Embarrassing Inconsistencies #2: protection good, destruction OK

“Monkeymad” enquires : “I have just been given a huge permission somewere in the uk with 2 scheduled monuments on two fields ……. However it has another 36 fields with 27 unscheduled ancient monuments around and in them. Now the farmer still uses these fields and has never been told not too unlike the other 2 but what does it mean for us detecting?”

What it means, Monkeymad, is that although there’s no diffeence in terms of knowledge potential between the sites, you’ll be fined and perhaps jailed for detecting on the 2 but you can detect without limit on the other 27. In fact, you can exploit them to the point of complete annihilation. Good innit?! It’s called unregulated metal detecting on archaeological sites and it’s unique to Britain!

Update: “Mike – Superhero Member” responds: “If it’s not scheduled, crack on!”

[For more, put embarrassing inconsistencies into the search box.
A question: if someone can come up with a series of such inconsistencies and no-one denies they exist does it signal a fundamental defect in policy?]

_______________________________________________________________

More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting

_______________________________________________________________