[Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory
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