robin at robinw.org.uk
Sat Jun 4 06:01:08 UTC 2016
What Don & John say may very well have been true before 2002. This was
when the CC stopped 'recognising' peals. Since then, peals have either
complied or not complied.
What is the difference between the two? The things they have in common
is that you can put up a peal board and it will be printed in the RW. It
will still be added to the total peals rung. The only difference it gets
a special mention in the Reccom annual report.
Here's an example. Some years ago, a band rang something new - not
especially radical in fact. I suspect this was just to show they could
which is not a problem. It didn't comply, but none of the band worried
about this and didn't ask for anything from the CC. What happened was
that someone - who was not in the peal - got up in the CC mtg. and asked
for the Decisions to be changed to allow for compliance. I re-itereate,
no member of the band asked for this. Interestingly, it has not been
rung to a peal since.
This is, I think, the Achilles heel here is Human Nature. RAS has
suggested - and I agree with him. "I want classification to be something
that happens once there is an established trend towards a particular
style of method." He quotes John who says (agree again) that
"'Unclassified' should mean 'not yet classified'" and a new class may be
established if the innovation 'sticks'. Most of the changes since the
1980s - inclusion of covered major, etc - would have failed. One
performance every two or three years does not make a summer! However,
Don, John and I have lived long enough to know that some are never
satisfied. There will be those who believe that 'unclassified' is no
different from 'non-compliant' or 'not-recognised'.
Remember, the CC was always happy to 'recognise' un-covered triples if
there was a good reason to. I seem to remember a NAG peal in Boston was
one. Perhaps Don can enlighten us?
I am not sorry if my perception is wrong, because we now live in an age
of not apologising, seemingly. Whether or not, it is the perception I've
More information about the ringing-theory