[Bell Historians] CCC

Robert Lewis editor at r...
Fri Apr 2 11:35:20 BST 2004

Did you actually go to that seminar David?

At 10:57 02/04/2004, you wrote:
>I was going to keep quiet about this, but in view of these comments I won't.
>FIrstly, I think the RW's presentation of the situation is highly biased 
>and way over-the-top. Points which I think are relevant to this discussion:
>1) The criteria are actually not that different to what happens in 
>practice anyway.
>2) The criteria being proposed are NOT the same as those presented by Mary 
>Bliss at the seminar. They have actually been toned down a bit, but nobody 
>seems to have mentioned this (has anyone even noticed?)
>3) The leading experts in bells (of which George is one) are all 
>self-taught, as there is no such thing as a "professional" expert on bell 
>conservation. I believe that those making the policies are the right 
>people to be doing so. Who else would Andrew suggest? I think if you went 
>to certain heritage bodies you would end up with a draconian set of 
>guidelines. Those being proposed at the moment are, as I see it, perfectly 
>workable and sensible.
>Andrew states that it is not scientific to list bells on quality grounds 
>using people's opinions. Well, I would suggest that this is in fact the 
>only way, as quality is subjective. If many people think they are 
>excellent then that is the best measure of quality which there is.
>And as regards who's opinions are considered, if I remember rightly George 
>has in the past invited members of the list to suggest to him any bells 
>which they think should be listed, and I know for a fact that he takes 
>these suggestions into consideration and acts on them if appropriate.
>And finally, Andrew suggests that the CCC needs people with other skills 
>in deciding on criteria. Who does he suggest? The majority of ringers 
>(members of this list excepted) don't know much at all about bells. Not 
>that this will stop them from having vociferous opinions, of course - and 
>the RW is deliberately trying to stir up such feelings. It is not the 
>fault of the CCC that the matter has hit the front page of the RW - it is 
>clearly a very deliberate act on the part of the RW.
>Freeserve AnyTime - HALF PRICE for the first 3 months - Save £7.50 a month
>Yahoo! Groups Links

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list