The metal detectorist can approach the landowner for a search-and-take permssion for a particular property - this may be a company or a member of Britain's nobility, but whoever they are, they will probably not be as easy to convince to let a stranger on the land however well they say they will behave there.
Here are some issues for them to sort out:
Strutt and Parker: 'Key considerations for landowners approached for permission to go metal detecting',
Crombie Wilkinson 'Permission for metal detecting on your land'
Farmers' World: 'Metal detectorists on your land – what farmers need to know'
Apart from property rights, there are insurance and liability issues, the possiblity that unknown intruders will cause unforseen damage etc.
Most metal detectorists will want three or four 'permissions' in order to give their searching some elsticity and variety. For 40k detectorists that is between 120k to 160k search sites with permissions.
If however there are only 100k farmers, and only 54k of them can issue ther own search-and-take permissions, and an unknown number of them will refuse outright, where is a metal detectorist to search legally?
Farmers' World: 'Metal detectorists on your land – what farmers need to know'
Apart from property rights, there are insurance and liability issues, the possiblity that unknown intruders will cause unforseen damage etc.
There are other landowners. Apart from private ownership, every single other piece of land is owned either by the Crown, Local Authorities, City Councils, or Town Councils. There is no such thing as public land in the UK there’s public access but that does not mean that it is public land. Many local authorities etc, and bodies such as the National Trust refuse to issue metal detecting permits for hobbyists. There is no list of such bodies.
Most metal detectorists will want three or four 'permissions' in order to give their searching some elsticity and variety. For 40k detectorists that is between 120k to 160k search sites with permissions.
If however there are only 100k farmers, and only 54k of them can issue ther own search-and-take permissions, and an unknown number of them will refuse outright, where is a metal detectorist to search legally?
The forums are full of people bemoaning the fact that they can't get 'permissions', there are webpages (here and here, for example) and You Tube videos devoted to helping tekkies sort this out, there is also at least one book: David Villanueva, 'Permission Impossible: Metal Detecting Search Permission Made Easy' 2007. The frequency this issue comes up shows it is a real problem in the UK.
Added to this is the fact that there are now commercial firms that offer landowners hundreds of pounds for a weekend's access to organize pay-to-dig events from which the organizers make a living. This is great for the many metal detectorist members who do not have to learn "how to get permissions" as they just pay the admission fee and get access to the land for a fixed period of time. As more and more landowners hear of this "business opportunity", even fewer wiill be willing to let individual hobbyists on their land for free.
Also how many of these former participants, having scouted out the land, and its potential, cannot resist the temptation privately and clandestinely to revisit the site again in conditions of lesser visibility to have another go at an area they found 'productive' during the rally? This should not happen of course, but can anyone say that it does not?
Likewise, the hobbyist who travels with a detector in his car boot out on a drive through the countryside and finding himself in a layby by a tall hedge on a quiet road with no traffic... and right by the road sign "Silver End", or "Old Hall Road", or "Viking Howe"... how many are not going to go through the hedge with their machine "just to see"?
I simply do not believe that real life actual circumstances support the glib assertion that "only a minimum of metal detectorists use their machine in situations that are not in accord with the law". It beggars belief.
Where is the report?
5 comments:
Paul, my dear chap, how the devil are you? So, to begin, I have only cast a superficial eye over your first comment, and immediately anomalies, your anomalies, appear. Let us begin with the ones that you attempt to use to demonstrate that all metal detectorists' are ignorant buffoons when it comes to matters pertaining to the English language. Here are the ones I spotted pretty quickly ''Compared with, compared with.' [TWICE!] elsaticity;;''it is a rweal problem'' ''hgave another go'' ''mertal detectorists'' My dear chap, please, spare me, this is deflection of the worst kind. I have not even ventured into your baseless assertions which the simple application of syllogistic logic would immediately destroy, but I will, if you wish.
Your friend,
Dr, S.
It probably escaped your marrow field of attention that the subject of this post is the claims of the police who publish a summary of a report written over a period of three years for public money that they say exists but have not shown. And that summary makes an extraordinary claim. I show why what is claimed is improbale if we look at the facts. And NONE of this is due to metal detectorists' ignorance or buffoonery...
Now, if you would, to avoid coming over as a blustering nitpicking buffoon, I would like to see some substantive dicussion instead of sneering from "the Good Doctor" (sic). So yes, I wish you, mouthy detectorist,
to "destroy" my logic and show why the problem I identify "does not exist". Let the detectorists speak. Now.
''Marrow field?'' so now we venture into the field of non-dualism do we? My dear fellow, you have encountered one who you have, regretfully realised, is, not a ''thick-headed metal detectorist,'' but one who is not only your equal, but so far in front of you both intelectually, morally and humanely that, as the bard so adequately described me, and my values, '' ''I am as truer as truths simplicity. And simpler than the infancy of truth,''
Go on then, Mr non-dual marrowhead intellectual paragon... instead of childishly incessantly harping on typos and quoting some mumbly-mouthed bardish twaddle about "truth"... just try and demonstrate that you do have something, anything to actually say. As far as I am concerned, as long as you continiue to behave like just another mouthy thick-headed British metal detectorist, "I'll war with that". Either give us some indication what your "infant truth" is, or just accept the label with good grace and stop making claims about yourself that you cannot substantiate.
"This is the monstruosity in life, tekkie, that your will
is infinite yet the execution confined, that the
desire is boundless but the act a slave to limit.
[ ] Your head shall go bare till merit crown it".
Go on, show us that you are equal to an on-topic discussion on the subject of this post - or just shut up your tekkie trolling.
For those wondering, Troilus and Cressida Act 3, Scene 2, orchard scene.
Post a Comment