"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 00:56, Max Demian wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:21:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:
On 16/10/2016 21:04, pamela wrote:

The recording may be of an Islamic call but the recording
equipment itself is not Islamic although I dunno - maybe it was
designed in Pakistan and assembled in Indonesia!

I thought only humans followed religions. Surely we don't have tape
recorders that are Catholic, Hindu, atheist, Jain, Buddhist and
Baptist
and Jewish?

What religion are church bells?

As Christian churches, at least some of them, have a ceremony of Blessing of the
Bells, perhaps they would be deemed to be Christian?

Can you appropriate any inanimate object you want into your religion by such means,
or is it only some?

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:51:45 +0100
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:04:13 +0100, pamela wrote:


A recording of a non-Islamic muezzin? Never knowingly heard, or
even heard of, one of them.


The recording may be of an Islamic call but the recording
equipment itself is not Islamic although I dunno - maybe it was
designed in Pakistan and assembled in Indonesia!

You can get tacky plastic souvenir Mosques shaped clocks which use
the sound as an alarm, probably made in China.
By mate brought one back from Turkey and it was rapidly disposed of
after the novelty wore off.

You could probably have given it to a cats home. The sound would keep them
happy.

--
Spud

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Similarly, I've never heard an Islamic muezzin calling worshippers
to prayer who wasn't totally out of tune.

Surely this is what you would expect as Arabic musical tuning is different
to modern western equal temperament tuning. As we are indoctrinated by
familiarity into the latter system any other sounds strange but is not
wrong.

Similarly if Mozart or Haydn or Beethoven heard a piano or harpsichord
with modern equal temperament tuning, they would consider it to be bland
and to an extent out of tune. Many years ago I went to a meeting of the
Association for Science Education at the London College of Furniture which
taught restoration and tuning of pianos and harpsichords. By the end of
the tuning course the sudents were expected to be proficient in at least 9
tuning systems and aware of about half a dozen others. The evening ended
with illustrations of various piano pieces by Mozart and Beethoven played
on 4 pianos with different tuning systems. The differences were quite
marked when heard like that.

Alan

--


Using an ARMX6

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:21:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:
On 16/10/2016 21:04, pamela wrote:

The recording may be of an Islamic call but the recording
equipment itself is not Islamic although I dunno - maybe it was
designed in Pakistan and assembled in Indonesia!

I thought only humans followed religions. Surely we don't have tape
recorders that are Catholic, Hindu, atheist, Jain, Buddhist and
Baptist
and Jewish?

What religion are church bells?

By nature, Christian. Places of worship for other religions have different
names.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:23:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 00:56, Max Demian wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:21:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:
On 16/10/2016 21:04, pamela wrote:

The recording may be of an Islamic call but the recording equipment
itself is not Islamic although I dunno - maybe it was designed in
Pakistan and assembled in Indonesia!

I thought only humans followed religions. Surely we don't have tape
recorders that are Catholic, Hindu, atheist, Jain, Buddhist and
Baptist
and Jewish?

What religion are church bells?

As Christian churches, at least some of them, have a ceremony of
Blessing of the Bells, perhaps they would be deemed to be Christian?

Can you appropriate any inanimate object you want into your religion by
such means,
or is it only some?

A Buddhist car trying to become one with its surroundings?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few years of bell
ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and flog the bells off for
scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like bells so much, why
don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in private? There's no
need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a tower as loud as
bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to indulge that little
peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.



If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.


--
AnthonyL

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:33:14 +0000, John #9 wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:23:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 00:56, Max Demian wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:21:16 +0100, polygonum

wrote:
On 16/10/2016 21:04, pamela wrote:

The recording may be of an Islamic call but the recording
equipment itself is not Islamic although I dunno - maybe it was
designed in Pakistan and assembled in Indonesia!

I thought only humans followed religions. Surely we don't have tape
recorders that are Catholic, Hindu, atheist, Jain, Buddhist and
Baptist
and Jewish?

What religion are church bells?

As Christian churches, at least some of them, have a ceremony of
Blessing of the Bells, perhaps they would be deemed to be Christian?

Can you appropriate any inanimate object you want into your religion by
such means,
or is it only some?

A Buddhist car trying to become one with its surroundings?

Tree hugging?



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few years of bell
ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and flog the bells off
for
scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like bells so much,
why
don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in private? There's no
need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a tower as loud
as
bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to indulge that little
peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law that means
these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle you to
continue it.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:30:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...

A tower near me had a fall-out amongst the ringers and rather than
leave the bells silent the choir decided they'd learn. Full help is
being given and after 3yrs, even on easy bells, they are still not at
the stage where they can ring more than the very basic patterns. It's
a bit like little Johnny coming home with his recorder or violin and 3
yrs later has just progressed beyond scales but not quite to Twinkle
Twinkle Little Star.

And what fun that must be to listen to!

Don't the neighbours deserve some sort of protection?


You'd have thought that but the parishioners and locals raised the
money for a replacement of the cracked tenor bell. When the ringing
stopped after the fall out the complaints were "why aren't the bells
being rung? - we've just paid out for a new bell". And the
(relatively new) houses are fairly close too - basically think suburb
to one side.

A full peal (just less than 3hrs of continuous ringing) was rung by a
proficient band recently, the first there for over 20yrs,
commemorating the 100th anniversary of the loss of 3 soldiers on the
same day from what would then have been little more than a big
village.

Advanced publicity was put about and several folk came to the church
to listen. To the best of my knowledge there were no complaints.

Seems as if some do really enjoy the old English traditions being
upheld.

--
AnthonyL

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:56:17 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:21:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:
On 16/10/2016 21:04, pamela wrote:

The recording may be of an Islamic call but the recording
equipment itself is not Islamic although I dunno - maybe it was
designed in Pakistan and assembled in Indonesia!

I thought only humans followed religions. Surely we don't have tape
recorders that are Catholic, Hindu, atheist, Jain, Buddhist and
Baptist
and Jewish?

What religion are church bells?


Catholic - till Henery 8 wanted a divorce.

--
AnthonyL

On 17/10/16 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:


I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should
entitle you to continue it.


The established customs have a place in law, it generally being held
that if its been going on for ages, you have a right to continue. This
is enshrined in e.g., footpath law and so in, where 'rights of way'; are
actually 'where people have walked since forever' and possession of land
is 'land that someone's been on without complaint for 12 years' or whatever.


In short we have a tradition of the new adapting to the old, until the
new outnumbers the old.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:30:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...

A tower near me had a fall-out amongst the ringers and rather than
leave the bells silent the choir decided they'd learn. Full help is
being given and after 3yrs, even on easy bells, they are still not at
the stage where they can ring more than the very basic patterns. It's
a bit like little Johnny coming home with his recorder or violin and 3
yrs later has just progressed beyond scales but not quite to Twinkle
Twinkle Little Star.

And what fun that must be to listen to!

Don't the neighbours deserve some sort of protection?


You'd have thought that but the parishioners and locals raised the
money for a replacement of the cracked tenor bell. When the ringing
stopped after the fall out the complaints were "why aren't the bells
being rung? - we've just paid out for a new bell". And the
(relatively new) houses are fairly close too - basically think suburb
to one side.

A full peal (just less than 3hrs of continuous ringing) was rung by a
proficient band recently, the first there for over 20yrs,
commemorating the 100th anniversary of the loss of 3 soldiers on the
same day from what would then have been little more than a big
village.

Advanced publicity was put about and several folk came to the church
to listen. To the best of my knowledge there were no complaints.

Seems as if some do really enjoy the old English traditions being
upheld.

Neighbours are usually very tolerant of occasional excesses. But those causing any
nuisance should always be mindful that they do need the neighbours' consent to
continue. Bellringers in particular seem to forget that.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:23:13 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message
...

As Christian churches, at least some of them, have a ceremony of
Blessing of the
Bells, perhaps they would be deemed to be Christian?

Can you appropriate any inanimate object you want into your
religion by such means,
or is it only some?

The Hebrews want to appropriate vast swathes of land (well some of
them do):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mile-Jewish-ho
me-area-north-London-let-faithful-avoid-Sabbath-restrictions-raises-fea
rs-creating-new-ghetto.html
or, http://tinyurl.com/hvmetd5

--
Max Demian

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:58:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote in message
.. .

A recording of church bells would probably feature nasty
distortion like ice cream
vans cranked up to maximum volume.

They could always turn the bells down to avoid it. But I doubt if
they've thought
of that. You see, all they want to do is make the maximum amount
of noise.

Like ice cream vendors.

--
Max Demian

In message , polygonum
writes

Surely we don't have tape recorders that are Catholic, Hindu, atheist,
Jain, Buddhist and Baptist and Jewish?

The Jewish tape recorders will be those Ampex, with built in splicers
....
--
Graeme

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:33:55 +0100, Max Demian wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:23:13 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message
...

As Christian churches, at least some of them, have a ceremony of
Blessing of the
Bells, perhaps they would be deemed to be Christian?

Can you appropriate any inanimate object you want into your
religion by such means,
or is it only some?

The Hebrews want to appropriate vast swathes of land (well some of them
do):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mile-Jewish-ho
me-area-north-London-let-faithful-avoid-Sabbath-restrictions-raises-fea
rs-creating-new-ghetto.html or, http://tinyurl.com/hvmetd5

Well, they've been doing it in Palestine for years.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Neighbours are usually very tolerant of occasional excesses. But those
causing any nuisance should always be mindful that they do need the
neighbours' consent to continue. Bellringers in particular seem to
forget that.

Odd. I don't know of anyone who's been asked for consent by a neighbour
about to throw a party which may be noisy, etc. Informed of it, yes.

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of things going
on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good neighbourliness, or don't
realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one determined
individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their edifice down. They
shouldn't push it.

On 17/10/16 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few
years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and
flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like
bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a
tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to
indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law
that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of
things going on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good
neighbourliness, or don't realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their
edifice down. They shouldn't push it.


So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old
traditions because you personally don't like it?

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few
years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and
flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like
bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a
tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to
indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law
that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of
things going on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good
neighbourliness, or don't realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their
edifice down. They shouldn't push it.

So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old traditions
because you personally don't like it?

No, not me. All I have is the right to complain if I feel the noise is a nuisance.
If I do, the local authority has to investigate it and see if my complaint is
justified according to standard protocols. If they decide my complaint is
justified, they will issue a noise abatement order.

What's wrong with that?

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to say otherwise?

On Monday, 17 October 2016 16:11:26 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few
years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and
flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like
bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a
tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to
indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law
that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of
things going on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good
neighbourliness, or don't realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their
edifice down. They shouldn't push it.

So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old traditions
because you personally don't like it?

No, not me. All I have is the right to complain if I feel the noise is a nuisance.
If I do, the local authority has to investigate it and see if my complaint is
justified according to standard protocols. If they decide my complaint is
justified, they will issue a noise abatement order.

What's wrong with that?

Sometimes it depends on who you are complaining about and who too.

Sometimes things get ignore because of race relations.
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/ce...ail/story.html

A simialr thing happens near me saurday and sunday about 2pm(above) but not much point in complaining.
When someone dies or gets seriously injured tha;s when lessons will maybe be learnt.



OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to say otherwise?

On 17/10/2016 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle you to
continue it.

Custom and Practice. Those words have some legal resonance.

Jim

On 17/10/2016 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one determined
individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their edifice down. They
shouldn't push it.

If you are happy to be sent to Coventry, go ahead.

Jim

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle you to
continue it.

Custom and Practice. Those words have some legal resonance.

Is it OK to have slaves then? Or enjoy child prostitutes? Or go thieving?

Custom and practice, don'tcha know.

On 17/10/2016 17:04, Norman Wells wrote:
"Indy Jess wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle you to
continue it.

Custom and Practice. Those words have some legal resonance.

Is it OK to have slaves then? Or enjoy child prostitutes? Or go thieving?

Custom and practice, don'tcha know.

None of your examples have legal resonance.

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 17:04, Norman Wells wrote:
"Indy Jess wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle you
to
continue it.

Custom and Practice. Those words have some legal resonance.

Is it OK to have slaves then? Or enjoy child prostitutes? Or go thieving?

Custom and practice, don'tcha know.

None of your examples have legal resonance.

Can you tell me exactly which words in the English language do have 'legal
resonance' then?

Whatever that is.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old
traditions because you personally don't like it?

No, not me. All I have is the right to complain if I feel the noise is a
nuisance. If I do, the local authority has to investigate it and see if my
complaint is justified according to standard protocols. If they decide my
complaint is justified, they will issue a noise abatement order.

What's wrong with that?

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to say
otherwise?

I think you'll find that a fortnightly ringing practice plus bells once
a week for the Sunday service won't constitute a nuisance.

If it's not a nuisance, it's not a nuisance.

If it's loud and stops me enjoying my property, however, it is and I can complain,
which seems fair enough to me. What's wrong with that?

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:08:49 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:30:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...

A tower near me had a fall-out amongst the ringers and rather than
leave the bells silent the choir decided they'd learn. Full help is
being given and after 3yrs, even on easy bells, they are still not at
the stage where they can ring more than the very basic patterns. It's
a bit like little Johnny coming home with his recorder or violin and 3
yrs later has just progressed beyond scales but not quite to Twinkle
Twinkle Little Star.

And what fun that must be to listen to!

Don't the neighbours deserve some sort of protection?


You'd have thought that but the parishioners and locals raised the
money for a replacement of the cracked tenor bell. When the ringing
stopped after the fall out the complaints were "why aren't the bells
being rung? - we've just paid out for a new bell". And the
(relatively new) houses are fairly close too - basically think suburb
to one side.

A full peal (just less than 3hrs of continuous ringing) was rung by a
proficient band recently, the first there for over 20yrs,
commemorating the 100th anniversary of the loss of 3 soldiers on the
same day from what would then have been little more than a big
village.

Advanced publicity was put about and several folk came to the church
to listen. To the best of my knowledge there were no complaints.

Seems as if some do really enjoy the old English traditions being
upheld.

Neighbours are usually very tolerant of occasional excesses. But those causing any
nuisance should always be mindful that they do need the neighbours' consent to
continue. Bellringers in particular seem to forget that.


But I've just illustrated that they didn't forget it - you're making
stuff up as you go along.

--
AnthonyL

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle
you to continue it.

Custom and Practice. Those words have some legal resonance.

Is it OK to have slaves then? Or enjoy child prostitutes? Or go thieving?

Custom and practice, don'tcha know.

Oh I *see*. You think that slave, child prostitution, or thieving are
no worse that bell ringing. Gosh, what an odd person you are.

They're all 'custom and practice'. If that's what matters, all should be OK.

If you want to refine the definition, you're welcome to do so.

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:08:49 +0100, "Norman Wells"

But I've just illustrated that they didn't forget it - you're making
stuff up as you go along.

Because it is p hucker.

On 17/10/16 16:08, Norman Wells wrote:

What's wrong with that?

If you knowingly move next to something that makes a noise or smell and
has done for decades or centuries, that's your fault.

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to
say otherwise?


I say: Go find somewhere else if you don't like an established way of
life. Don't come living near me and complaining about country smells,
twice yearly village closures for major events and the biggest set of
fireworks let off outside of Lewes on Bonfire Night, if all you're going
to do is try to get it stopped. Essentially, if you do that, you will
not be welcome and you will feel it.

On 17/10/16 17:04, Norman Wells wrote:
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should
entitle you to
continue it.

Custom and Practice. Those words have some legal resonance.

Is it OK to have slaves then? Or enjoy child prostitutes? Or go thieving?

Custom and practice, don'tcha know.

Strawman fallacy and a weak one at that.

On 17/10/2016 16:44, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 17/10/2016 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined
individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their edifice
down. They
shouldn't push it.

If you are happy to be sent to Coventry, go ahead.

Jim

Which has an interesting story about its bells:

http://www.hibberts.co.uk/coventry_court.htm

For some values of "interesting".

--
Rod

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few years
of bell
ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and flog the
bells off for
scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like bells
so much, why
don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in private?
There's no
need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a tower
as loud as
bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to indulge that
little
peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle
you to continue it.

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

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few
years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and
flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like
bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home
in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a
tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to
indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here
moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law
that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of
things going on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good
neighbourliness, or don't realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their
edifice down. They shouldn't push it.

So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old
traditions because you personally don't like it?

No, not me. All I have is the right to complain if I feel the noise is a
nuisance. If I do, the local authority has to investigate it and see if my
complaint is justified according to standard protocols. If they decide my
complaint is justified, they will issue a noise abatement order.

What's wrong with that?

Its stupid that any prat can complain about something
that has been allowed for centurys and the local
authority has to investigate every time that happens.

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to say
otherwise?

Someone who realises you should be allowed to
complain about what has been allowed for centurys.

On 17/10/2016 20:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"

wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few
years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and
flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like
bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at
home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to
listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a
tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to
indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up
because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here
moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law
that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts of
things going on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good
neighbourliness, or don't realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their
edifice down. They shouldn't push it.

So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old
traditions because you personally don't like it?

No, not me. All I have is the right to complain if I feel the noise
is a nuisance. If I do, the local authority has to investigate it and
see if my complaint is justified according to standard protocols. If
they decide my complaint is justified, they will issue a noise
abatement order.

What's wrong with that?

Its stupid that any prat can complain about something
that has been allowed for centurys and the local
authority has to investigate every time that happens.

I suppose you're the sort of person who thinks they can beat their wife
and children with a stick "because it's been allowed for centuries".

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to
say otherwise?

Someone who realises you should be allowed to
complain about what has been allowed for centurys.

Quite, no one complained about slavery for centuries as well.

In message , Max Demian
writes:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:21:40 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
In message , Norman Wells
writes:

Anyway, do people listen to church bells because of the joy of a
live
performance and the thrill of slight nuances in the third tenor or
whatever it may be called?

They see it as part of "village life", or some similar concept.
While in
practice many of them would not in fact be able to tell whether it
was
real or a recording (if good quality and coming from the belfry),
most
of them would be seriously cross if they discovered that the latter
_was_ the case.

A recording of church bells would probably feature nasty distortion
like ice cream vans cranked up to maximum volume.

Which is why I said "(if good quality".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Fortunately radio is a forgiving medium. It hides a multitude of chins ...
Vanessa feltz, RT 2014-3/28-4/4

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 20:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 15:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"

wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few
years of
bell ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and
flog the
bells off for scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like
bells so
much, why don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at
home in
private? There's no need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

I don't want to listen to a recording of church bells. I want to
listen
to church bells.

Why? What's the difference?

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a
tower as
loud as bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected
to
indulge
that little peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up
because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here
moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law
that
means these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

But they are not being a bloody nuisance. If they were, they'd have
been stopped a long time ago.

Oh, they were. They just couldn't be stopped.

Now, they can.

No one who lives in a village dislikes
them; they'd move out if they did, or not move there in the first
place.

What an absurd generalisation. There are many who dislike all sorts
of
things going on around them but tolerate them in a spirit of good
neighbourliness, or don't realise they could put a stop to it.

Sorry if these simple concepts are too hard for your pea-brain to
absorb.

Bellringers are living on borrowed time. It will only take one
determined individual who is not prepared to compromise to bring their
edifice down. They shouldn't push it.

So according to you, you have the right to shut down centuries old
traditions because you personally don't like it?

No, not me. All I have is the right to complain if I feel the noise
is a nuisance. If I do, the local authority has to investigate it and
see if my complaint is justified according to standard protocols. If
they decide my complaint is justified, they will issue a noise
abatement order.

What's wrong with that?

Its stupid that any prat can complain about something
that has been allowed for centurys and the local
authority has to investigate every time that happens.

I suppose you're the sort of person who thinks they can beat their wife
and children with a stick "because it's been allowed for centuries".

You suppose wrong. The law changed on that with the wife.

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to
say otherwise?

Someone who realises you should be allowed to
complain about what has been allowed for centurys.

Quite, no one complained about slavery for centuries as well.

That didn’t change because a prat like Norman complained,
it changed when the law was changed.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/16 16:08, Norman Wells wrote:

What's wrong with that?

If you knowingly move next to something that makes a noise or smell and has done
for decades or centuries, that's your fault.

The law says otherwise. The law says I can do something about it. The law, I'm
afraid, has moved on and left you bumpkin Luddites behind.

OK - just don't live near me. Ever.

Why? If the law says I can complain about a nuisance, who are you to
say otherwise?

I say: Go find somewhere else if you don't like an established way of life. Don't
come living near me and complaining about country smells, twice yearly village
closures for major events and the biggest set of fireworks let off outside of
Lewes on Bonfire Night, if all you're going to do is try to get it stopped.
Essentially, if you do that, you will not be welcome and you will feel it.

It's not me that has the power to stop it. It's the Council, using the powers the
law gives it.

Those who have been creating nuisances for years need to smell the coffee and get up
to speed. Times have changed. Civilised members of society have decided that we're
all entitled to a nuisance free existence, and that 'We've always been a nuisance'
is not a valid defence.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:27:44 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I'm very surprised the powers that be did not record the last few years of
bell
ringing and just install big speakers in the bell tower and flog the bells off
for
scrap.

Indeed. It raises the interesting point too that, if people like bells so much,
why
don't they just buy a recording and listen to it at home in private? There's no
need for it to be inflicted on all and sundry.

If I liked gangsta rap, should I be allowed to broadcast it from a tower as loud
as
bells and for the same duration? Or would I be expected to indulge that little
peccadillo at home and in private?

I don't see any difference.

If you and your ancestors had been playing gangster rap in set
locations for the past 400yrs and some jobsworth said shut up because
your new neighbour has raised a complaint you would be on here moaning
about your rights.

And he would be saying, perfectly reasonably, 'at last we have a law that means
these people who have been a bloody nuisance can be stopped'.

I don't see why causing a nuisance over any period of time should entitle you to
continue it.

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.

Long may they continue to do so.