Comments on: Open Letter to the NCMD

By: Doug Border

Doug Border — Thu, 05 Aug 2021 14:35:26 +0000

I have only just read with interest Steve C’s comments. While he is completely entitled to his opinion surly he is the same Steve Critchley who said at the end of May that he hadn’t been involved with the NCMD for over a year, was very much out of the loop and didn’t know who the acting Secretary was? I think it is and he knows very well who the Chairmen of the regions are so come on STEVE, you attended executive meetings for years according to the minutes and I doubt many people know who you are or represent

By: B. Lovett

B. Lovett — Fri, 30 Jul 2021 23:25:27 +0000

Thank you for informing me of the present situation,I need to point out that I have ncmd membership but aren’t in a club mainly because I am a farmer with land to detect of my own ,however I do sympathsise with the midlands views ,their hard work over the past 40 odd years for little financial reward and devotion to the members rights is to be commended ,but it seems to me that not doing the zoom meetings as let the ncmd take control and introduce measures that undermine all the hard work done by the regions in the past ,I like you all ,disagree with what’s happening and the need to get meetings to resolve it as soon as possible otherwise there’s a real threat to membership cover in that your reserve pot will be disappearing, kind Regards.

By: Gary Smith

Gary Smith — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:31:16 +0000

IMHO the executive is in no position and has no authority to “not recognise” officers of specific regions.

The officers of those regions are … officers for those regions and represent those specific areas.

I fully endorse and support the request for mediation.

I hope you realise that this sorry episode is playing right into the hands of Keith Westcott and his IOD program.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:55:09 +0000

In reply to David. I disagree. The Executive of NCMD held an EGM on 10 July 2021 at which decided they would “no longer recognise” the chosen representatives of 4 of the 8 regional bodies. Taking this step to effectively disenfranchise 4 regions means that a large number of NCMD members are no longer represented. This is one of the most serious courses of action that a membership organisation can take. The Executive of the NCMD should have immediately announced that is what they had done and the reasons why. It was only after the publication of our article, 6 days later, that the NCMD issued a statement.

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:10:40 +0000

In reply to Paul. Thank you Paul.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 10:18:21 +0000

In reply to David.

When the original article was written, we did say that both parties could state their case on the website. The 4 “Opposition” regions subsequently sent us an open letter with permission to publish. The NCMD didn’t send their statement to us for publication on the website. Because this statement already appeared to have wide publicity by the time we became aware of it and because we had difficulty embedding it on the website, we didn’t update the article for it. I think you are right that this made us appear one-sided. We have now published an article on the NCMD’s statement: https://detectingfinds.co.uk/statement-from-ncmd

Our hope had been, by publicising the split, that both sides may have felt some pressure to find a way to work together. It is very welcome to see the NCMD’s offer of arbitration and the “Opposition” regions acceptance of that offer

By: David

David — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:55:30 +0000

No update on the original article after publication of the NCMD response? Disappointed in that Peter, it looks like you are presenting a very one-sided story.