In a thread called "Re: Detecting and its contribution to Archaeology" a rather superficial mutual back-slap prompted by a saccharine blog-post by PAS's Michael Lewis, we find a somewhat variant point of view. The whole justification of reporting and recording all this stuff hs been to claim it is used in planning and heritage management. In a situation where this actually happened (one of few cases actually documented), the 'finder' is less than happy. In fact he's stopped recording finds with the PAS because of it. Here's Heritage Action's take on it, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
“Edmundy” carries on detecting despite the landowners telling him not to report his finds.Someone (PAS) should have told him not to detect if he can’t report what he finds and the same someone (PAS) should have told the landowners not to allow people to detect if they don’t want the finds reported. Someone else (Edmundy) is beyond the pale for not walking away of his own accord. Thus, another bit of everyone’s archaeological record goes west thanks to a quango that neglects its duty, landowners who are consequently kept uninformed and a detectorist who must surely know what’s the right thing to do but prefers to do the opposite! Bonkers….. Britain.