[Bell Historians] The Death Knell for British Founding

Richard Offen richard.offen at o...
Sat Apr 3 10:42:07 BST 2004

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Dalton" 
<dalton.family at v...> wrote:
> Very briefly (!) I would like to reply to Richard Offen's posting 
> re the CCC and all the furore in this week's RW before I get 
diverted by
> reading other people's views (who was it who said 'never prejudice 
a book
> review by actually reading the book'?)
> I do believe that there has been a massive over-reaction to the 
CCC's (i.e.
> its Bells & Clock Committee's) very reasonable intention to look 
afresh at
> the criteria for putting bells and bell-frames on lists. Indeed I 
> have thought that a fresh look - after about 3/4 of a century - at 
why bells
> and frames should be listed ought to be welcomed universally. And 
> follows that I believe in these lists, because I think they give 
> guidance to parishes, ringers, the trade and so on. So long as it 
> guidance...
> And yes, the lists should certainly give the reason why each 
bell/frame has
> been listed.

Thanks for this Chris. As far as I can see (bear in mind I haven't 
been a diocesan advisor for 15 years now, so feel a bit out of touch, 
which is why I asked the question in the first place), as Andrew 
Higson said yesterday, one of the problems in the recent past is that 
the lists seem to have taken on a mandatory role, rather than 
the 'advisory' one that was originally intended for them. This has 
lead to a singular lack of common sense prevailing in a number of 
recent cases.

As you say the fact that the listing criteria is being re-appraised 
after 75 years should be welcomed. It looks as if the grave doubts 
arise from the restrictive way in which the listing process has been 
used of late in some places.


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list