<HTML>
Perhaps this is the case where we, as ringers, should make a real stand and find (goodness knows from where!) the funds to help the parish fight this case at the Court of Arches. If we don't EH will continue to run amok with any bell restoration project that is put forward which their 'experts' consider to be detrimental to trhe retention of historic material.<BR>
<BR>
R<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>On Tue Mar 10 6:37 , 'John H Allen' <JOHN@DWBItpAbnB-FrLEXdfM5HPvB0ahCKUdIoqROll1GueC0EfL0AoMVnxOn8TDcb3D8mxYqsXMcBAlpZq_Pzb0.yahoo.invalid>sent:<BR>
<BR>
</B>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #f5f5f5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I share David’s anger but as I have already pointed out the Faculty application was supported by all the C Of E bodes. It is the Bishop’s Legal Officer, the Chancellor who has come to the opposite view. The decision needs to be challenged in the Court of the Arches but whether the parish has the stomach or the funds to do this is another matter. The PCC approved in January 2002 so it has taken 7 years to get this far.<O></O></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O> </O></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I also notice that one of the experts who is quoted in the judgement is an elected member of the CC’s Towers and Belfries Committee.<O></O></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O> </O></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">John<O></O></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O> </O></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O> </O></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O> </O></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"> </SPAN><O></O></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"> <ST1>bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</ST1> [mailto:<ST1>bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</ST1>] <B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of </SPAN></B>David Bryant<BR>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> 09 March 2009 22:15<BR>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Bell Historians<BR>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [<ST1><ST1>Bell</ST1></ST1> Historians] Great Malvern</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US><O></O></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><O> </O></SPAN></P>
<DIV id=ygrp-mlmsg>
<DIV id=ygrp-msg>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">"Nowhere do I see a proper case made for keeping the frame."<BR>
<BR>
Quite. Some of the supposed justification is completely ludicrous, e.g:<BR>
<BR>
"It is however of historic interest ... locally for its place in the <BR>
evolution of the fittings of the medieval church building and of <BR>
bell-ringing activity at the Priory"<BR>
<BR>
What complete nonsense! If this were a valid justification it could be used <BR>
as a reason for keeping absolutely anything - and the danger is that this is <BR>
exactly what will happen if it's accepted as valid in this case.<BR>
<BR>
Things are only likely to get worse, and part of the problem is that there <BR>
is no recognized group of bell historians to act as an opposition party, and <BR>
the way the CofE carries on doesn't help situations like this. Granted, the <BR>
CCC didn't agree with EH on this occasion, but neither, it seems, did they <BR>
actively fight it - which they should have. The CCC has a policy on <BR>
conservation which strikes a good balance between the needs of ringers and <BR>
the requirements of conservationists, and it is in nobody's interest if EH <BR>
is allowed to go to ridiculous lengths without challenge<BR>
<BR>
And here we come back to the problem of the CCC Bells committee. Any chance <BR>
of it becoming democratic and people being appointed on merit with a clear <BR>
and transparent appointments procedure? Or is it just going to continue to <BR>
operate on the basis of the CCC appointing whoever they decide? At the last <BR>
round of appointments, I had never heard of the three people appointed, they <BR>
had (so far as I know) no background in Bell history, they are not members <BR>
of this list, none of them (so far as I know) came to the conference at <BR>
Worcester Cathedral and I have heard nothing about them since. Are they <BR>
doing a good job? I've no idea given that they are not part of the general <BR>
bell historian community. It was interesting that when I asked about the <BR>
appointments procedure at the <ST1><ST1>Worcester</ST1></ST1> conference, the CCC representative <BR>
didn't really answer the question.<BR>
<BR>
If things are to improve I think we really need a recognized society of bell <BR>
historians which is accepted as an expert witness in cases like this, or <BR>
alternatively a new (and transparent) setup at the CCC (which needs to be <BR>
accepted by EH as the principal expert body), but the chances of the latter <BR>
happening don't seem very high. Ideally someone, or better still a group, <BR>
would take the CofE on over the issue and at one time I might have had a <BR>
go - but not now. After a long-running dispute with the Diocese of York over <BR>
something else, I have nothing but contempt for the CofE and it has become <BR>
very clear that they don't consider that any of their actions should be <BR>
subject to scrutiny or question - it's still very much a Victorian <BR>
<ST1>org</ST1>anization which thinks that people should just accept that the CofE is <BR>
always right, and always in the right. It's an attitude which doesn't bode <BR>
well for any attempts to reform the way it does things.<BR>
<BR>
I wonder whether it's worth members of this list emailing EH and the Diocese <BR>
of <ST1><ST1>Worcester</ST1></ST1> to express views on the matter? As bell historians, we might be <BR>
expected by the uninvolved to side with EH, but rather suspect that nearly <BR>
all members of this list will think that the decision made is the wrong one.<BR>
<BR>
David <O></O></SPAN></P></DIV><!--End group email -->
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1990 - Release Date: 03/09/09 07:14:00<BR>
</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BLOCKQUOTE></HTML>
<BR>