[Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory

[Alan Ellis]

Another sad day for ringing.

IMHO Mr. Charles Mynors, because of his background, has a predisposition 
(is that the right word?) towards preservation.   He was therefore in 
conflict of interest with the entire case and he should never have been 
there.  Surely it can be appealed on that alone.  (Need input from our 
learned leader).

What concerns me the most is that repairing the old frame is no 
guarantee and that it will need to be repaired again at a much sooner 
rather than a far distant date.   In other words any repair is a waste 
of money.

Bells are hung to be rung and heard.   The frame is the means by which 
they can be rung.  No frame, no bells.   Does the public see or hear the 
frame?  No way.  So why this terrible concern for the preservation of  
almost-modern frames by EH makes no sense whatsoever.

One of these days an EH member will be a  ringer and will therefore 
understand the need for a proper frame.

Rant over.

Best wishes

Alan


 



>
> 

           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090311/3a256e05/attachment.html>