[r-t] Latest draft of Decisions changes for 2017

Ted Steele teds.bells at tesco.net
Mon Apr 17 15:25:57 UTC 2017

On 17/04/2017 15:08, John Harrison wrote:
> In article <749ed5da-8c44-deea-57de-05be3f06651c at tesco.net>,
>    Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net> wrote:
>> John Harrison wrote:
>> ...stuff that I consider a trivial response to my message.
> Not trivial at all.  I questioned the validity of some of Ted's statements
> and backed it up with examples.

I am not going to be drawn into a pointless debate about the general 
merits or otherwise of simulators; that would not further the discussion 
about the proposal to be made to council. We all know that simulators 
have a valuable role in ringing; whether it is a sensible thing to 
publicly acknowledge or allow that they are just the same or as good as 
real bells for public performance is what I am concerned with, as is the 
proposal to council.

Of course it is indeed up to people what they use for private 
performance, but what an organisation devoted to maintaining the ringing 
of church bells should record as a bell ringing performance is a 
different matter. The council can and should have due regard to the 
possible influence that its decisions could have on people in the church 
who would happily do away with bells and put simulators (if anything) in 
their place. Hand-bells are a different and special case. They have an 
honoured and practical place in the history of ringing; they are without 
doubt real bells and not infrequently are rung in churches.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list