[Bell Historians] Great Malvern

[Bickerton, Roderic (SELEX GALILEO, UK)]

________________________________

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Bull
Sent: 09 March 2009 21:25
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Great Malvern


*** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 
	

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




SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems Limited
Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL
A company registered in England & Wales.  Company no. 02426132
********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************
           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090310/da93b59c/attachment.html>