[Bell Historians] Tower Classification required

Richard Offen richard.offen@iinet.net.au [bellhistorians] bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Thu Apr 14 22:58:40 BST 2016

Sent from Richard Offen's iPad

> On 15 Apr 2016, at 5:46 AM, 'Nick Bowden' nickwbowden at talktalk.net [bellhistorians] <bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> From: John Camp camp at bellringers.org [bellhistorians]
> It's important if you think it's important. Back to what Chris P was saying: 
> what is the purpose of the classification?
> >>
> Alan Buswell said in his original post:
> "Could all these classes be classified as being Secular? If so, then they 
> will be taken out of my Q.P county listing and placed under a separate 
> heading. Doing this may indicate the interest or trend of ringing in these 
> locations and ringing in general."
> Perhaps Alan could explain why it is important to him to differentiate 
> between Secular and non-Secular in his QP county listing?
> Nick Bowden ,_._,___
As one from from a leading 'secular' quarter peal tower, I can probably explain that as it was a bone of contention for some years. The list only contained quarter peals rung in churches because it was published in the Ringing World which, according to its masthead, is the journal for church bell ringers. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20160415/66d004bf/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list