[Bell Historians] Debate about bell preservation
editor at r...
Mon Apr 5 11:06:13 BST 2004
The C of E generally does not seem terribly good at consulting with
properly interested parties when drafting policy that may have far-reaching
effects. Perhaps there are parallels between what has happened in the Child
Protection arena and what is happening over the listing of bells. The way
they have gone about these matters was bound to raise serious concerns.
They have only themselves to blame.
One wonders whether a better approach with the listing issue would have
been to start off by establishing a working party or commission - with
official representation from the CCCBR, the Bellfounders, etc. - to explore
all the angles. That way, they would surely have stood a much better chance
of understanding all the issues properly and carrying people with them in
the formulation of policy. It is not too late to do that.
However, once positions have been taken publicly - however provisional - it
requires significant loss of face on someone's part if they subsequently
have to "back down" and admit they got it wrong. That approach is a recipe
for the creation of poor and unworkable regulations. My guess is that the
"civil service" element of the CCC are all 'dyed in the wool' career
preservationists - but I may be wrong about that.
At 08:34 04/04/2004, you wrote:
>I have to write 'from the e-lists' again this week (in fact, today).
>I assume no-one minds me giving the debate on bell preservation on
>this list some coverage, it is an important issue.
>I think all people with strong views on the subject should write to
>the RW if you haven't already done so.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
More information about the Bell-historians