The bells at York

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:56:17 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:21:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:
On 16/10/2016 21:04, pamela wrote:

The recording may be of an Islamic call but the recording
equipment itself is not Islamic although I dunno - maybe it was
designed in Pakistan and assembled in Indonesia!

I thought only humans followed religions. Surely we don't have tape
recorders that are Catholic, Hindu, atheist, Jain, Buddhist and
Baptist
and Jewish?

What religion are church bells?


Catholic - till Henery 8 wanted a divorce.

--
AnthonyL

On 17/10/16 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:


I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should
entitle you to continue it.


The established customs have a place in law, it generally being held
that if its been going on for ages, you have a right to continue. This
is enshrined in e.g., footpath law and so in, where 'rights of way'; are
actually 'where people have walked since forever' and possession of land
is 'land that someone's been on without complaint for 12 years' or whatever.


In short we have a tradition of the new adapting to the old, until the
new outnumbers the old.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:30:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...

A tower near me had a fall-out amongst the ringers and rather than
leave the bells silent the choir decided they'd learn. Full help is
being given and after 3yrs, even on easy bells, they are still not at
the stage where they can ring more than the very basic patterns. It's
a bit like little Johnny coming home with his recorder or violin and 3
yrs later has just progressed beyond scales but not quite to Twinkle
Twinkle Little Star.

And what fun that must be to listen to!

Don't the neighbours deserve some sort of protection?


You'd have thought that but the parishioners and locals raised the
money for a replacement of the cracked tenor bell. When the ringing
stopped after the fall out the complaints were "why aren't the bells
being rung? - we've just paid out for a new bell". And the
(relatively new) houses are fairly close too - basically think suburb
to one side.

A full peal (just less than 3hrs of continuous ringing) was rung by a
proficient band recently, the first there for over 20yrs,
commemorating the 100th anniversary of the loss of 3 soldiers on the
same day from what would then have been little more than a big
village.

Advanced publicity was put about and several folk came to the church
to listen. To the best of my knowledge there were no complaints.

Seems as if some do really enjoy the old English traditions being
upheld.

Neighbours are usually very tolerant of occasional excesses. But those causing any
nuisance should always be mindful that they do need the neighbours' consent to
continue. Bellringers in particular seem to forget that.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:23:13 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message
...

As Christian churches, at least some of them, have a ceremony of
Blessing of the
Bells, perhaps they would be deemed to be Christian?

Can you appropriate any inanimate object you want into your
religion by such means,
or is it only some?

The Hebrews want to appropriate vast swathes of land (well some of
them do):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mile-Jewish-ho
me-area-north-London-let-faithful-avoid-Sabbath-restrictions-raises-fea
rs-creating-new-ghetto.html
or, http://tinyurl.com/hvmetd5

--
Max Demian

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:58:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
.. .

A recording of church bells would probably feature nasty
distortion like ice cream
vans cranked up to maximum volume.

They could always turn the bells down to avoid it. But I doubt if
they've thought
of that. You see, all they want to do is make the maximum amount
of noise.

Like ice cream vendors.

--
Max Demian

In message , polygonum
writes

Surely we don't have tape recorders that are Catholic, Hindu, atheist,
Jain, Buddhist and Baptist and Jewish?

The Jewish tape recorders will be those Ampex, with built in splicers
....
--
Graeme

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of things going
on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good neighbourliness, or don't
realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one determined
individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their edifice down. They
shouldn't push it.

On 17/10/16 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few
years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and
flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like
bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a
tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to
indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law
that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of
things going on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good
neighbourliness, or don't realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their
edifice down. They shouldn't push it.


So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old
traditions because you personally don't like it?

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few
years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and
flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like
bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a
tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to
indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law
that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of
things going on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good
neighbourliness, or don't realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their
edifice down. They shouldn't push it.

So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old traditions
because you personally don't like it?

No, not me. All I have is the right to complain if I feel the noise is a nuisance.
If I do, the local authority has to investigate it and see if my complaint is
justified according to standard protocols. If they decide my complaint is
justified, they will issue a noise abatement order.

What's wrong with that?

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to say otherwise?

On 17/10/2016 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle you to
continue it.

Custom and Practice. Those words have some legal resonance.

Jim