Over on a so-called ethical metal detecting blog near you, you will find a curious little post from the blog's owner ("An apology to John Howland and Dick Stout", Thursday, 20 February 2014). It reads simply:
I would like to apologise to Dick and John for authorising a comment by Nigel Swift which contained a serious untrue allegation. I should have taken more time to sift through the comments before publishing them. Please accept my apologies.Now what this concerns is Nigel Swift's mention of John Howland's persistence in trying to disseminate his home address in as many places frequented by thugwittish as possible in an attempt to harrass and intimidate him. Given the nature of tekkie reactions to Heritage action's considerations of the long-term effects of their hobby and the general level of thuggishness and even violence within the detecting community, I would say this is reason for concern. Mr Howland apparently contacted the blog owner this morning and suggested that this was a false allegation. It is not, I have seen these posts on the Dick Stout blog. Howland himself admits it (20 February 2014 07:01)
Hi Andy: I am obliged to you. Apology accepted. Will you now delete the address of Nigel Swift from my post, as publication will cause him concern, though he has published it elsewhere in the past. Neither I nor you would want to be responsible for anyone pestering him or his family. I hope you understand.Yes, we "understand" Mr Howland's little game. He tried to post my own (it seems) on the Peter Tompa blog two days ago (see here for why it is of concern to me). Also we understand from the above that "ethical" Andy Baines actually published John Howland's "post" containing the home address of Nigel Swift ("lets here them in a controlled environment").
In addition to this, the blog's owner has simply deleted Mr Swift's whole comment on the say-so of the metal detectorist mate and accepted his side of the story. Yet the same metal detectorist pal had spent the past week sending various allegations about me to the same blog, and not a word of apology. It seems that on this so-called "ethical detecting blog" there are two standards, one for metal detectorists and one for everybody else, which would be par for the course if the blog's owner had not been bending over backwards to try and get contributions to his blog precisely from Heritage Action and myself.
Later on today, the owner then received comment from Mr Swift, containing a link to explain why he had said what he did, and refused to publish it. He continues to side with Mr Howland. This is all pretty shameful, concludes Nigel Swift, and I think we must all agree with him.
Good luck with your ethical blog, populated by Messrs Howland and Stout which would be hilarious if it wasn't risible. Mr Howland has just tried to publish Paul's address too elsewhere, did you know? I presume you "don't know" if he meant to cause harm to Paul and his family, eh?It is very easy to say one is a "responsible detectorist", it is much harder, obviously, to act as one. It is up to responsible detectorists to react to irresponsible behaviour from their fellows, such as harassing or abusing people from outside the hobby. It is not responsible to go along with it. By their behaviour in the public domain, tekkies will be judged, they are all "ambassadors for the hobby".
|Metal detecting calendar girl|
So, once again, all the fine words and posing are an illusion, Mr Baines has shown his true colours. This is really pathetic, and these people wonder why nobody wants to discuss anything with them any more. Once again it is confirmed in full public view, trying to engage, at any level, with English metal detectorists is a total waste of time.
Mr Baines has chosen his partners for discussion. I am sure he'll find a warm welcome on "Stout Standards". It's about his level (they are in fact discussing girlie calendars in sexist seventies caveman style there at the moment).
Mr Baines apparently ('Only fair I have my say', Thursday, 20 February 2014) thinks the above is a "foul-mouthed" and "evil rant". He also thinks it is "per petulant" (sic) to not want people hanging around in the dark outside our houses, thugwits phoning at all hours, filling our inboxes with abuse and threats. In the world he inhabits this is perhaps the norm, according to this "responsible detectorist" this is "the pickle you lot have got yourselves in" for discussing metal detecting instead of the poetry of Wordsworth or the tonality of Vaughan-Williams, and he's not going to lift a finger - or even an eyebrow about it. It furthermore now seems from what he writes that John Howland threatened him with libel for what he published. Really? A case of pot-kettle-black there I would say, including a post about me still ON Mr Baines' blog.
He's now updated his post to say that by updating mine I am in some way "bullying" him (!). I suggest he reads Stout Standards (in particular his new pal John Howland's contribution to the debate there) before objecting to me saying here that I think he is wrong and he is not doing the cause of "responsible detecting" any favours by his actions.