On 18/10/2016 02:53, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 23:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 22:10, Rod Speed wrote:
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote

Plenty of reasons why nuisance laws should allow for what
has been allowed for centurys before the laws were written.

Laws forbidding undesirable practices have forever been a way of
improving the people's lot and civilising society.

Church bell ringing is not an undesirable practice and if it is
decided that it has become an undesirable practice,

By parliament.

the law should say that explicitly, like it did with slavery,
beating
the wife, child prostitution, female genital mutilation etc etc etc.

Church bell ringing is not per se an undesirable practice, however
pointless and useless it is. It is only an undesirable practice when
it results in emission of noise that amounts to a Statutory Nuisance,
so that's what the law prohibits.

That law doesn’t in fact prohibit any ringing of church bells.

Yes it does when it causes a nuisance.

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever happening with
church bells.

It's a measured, balanced approach to the problem,

It is completely stupid that prats like you can complain to
the local authority about a church ringing its bells and have to
investigate that complaint and tell you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language
because that is a complete waste of everyone's time.

Nothing prattish about complaining about bells.

Everything prattish about complaining about church bells that
were there when you chose to move where you can hear them.

It s right conveyed in statute.

Stupidly.

for which bell ringers in particular should be grateful.

They arent that stupid.

It allows them to continue

The legislation should have said that explicitly
with church bells being exempted explicitly.

Can you cite this exception?

The word SHOULD is there for a reason, stupid.

Are you too stupid to cite the law?

No need to.

After saying there is an exception to the law regards Church of England,
you have every need to.

Or be seen as so thick to confuse Islands and Ireland and Australia.