[Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory

[John H Allen]

I was a Diocesan Secretary in the late 1970's when the then Government
introduced State Aid for Churches. Many of us were concerned about the small
print and conditions attached to this Aid but the C of E grabbed it with
both hands.

 

We are living with the consequences of this decision every day of which
Malvern is just one.

 

John

 

 

  _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Bull
Sent: 12 March 2009 19:00
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory

 

It's interesting to see how the argument is shifting. I've still seen no
justification given as to why on earth EH want to keep the old frame in the
first place. It is even stated by David Bryant in a posting yesterday that
EH themselves own a church with a tower containing one of these very frames.
It is exactly this sort of thing that brings EH into disrepute, seemingly
wanting to interfere with restoration projects at every turn on the most
tenuous excuse.

 

Andrew Bull

 

  _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Chris Darvill
Sent: 12 March 2009 18:13
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory

 

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.

and

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?

Chris



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1996 - Release Date: 03/11/09
20:42:00


           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090312/76a6b506/attachment.html>