<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>AA wrote "<FONT color=#0000ff>How many of the
objectors will have been to Cornhill during those 28 days? Perhaps too
much publicity was given to this project?"</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>You don't have to visit the church to
be aware of the opportunity to comment. It is true to say, I think, that both
"sides" took steps to tell people of the consultation period and actively
encourage their supporters to make submissions. If too much publicity was given,
then the parties are largely to blame.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A rather more worrying aspect - not mentioned so
far - is that I understand the Chancellor has sought independent advice from a
bell expert. Given that most people who we might think of as real experts in the
field have already been involved one way or another, I wonder who has been
approached - and what standing the "expert" might have among bell folk and
ringers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hoping for a result in favour of something a great
deal better than they have now! The Church and conservation bodies are slowly
constricting opportunities for enhancing churches with things of our own times -
this "stop the clock" / "keep everything old irrespective of quality and
usefulness" fashion must be checked.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CP</FONT><!--End group email --></DIV></BODY></HTML>