Listing Again

Richard Offen richard.offen at o...
Tue Apr 6 11:47:22 BST 2004

We seem to have strayed somewhat from the main purpose of my question 
last week concerning the plan to revise the list of bells for 
preservation. Apart from the very helpful and enlightening 
statistics from Chris Pickford, I have yet to see much evidence to 
prove or disprove Alan Hughes' and Colin Banton's assertions in their 
letters in last week's Ringing World.

As a result of the debate so far, two supplementary questions have 
come into my mind:

1. It is asserted that the current lists are purely `advisory' and 
not mandatory, but how are they actually being used throughout the 
country? Andrew Higson suggests that, from his perspective, the 
lists are taking on a mandatory character, with little room for 
debate in individual cases. Is this the experience others as well?

2. Chris Dalton is quite right to applaud the decision to review the 
lists and their criteria after 75 years use, but what precipitated 
the decision to revise and expand the lists? From what we have heard, 
the planned revisions seem to be taking place within a very short 
timescale and there appears to have been little warning to the trade 
and other interested parties that this was on the cards - why?

Apart from George Dawson (who is probably still treating his 
wounds!), none of the other members of the CCC Bells Committee has 
stuck their head above the parapet yet, so come on folks, be brave, 
speak! It would certainly help if we could be told some of the 
background to the decision to review the listing process now and why 
there suddenly seems to be a degree of urgency required to complete 
the task (next September's DAC Conference)?

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list