Sorry Clive, I have confused the in-house bits of the website with the
external bits. The full details of the new scheme will be released on 3rd
March, if you can hold your breath that long. The interpretation of
'protecting historic sites' is under consideration and discussion both
in-house and externally at the moment. UKDN should get something soon (I
thought that the MD representatives had got the document by now but perhaps
its still in transit or under discussion by the council).
Sorry about any confusion
Hope the plough scars are healing up.
From: clive hallam [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 17 February 2005 10:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Odp: Response -leaks
With respect, the relavent information, in particular how the new
enviromental schemes will operate in relation to metal detecting and the
recording of finds by detectorists is NOT "out there".
Yours, in a thoroughly ploughed out way
----- Original Message -----
From: "McCrone, Peter (RDS NW)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Odp: Response -leaks
> No leaking, the information is all out there on the defra website if you
> bear to plogh your way through it - I don't think that indicating the
> relevant, publically available sources of information on a scheme which
> been trailed and piloted for a couple of years counts as 'leaking'.
> Yours, in a colander-like way
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mick Miles [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 11 February 2005 10:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Odp: Response and taking responsibility - Katy's aye
> Paul Barford <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > rather than a subscription to Britarch-debates to perhaps get something
> > moving).
> No, the idea of the Britarch debating dungeon seems to be to keep any
> further attempts at discussion with the detecting trolls OFF Mainstream
> Britarch. This is to stop it annoying those who do not see any connection
> between the issues surrounding current policies on detecting and "real"
> archaeology (and weighty comments on Captain James T. Kirk and Telegraph
> I think it is a pity that precisely at this moment when the whole issue is
> taking on an entirely new perspective with the leaking (?) of information
> from DEFRA about the new schemes that the CBA has decided to make this an
> issue that should no longer be discussed on Mainline Britarch as part of
> overall scheme of British archaeology.
> Judging from the deathly silence on britarch-debates it seems to be
> And good riddance, let them misbehave themselves over there
> instead of here to their heart's content without any risk of censure.
> More silence!
> I am not planning on taking part in any isolated "debate on the detecting
> archaeologcal artefacts" (quote) over there because it seems to me that
> is NOT at all what these discussions were about. I am more interested in
> archaeological and long-term conservation implications of this phenomenon.
> was under the impression that THIS was what we (some of us) were trying to
> address here - address against all the odds it seems. Given past
> experiences, the notion of entering such an isolated forum where there is
> not even the nominal moderation there is here does not appeal to me
> There are other fora for discussing "detecting archaeological artefacts"
> (like UKDN and UKRally and indeed PASForum).
> But far be it for me to suggest this
> is an issue that might conceivably interest more than ten members of
> Surely not! But for those who don't wish to engage there is always the
> delete button.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
> This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only.
If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose,
store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the
sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked
for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no
responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra's
computer systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective
operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
in partnership with MessageLabs.
> On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free