

b) Only record the finds if the Landowner says yes

this is one that requires clarification about what this actually means.

If Cluase 7 says that



quote:Findspot information should not be passed on to other parties without the agreement of the landowner/occupier (see also clause 9).

then how is the findspot location recorded - and where is it held?

it seems that in this case there is the confusion about how finds are recorded, where they are recorded and when they can be recorded (or at least recorded in a stable situation.

and... Nigel... no ;)

Another day another WSI…

[Corinne Mills]

I find the opposite problem - the farmer where we detect is more than happy for us to record all finds with PAS - we give him the finds back together with a copy of the report.

The grief we get is from other detectorists who feel that by us being open with the farmer by showing him all finds and telling other detectorists about what we find that we are putting the site at risk. There is a perception by other detectorists that by recording our finds at high find spot figure and not at parish only we are jeopordising the land for other detectorists as they believe that these stray finds will lead to the land being scheduled.

You just cant win.........

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

[Elgin]

It certainly seems to be putting the detecting cart in front of the reporting horse. I thought you thought reporting was vital Steve? Why would you abandon your convictions on the say so of Kevmar's one toothed octogenarian farmer? He might have a one toothed son so you can't report for another fifty years. Let's face it, if you only self record, and aren't free to tell anyone, the finds are out of the ground and out of everyone's knowledge so they've effectively gone, and the knowledge with them. You can't even "make arrangements for when you've gone" as it's not even in the power of your successors to report them. What if you found an Amesbury Archer?

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
If Cluase 7 says that
quote:Findspot information should not be passed on to other parties without the agreement of the landowner/occupier (see also clause 9).
then how is the findspot location recorded - and where is it held?

it seems that in this case there is the confusion about how finds are recorded, where they are recorded and when they can be recorded


There's no confusion that I can see as there is no findspot to record as detecting will not have taken place, per Clause 9.

This seems logical enough to me. Kevmar's one-toothed octogenarian farmer shouldn't have the right to bring about non-reporting detecting, only non-detecting. He has every right to do the latter and no right to do the former. The Amesbury Archer would have to stay in the ground until he was as well. Self-recording by the detectorist isn't a viable option to get round it as if the detectorist shuffled off his detecting coil his successors would still not be free to share the information.

I reckon anything else would be irresponsible under the Code of Common Sense.

[Steve-B]

quote:It certainly seems to be putting the detecting cart in front of the reporting horse. I thought you thought reporting was vital Steve? Why would you abandon your convictions

Dont start having a personal pop again Nigel!!!!!

Read my reply, Badger managed to understand what I was saying and I am sure even you can if you try hard.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

quote:Self-recording by the detectorist isn't a viable option to get round it as if the detectorist shuffled off his detecting coil his successors would still not be free to share the information.

You best have a word with Adam at PAS then, because even he suggested that self recording, any recording was better than none.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Steve-B]

quote:I find the opposite problem - the farmer where we detect is more than happy for us to record all finds with PAS - we give him the finds back together with a copy of the report.

The grief we get is from other detectorists who feel that by us being open with the farmer by showing him all finds and telling other detectorists about what we find that we are putting the site at risk. There is a perception by other detectorists that by recording our finds at high find spot figure and not at parish only we are jeopordising the land for other detectorists as they believe that these stray finds will lead to the land being scheduled.

You just cant win.........

I dont quite follow you post, is this in general Co, or as you mention other detectorists, is this a club site?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

[quote]You best have a word with Adam at PAS then, because even he suggested that self recording, any recording was better than none.

No Steve. I think you'll find he thinks self recording is better than none if you are determined to detect a piece of land.
But you shouldn't be, unless you can share what you find.

[Steve-B]

Read my reply.

I clearly stated that self recording should be done with a view to passing on the information at a later date.

I really think you are just trying to imflame something that doesnt exist here Nigel.



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Corinne Mills]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B



I dont quite follow you post, is this in general Co, or as you mention other detectorists, is this a club site?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.


sorry Steve - I should have said - this is a pay to detect site anyone can use

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

[BAJR Host]

try to nice Nigel.. we are getting along fine just now

If the COP is what you see it... why does it give a choice?

Another day another WSI…

[kevmar]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford


quote:Originally posted by Elgin

Are you (and David)saying go ahead and detect?
Sounds to me rather like deciding to excavate a site while planning from the outset to stick the site notebooks and rolls of plans etc. in a box under your bed. One day perhaps somebody will come across them and process them and make the information available - if they can make sense of them and still match them with the other evidence, such as the finds.... Is it the opinion of those on BAJR that research on archaeological assemblages and contexts without even the intention to report is in any way "responsible"? Or is it just self-centred erosion of a part of the resource?




Well I for one am becoming bored here,every time we have to
put up with this post assassin.:(

[JBM]

I went to a farm today which we have detected for nearly a year.

I decided to set an example by not just giving the farmer a pictures of some of the finds from his farm but actual items which some folk would hide away with their other pretty things.

The result was a long talk about the hobby and his agreement that we can record to 6 figures with our FLO and no longer just the farm being a possible medieval site but confirmed by the finds left by its inhabitants and recorded by the county records.

A bonus having told the farmer about a talk that I gave to our local history group was will you please come and do one for us.?

I replied of course I will and I bring along some boxes of finds for you all to handle.

Another result after talking to the farmer he said I also own 2 more farms would you like to detect them.

This is the way forward for us all work together and we all benefit.Jerry.

Retired Aerospace manager after many years in the engineering industry..
Locating and preserving historical items for future generations to enjoy.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Read my reply.

I clearly stated that self recording should be done with a view to passing on the information at a later date.

I really think you are just trying to imflame something that doesnt exist here Nigel.

I assure you I'm not.
Self recording with a view to passing on the information at a later date when you've been [u]told</u>not to pass it on is detecting when you [u]can't</u> report. As to the future, you have not the foggiest whether you will [u]ever</u> be free to report it so it's detecting when [u]you don't know if you can ever report</u>, which is essentially the same thing.

I'm not spinning or distorting the truth just stating it.

[Steve-B]

quote:I went to a farm today which we have detected for nearly a year.

I decided to set an example by not just giving the farmer a pictures of some of the finds from his farm but actual items which some folk would hide away with their other pretty things.

The result was a long talk about the hobby and his agreement that we can record to 6 figures with our FLO and no longer just the farm being a possible medieval site but confirmed by the finds left by its inhabitants and recorded by the county records.

A bonus having told the farmer about a talk that I gave to our local history group was will you please come and do one for us.?

I replied of course I will and I bring along some boxes of finds for you all to handle.

Another result after talking to the farmer he said I also own 2 more farms would you like to detect them.

This is the way forward for us all work together and we all benefit.Jerry.

Great example Jerry.

In all the years I have ben detcting, I personally have yet to come acrossa farmer who is adverse to finds being recorded.

Nigel, I wouls still detect on land if a landowner preferred me not to record. For the very fact of hoping that circumstances change, not only the land changing hands, but also by reason of the power of my own enthusiasm and passion for the hobby and the history.

But then I guess I prefer to look at my glas as being half full...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

If the COP is what you see it... why does it give a choice?

It doesn't give a choice. It clearly opines that responsible detecting means reporting finds (Clause 9).
Clause 7 is about recording and doesn't cancel Clause 9.

It's not as I see it, it's what it plainly says.

[BAJR Host]

This is where I am being a bit thick then...

If the clause says you (are advised) to record finds... but have to get the permission of the landowner to be allowed to record finds, then it is a case of even if you are allowed to detect but then not allowed to record with the PAS you should not detect on that land...

That then becomes a if you don't record you don't detect... which the CoP does not say...

As I say Nigel, perhaps to you it makes plain english sense, but to me, I am having trouble understanding it... which does not mean you are wrong or right... it is just I do not understand.

There seems little point in having 2 clauses when it seems that it is saying do not detect on land that you can't record on... Is that what it means?

[?]




Another day another WSI…

[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.

[BAJR Host]

Thats true.

Another day another WSI…

[BAJR Host]

So it looks like the difference is between recording and reporting..

Can you record but not report? or report with no reference to where? er.... ma heid!!!!!!!!!

Another day another WSI…

[Sheddy]

There still remains the question of the NCMD stance on this clause.

How can they put thier name to a document but not have it a a requirement of membership?

[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.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Toby

I read the CoP as two separate points due to being during data collection and after data collection..

Whilst on site (CoP - 7) make sure you record individual finds and location (don't tell anybody where yet!).

When you have finished detecting (CoP - 9) tell the owner what you have found that is theirs/yours, or whatever combination. Then ask them exactly how much information they want passed to PAS eg length of grid ref etc.

You can't follow the code in sequence, temporarily blind to the next Clause - you are subject to them all at all times. If the code says responsible detecting requires you to report finds you must establish whether you can at the start.

And anyway, you owe it to the farmer to say in advance can I detect [u]and</u> can I record so he fully understands the basis upon which he is granting permission. If at that point he says no reporting you're snookered.

The confusion I think is that the Clause 7 talk of recording finds is irrelevant if Clause 9 prevents you from having any finds. Clause 7 does tell you to "see also Clause 9" so the linkage is signalled and you really can't just act on Clause 7 in isolation.

(IMO)

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by Elgin &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; And anyway, you owe it to the farmer to say in advance can I detect [u]and</u> can I record so he fully understands the basis upon which he is granting permission. If at that point he says no reporting you're snookered. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

(IMO)


How incredibly arrogant to assume that because you have percieved a moral duty to record then it has to be done. There is no law in this land that requires anyone to record anything excepting items covered by the treasure act, so why would the detectorist be "snookered"?

[BAJR Host]

Agreed that the CoP has to be taken as a whole...

but here we go


quote:Findspot information should not be passed on to other parties
without the agreement of the landowner/occupier

You are obviously allowed to find things or there would not be a choice as to passing on information... if there was no detecting on land where the landowner did not allow reporting, then their would be no requirement to have a clause that stated you only pass on the findspot if they say you can...

then to clause 9... which you are right is linked.. it alos seems there is a choice.. or it would not have to state that you should only pass on the information if the landowner agrees...

still with me?

Is this one of dem clauses that needs clarifying.. as we all seem to have different interpretations.

you could - if one logic path is followed jsut have one clause stating that if you aren't allowed to report finds, then it is best not to detect on that land.. which is what (IMHO) not what the code says.

though I do think we are getting there.

but it keeps coming back to education... in every direction



Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host



quote:Findspot information should not be passed on to other parties
without the agreement of the landowner/occupier

You are obviously allowed to find things or there would not be a choice as to passing on information... if there was no detecting on land where the landowner did not allow reporting, then their would be no requirement to have a clause that stated you only pass on the findspot if they say you can...

Clause 7 gives opinions on recording and find spots. It's [u]relevance</u> is conditional upon an ability to report, per Clause 9 :-

If there is an ability to report then the Clause 7 provisions become relevant, which is why it is there.
If there is no ability to report then there should be no detecting and hence there will be nothing to record and no findspots and Clause 7, in that (less likely) scenario is irrelevant.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Sheddy
[br How incredibly arrogant to assume that because you have percieved a moral duty to record then it has to be done. There is no law in this land that requires anyone to record anything Code of Practice? "We responsible detectorists believe the following principles to be self-evident..." its a declaration of intent, not a rule book. Sheddy if you dont like what it says, just ignore it, but don't then go around saying you do things by (THIS) CoP when you dont. Simple as that. Most of the UKDN voters seem to have rejected it, so you will not be alone.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

if there was no detecting on land where the landowner did not allow reporting, then their would be no requirement to have a clause that stated you only pass on the findspot if they say you can... What it actually says is "with the agreement of". If it had said, "remember to tell the landowner you intend to do this first" or words to that effect, would you all still getting deep into convoluted logic and sentence structure?

We have anecdotal evidence that some detectorists have met farmers who will allow metal detecting on their land but dont want finds made on their land reported. But the fact of the matter is that the organizations accepting this on behalf of the landowning interests have no problems with it, though they added just this proviso (the fact that THEY have agreed to it does not oblige all landowners to go along with it if they perceive it as against their interests in individual cases).

David, dont forget the CBA advice sheet which we discussed on Britarch. This is all covered there.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

quote:Sheddy if you dont like what it says, just ignore it, but don't then go around saying you do things by (THIS) CoP when you dont. Simple as that. Most of the UKDN voters seem to have rejected it, so you will not be alone.

No need for that snipe Paul, the UKDN WILL be adopting a code and recommending that its members are giuded by it, it might be the one that you want, tough.



quote:And anyway, you owe it to the farmer to say in advance can I detect and can I record so he fully understands the basis upon which he is granting permission. If at that point he says no reporting you're snookered.

Nigel, while I fully agree that this subject should indeed be dicussed with the landowner prior to detcting, I disagree that any negative reaction on his part leaves us snookered.

I would rather put my faith into education, my enthusiasm and familiarity lending to a relationship of trust.


It has to beem born in mind that both the recoding of finds by the detectorist and the permission to do so by the landowner are both voluntary acts.... neither are legally bound to do either, so the code can in no way demand that this is done or suggest that no detcting is done on land where this permission is not forthcoming.

And at the risk of being hung, drawn and quartered (sorry have been watching the rebel Braveheart on telly;))

Playing the devils advocate here, if society is morally entitled to all the finds in the ground as we hear so often from Paul and Nigel, why is this not supported in Law, other than in cases of treasure?

What reason can be given legally that this should be the case in law? Would it not be presumptious to think that if society as whole was so concerned that there would have been petitions, demonstrations insisting on this?




www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Sheddy]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford
Code of Practice? "We responsible detectorists believe the following principles to be self-evident..." its a declaration of intent, not a rule book.
Who gave the sayer of the word "we" the right to decide what distinguishes a responsible detectorist, who gave the sayer the right to speak on my behalf? I consider myself to be responsible but I sure haven't voted in a poll to elect someone to speak on my behalf.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford
Sheddy if you dont like what it says, just ignore it, but don't then go around saying you do things by (THIS) CoP when you dont. Paul you know very little about how I detect, what I do or don't record or how I do or do not record it. Don't try your pathetic guilt by implication games with me as your target, you're not clever enough to make it stick.




quote:Originally posted by Paul Barford
Simple as that. Most of the UKDN voters seem to have rejected it, so you will not be alone.
I seem to be very much alone. I not only reject this CoP but I also reject the UKDN CoP. I do not see that anyone has the right to dictate how I carry on my detecting (as long as I remain within the law) regardless whether they are detectorist or archaeologist. Detecting without recording is fully legal. Unless you force a change in the law, neither you or your arckie mates can change that, no matter how many CoP's you put on the table and irrespective of how much credibility you try to give the CoP's by enlisting the edorsements of toothless organisations.

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B
Nigel, while I fully agree that this subject should indeed be dicussed with the landowner prior to detcting, I disagree that any negative reaction on his part leaves us snookered.
I know Steve. But we're discussing the CoP. Under that, it does.


quote:It has to beem born in mind that both the recoding of finds by the detectorist and the permission to do so by the landowner are both voluntary acts.... neither are legally bound to do either, so the code can in no way demand that this is done
I know that, as does everyone. And the Code says so.


quote:or [u]suggest</u> that no detcting is done on land where this permission is not forthcoming.
Of course it can. It does. It's a voluntary code.


quote:Playing the devils advocate here, if society is morally entitled to all the finds in the ground as we hear so often from Paul and Nigel, why is this not supported in Law, other than in cases of treasure?.
Because the voluntary PAS route was chosen you lucky hobbyist. (And it's morally entitled to the knowledge, not the objects).


quote:What reason can be given legally that this should be the case in law? Would it not be presumptious to think that if society as whole was so concerned that there would have been petitions, demonstrations insisting on this?
I presume you know Steve that the image of the hobby is going to take a nose dive as a result of what has happened. What medium term effect that will have I don't know. Had I been PR advisor for the hobby I'd have said don't produce an alternative code, just let people say yes or no to the CoP on an individual basis. The second code has advertised and cemented a larger, louder hobby-wide "No" which will be to its disadvantage,IMHO.

[drpeterwardle]

Paul said,

"Perhaps you'd like the PAS to subsidise the cost of your metal detectors next and give you petrol money.... "

How different is this to what was said about archaeology in the 1960's .... If it is valid to say that metal artefacts should be recovered before the top soil strip. Then why should the users of said detection equipment be expected to provide their own equipment let alone their time or the costs involved in getting there.

Peter Wardle

[Steve-B]

quote:I presume you know Steve that the image of the hobby is going to take a nose dive as a result of what has happened. What medium term effect that will have I don't know. Had I been PR advisor for the hobby I'd have said don't produce an alternative code, just let people say yes or no to the CoP on an individual basis. The second code has advertised and cemented a larger, louder hobby-wide "No" which will be to its disadvantage,IMHO.

I disagree totally Nigel.

The adoption of the UKDN of the code sends a out a resounding message that not only are the members of this forum in agreemnt that there is a need for a code, but also that they are actually THINKING abut the issues.

Anyone that can take this is a negative note is in fact exhibiting not only a limited perspective, but also trying to deny the right to free thought.

Poor answer on the question of morals Nigel.. a non answer really.

As Hosty says, most of what we are discussng is the issue of education, you cannot have everything the way yu want it, just because you demand it...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Sheddy]

I fail to see the logic in that Steve. having a vote on two seperat CoP's does not show that people are in agreement with one or the other. In order for the result to be legitimate there are two options missing, those of neither and abstaintion.

Vote 1) infavour of the PAS Cop
Vote 2) in favour of the UKDN CoP
Vote 3) In favour of neither
Vote 4) Abstainsion - I do not wish to vote for or against any of the proposals but wish to register my compliance with the vote.

Unless these additional optioons are included in the poll, the result is irrelevent. The admin at UKDN have chosen to acknowledge the impropriety of the poll but have done nothing to rectify the situation.

[Steve-B]

Sheddy, you will fail to see the logic as you are lacking one vital fact in your thinking.

The decision to adopt a code had nothing to do with admin, you seem to forget that the UKDN is a privatley owned forum, the choice was as to which code to adopt.

The owner would be perfectly within his rights to post up any code and state that he supports it like it or lump it... but he didnt.

You had the choice to vote on which code suited you.. you have decided neither does... good luck with your choice, its not my choice, but then Iam here to debate and not judge you..

BTW I think you will find option and 3 and 4 are basically the same.

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B
No need for that snipe Paul, the UKDN WILL be adopting a code and recommending that its members are giuded by it, it might be the one that you want, tough. If you read it again in the cold light of day, you will see there is no "snipe" there. Just a statement of fact. Those individuals who reject the CoP are not alone as the voting on UKDN indicates - though I hesitate to use the phrase "good company".

I think the differences between the two versions are such as to make a vote in favour of the alternative code a massive home goal for the pro-detecting lobby.

A hand was extended on May 2nd to the responsible element in the hobby, and as far as I am concerned a large number of detectorists have just spat in it.


quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Anyone that can take this is a negative note is in fact exhibiting not only a limited perspective, but also trying to deny the right to free thought. Poor answer on the question of morals Nigel.. a non answer really. "free thought" or "lack of forethought"? Well, you've had your little vote on your "private Forum", and shown that after all the years' discussion and "outreach", the UK detectorists gathered there have no fixed conception of what "being responsible" means. Now let us all see where this takes the hobby, compared to where a solidarity in acceptance of the CoP would have done. The two codes are NOT equivalents Steve, they are alternatives.

Paul Barford

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B
The adoption of the UKDN of the code sends a out a resounding message that not only are the members of this forum in agreemnt that there is a need for a code, but also that they are actually THINKING abut the issues.

I think most outsiders will inevitably see a simpler resounding message - that the hobby rejected the Code in favour of a hastily self-written one, plain and simple. How that will do other than damage its reputation I really don’t know.

The manner of the rejection will compound the problem. It was said that the main objection to the CoP was its undemocratic nature. Yet when this was rectified by the holding of a “democratic vote� most people rejected it, showing that its content was the true problem.

Incidentally, “democratic� depends on the breadth of view with which the resource is viewed. Both codes affect a common resource. Whatever criticisms you may have of the unrepresentative nature of the CoP it was produced by a very wide range of stakeholders and representatives of the wider public interest. The UKDN Code has been voted for by a few hundred un-named random members of an internet forum, mainly detectorists, so it is self-determination of the common resource writ large and is infinitely less “representative� than the CoP that was so maligned for its lack of inclusiveness.

All in all this has not been well thought through Steve IMO.
How detectorists act is [u]not</u> their sole business however often they claim otherwise.

[BAJR Host]

So can I take it that Nigel and Paul accept there is nothing that needs clarification or discussion with the CoP?

If yes it does have clauses which are either confusing/contradictory/need clarification/need expanded (all in a separate short document) then please continue.

If no it is fine then you really don't have to say any more.

And Nigel, it looks like you have made your home here. GO on.... have a look around at the rest of the forum. WHat do you think.?

Another day another WSI…

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

So can I take it that Nigel and Paul accept there is nothing that needs clarification or discussion with the CoP? While I agree with everything he said above, I cannot of course speak for Nigel. I reckon that such a discussion and clarification would be better carried out here together with the sort of detectorists to whom agreeing with its thirteent principles present no great problems. Instead we find that the discussion on BAJR is currently dominated by detectorists who seem hell-bent to find every single loophole in the text and the way it was created to justify opposing it both in principle and detail. I also note that most of the BAJR archaeologists have either walked away from the irrelevance of this discussion to what they do, or mostly encourage the detectorists opposed to the wording of the CoP.

There are (just) 138 detectorists in the UK which have declared in the poll on UKDN for the existing Code of Practice; its a pity that more of them could not be tempted to come here and join in this discussion. Probably though they had enough standing up for what they believe over on UKDN (we saw some of the nastiness spill over onto Britarch).

There is IMO a HUGE difference in thinking together about how to provide users' notes explaining the application and reasoning behind the existing document and setting out to justify the writing of an entirely separate one which negates the sense of several of its core principles. It seems to me that, despite Hosty's best efforts, the discussion on this Forum over the past two weeks has primarily been headed in the latter direction and been dominated by those whose interests lie in supporting their right to claim "alternative responsibility" according to this antithetical UKDN document.

Maybe somebody could wheel out their objections to CoP Clause 9 and we can draw closer to bringing this painful spectacle to an end?

[Steve-B]

Hosty, having read the above is there any wonder that a gulf still exists?

Why would anyone want to respond to that? It is a post designed to inflame.. no other purpose to it... sorry Paul, I am not biting!

David are you sure you have enough materials to build the bridge?

:(

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

Hosty addressed a direct question to Nigel and myself, I answered it.

I do not think clarification of the existing code can be carried out efficiently while one group wants to explain to potential users why it is written why it is and what that wording means for them, while another busies itself to explain why they cannot accept it being written like it is because they want it written another way.

There are now two groups on the other side of the "gulf"; those 138 detectorists who have immediately accepted the friendly hand extended across, and those represented by the 480 that have pushed it away.

So now we need two bridges instead of the one. I think we should concentrate on the one which brings those closest to us safely over the gulf, and leave the other group angrily shouting recriminations across the gap for the moment and decide what to do about them later....

And yes, as time goes on and these situations repeat themselves, those on the archaeological side of the gulf who want more and more money and time to build even that first bridge really DO need to show everybody that they have enough materials gathered to do so, and that building such a structure for just 28% of the detectorists really is worth the outlay. The UKDN poll which finished today has shown once again that we are all the time dealing with a minority of detectorists, and even when the PAS /liaison hand is extended, the majority continue to go their own sweet way behind fences they themselves throw up.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

So, I take it that you only wish to talk with like minded people as yourself.... odd...

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

David was, I understand, asking (us, not you) what Nigel and I felt about writing explanatory notes to the existing CoP. It seems to me a huge waste of everbody's time and patience discussing that against a background of personal attacks and other such stuff from those who are opposed on principle to the wording of the Code itself.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

The code holds relevance to us all Paul and there are no personal attacks apart from the insults that you are bent on throwing around, and whether David was directing a question to you mor anyone, I will address and highlight those insults..

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

Far better to rise above that sort of thing and address the actual question in hand surely. So, Clause nine of the CoP.

[BAJR Host]

IF people think there is no point discussing -then don't... simple...


The discussion here is not about the UKDN CoP it is about the current one... we are looking at each clause, discussing where confusion may or may not arise, where further description may be useful...

If you don't want to be involved, then don't get involved.

Another day another WSI…

[garybrun]

quote:This section will allow the exchange of percieved and real problems, allow discussion and find answers. This is a positive forum, looking for solutions

My apologies goes out to some of long term Bajr members as I am sure that none of the detectorists have come over to this board to disrupt it, but to share their opinions regarding the inflicted COP that was placed upon them. They came here because Bajr and Hosty have a reputation and they are trusted within the detecting community for being impartial and listen... but do speak out if they don't agree with points... but in friendly way.
I have to say that I have not seen one positive word come from Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Just disruption and sarcastic remarks that has become their trade mark on which ever forum they visit.

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

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by garybrun

I have to say that I have not seen one positive word come from Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Just disruption and sarcastic remarks that has become their trade mark on which ever forum they visit I assume that is another pointless personal jibe* at Nigel Swift and myself which does nothing to help the discussion along - but then I guess the latter was not your intention.
Presumably it depends on the point of view. We've been very positive about the Code of Practice, both here and on Britarch. We've been very supportive of those 131 detectorists who have declared for it and have been subjected to abuse for it (including Gary Brun spoofing Corinne's website address and using it to make posts on Britarch and UNDN). We have been supportive of the idea of writing explanatory notes to it and tried to add comments in that vein. On the other hand, I think a very negative phenomemnon is the way that even before the process of discussion was underway, a group of detectorists have decided not only to reject the Code, but write another one, but also to are quite clearly out to disrupt any discussion of the existing one among other things by comments like the one above.


quote:Originally posted by garybrun none of the detectorists have come over to this board to disrupt it, but to share their opinions regarding the inflicted COP that was placed upon them. Its not "inflicted", you can (and have) walked away from it. and I really do not think to judge from their reactions to the points you make over the past two weeks that many of the members of BAJR are actually all that interested in the "Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales", let alone the opinion of a few detectorists who are too busy picking holes in it to take the wider view of where it relates to what they do. But I could be wrong, there may be a sudden surge of interest when we start discussing the problems you all have with Clause nine.

* That would be "forum on which metal detectorists are also present" I guess you meant to say, looking at the other eleven forums I am active on, I certainly see a correlation there, though I cannot speak for Nigel.

[Steve-B]

Hosty, as this thread has digessed beyond recognition, can we conclude that we have have covered everything worth debating on this particular clause?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

It was a bit of a non-starter in the first place, a pretty uncontroversial clause in the context of a Code for responsible metal Detecting. Record find spots, keep stuff from separate findspots separate, keep landowner informed. Glad you've decided not to labour the side issues like the suggestion that PAS buy detectorists GPS machines. Can we move on perhaps to clause nine ?

[BAJR Host]

Good point...

Clause coverd.. topic locked

Another day another WSI…

[john1504]

A couple of interesting points raised here. But if I may mention one point that seems to have been overlooked - The 'agreed' CoP is the result of negotiation and compromise....the 'grey' areas within the Code are the result of point that the negotiators agreed to differ (for the sake of moving on).

It also seems that a number of people have (in some cases deliberately...) misunderstood the meaning of the term 'voluntary'.

I find it odd that the term 'inflicted' should be used in describing a document that has been decided by a number of different (in some cases diametrically opposed) 'groups', as an acceptable example to all of how the hobby of Metal-Detecting would best be practiced.

Would this 'inflicted' be in the same context as the 'inflicting' of say the minlabowners site on detectorists or the BAJR being inflicted on archaeologists?

The 'other' CoP is the result of discussion between like minded individuals who sought clarification in some of the points from the original CoP. I can see nothing wrong with that as I am sure most (if not all) would agree. Otherwise why is it being debated on here?

What should also be obvious now, is the level of negotiation that was required to get some of these points through. The level of opposing viewpoints about the clauses here is no greater than it was during the original negotiations. It's easy to insert, or make changes to, clauses that like-minded individuals agree to.

But to say it's 'inflicted' is, IMO, intended to inflame.

[BAJR Host]

Many words have been used and misused in the past few weeks...

So if everyone looks at what they have written before hitting the submit button.. we all know what we mean but in this case, a single word can have connotations and is perhaps best left out or rethought.

Inflict, impose, hoik, loot etc etc

John is right about the grey areas, and the reasons behind them, but these grey areas are just the areas that are most important. It will be easier as you say to build upon this document and clarify definitions.. I certainly hope so. And what has been a difficult process will bring forward a detectorist led document that can be held as a reasonable, achievable and majority supported Code.

oh... and I am afraid there are many many archaeologists who feel that BAJR is inflicted on them... ;) :D - that'll teach em! :D:D:D

Another day another WSI…

[Elgin]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

And what has been a difficult process will bring forward a detectorist led document that can be held as a reasonable, achievable and majority supported Code.

So is the CoP not achievable - when 27% of detectorists say they can?

And is the CoP not reasonable - when 27% of detectorists plus NCMD (who say they got the best deal going) plus all the public and professional stakeholder think so?

Where is the evidence that the CoP (which you described as essentially fine and dandy) is neither achievable nor reasonable?

[Steve-B]

Sorry, 27% of who say they can?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
will bring forward a detectorist led document that can be held as a reasonable, achievable and majority supported CodeBut we have still not been shown what actually is UNreasonable and UNachievable in the document supported by many organizations (and 27% of the detectorists taking part in the UKDN poll). When are we going to hear the detectorists' comments and doubts and objections to Clause nine? It seems central to the whole issue.

Paul Barford

[Steve-B]

Actually to quote the corect figures:

22% for the CBA CoP

78% for the UKDN CoP

I am absolutely astounded that you can take this figure,try to turn it around as a victory, whithout even mentioning the 78% that voted for the UKDM CoP...

As to what is UNreachable and UNreasonable, try re reeading the last god knows how many pages on the BAJR in respect of this.

Astounded... I just cannot believe the sheer audacity...

Why the heck are you two here?

You have no intention of conducting a real debate, or even sticking to facts if you can get away with it...

David has granted the privalage of allowing both 'sides' the space to discuss and hopefully build some bridges here, you go way beyond abusing that privalage...



www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[Elgin]

Steve I'm not claiming anything as a victory, simply that 22% of voters voted for the CoP so they obviously thought compliance was achievable, that's all, a perfectly reasonable point.

"David has granted the privalage of allowing both 'sides' the space to discuss and hopefully build some bridges here, you go way beyond abusing that privalage..."

The discussion is to see if any clarification to the text is needed. I must say I don't see anything huge so far, but we haven't got to the end yet. The fact that I happen to be very pro the document doesn't disqualify me from being here does it?

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by Steve-B

Actually to quote the corect figures:
22% for the CBA CoP
78% for the UKDN CoP
I am absolutely astounded that you can take this figure,try to turn it around as a victory, whithout even mentioning the 78% that voted for the UKDM CoP...I guess he was just trying to be positive about the failure of eight years' archaeological outreach to detectorists to get agreement on thirteen simple points. Of those asked, 78% reject the Code of Practice, but still 22% are on the same track as us.

[Steve-B]

quote: Of those asked, 78% reject the Code of Practice, but still 22% are on the same track as us.

Actually 78% prefer the UKDN CoP, 22% prefer the CBA CoP..

100% accept the need for a CoP... bloody good result to me!!!


quote:I guess he was just trying to be positive about the failure of eight years' archaeological outreach to detectorists to get agreement on thirteen simple points

And yet you still consider archaeological outreach a failure....

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.

[john1504]

I have to agree with Steve on this one. Irrespective of how many voted for what, the point remains that a respectable number of people decided to make a choice, indicating that they accept a Code of Practice.

[john1504]

[:I]Oops.....double posted....

[troll]

Hows about licensing the 27% and outlawing those who rejected?:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[garybrun]

Now we know why you have the username Troll :D

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

[troll]

Absofundamentalutely sire! Trust you are well sir. A good soup requires the odd stir.....good will to all!:D

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Steve-B]

Have you thought about applying for Master chef?:D

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

For all your detecting needs.