[r-t] Handbell Peals of Minimus

[King, Peter R]

I thought someone (Frank King - no relation) did ring a peal of minimus in hand by himself.
I think that, unless there is good reason to do otherwise, then you simply have to trust that ringers have actually done what they said they did. This should not be the basis of any decisions. A handbell peal of minimus is just as legitimate as a tower bell peal of one.

And anyway a in fair  number of peals the changes actually rung were not what were claimed (any clash or swapping of a pair is an example of this). Do we regulate for this and require every peal to be umpired?


-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Robin Woolley
Sent: 18 March 2015 12:21
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] Handbell Peals of Minimus

Hi All,

I remember asking about 40 years ago as to why handbell peals of minimus were non-compliant. The reason somebody gave then was that it was too easy to hoax! (Roddy Horton may have been in the group during this discusssion). There are those who can ring four-in-hand, so what is to stop anyone claiming a peal of minimus four in hand? Obviously, I couldn't do it since I've never bothered about handbells - but there are those who could. This Decision is designed to avoid arguments about whether a given person did or did not ring what (s)he claimed at all.

Hoaxes were not uncommon in the 70s. There seems to be a revival recently - a 105 part of Stedman 15 for example. (Good mathematics!)

Unfortunately, the reasons for certain Decisions may have been lost. Who is to say that the logic behind such decisions is not still sound?

Robin

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net