[Bell Historians] Great Malvern

Andrew Aspland aaspland at _AnLEvybN32UVWhpaFYZNrKmvnBhwXgHTLJhc3BWK7jBKcGxHC49rZPYdmHa7egO-l_Gxaf-ixM76iUfjRoZ.yahoo.invalid
Tue Mar 10 15:52:10 GMT 2009

I feel there is a huge leap of logic around paragraphs 122 and 123. Para
122 -  Likening the historical interest of an 1887 bellframe to that of
medieval wall tiles and citing inclusion on a website as evidence of
interest is taking things too far.  And para 123 links the removal of that
same limited historic interest to adversely affecting the character of the
priory.  Logical(?) conclusions stretched too far!


  -----Original Message-----
  From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Richard Grimmett
  Sent: 10 March 2009 08:52
  To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Great Malvern

  Perhaps I am being naive here, but can people explain exactly where they
  feel the Chancellor went wrong? Was the problem in the evidence
  submitted or the logic applied by the Chancellor, or both?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090310/57181eae/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list