[Bell Historians] Great Malvern

[Andrew Bull]

Utter madness. I think that this "judgement" will jepardise any bell
restoration scheme that requires a frame to be replaced. If these
"conservationalists" can object to the removal of an 1887 Taylor A-frame,
then they can object to anything. Nowhere do I see a proper case made for
keeping the frame.

 

I regularly ring at a ten that are a real handful to ring despite having
been rehung in 1978; they are the only ring of ten in our branch. The main
cause of the problem is the flimsy, composite frame of 1899 by Thomas
Blackbourne. Presumably some moron would insist that the frame be retained
for its "historic value" if we ever raised the money for a full rehanging.

 

Mediaeval frames - yes, I can understand why people would want to preserve
them. Even example of later frames - possibly, on their merits. But a poor
19th century frame that's not unique or even vaguely interesting? Surely
this can't be right.

 

I've seen several examples of restoration schemes that have either cost much
more or foundered completely because of the intervention of ill-informed
"conservationalists". Staunton Harold is one example that springs to mind -
I note that these are now listed as "unringable" on Dove despite the
rehanging carried out a few years ago. Then there was the case of the ring
of six that went to the foundry twice in the space of a year, the second
time after the locals had found a loophole..

 

It makes me wonder what would happen if EH or one of these similar bodies
interfered with a scheme where the ringers had the resourses to sue them in
a civil court. Now that would be interesting...

 

Let us hope the ringers of Great Malvern find a way out of this nightmare
before the bells become abandoned and derelict.

 

Andrew Bull

 

  _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Robert Lewis
Sent: 09 March 2009 16:52
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Great Malvern

 

Here is the judgement.

It gets interesting from p.15 onward.

RAL

           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090309/594b074b/attachment.html>