[Bell Historians] Re: Cornhill

Peter Rivet peter at 1hThTwl4o8UCOjkWJNnNfN20tqFrMnKux2olW1XABNvbw64pRt_0BT5XCXh4RrhdOC5F8VUw3n9EhIuSw2GNvT8.yahoo.invalid
Sat Jan 5 23:31:10 GMT 2008

I do not know what the arguments for and against the work proposed at
Cornhill are - I know nothing about the background - but I am a little
surprised that it is assumed that the discussions about it should take place
behind closed doors.

My job involves dealing with applications for planning permission (and
occasionally, listed building consent).  Any representations for and against
a proposal for a new building, or alterations to an existing one, are
available for inspection by the general public.  I am expected to tell
people what is going on.  Why should proposals for restoring or altering
church bells any different?

Peter Rivet

  -----Original Message-----
  From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of jimhedgcock
  Sent: 05 January 2008 22:42
  To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Bell Historians] Re: Cornhill

  --- 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
  > 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
  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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080105/5467f15d/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list