[Bell Historians] Re: Telegraph letter

Wed Oct 14 09:07:49 BST 2009

I think that Nigel and Mark make some really valid points. Who's to blame will vary from case to case, person to person, and area to area. In my experience - it is the contractor who is dragged into negotiate with the conservation bodies, carry out feasibility studies and produce vast sets of drawings etc (often without being paid). We are then left to pick up the pieces, and are still expected to produce a top quality product, with our arms tied behind our backs.

On a slightly different note:-

History has been made this week (in the world of Matthew Higby & Company that is). For the first time in our history (nearly 14 years) we have been formally approached by the Towers and Belfries committee, for some information and advice.

Best wishes,

Matthew

Good points Nigel and a lot depends on the ability and willingness of DAC advisors to really help a parish rather than be overawed by the views of the amenity groups.

Ringers’ and the belltrades’ interests have been badly represented (if at all) by recent representation by the CCCBR. John Baldwin did a good job on the last code of practice. That’s some years ago though. If these people really cared about ringing they’d do something positive. 

When I fixed up the Perspectives conference I offered it to the CCCBR to ‘own’ as their event. They refused. I think I’ll fix up another conference to get together views on how ringers
 and the trades’ interests can be better represented. The CCCBR has failed.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Regan <markregan at VNvcB3-LltyzB5QR31Bs-ZPPiiWBlXTAWH3k14232ABoQnje5xSsIvqQE6utN-dD2pJ7iQ_MEGJGqUDhhA.yahoo.invalid>
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 8:50 am
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Re: Telegraph letter

Good points Nigel and a lot depends on the ability and willingness of DAC advisors to really help a parish rather than be overawed by the views of the amenity groups.

Ringers’ and the belltrades’ interests have been badly represented (if at all) by recent representation by the CCCBR. John Baldwin did a good job on the last code of practice. That’s some years ago though. If these people really cared about ringing they’d do something positive. 

When I fixed up the Perspectives conference I offered it to the CCCBR to ‘own’ as their event. They refused. I think I’ll fix up another conference to get together views on how ringers’ and the trades’ interests can be better represented. The CCCBR has failed.

Mark

Mark Regan

22 Sebright Avenue

Worcester

WR5 2HH

01905 354339

07971 573688

-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nigelsdtaylor
Sent: 13 October 2009 19:56
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Re: Telegraph letter

Yes indeed! I am
 only too aware of the increasing difficulty in obtaining permission to replace bells, frames, and to tune old bells. Parishes aspirations are generally listened to by the conservationist bodies, but often ignored. Sometimes, there is no semblance of a compromise, and the ringers are left with what they consider as an unsatisfactory installation. 
The code of practice states that a ring of bells is a musical instrument and should sound in tune. However, there have been many occasions during the last few years when this statement has been completely ignored. 
Faculties can take months, and sometimes years to obtain; this leads invarably to greater expense for a parish, and difficulties for those of us in the trade to operate with any real degree of efficiency. We are businesses, that like any other business must try to trade profitably, and this has become increasingly difficult to achieve.

Nigel Taylor

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20091014/bc00c7f6/attachment.html>