Its not often I agree with you Nigel.
But that is a good post
Since the ultimate purpose of most of PAS's "other outreach" expenditure is
to increase finds recorded (rather than merely to duplicate the existing
educational outreach carried out by museums) I have never understood why it
shouldn't be added to the cost of each find reported.
On that basis, I don't see why a taxpayer shouldn't be allowed to quote
costs v finds, and perhaps raise an eyebrow. A cost of perhaps £24 per
find doesn't immediately suggest that it is "one the most cost effective
agencies we have". If Mr Clare, who has the details to hand, thinks it may
possible to radically reduce that burden by integrating the service within
museums - and intends to carry out a detailed study to see if it can be
I don't think he should be subject to a knee-jerk reaction characterising
as a heritage vandal. After all, if it turns out he's right then it could
ultimately allow for a future expansion of the number of FLOs without having
beg the government for more money. Each pound off the cost per find might
well finance TWO extra FLOs. Ten would get you twenty. Everyone would then
I have no idea if this will happen. Nor do his critics. Nor does he yet. I
think the reasonable thing would be to await the results of the detailed
not pontificate about matters of which none of us is fully informed, a
process which so far has been a tad undignified. He doesn't strike me as
anti-PAS or anti-detectorists nor engaged in a wicked plot against either.
is merely looking to see how he can use limited public funds in the most
cost-effective way he can - which is his entitlement and duty.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.