[Bell Historians] Debate about bell preservation

Robert Lewis 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.
>Bill H
>Yahoo! Groups Links

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list