Responsible Artefact Retrieval: Methodology makes all the Difference

In relation to another hoard hoik, Detectorbloke on his 'The Responsible Detectorist' blog ("Ramblings of a part time metal detectorist in West Sussex, England. Looking at Responsible Metal Detecting") has a post 'Excavating a hoard, spot the difference?'

A detectorist makes the effort to show difference between responsible and not

Now look at the photos of the Manor Farm, Lenborough near Buckingham hoard, dug reportedly by the FLO. Can you "spot the difference" with that too? Why are we treating the archaeological heritage of a known and unthreatened site in such an utterly cavalier manner? Can somebody - like from the PAS - answer that perfectly valid question? And what has the PAS 'taught' artefact hunters (about the 'value of archaeological finds in their context') hoiking out the hoard in this, and not another, manner? And what does a responsible metal detectorist looking at responsible metal detecting see here?

An FLO has not made the effort to show the difference between responsible and not.
Hoik hole, images posted by "Metal Detectives" on BAJR Facebook page

And archaeologists of the David Connolly ilk, do they not see anything here that merits discussion?