[Bell Historians] EIG

Alan Ellis alan_ellis at SRmMsHgzoMgs2i4JB-Xln_owgBi_S-L9YCtogomrrw_BuA_vG_nWWBrUXze6eW1tJ8xU1nZ5hIQMLKk.yahoo.invalid
Mon Jan 21 17:25:49 GMT 2008

Hello Andrew,

Typical underwriter.   They perceive something which is totally false. 

As I write Loss Prevention Reports for Underwriters,  there are the 
usual questions based upon their perception rather than what I saw and 



Andrew Aspland wrote:

> Not history but would the learned list care to comment on this quote 
> from an Ecclesiaistical Insurance Senior Underwriter:
> "The reasons that we prefer that the bells are left in the 'down' 
> position are as follows:
> "1. From the material damage point of view, if the bells are left in 
> the 'up' position and a fire actually gets up into the tower above the 
> bells, then debris will fall down into the bells themselves, rather 
> than just bounce off them and fall to the ground. 
> "Then, the weight of the debris and the bells combined could cause 
> serious damage not only to the bells but also potentially damage the 
> bell frame, if not to the structure of the tower itself, and bearing 
> in mind that you have quite a lot of bells then it could prove a real 
> danger to the structure of your church."
> This sounds like the idea of someone who has no idea of what it is 
> like in a bell tower - and the last paragraph describes such a 
> disasterous scenario that the bells being up or down would have little 
> bearing on the matter. 
> Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080121/726e69f2/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list