Friday 28 February 2014

A PAS Cover-up?

I'm putting this title up to show which way I am going with a certain matter. I'll write the post after I receive (or don't receive) a reply to my latest request for information  from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (which is a yes-no question, and I've now asked it three times). Why is the PAS unwilling to answer a simple question about what was known about the site before that fateful "club dig"? What is it they are trying so hard to keep quiet and why? It is a simple enough question, and surely if responsible metal detecting is what the PAS say it is, there is no reason why the answer to that question should be in any way sinister... but still, the answer is withheld. What could be the significance of that?

I'd be interested in hearing from readers (in confidence) of any cases where the PAS, instead of taking a  firm stand over best practice of their "partners", has not only turned a blind eye to bad practice, but has actually gone so far as to cover-up for metal detectorists. There was a blatant example of this a few years ago documented on this blog, I'd like to hear of more examples.

This is NOT what the PAS was set up to do, and to provide basic information and inform public debate and opinion on portable antiquities issues IS what the PAS was set up to do.

No comments:

Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.