[r-t] various

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Wed Oct 22 12:53:14 UTC 2014

On 22 Oct 2014, at 07:29, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> One thing which really pisses me off is the old arguments are constantly recycled. "The CC doesn't allow this to be rung" - or some variation. This is crap, and always has been, and those who say it is so are either idiots or knaves - they believe it to be true, or know it isn't but still say it - which is worse. There is no such thing as an illegal (in the true sense of the word) method. There is nothing to stop you ringing Cambridge Minor on 2-7 with bells leading and lying throughout (1&8), as one of our ringers witnessed recently, if you want to.

I (and others) have addressed this issue before. Whether or not the CC likes to admit it, the decisions are *de facto* a set of rules that are followed with very few exceptions, particularly in peals. Obviously they are not in any way actually enforceable but they are viewed as rules to be followed nonetheless. Denying this responsibility harms the CC, ringers, and any debate about the decisions.

So, am I an idiot or a knave?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list