<!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 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have been following the emails regarding Great
Malvern with interest. I particularly appreciated Chris Pickford's considered
reaction to the Judgment and balanced suggestions on future potentially
contentious cases.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I sympathise with the Petitioners and with the
Ringers at Great Malvern Priory; but having read the Judgment and the summary of
evidence upon which it is based, I find it difficult to see how the Court could
have reached another conclusion. It all turns on the evidence; as matters stand,
the evidence of English Heritage and the willingness of a structural engineer
highly respected in the Exercise <EM>and </EM>of the firm he represents to stake
their professional indemnity on a satisfactory outcome to restoration must weigh
very heavily on the side of the Objectors.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John Baldwin seems to me to make good sense when
suggesting that the correct line of approach would be to take the decision to
Appeal. This would require as John says, and as Chris has pointed out,
adequate and competent evidence. Additionally, it is for the Court to
decide whether new evidence can be admitted, if it is simply the decision which
is being appealed. There is also the question of costs, should the appeal fail.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think if I was the Petitioner in, shall we say, a
very similar case, I would consider the evidence upon which the Judgment is
based. If I was still unconvinced, it would be open to me to go over my own
evidence. I must provide what was perceived to be lacking and
supplement - or even withdraw - anything the reliability of which
could reasonably be called into question, and add any new evidence,
presenting it in the form of a new
Faculty Petition. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>May I say, with respect, that this cause has
prompted some indignant, perhaps ill-considered responses They may not help the
very people with whom we sympathise regardless of the perceived rights and
wrongs of the case. The email below has a personal and
negative observation on the Chancellor and there has been one other.
If the Petitioners, in this case, detect a conflict of interest they should
advise the Diocesan Bishop of their fears. The email, self-entitled a
"Rant" also says, 'One of these days an EH member <EM>(sic) </EM>will be a
ringer and will therefore understand ....' The English Heritage Inspector
with whom the CBC and the CCCBR have the most dealings is Graham Pledger,
who is a competent and loyal Sunday Service ringer.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=alan_ellis@TIqszzEPxtyDXc8nQfUAkTPNcVRNfcbB-B6PdTma6FzcnSRFbTdW1Pq-HVptVP5Lr4kooZabtz8y_LzO7tTRdKB1cQ.yahoo.invalid href="mailto:alan_ellis@Ryth2_ThnqUe3-qR8mQmkGu6LJFPsmsIpJW6HDBmv28-cb20D2qkGF83n8Jq0eOoaRgzt1dFd4TAnr8.yahoo.invalid">Alan
Ellis</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:31
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bell Historians] Great
Malvern Priory</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>Another sad day for ringing.<BR><BR>IMHO Mr. Charles Mynors, because of his
background, has a predisposition (is that the right word?) towards
preservation. He was therefore in conflict of interest with the
entire case and he should never have been there. Surely it can be
appealed on that alone. (Need input from our learned
leader).<BR><BR>What concerns me the most is that repairing the old frame is
no guarantee and that it will need to be repaired again at a much sooner
rather than a far distant date. In other words any repair is a
waste of money.<BR><BR>Bells are hung to be rung and heard. The
frame is the means by which they can be rung. No frame, no
bells. Does the public see or hear the frame? No way.
So why this terrible concern for the preservation of almost-modern
frames by EH makes no sense whatsoever.<BR><BR>One of these days an EH member
will be a ringer and will therefore understand the need for a proper
frame.<BR><BR>Rant over.<BR><BR>Best
wishes<BR><BR>Alan<BR><BR><BR> <BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=midBLU111-W3743945B1358E5A771327BFE9E0@Rmse7xxHzh79JqvdTB0jN8HMicFCSroIyloXTpREi1T95yj7cwS2npOayd9TkqGWaZDVWbc3op5AKOKRz09kJdPnF0KWePE9B_cvZju98ZQ_TIhQCUsWAD-7wOCHcjI.yahoo.invalid type="cite">
<DIV id=ygrp-mlmsg>
<DIV id=ygrp-msg>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P><BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>