attack of Annie Byard, Oxfordshire FLO on "this site", was on Heritage Action (rather than Rescue). In reply to the eminently reasonable observation HA made about the so-called "Ebroacum Hoard" of shattered pennies sold by metal detectorists at Spink's, she's banging on about "the detectorists that do waive their right to reward and donate to museums, or donate objects that aren't governed by the treasure act". She then refers to those who think rather less of this phenomenon than she does as "somewhat prejudiced and ill informed". This is typical of the PAS. They refuse to engage with any sensible discussion of a topic, and then shout insults down at the grassroots folk from the top of their ivory tower. "Trolls!", "Prejudiced and Ill-informed!", "Buzz off and leave us alone!".
"Ill-informed" Heritage Action are not. The only prejudice here seems to be coming from another quarter, if you ask me. The PAS gobble up millions of pounds of public money to liaise with artefact collectors, and you would think we'd be able to get some simple facts and figures out of them about the effects of current policies on portable antiquities after seventeen years of this liaison and partnership. But that kind of factual interaction seems not to be what Bloomsbury sees to be its function.
As Heritage Action point out:
we aren’t in the PAS game of pretending the majority (in this matter and in the whole of best practice) are well behaved and responsible. They aren’t, and even PAS has conceded that in its published figures. We aren’t apologists for metal detecting and our continuance isn’t dependant upon praising them. Can PAS say the same? “Prejudiced” means taking a particular line in defiance of the evidence. Hasn’t PAS done that for 17 years?