<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><!-- Network content -->
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The basic framework (for example, dates) for
what the working party eventually came up with was in fact the work of the
former Bells Committee, of which I was a member. That Committee was agreed that
what Richard calls"The 2004 Statements agreed by the Council" were
unsatisfactory. Richard is wrong I am glad to say in assuming that the
2004 Statements were "agreed by the Council"; though the verbal
manner in which they were presented had all the suggestions of being a
draconian dictate. With its production the Bells Committee, apart from its
then Chairman, had nothing to do. Quite clearly something had to be done
and it was done by the much-maligned Bells Committee before the Working
Party got to work. The present dating criteria, i.e. the dates
themselves, were in fact largely of my own devising . The Bells
Committee at the time, which sent on its suggestions to the Working
Party, included Graham Pledger, of English Heritage. There is no evidence
that their absence from the Working Party means they are working to their
own agenda.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>DLC</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Former Member, Bells & Clocks Committee,
CCC 1975-2006</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=richard@CcKTQKH9tsSVUqjfyOv3QyqcnABEHyxGuk4LxqLfsBGXG8yj4kXe3u6LBW5uidttmX3V2Wp09gNcB4vmkaWRM68.yahoo.invalid href="mailto:richard@Mu6M4TKegSKMCEZ7r1gTX1iJSzFmiGMvYWqDFVrE7va4rMCbe7v2LLU91-10SZdozKoLevXLt8c.yahoo.invalid">Richard Offen</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:00
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Bell Historians] Council for
the Care of Churches - Bells & Bell Frames of Historic Significance</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>I'm surprised that no comment has been made on this list about the
<BR>article on the above in the 3rd November edition of the Ringing
World!<BR><BR>It looks to me as if the working party has done a good job in
sorting <BR>out what was, potentially, a very difficult situation after the
2004 <BR>statements by the Council on the same subject. The criteria seem
<BR>eminently sensible to me.<BR><BR>I was interested to note that English
Heritage were not part of the <BR>working party. One is to hope that they will
subscribe to the <BR>criteria and not continue working to their own
agenda.<BR><BR>Comments please.<BR><BR>Richard<BR><BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>