.
On the news on the outcome of the Baylham nighthawking case, one detectorist (a fertlingjohn ) comments [Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:31 pm]:
On the news on the outcome of the Baylham nighthawking case, one detectorist (a fertlingjohn ) comments [Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:31 pm]:
Brings back memories in 1976 we had full permission from the then landowner a lovely site in those days the present law on scheduled sites was not in force*
In 1976 however the site was already a known Roman site of importance. It has a good set of cropmarks, had produced all sorts of archaeological evidence. Here we have a clear case of the targeting of a known site of importance by metal detectorists. How many other known sites in the region have similarly been done over since the mid-1970s?
Maybe some attempt should be made to track down those who had permission to hunt for artefacts at sites of national importance (ie subsequently scheduled) and document what was taken from them?
* Presumably the fertler means the site was not then scheduled, because the laws were certainly in place.
UPDATE 6.09.12
Oh dear, I seem to have given a "broken link" ("The requested topic does not exist"). That's funny, it was working a few hours ago... Now how odd is that? The boyz were discussing one of those nasty thieves "who are not like us" because they break the law. Then the thread is open, no problems. Then a member states that they'd been artefact hunting on the same site but LEGALLY. At this, the thread is quietly closed or moved when it started to attract attention. Now I really do not think "fertling john" has anything to hide, so what are the forum moderators trying to hide from public view? Why this total lack of frankness and transparency among UK metal detectorists? A post was made, an opinion expressed - but then censored. Why? What did Fertling John say that so unsettled the artefact hunting community? Trying to make things look as they are not is simply out-and-out dishonesty - but then whoever thought these people were capable of honesty?
PS Fertling John has some views of his own what activity should be considered legal on scheduled sites.
Maybe some attempt should be made to track down those who had permission to hunt for artefacts at sites of national importance (ie subsequently scheduled) and document what was taken from them?
* Presumably the fertler means the site was not then scheduled, because the laws were certainly in place.
UPDATE 6.09.12
Oh dear, I seem to have given a "broken link" ("The requested topic does not exist"). That's funny, it was working a few hours ago... Now how odd is that? The boyz were discussing one of those nasty thieves "who are not like us" because they break the law. Then the thread is open, no problems. Then a member states that they'd been artefact hunting on the same site but LEGALLY. At this, the thread is quietly closed or moved when it started to attract attention. Now I really do not think "fertling john" has anything to hide, so what are the forum moderators trying to hide from public view? Why this total lack of frankness and transparency among UK metal detectorists? A post was made, an opinion expressed - but then censored. Why? What did Fertling John say that so unsettled the artefact hunting community? Trying to make things look as they are not is simply out-and-out dishonesty - but then whoever thought these people were capable of honesty?
PS Fertling John has some views of his own what activity should be considered legal on scheduled sites.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment