"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:59:18 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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, 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.

It's a measured, balanced approach to the problem, for which bell ringers in
particular should be grateful. It allows them to continue but only provided they
show consideration for their neighbours.

So how would you handle the situation where 20 long term residents
wish for the bells to continue and the 3 newcomers find them a
nuisance?

It's not a vox pop. If the noise constitutes a Statutory Nuisance, the law says it
has to be abated. And whether it's a Statutory Nuisance depends in the main on
quantifiable things like level and duration.