I do like a good debate. Where do i start ?
How about with the facts?, is that too much to ask?.
There was little point in opposing the Treasure Act and it would have been naive to expect that by doing so would have protected the hobby and its freedoms in any way.
Of course there was little point in opposing it as it was already done and dusted by the time the NCMD were sucked in. What a coup for the Government and the NCMD fell for it.
We didn't want to oppose it, we simply wanted our points of view and suggestions and people who had suggestions and points of views to be considered....they werent, everyone opposing the Treasure Act were ignored. Why didn't the Government have meetings with the opponents?
The naivete was expecting the Government to consult with everyone. They didn't. They already knew what they were going to do and they did it, NCMD or not, they just wanted the NCMD along as it gave their Treasure Act a little clout, so they could say "Hey The Detectorists organisation supports this"
The only way foward was to negotiate which the NCMD did,
Your naivete in this is stunning, to say the least. The Act was going to be law no matter what the NCMD said.
The only negotiating they did was for how many NCMD committee members would be on the valuation committee and how much their expenses were for doing so. They negotiated nothing.They were patted on the head and told to shut up. It was laughable because most of the NCMD committee at the time they were involved in the Treasure act didn't even have a detector or had even been out detecting for a long time. There are doubts if Jordan had ever even owned one.
to get a consensus of views to ensure that the inevitable compromise was reached and each party could be seen to have gained what they sought from the process. Negativity would have resulted in a form of draconian regulation by statue, which would have meant the end for the widespread use of metal detectors in the hobby sense.
Utter and absolute rubbish. But what do you think the Treasure Act is? Its regulation by effective statute. They simply couldn't then and cant now ban it. It would cause absolute uproar amongst the landowners for a start. The Treasure Act was a done and dusted thing before the call to the NCMD was even made, there was no compromise.
I know what was awaiting for the hobby in the wings if the NCMD had not sought to discuss the issues when the opportunity arose.
Oh Really? You KNOW?? No, you assume, and your assumptions would be wrong.. The NCMD didn't discuss anything, they sat round a table and talked but were told what to do, what they would be allowed to do. READ the minutes of the meetings, not the NCMD Minutes but the REAL minutes.
Those that were pushing for a change in antiquity legisaltion ,were not the friends of detecting and far from it with the likes of the Surrey Archaeological Society and other archaeological pressure groups which were behind the many failed attempts to introduce new legislation such as the Perth Bill.
Probably the only thing I can agree with you on this post
On the contrary the NCMD had much to do with the content of the final Bill which went before Parliament, the result of many many hours of face to face discussion and document drafting.
That's what they want you to believe but they had absolutely nothing to do with the final Bill or any amendments to it, they were presented with a Fait accompli, either go along with it or you're out in the cold. But there were indeed many hours of meetings, lots of taxpayers money spent on booze and expensive food and cigars.
Its called "greasing the palms"
By opposing it would have meant none of this would have taken place and we would have been looking at the history books for details of detecting in the UK when it was legal.
Utter and absolute rubbish. If they had opposed it, it would have meant nothing, the Act would still have gone through.
The actual vote in the House of Commons and absolute minute by minute timing of the vote, bare minutes before Parliament was prorogued was very carefully planned so that none of the members opposed to it were even in the house. It was a fiendishly conceived and well executed plan. They knew if it didn't go through then it would never have done so, so it had to be done secretly. My MP complained bitterly as he was not even advised of the vote until it was too late.
Goldpanner i totally refute your spurious analysis of the NCMD's role as being far from the truth as it could ever be. I know you will never be convinced by what i have to say on the NCMD or any other related matter and we will have to disagree on these as there is a little point in debating a "what if "scenario.
Probably as I have far more knowledge passed to me from someone inside the NCMD than you did and I was actually there opposing it tooth and nail right from from the start along with other groups like DIG. I knew about the Treasure Act proposals before even the NCMD did, work that one out.
.You obviously feel better placed out of the game to be able to snipe and criticise at will which is so much easier to do than actually doing something and getting involved.
But I was involved, very heavily but on the side opposing the Treasure Act, even though I was an NCMD member at the time and made my feelings quite clear. There was nothing wrong with Treasure Trove that couldnt have been fixed with a few tweaks. But don't say I wasnt involved, you should have seen my telephone bill and bills for printer ribbons and paper.
And now? I'm too old to start getting involved.
But you state I snipe and criticise? That's called democracy, its what my brother died for. I WILL speak out when I see something wrong though.
And a final point if you were a member of the NCMD and received Digging Deep, you would have read details of how the NCMD is supporting the development of a European Council for metal detecting.
Too little too late.
Supporting something doesnt mean 'Actively Involved' or 'leading'. With the experience we have in this country we are centrally placed to lobby other EU members yet we arent doing it. Good grief were doing little in this country to amend the Treasure Act into something that's properly workable.
As for partying with Minister if you were involved you would already know the answer to that one.
I DO know the answers, that's why I posted it!
We are very fortunate in England and Wales where the ownership of 99% of all finds is vested in the landowner and have in place competent legislation which adequately rewards finders of the remainder which falls under the Treasure definitions.
I don't think were reading the same treasure act.
The failure of the mainstram membership to grasp the value of this combination is lamentable and too many simply see detecting as a right and a means to enrich themselves. I will not open that can of worms at present.
Oh sorry, so *you* grasp it all and we menials dont?. Maybe I should bow in your general direction?
It IS a right to detect on someones property and find things if they give permission to do so. It IS also a right to detect in Parks and public land. Councils don't own anything, they Govern on behalf of us but most Councils make it up as they go along.
The state doesn't have a right to steal something that could have been dropped on someones private land 3 or 400 years ago. The same as The Crown doesn't have a right to claim that all gold in this land and rivers belongs to them.
Maybe you'll be happy if they bring back the Droit de Seigneur? because that's not far from the Treasure act.
Now to close with a final point that you raised with respect to the PAS. The NCMD is consulted on PAS centric issues and there is a two way flow of information when the need arises.
The phrase 'Blind leading the blind' springs to mind here, considering most of the NCMD committee haven't swung a detector in many years.
You must realise that many of the issues such as staffing matters are of little importance whereas in the bigger picture the recent and current funding, and at one point the survival of the PAS, are and which saw the NCMD discussing such issues direct with the Culture Minister and others. Such involvement is the norm and the NCMD regularly attends the Portable Antiquities Advisory Group meetings where all matters relating to the PAS and the hobby are discussed.
I bet the claims for expensive wine and whisky goes up around this time?.
Matters are 'Discussed'? That's another great government trap to get people thinking that what they actually say means anything, it doesnt.
All seems to be a quiet at present on the PAS front, but i am sure once the date for the Review of the Treasure Act Code of Practice is fixed the work of the NCMD on behalf of its members will rocket, but that is another topic entirely.
Remember, Government should be afraid of the people, The people shouldnt be afraid of the Government
Well lets hope we either get a new organisation consisting of actual detectorists and not carpetbaggers this time who actually know what they are talking about, or maybe if there's a blinding flash in the sky the NCMD might even start taking any notice of what its members are saying.
Then again its all pointless as the Government would have already fixed things before any discussions take place and the discussions are all smoke and mirrors.