The bells at York

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

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch 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?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them.

Like hell they were. They were in fact changed when particular MPs
chose to get enough other MPs to change the law on that stuff.

Or, as I prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

On 17/10/2016 22:08, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes, the law is a great instrument of social change when required.

It is the only viable instrument for that.

The Environmental Protection Act is just another example.

A useless one. If it is considered by the parliament that
churches should no longer be allowed to ring any bells,
that should have been explicitly stated in that legislation.

Churches can ring bells, but only if they ensure that the noise does not
create a nuisance.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you
always have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

Of course they can. If they create a nuisance, however, they will have
the law to deal with.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

No, it's called enlightenment.

If you disagree with my summary of the legal position, go away and read
the law.

Rod knows the law, and whenever he loses an argument he abuses those who
enlighten him of things he rather not hear.

On 17/10/2016 21:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

Yes, in much the same way the law has changed regarding ringing bells.

I suppose wrong, in what way? The way the law has changed, or that you
advocate beating your 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.

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

Yes, the law he is quoting is regarding nuisance noises, like those of
bells. He is not alone in considering them a nuisance.

On 17/10/2016 22:15, Rod Speed wrote:


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

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

What is wrong, the fact there is a law governing their use where they
cause a nuisance?

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch 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?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them.

Like hell they were. They were in fact changed when particular MPs
chose to get enough other MPs to change the law on that stuff.

Or, as I prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

Centuries? Husbands have been beating their wives for centuries? Does
than make it allright?

On 17/10/2016 22:10, Rod Speed wrote:
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote

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.

Church bell ringing is not an undesirable practice and if it is
decided that it has become an undesirable practice,

By parliament.

the law should say that explicitly, like it did with slavery, beating
the wife, child prostitution, female genital mutilation etc etc etc.

Church bell ringing is not per se an undesirable practice, however
pointless and useless it is. It is only an undesirable practice when
it results in emission of noise that amounts to a Statutory Nuisance,
so that's what the law prohibits.

That law doesn’t in fact prohibit any ringing of church bells.

Yes it does when it causes a nuisance.

It's a measured, balanced approach to the problem,

It is completely stupid that prats like you can complain to
the local authority about a church ringing its bells and have to
investigate that complaint and tell you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language
because that is a complete waste of everyone's time.

Nothing prattish about complaining about bells. It s right conveyed in
statute.

for which bell ringers in particular should be grateful.

They arent that stupid.

It allows them to continue

The legislation should have said that explicitly
with church bells being exempted explicitly.

Can you cite this exception?

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

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.

Yes, the law is a great instrument of social change when required.

It is the only viable instrument for that.

The Environmental Protection Act is just another example.

A useless one. If it is considered by the parliament that
churches should no longer be allowed to ring any bells,
that should have been explicitly stated in that legislation.

Churches can ring bells, but only if they ensure that the noise does not
create a nuisance.

Not possible to ensure that. By definition church bells have
to be heard from a long distance away from the church.

There will always be some that prefer to sleep in on a sunday
morning instead of grovelling to some god or other or being
bored out of their 'minds' by what some prat in a dress is
pontificating about etc when he isnt raping one of the altar boys.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you
always have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

Of course they can. If they create a nuisance, however, they will have
the law to deal with.

Nope, the law will tell prats like you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

No, it's called enlightenment.

Its called pig ignorant bull**** by anyone with even half a clue.

If you disagree with my summary of the legal position, go away and read
the law.

Been doing that since before you were even born, thanks.

And know what the authoritys will do with a complaint
from a prat like you about church bells too.

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

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.

Church bell ringing is not an undesirable practice and if it is decided that it
has become an undesirable practice,

By parliament.

the law should say that explicitly, like it did with slavery, beating the wife,
child prostitution, female genital mutilation etc etc etc.

Church bell ringing is not per se an undesirable practice, however pointless and
useless it is. It is only an undesirable practice when it results in emission of
noise that amounts to a Statutory Nuisance, so that's what the law prohibits.

That law doesn’t in fact prohibit any ringing of church bells.

It's a measured, balanced approach to the problem,

It is completely stupid that prats like you can complain to
the local authority about a church ringing its bells and have to
investigate that complaint and tell you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language
because that is a complete waste of everyone's time.

for which bell ringers in particular should be grateful.

They arent that stupid.

It allows them to continue

The legislation should have said that explicitly
with church bells being exempted explicitly.

It didn't intend to, so it didn't. Tough if you don't like it.

And with the caterwauling from mosques banned explicitly.

but only provided they show consideration for their neighbours.

Wrong, as always. Their neighbours should have enough of a
clue to check what churches are within earshot and not move
to where they can be heard if you don’t like to hear church bells.

Bell ringers have no right to decide where I or anyone else lives. They do,
however, have an obligation under the law not to create a nuisance for anyone.

Prats like you don’t get to show up and proclaim that the churches
must stop doing what they have been doing for centurys and the
legislation should have said the explicitly too.

The law says what it says, and it says what I said it says. If you don't like it,
you'll have to campaign to get it changed.

Bell ringers are not above the law. They don't have any special exemption or
privileges.

And the law says, whether you like it or not, that I can complain if I consider
church bells are a nuisance.

On 17/10/2016 22:35, Fredxxx wrote:
Can you cite this exception?

The Church of England can't:

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/394399/bells.pdf

--
Rod

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

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.

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch 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?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them.

Like hell they were. They were in fact changed when particular MPs
chose to get enough other MPs to change the law on that stuff.

I see you're as ignorant of history as you are about the law.

Or, as I prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

If you don't like what Parliament enacted 26 years ago, you can of course complain.

In the meantime, the law applies as is.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Churches can ring bells, but only if they ensure that the noise does not create a
nuisance.

Not possible to ensure that. By definition church bells have
to be heard from a long distance away from the church.

By what 'definition'?

Quote it.

There will always be some that prefer to sleep in on a sunday
morning instead of grovelling to some god or other or being
bored out of their 'minds' by what some prat in a dress is
pontificating about etc when he isnt raping one of the altar boys.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you always
have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

Of course they can. If they create a nuisance, however, they will have the law
to deal with.

Nope, the law will tell prats like you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language.

Not so. It gives a specific right to complain and for that complaint to be
investigated properly.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

No, it's called enlightenment.

Its called pig ignorant bull**** by anyone with even half a clue.

If you disagree with my summary of the legal position, go away and read the law.

Been doing that since before you were even born, thanks.

Not, it seems, with much success.

And know what the authoritys will do with a complaint
from a prat like you about church bells too.

Yes, of course. They will investigate it, apply established criteria, and come to a
conclusion as to whether it's valid. If it is, they will issue a Noise Abatement
Order and serve it on those responsible.

It's how the prescribed procedure works, you see.