Encouraging responsible metal detecting

close
more_vert
Paul Barford P
Paul Barford Aug 10, 2005 11:42:21
Replying to Cheshireman

Then if it is, then one might ask why PAS is not recording it. So let me get this right, you think the shortfall we are discussing could be because some (many?) detectorists are bringing stuff into the PAS which they are not recording, even though it falls within their remit? Does this mean then that those who take stuff to the FLOs are not included in the PAS statistics as "recording" detectorists even though they reported finds? I hope you will be able to clarify this point as it seems quite an important one.

Paul Barford

B BrigantesNation
BrigantesNation Aug 10, 2005 11:47:08
Replying to Paul Barford

I also wonder how many individuals (like me) have tried to report new sites to the SMR and been totally ignored/spoken down to etc? I gave up trying to report a significant number of new sites to our local authority quite some time ago, it became clear they just were not interested.

C Cheshireman
Cheshireman Aug 11, 2005 00:37:18
Replying to Paul Barford

I have no idea of the numbers of people involved, actually or theoretically, but the factual numbers on record are based on what PAS has recorded. According to the PAS thread, is seems that all FLO's are overworked and unable (as opposed to unwilling) to get everything done. The number of detectorists quoted as recording is set at 2400 or thereabouts, according to PAS. But how many of the items reported but not recorded were handed in by detectorists (around three times the number reported against those recorded).

Being devils advocate.....

Using the same sort of maths as being used previously this equates to:

2400 X 3 = 7200 detectorists reporting.

Which, in all fairness to them, puts a different light on things.