[Bell Historians] Re: Stanton St John

[Bickerton, Roderic K (SELEX) (UK)]

 The RW gave me full disclosure of the letter and an offer to reply in
the same issue.

I declined, for various reasons, the principle being researching and
writing a paper on the assessment of the strength of bell supporting
ironwork, a draft of which is in the "files" section.
I am constructing a web site on Stanton St John bells so that I can
refer to it in my RW reply to avoid long technical content, which would
probably be to much for RW publication.

The paper on the assessment of the strength of bell supporting ironwork,
has been proof read by a number of people and is currently with our
stress analysis department (responsible for aircraft safety). Once that
is done I intend offering it to the CC.

I am continuing with the church and intend covering all points raised by
a report on the bells. This report, commented by me, is in the Files
section.

Insurance is one aria where I would appreciate advice.
I have private medical insurance and am the holder of an all risks
household policy.
I spend a lot of time among bells, often alone.
There is not a lot of point in taking out insurance for claims arising
from damage I could in theory do, as I can't really imagine anything
being possible that I could not pay for, If I did it would probably have
a 50K voluntary excess.
I doubt there is any way I could get specific public liability cover as
I am all over the place. Dose anyone know different? There is no way I
am personally going to hold any church responsible for any damage I do
to my self, and with my driving my risk getting to the tower is far
grater and uninsured.
What else is there I should insure against?


________________________________

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jshe726707 at oakCj_36bPgxffjOnC7LtOkv4j9P-NI5H7BTBVBuDJO5CjcbVg4UTmlgsRFdhktRlqs2bXfj060.yahoo.invalid
Sent: 13 March 2007 10:26
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Re: Stanton St John



In a message dated 13/03/2007 10:08:41 GMT Standard Time,
John at fC4butY1QeFeqit1_B2XHOW42w0ACM3hrKd4pFGIhkjKWXoHGzxho4Za1xZETMB_qr-NOOaV_x27aXF8ELGCzHaRi2B2XI2x.yahoo.invalid writes:

		From: "Richard Offen"
	> So what does this all set out to achieve? Justification for a
quick
	> grab and then on to the next 'unringable' on the list of
'towers needed
	> to finish the county'?
	
	So what does your email set out to achieve? Attempting to
justify a quick 
	sideswipe, without knowing the full facts, and then on to the
next 'easy 
	target' on the list of 'ringers I disapprove of'?
	
	John Cater 
	
	

		I agree with John Cater has said . It's all too easy to
have a swipe ( from the holier than 
brigade ) at some ringers who actually get off their butts and do
something . The letter in last weeks RW concerning this tower should
have been published with the reply next to it from RB giving him the 
opportunity to defend himself . However to be fair to the RW it may well
have been that RB was given the chance to reply in such a manner and he
didn't take it . Time may tell .
 
Jim Shepard

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************