This is a terrible argument. Ploughing a field where there is a site can wreck it, yes. But objects don’t go that far and often the site remains well enough below ground or visible from the air that keeping the objects in situ and reporting immediately is still best practicehttps://twitter.com/boggywood/status/1115342878283313155 …
It’s not their version, they’re quoting from the law itself.
-
-
Can you tell me what the clear definition of an Archeological object is? The NMI are choosing to take the law as all encompassing and refusing to accept that there is interpretation in the actual law for metal detectorist to operate legally if the stay away from listed sites.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& it's quite funny to see people using the same tired arguments that were used decades ago. I also said the vast majority of finds were small - not big hoards - it is frankly nonsensicle to treat a field that's been ploughed for a thousand years as