[Bell Historians] Hanley Stoke on Trent
aaspland at e2ccT-N54KSBC94uUVQeOpwh-d2ypiVE0odC-KaZIXza2yEyp4YVL66pBNKPzBP6gUUEzw8rwkS0R4YwAg.yahoo.invalid
Thu Oct 15 18:54:30 BST 2009
I have had a look at most of the Hanley documentation - I am particularly
interested in this case since I am involved with a similar case i.e. the
removal of bells from a redundant church being converted to secular use. In
my case the bells are uninscribed (apart from the date and the founder's
name) and are not a memorial. To what extent do Bell Historians think the
war memorial issue was significant in the Hanley case?
Although EH seem to back the proposal their "conditions" seem in some
disagreement with the rest of their document. They argue for the bells'
removal on the grounds that they are unusable, likely to remain unusable
and, even if they were usable, the context of a restaurant would not be
suited to ringing bells. However their conditions focus on Stone and not on
Hanley. I am facing similar arguments in the case that I am pursuing - an
imbalance of argument resting on the recipient church rather than the
I remain unpersuaded by the letters of objection - only one of them actually
mentions the future use of the bells at Hanley - they are mostly just
reiterating facts that we already know (i.e. the bells are a war memorial)
and adding a layer of emotional wash to their objection. There seems to be
a singular lack of pragmatism in the objectors' letters. The fact that the
bells are not and have not been heard for many years and may well not be
used again seems not to have occurred to any one of them. Indeed I would
question how many of the objectors have ever seen or indeed heard the bells.
What further arguments would members of this list put forward to justify the
removal of bells from a redundant church building intended for secular use?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bell-historians