The bells at York

On 17/10/2016 16:44, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 17/10/2016 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:

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.

If you are happy to be sent to Coventry, go ahead.

Jim

Which has an interesting story about its bells:

http://www.hibberts.co.uk/coventry_court.htm

For some values of "interesting".

--
Rod

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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.

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'.

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

Plenty of reasons why nuisance laws should allow for what
has been allowed for centurys before the laws were written.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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?

Its stupid that any prat can complain about something
that has been allowed for centurys and the local
authority has to investigate every time that happens.

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?

Someone who realises you should be allowed to
complain about what has been allowed for centurys.

On 17/10/2016 20:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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?

Its stupid that any prat can complain about something
that has been allowed for centurys and the local
authority has to investigate every time that happens.

I suppose you're the sort of person who thinks they can beat their wife
and children with a stick "because it's been allowed for centuries".

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?

Someone who realises you should be allowed to
complain about what has been allowed for centurys.

Quite, no one complained about slavery for centuries as well.

In message , Max Demian
writes:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:21:40 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
In message , Norman Wells
writes:

Anyway, do people listen to church bells because of the joy of a
live
performance and the thrill of slight nuances in the third tenor or
whatever it may be called?

They see it as part of "village life", or some similar concept.
While in
practice many of them would not in fact be able to tell whether it
was
real or a recording (if good quality and coming from the belfry),
most
of them would be seriously cross if they discovered that the latter
_was_ the case.

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

Which is why I said "(if good quality".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Fortunately radio is a forgiving medium. It hides a multitude of chins ...
Vanessa feltz, RT 2014-3/28-4/4

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 20:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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?

Its stupid that any prat can complain about something
that has been allowed for centurys and the local
authority has to investigate every time that happens.

I suppose you're the sort of person who thinks they can beat their wife
and children with a stick "because it's been allowed for centuries".

You suppose wrong. The law changed on that with the wife.

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?

Someone who realises you should be allowed to
complain about what has been allowed for centurys.

Quite, no one complained about slavery for centuries as well.

That didn’t change because a prat like Norman complained,
it changed when the law was changed.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 16:08, Norman Wells wrote:

What's wrong with that?

If you knowingly move next to something that makes a noise or smell and has done
for decades or centuries, that's your fault.

The law says otherwise. The law says I can do something about it. The law, I'm
afraid, has moved on and left you bumpkin Luddites behind.

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?

I say: Go find somewhere else if you don't like an established way of life. Don't
come living near me and complaining about country smells, twice yearly village
closures for major events and the biggest set of fireworks let off outside of
Lewes on Bonfire Night, if all you're going to do is try to get it stopped.
Essentially, if you do that, you will not be welcome and you will feel it.

It's not me that has the power to stop it. It's the Council, using the powers the
law gives it.

Those who have been creating nuisances for years need to smell the coffee and get up
to speed. Times have changed. Civilised members of society have decided that we're
all entitled to a nuisance free existence, and that 'We've always been a nuisance'
is not a valid defence.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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.

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'.

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

Plenty of reasons why nuisance laws should allow for what
has been allowed for centurys before the laws were written.

Laws forbidding undesirable practices have forever been a way of improving the
people's lot and civilising society.

Long may they continue to do so.

On 17/10/2016 21:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Those who have been creating nuisances for years need to smell the
coffee and get up to speed. Times have changed. Civilised members of
society have decided that we're all entitled to a nuisance free
existence, and that 'We've always been a nuisance' is not a valid defence.

Has the smell of coffee ever been regarded as a nuisance?

Or Brains brewery on mashing days?

Or a Lush shop?

--
Rod

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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?

Its stupid that any prat can complain about something
that has been allowed for centurys and the local
authority has to investigate every time that happens.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years. Perhaps it's time you
caught up.

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?

Someone who realises you should be allowed to
complain about what has been allowed for centurys.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No compulsory
education? No votes for women?

No complaints allowed?