Cornhill

[jimhedgcock]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Offen" <> As the matter 
is still before the Chancellor of the Diocese, I would 
> imagine that information is confidential at present.   Whilst it 
would 
> probably be of some interest to know what the objections are, who has 
> made them is really none of our business!
> 
> R
>
In an ideal world I would agree with Richard's comments about the 
identity of complainants not being any of our business. Unfortunately 
we don't live in an ideal world. Some of us hold different opinions 
from others and are perfectly entitled to do so. With regard to this 
specific item, there are those in the ringing community who are well 
balanced, thoughtful and responsible people. They are considered in 
their views and responses and set out not to offend. We all know such 
people. On the other hand there are those who command less respect, and 
the identities of these people are known to us. I would rather know 
that the views of the responsible and informed are being expressed to 
the relevant authorities rather than the others making their 
reprersentations and possibly claiming support that doesn't stand up to 
scrutiny.
David says that enquiries should be made via the tower correspondent. 
This also is a very laudable position to adopt. Unfortunately the 'cat 
is out of the bag'. The names of objectors and the reasons for their 
objections are common topics of conversation in locations where ringers 
meet for ringing and social discourse. In these circumstances, fact, 
inuendo and speculation tend to blend and the result is information 
that has no sure foundation. Given this situation, it is my opinion, 
that may differ from that of others, that it is better to clear the 
air. This site is frequented by many with much knowledge of this 
situation and if they consider it appropriate will make a response. If 
they don't then the matter will die a natural death. So be it. We also 
have a very competent and experienced moderator who can similarly end 
this correspondence should he so choose.  I have no further comment to 
make.  I have heard the names of four objectors mentioned but these may 
be unfounded.
Finally David states that this site is not the place to air such 
enquiries. Could I ask if this site is a suitable vehicle for sending 
Christmas Greetings and the like? I find such actions bland and almost 
meaningless, but then that is my opinion. I usually do mine using 
e.cards, telephone or via snail mail.  Personal messages in such 
vehicles in my opinion, far outweigh any other means.