[Bell Historians] Cornhill Article

Richard richard.offen at AZNG6EziA3BobZXgRFnoC5X7BNOZ6LnMACLBf9RpBmNqi1-yq88nYGSUmNWJgh-l-FIJqDK4x1vCNgDXSoDLJw.yahoo.invalid
Fri Oct 22 04:22:24 BST 2010

It shouldn't be a case of the 'celibate Noah's Ark' - i.e. just one example of each please.  By definition that is extinction, not conservation.


--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Peter Rivet" <peter at ...> wrote:
> There are two different approaches to conservation.
> When considering whether to list buildings English Heritage do it on the
> quality of the building.  They will list a Georgian town house because it's
> a cultural asset - it doesn't matter whether they have already listed 1 or
> 100 in the same town.
> The criteria for identifying Sites of Special Scientific Interest work quite
> differently.  English Nature are only allowed to designate two examples of
> one rare and interesting habitat, such as a salt marsh, in each particular
> area - if there's a third one it goes unprotected.
> For buildings I think the first approach is more logical, especially as you
> have to take into account the possibilty that the building or habitat may be
> destroyed by forces outside your control. But what is rare and interesting?
> English Heritage list anything before 1840 which is in more or less its
> original state.  For bells, that's not an appropriate cutoff date; it covers
> vast numbers of Whitechapel and Gloucester bells which cannot be regarded as
> rare.
> Peter Rivet
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew Aspland
>   Sent: 18 October 2010 22:24
>   To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Cornhill Article
>   Which is exactly what I thought - two opposing points - point 1: if you
> have 1000 examples or 1 does not influence the listing of individual
> examples - point 2: if you have one example it is important to list it!
>   Oxymoron or what?
>   Andrew
>   > Richard Offen. "Probably my poor wording..."
>   I thought the wording was clear. There were two independent points: (i)
>   number must not influence the listing of individual examples (ii) the
>   smaller the number of examples, the more important it is to both list and
>   consider preserving.


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list