by Nigel Swift
I recently opined (here and here) that detecting forum UKDN doesn’t feel constrained by the shackles of truth. But the same and more can be said of metal detecting clubs (despite the motto of Prince Bishop Detecting Club – “Honesty is always the best policy“!)
My central contention is that a large number of clubs present themselves as guarantors of virtue while leaving scope in their rules for individual Members to mislead landowners and/or not report finds. And no, that’s not an unsubstantiated accusation, I can prove it. The killer issue is this: most of them make a big noise about how their members must comply with the National Council of Metal Detecting Code of Practice but (unknown to the landowners) that code is rubbish, it leaves adherents free to ignore the official Code of Responsible Detecting. This accusation comes with an invitation to prove me wrong: let them make full adherence to the Code of Responsible Detecting a strict condition of membership. No-one could then accuse them of supplying irresponsible Members with the means to mislead landowners.
I won’t hold my breath though. Non reporting detectorists don’t live in outer space, many are members of clubs – and it is presumably a wish to convenience them rather than careless drafting that causes the dialogue of so many clubs to be replete with double-speak and hidden loopholes. And it’s not just the widespread “wrong code of practice” sleight of hand that is on show, it is multifarious other ploys that mislead farmers. For instance:
1.Prince Bishop Metal Detecting Club (again): “As an act of openness [!] we are always willing to discuss with landowners the finds that come off their land”! How kind! But it translates (doesn’t it?!) as : “We’ll show you only if you ask, otherwise the stuff is ours and we’ll take it home with us”.
2.Northamptonshire Artefact Recovery Club -“we work very closely with landowners.” So closely in fact that they take the artefacts home for themselves and merely give “a photograph of each one” to the landowner! (For his “records“!)
3. South-Lancs & Cheshire Detecting Club say “It is very seldom that those who grant detecting rights on their land wish to retain any of the coins and artefacts recovered from it” Here’s a puzzle! Why should landowners be seldom interested in retaining items that detectorists are desperately keen to get hold of and which EBay features so extensively? Are they all toothless hillbillies, less educated than detectorists about history and money? Or is the only rational explanation that they aren’t very aware of exactly what is coming out of their fields? And it’s value? (Guess!)
4. Weymouth and Portland metal detecting club generously tells farmers “we are happy to share our finds on a 50/50 basis”. How kind. But if they aren’t trying to fool him shouldn’t that be “happy to share YOUR property on a 50/50 basis”? [And that club’s a doozy anyway – they have guest speakers who are coin valuers – so no pretence there then. And their club motto is buttock-clenching in the circumstances: “We leave nothing but footprints!” You can’t get truer than that….]
5.West Kirby Metal Detecting Club has yet more tricky words that will fool farmers – a Code of Conduct that tells members “Report any unusual historic finds to PAS”. Trouble is, that’s NOT what the official code of Responsible Detecting says, and it’s a deliberate weakening of it. By specifying “unusual” (which appears nowhere in the official code) it is left purely to the club member what he reports and what he doesn’t while giving farmers the strong impression the club rules require 100% recording and Official Code compliance. They don’t.
6. Yeovil Metal Detecting Club leave the barn door wide open for those that want to mislead farmers. They say they are “happy to share any items of value on a 50/50 basis” (patronising or what, considering they don’t own a molecule of them?) and they will “report all worthwhile finds and findings to you”. Thus, neatly, they ensure (a.) what is of value, (b.) what is to be shared and (c.) what is to be shown to the farmer all remain entirely for the judgement of the detectorists. WHY? Do farmers ever get ripped off in the Yeovil area? Have a guess!
7. Solent Metal Detecting Club opens the barn door by a different method: it tells members that finds “may” be recorded with PAS. Of course, saying “may” is also saying “may not”! “May” is only a word but it can make a villain look like a hero – and it wasn’t chosen by chance.
Doubtless PAS et al know I’m right, but will they do something about it? PAS itself never will, for sure (Britain has created an official life form whose optimum survival strategy lies in promoting the well-being of the problem it was created to control.) But what about “et al”, the other archaeological signatories to the Official Code of Responsible Detecting and the Rally Code. Their position is tricky, to say the least. The Official Codes encourage detectorists to join clubs and to enter Finds Agreements. But the clubs don’t prevent unacceptable behaviour, on the contrary for those that are so inclined, they facilitate it. Similarly, Finds agreements don’t provide protection for the public resource or landowners. On the contrary, for those that are so inclined, they aid injustice and irresponsibility. “Et al” have left the public and landowners of Britain wide open to being misled and ripped off by anyone so inclined. It’s surely incumbent upon them to put things right rather than persist in publicly painting the situation as acceptable (leaving it to the likes of us and Paul Barford to voice what they themselves actually think!)
There IS an interim solution, and it’s below. It borrows the Prince Bishop Detecting Club sentiment about honesty being the best policy and applies it for the benefit of landowners and the general public. I’m sure “et al” know it would be a Good Thing and that it would be simplicity itself to achieve, they would just need to advise landowners to adopt it, for their own sake and the good of the resource. One full page ad in the farming press would do more good for those that deserve it than thirteen years of uphill outreach! Some people might object but advising farmers on the conditions they should lay down for access to their own land is not exactly unreasonable, the dimmest of MPs and BBC producers would see that, so the non-recording and pocket-loving sector of the metal detecting community would be left as the only objectors.
So will “et al” say…..
Yes, in the unfortunate situation where Parliament hasn’t stepped in and absolutely anyone can go metal detecting without constraint, that really is the only way the property interests of farmers and the cultural interests of society can be protected
Or will they keep silent yet again, pretending what is clearly happening on a massive scale isn’t, and murmuring
Them that asks no questions isn’t told a lie, Watch the wall, my darling, while the gentlemen go by?
_____________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
27/08/2011 at 09:14
Mike Lawrence
I like the ‘rally rules’, but would suggest substituting ‘Landowner’ for ‘Farmer’
27/08/2011 at 09:42
Nigel
Thanks Mike. Point taken.
“Et al” can make the adjustment when they place the advert!
27/08/2011 at 13:48
Paul Barford
But Nigel, is not the NCMD Code of Practice the one that the “Fizzy” metal detectorists’ survey refers to?
27/08/2011 at 14:37
Nigel
I guess you mean the survey of metal detectorists that ex FLO Felicity Winkley is conducting “to assess the effectiveness of the Portable Antiquities Scheme”? You’re right, she asks them if they abide by the rubbish NCMD Code not whether they abide by the Official Code of Responsible Detecting !!
Why would she do that? Ah yes, she has “the backing of the NCMD” to conduct the questionnaire. Not likely they’re going to back her to ask the embarrassing questions is it? Just shows how far the bamboozling has gone if academics can be so completely misled. What chance have landowners and the general public got?
28/08/2011 at 11:51
John Bishop
Interesting and thought provoking post. My concern however, is that many farmers I come across don’t really give a hoot about history or the curatorship of thier land other than as a means to provide an income to themselves. I can see most farmers just chucking finds into a bucket as either scrap or as some curiosity that they don’t really know or understand- A real shame.
28/08/2011 at 13:51
Nigel
Well, that’s the hillbilly characterisation of farmers that a lot of detectorists put forward as their reason for not reporting their finds to PAS. (“Most of my farmers won’t let me”). My experience of farmers is that on average they’re a lot better educated than most metal detectorists and are being represented as otherwise as an excuse.
In any case, if people metal detect knowing the farmer has said he won’t allow reporting then they are in breach of the official Code and they not the farmer are at fault.
29/08/2011 at 10:18
John Bishop
It is not a general hillbilly characterisation, hence my use of the word ‘Many’, and this comes from someone whose father and family are farmers, hence my respect for farmers and agriculture. I just think that relying on farmers to record finds is expecting a bit much. I’m sure many would say they would but reality would be somewhat different.
29/08/2011 at 11:54
Nigel
” hence my use of the word ‘Many’ ”
You actually also said ” Most “.
If ” Most ” farmers treat historical knowledge with contempt that’s not a great concern since most metal detectorists do exactly that anyway.
If on the other hand, as you now suggest, only “many” farmers do so then putting them in charge of the process would be a big step forward as they’d report more than detectorists do.
The additional advantage of the “Farmer in Charge of the Finds Box” concept is that the FLOs would get to see everything, and wouldn’t need to attend rallies at great expense to the taxpayer and could do their “outreaching” at detecting clubs or elsewhere. Truth is, the only reason the FLOs attend rallies is for the convenience of detectorists – they need to examine the finds on the day, before the detectorists take them home with them. If the farmer keeps them (and they ARE his property) the FLOs can look at them at their leisure.
(I can hear forty FLOs cheering, but not out loud as they’re not allowed to agree with anything I say!)
04/10/2011 at 21:46
GrahamLibbey
Mr.Swift,may i suggest you get down off of your rather shaky soapbox and commit your energies toward a more positive direction.Yes,there are miscreants in every strata of society,but does that give you the license to slander the principles of any group of people,i would suggest not.P.S My first ever(and only first of two) gold coins i gave to the farmer without any encouragement from him,it was a pleasure to give and not take,hmmm now why does the word Banker spring to mind,anyway enough of my waffling….be positive !
05/10/2011 at 06:40
Nigel Swift
Your posting illustrates the point of the article perfectly, the public are misled by detectorists. You boast that you “gave” a coin to a farmer (“without any encouragement from him, it was a pleasure to give and not take”)
Yet it was his!
I will take your advice about being positive when you deliver everything you find to the rightful owner and then follow the principles of Ethical Detecting http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/ (You can call THAT a shaky soapbox if you wish but it won’t make it so).
18/10/2011 at 17:07
J Butler
Mr Swift, i wish to thank you for your posting of various club rules and you interpretation of them. Having followed your link to the Ethical Detecting principles i am distressed to find that i am not an ethical detectorist due to the fact that i show all finds to the landowner and not just the ones that i think are of interest as stated in principle 3.
” Members will never ask landowners to enter into “finds sharing agreements” but instead will promptly deliver ALL finds of interest into the hands of their legal owner, the landowner, so that he/she can consider what (if anything) should be done with them “.
Thanks but i will stick to my own code.
18/10/2011 at 20:17
heritageaction
“Thanks but i will stick to my own code”
That’ll be your own code whereby you unilaterally decide what happens to someone else’s property will it? Very impressive.
As for our “interpretation” of the club rules, all we have done is point out they fail to make adherence to the official code and the reporting of all finds to PAS mandatory – something which all irresponsible members are obviously satisfied with (“it’s only a volunty scheme innit?”) and which all thinking members ought to hang their heads in shame about. Simple really. But thanks for your input.
17/07/2014 at 13:49
Paul Harrison
I am rather concerned that the author of this article has not had the forethought, decency or indeed sense to contact and speak with the committees / members of the clubs he uses to support this bigoted and disturbed view of Metal Detecting clubs.
If this person had spoken with the clubs he misuses in his bilious interpretation of their constitution / rules , he may have found to his astonishment a level of responsibility that is worthy of renown; instead he offers up an intolerant and flawed view of their aspirations for safe, honest and responsible metal detecting.
He fails to point out that more ancient artifacts etc. have been recorded since the hobby became as wide spread as it is, items that would never have seen the light of day but for hobby and the honesty of the detectorists he treats with disdain
I do appreciate that there are a number of clubs or individuals who treat metal detecting in a manner fit only for the gutter; however night hawking and non recording is not an option to must of us, that said it is a problem that can compromise the hobby and for this reason most clubs do everything in their power to highlight these issues and endeavor to stamp it out through selective membership.
Relationship with landowners is honest and open with a trust on both sides that has been built up over a number of years, honest detectorists consider themselves accountable to their landowners and hobby and do not wish or deserve to be considered a felon because crass and ill considered publications like this
Generally good clubs vet potential members before allowing them membership, furthermore clubs are more often than not aware of the local reprobates who would damage the hobby and therefore will not allow such people to become members.
Having clubs that are doing their very best to safeguard the hobby, artifacts and landowners should be applauded and not misrepresented in the defamatory manner that this article offers.
17/07/2014 at 14:01
heritageaction
The article cites seven clubs whose rules are clearly contemptuous of the rights of landowners.
In addition hardly any clubs make adherence to the official responsibility code mandatory.
Those are facts, not opinions.
17/07/2014 at 22:25
Paul Harrison
Not all clubs have websites, those who do do so in an effort to be open and honest and to emphasise their willingness to adhere to the restraints the hobby and PAS asks of them. Woefully this article has taken that genuine openness and without consultation with any club seen fit to demean the well intentioned ideals most clubs strive for.
The later statement ‘facts not opinions’ is a surly part of an attempt to try and edge metal detecting into a world on the edge of rottenness.
However the arrogance of the writer is risible, how can he offer up his twisted bias on club rules based solely on seven clubs honest efforts to be open and truthful, he has not taken the time to clarify what these clubs try to offer or indeed sought out any input from any of the 100’s of clubs involved with this hobby.
Therefore I suggest that this article is so dubious and flawed in it’s one sided construction it should never be taken seriously by any person who considers himself to be an honest, upright and a genuine supporter of this wonderful hobby and PAS.
18/07/2014 at 05:37
TimR
Rubbish. People who (a.) don’t hand everything over to the owner instantly for him to decide what happens to it and (b.) aren’t committed to follow the official Code are not acting in an open or responsible fashion. Attacking the author can’t conceal those 2 basic facts and the more it’s done the more obvious that is.
29/07/2014 at 15:12
Paul Harrison
Ethical detecting??, when clubs search on their landowners fields they pay that landowner a fee from between £ 5 to £15 per man this is understood by all parties as payment for potential general finds that may come off during that dig, therefore apart from treasure or anything of true high value finds has to belong to the finder.
The landowner can benefit to the value of some £100’s depending on size of the club, furthermore if rallies are being held on that land payment can run into £1000’s. This is a win win situation for the landowner, he gains payment regardless of what may be found or not found plus he has an opportunity to reap greatly if treasure or high value finds are unearthed
You suggest that any finds should go to the rightful owner (landowner) however if a fee is paid for potential finds up front who is to be considered the rightful possessor?, the landowner has in fact been paid for those potential finds already and already mentioned he / she still holds a genuine and real access to the rewards that treasure or high value finds may bring. Very often no finds come off at all, would you therefore suggest that the landowner gives back the fee to those who have paid for the right to detect on their land??
29/07/2014 at 16:06
heritageaction
What we suggest is that to get a farmer to enter into an agreement for the detectorists to own things below a certain figure on the basis that the detectorist alone makes the valuation and the landowner doesn’t see the object is outrageous.
Would you be happy to hear your granny had entered into an agreement with a bunch of day trippers from Liverpool, Leicester and Latvia to clear her loft on that basis? Of course not. You’d be scandalised.
29/07/2014 at 17:15
Paul Harrison
Sorry my friend but your argument is pap; I don’t know what is going on in your head but I really suggest you speak to landowners, clubs and the PAS and find out what really goes on, because it’s obvious you don’t have a single clue about what is best for the hobby, landowners or Detecting clubs
29/07/2014 at 17:30
heritageaction
How metaldetectoristic! Simply denying the reality rather than facing up to how unacceptable it is.
Let me repeat (and let’s see if you can face up to it this time – not doing so will speak louder than any words):
Would you be happy to hear your granny had entered into an agreement with a bunch of day trippers from Liverpool, Leicester and Latvia to clear her loft on that basis?
(Please don’t trouble yourself to say it doesn’t happen that way. It is exactly and precisely what most metal detecting finds agreements lay down.)
30/07/2014 at 05:59
Paul Barford
Mr Harrison, when this flat fee of “five to fifteen quid” is agreed, can you assure us that the farmer is handed a stack of hobby magazines to leaf through so he can see if this is a “fair deal”?
I have a random recent copy of “the Searcher” in front of me and in the finds valuation section (by Pete Spencer I think, isn’t it?). I’ll read the values: 230, 500-550, 20, 35, 50-60, 20, 80-100, 50, 50, 300-400, 400, 6–70, 150, 35, 50-60, 60-80, 40, 90-100, 20, 20, 50 quid It’s even worse if you look at the “Treasure hunter”, a random recent number also on my desk. Just in front of the PAS annual report (!) is the auction roundup: 726, 907 1210, 968, 2057, 7260, and so on – for three pages, the 726 quid one being the cheapest.
I think you’d have to be a pretty thick farmer to let an artefact hunter on the field and let him walk off with anything they find paying just a fiver when you can see there is NOTHING in the valuation section of either magazine worth as little as a fiver. It is my suggestion that in fact if we had access to “landowners and clubs [to] find out what really goes on” we’d find that landowners have not been shown black on white what artefact hunters are walking off with week in week out. As for the PAS, how would they know about the details of prior negotiations with the landowner? This is not in their remit to discuss.
The point is about informing the landowner of the potential value of what people may find, not in the Treasure alone but precisely among the saleable minor (non-treasure) items. You must agree that its pretty easy on a productive site in the present situation to pay a fiver and knowingly walk off with finds worth 100, 200 quid by Mr Spencer’s valuations. What is being said here is that its only honest and fair (if nothing else) to keep the landowner – the only owner of those items – properly informed of the true situation.
And you are not paying for the finds, but access to the land. You can legally no more walk off with finds without the farmer’s say-so than a carrier bag of carrots growing in the field next to the search area. Or if you pay a five quid entry fee to a stately home, you cannot help yourself to the cutlery from the sideboard, can you?
Likewise your dear old trusting granny letting knowledgeable daytrippers walk off with the choice items from her loft for a fiver unseen. That old antique rocking horse and the porcelain vase bought in 1952 from a shady man in a pub for example
.
31/07/2014 at 15:48
heritageaction
Mr Harrison, we haven’t published your reply as it was more of the same, totally ignoring Paul’s points. He has totally demolished your case. Further, you make a desperate and silly attempt to spin “As an act of openness we are always willing to discuss with landowners the finds that come off their land” as something open and reasonable. Willing to discuss, indeed! Arrogance personified – over someone else’s property!
No, your club has been operating on oik rules, for the benefit of oiks and you’ve now shown everyone that you know it does.