On The Heritage Journal this week in the ongoing Saturday series on artefact hunting, we read of "Mr Lincoln’s two opposite views of metal detecting". This refers to the guy who went onto Radio 2 debating metal detecting with archaeologist Professor Mark Horton with his radio hat on. Oddly, he says something different when he's not out in the public eye, but hidden away on one of the metal detecting forums. Like Dean Crawford, he claims he does not "lose [search and take] permissions" because "I don't record".
Then on Feb 7 he addressed his colleagues saying: “If you want to show the world that your a great guy by making the right noises about recording, you go for it. I'll carry on calling things as I see them and for the most part, detectorists are hypocrites. They spew forth the mantra of showing the farmers everything they find, but they are selective in what they show the farmer. they spew forth the mantra of recording, but they are selective in what they record. if you think that they way forward is to promote hypocrisy then you have my pity.”Mr Lincoln apparently thinks that for the most part detectorists steal knowledge from the community and money from the landowners. Heritage Action asks whether Mr Lincoln will face the same barrage of idiocy as other critics of the current situation in artefact hunting:
How will detectorists react? Will they hurl invective against him like they do against any critic of laissez faire artefact hunting? Will they say he is a liar, an exaggerator, ill-informed, a publicity seeker, an elitist, a fascist, a communist, psychologically damaged, trying to get detecting banned?