[Bell Historians] Points of view/Great Malvern

Arcubus markregan at a...
Sat May 29 00:17:38 BST 2004

Best talk to the local ringers (Alison Hodge, John Clements, Phil
Morgan) and David Beacham (DAC) about this. I've seen the frame and
watched the bells ringing. There are enough of these frames around and
they are known to be transitional in terms of frame development. The
only case for retention 'might' be if the frame were contemporary with
the church - even then it's only a bell frame. This doesn't apply in
this case.

This is tricky for me as I don't know the full story and I'm a DAC
advisor over the border. I'm sure that if Malvern were in a different
Diocese different advice may be given and the relationship with EH may
be different too. DACs' advice, behaviour and relationship with CCC and
EH is not consistent. My approach is to help the customer as much as I
can with the full support of the DAC. If we debate the case amongst
ourselves the intention is to get a result for the customer i.e. church
and ringers. Ironically CJND and I have a strong conservation
inclination - only where it is relevant, necessary and purposeful. More
importantly we want ringing to prosper.

Why EH have the power to insist the frame is retained and 'strengthened'
is a mystery to me. The ringers are demoralised and have put forward a
good case too. The choice should be the ringers and the church. Why this
choice isn't available can only be answered by EH. 

If crap like the old installation at Kidderminster can be ripped out
what's the big deal about an 'A' side frame of which there are many?


Mark Regan
64 London Road
0797 1573688 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Bryant [mailto:david at b...] 
Sent: 28 May 2004 21:08
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: [Bell Historians] Points of view/Great Malvern

> EH think that the frame can be strengthened and so the DAC didn't 
> oppose

But what on earth would be the point? It isn't a very good example of
that type of frame - most people seem to agree on that - and would need
modifying to take ten bells. What concrete grounds can there be for
insisting on its retention? If EH want to ensure that some of these type
of frames are kept, there are much better examples which are not likely
to compromise any future rehanging scheme - either because they are
likely to continue in use or because the bells could be hung beneath. I
can think of several without even trying! Have EH given their reasons
for being so determined to ensure that the Malvern frame is retained?



Whatever you Wanadoo:

This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at:

Yahoo! Groups Links

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 18/05/2004

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 18/05/2004

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list