<!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 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN class=548051317-15102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I have
had a look at most of the Hanley documentation - I am particularly
interested in this case since I am involved with a similar case i.e. the removal
of bells from a redundant church being converted to secular use. In my
case the bells are uninscribed (apart from the date and the founder's name) and
are not a memorial. To what extent do Bell Historians think the war
memorial issue was significant in the Hanley case? </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=548051317-15102009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=548051317-15102009></SPAN><SPAN class=548051317-15102009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Although EH seem to back the proposal their
"conditions" seem in some disagreement with the rest of their document.
They argue for the bells' removal on the grounds that they are unusable, likely
to remain unusable and, even if they were usable, the context of a restaurant
would not be suited to ringing bells. However their conditions focus
on Stone and not on Hanley. </FONT></SPAN><IMG height=1
src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5029388/grpspId=1707285820/msgId=15811/stime=1255620896/nc1=4836038/nc2=5741395/nc3=5733755"
width=1 NOSEND="1"><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=548051317-15102009>I am facing similar arguments in the case that I am
pursuing - an imbalance of argument resting on the recipient church rather
than the redundant church.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=548051317-15102009></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=548051317-15102009>I remain unpersuaded by the letters of objection - only
one of them actually mentions the future use of the bells at Hanley - they
are mostly just reiterating facts that we already know (i.e. the bells are a war
memorial) and adding a layer of emotional wash to their objection. There
seems to be a singular lack of pragmatism in the objectors'
letters. The fact that the bells are not and have not been heard for
many years and may well not be used again seems not to have occurred to any one
of them. Indeed I would question how many of the objectors have ever seen
or indeed heard the bells.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=548051317-15102009></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=548051317-15102009>What further arguments would members of this
list put forward to justify the removal of bells from a redundant
church building intended for secular use?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=548051317-15102009></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=548051317-15102009>Yours</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=548051317-15102009>Andrew Aspland</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="CLEAR: both; COLOR: white"></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>