[Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory

Chris Darvill manager at 8Ha-cfZ5QfiALZEOHxdjx-1spHpn5X3V5ithWbPUEYlRVEoinUIkxMcDzYwtISyTzlC8Ll9Ac1mUdjUEudqn7Puv.yahoo.invalid
Thu Mar 12 18:12:58 GMT 2009

At 17:51 12/03/2009, Bickerton, Roderic (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote:
>Has the movement been measured recently?
>Getting it down is no guarantee it will stay down.


At 17:40 12/03/2009, John H Allen wrote:
>[ref Lichfield] matters are getting worse.

The problem is no-one on the "ringers' side" appears to have put 
these points across to the Chancellor. EH found contractors prepared 
to guarantee that their work would reduce the frame movement enough 
to make the bells easy to ring and no-one asked "how long for". On 
the basis of the information provided I think I'd have found it 
difficult to justify replacing the frame. If the ringers had obtained 
a statement from the Lichfield ringers this would have helped, but it 
appears they didn't.

As I see it, the ringers want the bells to be easier to ring and EH 
want to retain what they consider to be a historical frame. EH have 
proposed a solution that (they state) will give both sides what they 
want. The ringers/PCC haven't done this. How else do we expect the 
independent person charged with making a decision one way or the 
other to respond other than to go with EH?



More information about the Bell-historians mailing list