The bells at York

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

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

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.

And church bells keep ringing, even tho it isnt even possible
to avoid being a nuisance to someone when they are rung.

You get to like that or lump it.

Only until a complaint is made by someone with a pair who is willing to
take
the bell ringers on. And it surely can't be long delayed in view of the
arrogance you display that is shared by most of them.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise nuisance,
not those causing it.

Like hell it is when NOT ONE church has had to stop ringing its bells in 26
years.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:23:32 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:

I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!"

Alternatively keep them silent ...

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-noise-pollution-from-church-bells

If I lived near them, I'd sign that. Being in Scotland I don't really give a **** either way.

--
Why do tourists go to the top of tall buildings and then put money in telescopes so they can see things on the ground in close-up?

On 15/10/2016 8:23 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!"

Alternatively keep them silent ...

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-noise-pollution-from-church-bells



Nice option.

Many 'calls to prayer' have been stopped. Allowing one religion to do so
would mean all other religions should also be allowed to.

Given that I live in a multicultural area, I really don't want to hear
bells and wailing voices again.

In message , Fredxxx
writes:
On 18/10/2016 02:53, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 23:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 22:10, Rod Speed wrote:
[]
The legislation should have said that explicitly
with church bells being exempted explicitly.

Can you cite this exception?

The word SHOULD is there for a reason, stupid.

Are you too stupid to cite the law?

No need to.

After saying there is an exception to the law regards Church of
England, you have every need to.

Or be seen as so thick to confuse Islands and Ireland and Australia.

Er - he said "the legislation should have said" - in other words, he's
saying it didn't, not that it did (though he might have been expressing
a wish that it had done). When you missed the "should" the first time,
he pointed it out to you.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You know what the big secret about posh people is? Most of them are lovely.
- Richard Osman, RT 2016/7/9-15

On 18/10/2016 10:11, Rod Speed wrote:
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Have fun listing any british church bells that arent allowed to be
rung anymore.

Here are some where it came very close

Bull**** it did.

You have read those articles? Or is that too difficult for you?

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

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

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.

And church bells keep ringing, even tho it isnt even possible
to avoid being a nuisance to someone when they are rung.

You get to like that or lump it.

Only until a complaint is made by someone with a pair who is willing to take
the bell ringers on. And it surely can't be long delayed in view of the
arrogance you display that is shared by most of them.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise nuisance, not
those causing it.

Like hell it is when NOT ONE church has had to stop ringing its bells in 26 years.

Several have actually. It's just that when push comes to shove bellringers are
suddenly inclined to compromise, and those who have complained, being the jolly
reasonable souls that they are, have setlled the matter and allowed the bell ringing
to proceed

On 18/10/2016 19:38, Fredxxx wrote:
That's because C of E tend to be sensitive to local issues.

Care to name the exemption you claim for C of E making nuisance noises?

Or C in W.

--
Rod

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 22:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
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.

In a completely different way, actually. Beating the wife was
made explicitly a criminal offence. Ringing church bells was not.

I suppose wrong, in what way?

I know you arent allowed to beat the wife.

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"?

I know you arent allowed to beat 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.

Yes, the law he is quoting is regarding nuisance noises,

Yes.

like those of bells.

Nope, those are not banned.

Nothing is banned as such.

Will you care to name the exemption in the relevant law that excuses
Church of England from making nuisance noise?

No one ever said that there was any such thing.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2016 09:21, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 22:15, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

What is wrong,

'Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance'

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

There isnt with church bells.

Church bells will always be a nuisance to some,
because the whole point of them is that they are
there to be heard over a considerable distance.

That has always been the whole point of them.

Then their use falls squarely within Section 79 of the Environmental
Protection Act

Yes.

and can be stopped.

Have fun listing even a single example of church bells
being stopped by some prat like you moving to where
there are church bells being used and whining about
them being a nuisance.

That's because C of E tend to be sensitive to local issues.

Like hell they are about ever ringing the bells.

Care to name the exemption you claim for C of E making nuisance noises?

I never ever claimed any such thing.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2016 11:16, Rod Speed wrote:


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

And church bells keep ringing, even tho it isnt even possible
to avoid being a nuisance to someone when they are rung.

You get to like that or lump it.

Only until a complaint is made by someone with a pair who is willing
to take the bell ringers on.

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever being successful.

And even you should have noticed that that
legislation is more than 25 years old now.

There might just be a reason why no one has EVER got the bell ringing
stopped.

There are several cases where it has been stopped, to which I've
referred you elsewhere.

You haven't cited even a single example of the bell ringing
being STOPPED and they were all the SAME set of bells.

Where's the exemption for the C of E?

Never ever claimed there was any such thing.

Didn’t even mention the C of E either.