The Blue Pill of Bloomsbury has Long-term Sideffects

Still on the discussion with the archaeologist that thinks that collection of archaeological objects is just a problem with "nighthawks".... I asked why - when we are investing millions of quid into public outreach by the PAS about portable antiquities - he thinks the whole issue is still so unfamiliar to the person in the street. It shouldn't be by now, surely. If the PAS was telling it like it is. Don O'Meara answers, again blaming the public for not being concerned or informed:

Because it doesn't affect the person on the street(?) but targets people directly involved (landowners, honest metal-detectorists). Love if everyone understood, but we are limited by funds. Personally I think the budget of the PAS is some of the best spent in UK archaeology.

That got him some brownie points in Bloomsbury. It seems to me that he is saying that the heritage is just "our" concern, not the person on the street and that we need to spend the money we have on indulging ourselves and not bothering to try and spread the word. I do not think the money spent on the PAS is some of the best-spent in UK archaeology, it is - in the immortal words of their current Prime Minister "money s****ed up the wall". PAS has lots of funds, but has decided to spend them on one particular thing, it COULD educate the public about the effects of collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record, but won't. Also, from his talk of "honest collectors" I see Don O'Meara has swallowed the blue pill of Bloomsbury. If only one in eight finds or groups of non-Treasure finds is actually being reported, how many detectorists are truly "honest" as he puts it? That'd be a huge loss after 23 years of archaeological fiddling about and head patting.