On 17/10/2016 21:19, Norman Wells wrote:
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.

Has the smell of coffee ever been regarded as a nuisance?

Or Brains brewery on mashing days?

Or a Lush shop?

--
Rod

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years. Perhaps it's time you
caught up.

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.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No compulsory
education? No votes for women?

No complaints allowed?

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

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.

Yes, the law is a great instrument of social change when required. The
Environmental Protection Act is just another example. Now you are not allowed to
create a noise nuisance just because you always have.

It's called progress.

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

"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'.

Not in this country they're not. They are all subject to the criminal
law.

But they weren't until a suitable law was enacted. That's the point.

There is now a suitable law on noise nuisance, and it's called the Environmental
Protection Act. So, that's subject to the criminal law too.

On 17/10/16 16:08, 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?

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?

A Concerned Citizen!


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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.

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.

Long may they continue to do so.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years.

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch up.

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.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No
compulsory education? No votes for women?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

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

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.

Yes, the law is a great instrument of social change when required.

It is the only viable instrument for that.

The Environmental Protection Act is just another example.

A useless one. If it is considered by the parliament that
churches should no longer be allowed to ring any bells,
that should have been explicitly stated in that legislation.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you always
have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

"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.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years.

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch up.

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.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No compulsory
education? No votes for women?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them. Or, as I
prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes, the law is a great instrument of social change when required.

It is the only viable instrument for that.

The Environmental Protection Act is just another example.

A useless one. If it is considered by the parliament that
churches should no longer be allowed to ring any bells,
that should have been explicitly stated in that legislation.

Churches can ring bells, but only if they ensure that the noise does not create a
nuisance.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you always have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

Of course they can. If they create a nuisance, however, they will have the law to
deal with.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

No, it's called enlightenment.

If you disagree with my summary of the legal position, go away and read the law.

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.

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.

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.

And with the caterwauling from mosques banned explicitly.

but only provided they show consideration for their neighbours.

Wrong, as always. Their neighbours should have enough of a
clue to check what churches are within earshot and not move
to where they can be heard if you don’t like to hear church bells.

Prats like you don’t get to show up and proclaim that the churches
must stop doing what they have been doing for centurys and the
legislation should have said the explicitly too.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years.

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch up.

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.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No
compulsory education? No votes for women?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them.

Like hell they were. They were in fact changed when particular MPs
chose to get enough other MPs to change the law on that stuff.

Or, as I prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

On 17/10/2016 22:08, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes, the law is a great instrument of social change when required.

It is the only viable instrument for that.

The Environmental Protection Act is just another example.

A useless one. If it is considered by the parliament that
churches should no longer be allowed to ring any bells,
that should have been explicitly stated in that legislation.

Churches can ring bells, but only if they ensure that the noise does not
create a nuisance.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you
always have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

Of course they can. If they create a nuisance, however, they will have
the law to deal with.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

No, it's called enlightenment.

If you disagree with my summary of the legal position, go away and read
the law.

Rod knows the law, and whenever he loses an argument he abuses those who
enlighten him of things he rather not hear.

On 17/10/2016 21:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

Yes, in much the same way the law has changed regarding ringing bells.

I suppose wrong, in what way? The way the law has changed, or that you
advocate beating your 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.

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

Yes, the law he is quoting is regarding nuisance noises, like those of
bells. He is not alone in considering them a nuisance.

On 17/10/2016 22:15, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years.

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

What is wrong, the fact there is a law governing their use where they
cause a nuisance?

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch up.

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.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No
compulsory education? No votes for women?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them.

Like hell they were. They were in fact changed when particular MPs
chose to get enough other MPs to change the law on that stuff.

Or, as I prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

Centuries? Husbands have been beating their wives for centuries? Does
than make it allright?

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.

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. It s right conveyed in
statute.

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?

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes, the law is a great instrument of social change when required.

It is the only viable instrument for that.

The Environmental Protection Act is just another example.

A useless one. If it is considered by the parliament that
churches should no longer be allowed to ring any bells,
that should have been explicitly stated in that legislation.

Churches can ring bells, but only if they ensure that the noise does not
create a nuisance.

Not possible to ensure that. By definition church bells have
to be heard from a long distance away from the church.

There will always be some that prefer to sleep in on a sunday
morning instead of grovelling to some god or other or being
bored out of their 'minds' by what some prat in a dress is
pontificating about etc when he isnt raping one of the altar boys.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you
always have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

Of course they can. If they create a nuisance, however, they will have
the law to deal with.

Nope, the law will tell prats like you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

No, it's called enlightenment.

Its called pig ignorant bull**** by anyone with even half a clue.

If you disagree with my summary of the legal position, go away and read
the law.

Been doing that since before you were even born, thanks.

And know what the authoritys will do with a complaint
from a prat like you about church bells too.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

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.

It didn't intend to, so it didn't. Tough if you don't like it.

And with the caterwauling from mosques banned explicitly.

but only provided they show consideration for their neighbours.

Wrong, as always. Their neighbours should have enough of a
clue to check what churches are within earshot and not move
to where they can be heard if you don’t like to hear church bells.

Bell ringers have no right to decide where I or anyone else lives. They do,
however, have an obligation under the law not to create a nuisance for anyone.

Prats like you don’t get to show up and proclaim that the churches
must stop doing what they have been doing for centurys and the
legislation should have said the explicitly too.

The law says what it says, and it says what I said it says. If you don't like it,
you'll have to campaign to get it changed.

Bell ringers are not above the law. They don't have any special exemption or
privileges.

And the law says, whether you like it or not, that I can complain if I consider
church bells are a nuisance.

On 17/10/2016 22:35, Fredxxx wrote:
Can you cite this exception?

The Church of England can't:

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/394399/bells.pdf

--
Rod

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years.

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch up.

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.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No compulsory
education? No votes for women?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them.

Like hell they were. They were in fact changed when particular MPs
chose to get enough other MPs to change the law on that stuff.

I see you're as ignorant of history as you are about the law.

Or, as I prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

If you don't like what Parliament enacted 26 years ago, you can of course complain.

In the meantime, the law applies as is.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Churches can ring bells, but only if they ensure that the noise does not create a
nuisance.

Not possible to ensure that. By definition church bells have
to be heard from a long distance away from the church.

By what 'definition'?

Quote it.

There will always be some that prefer to sleep in on a sunday
morning instead of grovelling to some god or other or being
bored out of their 'minds' by what some prat in a dress is
pontificating about etc when he isnt raping one of the altar boys.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you always
have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

Of course they can. If they create a nuisance, however, they will have the law
to deal with.

Nope, the law will tell prats like you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language.

Not so. It gives a specific right to complain and for that complaint to be
investigated properly.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

No, it's called enlightenment.

Its called pig ignorant bull**** by anyone with even half a clue.

If you disagree with my summary of the legal position, go away and read the law.

Been doing that since before you were even born, thanks.

Not, it seems, with much success.

And know what the authoritys will do with a complaint
from a prat like you about church bells too.

Yes, of course. They will investigate it, apply established criteria, and come to a
conclusion as to whether it's valid. If it is, they will issue a Noise Abatement
Order and serve it on those responsible.

It's how the prescribed procedure works, you see.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 21:04, Rod Speed wrote:


"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.

Yes, in much the same way the law has changed regarding ringing bells.

In a completely different way, actually. Beating the wife was
made explicitly a criminal offence. Ringing church bells was not.

I suppose wrong, in what way?

I know you arent allowed to beat the wife.

The way the law has changed, or that you advocate beating your wife and
children with a stick "because it's been allowed for centuries"?

I know you arent allowed to beat 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.

Yes, the law he is quoting is regarding nuisance noises,

Yes.

like those of bells.

Nope, those are not banned.

He is not alone in considering them a nuisance.

Irrelevant to what the law has banned.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 22:15, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years.

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

What is wrong,

'Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance'

the fact there is a law governing their use where they cause a nuisance?

There isnt with church bells.

Church bells will always be a nuisance to some,
because the whole point of them is that they are
there to be heard over a considerable distance.

That has always been the whole point of them.

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch up.

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.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No
compulsory education? No votes for women?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them.

Like hell they were. They were in fact changed when particular MPs
chose to get enough other MPs to change the law on that stuff.

Or, as I prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

Centuries? Husbands have been beating their wives for centuries? Does than
make it allright?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Churches can ring bells, but only if they ensure that the noise does not
create a nuisance.

Not possible to ensure that. By definition church bells have
to be heard from a long distance away from the church.

By what 'definition'?

Quote it.

Retake English 101, you clearly slept thru it the first time.

There will always be some that prefer to sleep in on a sunday
morning instead of grovelling to some god or other or being
bored out of their 'minds' by what some prat in a dress is
pontificating about etc when he isnt raping one of the altar boys.

Now you are not allowed to create a noise nuisance just because you
always have.

Churches are however allowed to continue to ring their
bells and are even allowed to add new bells and even
get really radical and add bells to churches which do
not have them too.

Of course they can. If they create a nuisance, however, they will have
the law to deal with.

Nope, the law will tell prats like you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language.

Not so.

Fraid so.

It gives a specific right to complain and for that complaint to be
investigated properly.

And in reality the law will tell prats like you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language.

It's called progress.

Yours is called bull****.

No, it's called enlightenment.

Its called pig ignorant bull**** by anyone with even half a clue.

If you disagree with my summary of the legal position, go away and read
the law.

Been doing that since before you were even born, thanks.

Not, it seems, with much success.

Wrong, as always.

And know what the authoritys will do with a complaint
from a prat like you about church bells too.

Yes, of course. They will investigate it, apply established criteria, and
come to a conclusion as to whether it's valid. If it is, they will issue
a Noise Abatement Order and serve it on those responsible.

What they will actually do is tell prats like you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine in suitably bureaucratic language.

It's how the prescribed procedure works, you see.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.

"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.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

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.

It didn't intend to, so it didn't. Tough if you don't like it.

And with the caterwauling from mosques banned explicitly.

but only provided they show consideration for their neighbours.

Wrong, as always. Their neighbours should have enough of a
clue to check what churches are within earshot and not move
to where they can be heard if you don’t like to hear church bells.

Bell ringers have no right to decide where I or anyone else lives. They
do, however, have an obligation under the law not to create a nuisance for
anyone.

Not even possible with church bells.

Just more terminally stupid law.

Prats like you don’t get to show up and proclaim that the churches
must stop doing what they have been doing for centurys and the
legislation should have said the explicitly too.

The law says what it says, and it says what I said it says.

And church bells keep ringing even tho it isnt possible to
not be a nuisance to anyone except by never ringing again.

You get to like that or lump it.

On 17/10/2016 17:28, Norman Wells wrote:
"Indy Jess 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.

"Custom and Practice" as a phrase carries weight when part of a legal
argument.

Jim

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

Well, it hasn't been allowed now for the last 26 years.

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

Perhaps it's time you caught up.

Nothing to catch up.

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.

Like slavery? Child prostitution? Little boys up chimneys? No
compulsory education? No votes for women?

Nothing like.

No complaints allowed?

Those werent changed by some prat like you complaining about them.

No, they were changed by lots of prats like me complaining about them.

Like hell they were. They were in fact changed when particular MPs
chose to get enough other MPs to change the law on that stuff.

I see you're as ignorant of history as you are about the law.

Easy to claim...

Or, as I prefer to put it, by lots of enlightened people like me.

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

If you don't like what Parliament enacted 26 years ago, you can of course
complain.

In the meantime, the law applies as is.

And church bells keep ringing, even tho it isnt even possible
to avoid being a nuisance to someone when they are rung.

You get to like that or lump it.

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?

On 17/10/2016 22:44, polygonum wrote:
On 17/10/2016 22:35, Fredxxx wrote:
Can you cite this exception?

The Church of England can't:

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/394399/bells.pdf

That's what I thought. Perhaps Rodders is getting confused with
Australian law?

"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. It is clear that church bells keep ringing
even tho it is IMPOSSIBLE to ensure that it will never
be a nuisance with them ringing in a particular place.

You get to like that or lump it.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 22:44, polygonum wrote:
On 17/10/2016 22:35, Fredxxx wrote:
Can you cite this exception?

The Church of England can't:

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/394399/bells.pdf

That's what I thought. Perhaps Rodders is getting confused with Australian
law?

Nope, I have noticed that church bells keep ringing in that soggy
little frigid island, even tho it is impossible to ensure that there
will be no nuisance to anyone with a particular church bell ringing.

On 18/10/2016 02:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 22:44, polygonum wrote:
On 17/10/2016 22:35, Fredxxx wrote:
Can you cite this exception?

The Church of England can't:

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/394399/bells.pdf

That's what I thought. Perhaps Rodders is getting confused with
Australian law?

Nope, I have noticed that church bells keep ringing in that soggy
little frigid island, even tho it is impossible to ensure that there
will be no nuisance to anyone with a particular church bell ringing.

Soggy island, sounds like Australia to me with your annual rainfall
figures in the Northern Territories.

So no law then that excludes church bells from being a nuisance in the UK.

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.

On 17/10/16 21:19, Norman Wells wrote:

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

And it's you who wants to stir then to act.

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.

You claim it's a nuisance. I claim it's nice and a strong part of the
English identity. So who made you god?

You knew there was a church there that rang bells, so don't buy a house
near it and then whine about it!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Fredxxx" wrote in message ...
On 17/10/2016 22:15, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Church bell ringing is still allowed today.

Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance.

Wrong.

What is wrong,

'Only if the noise it creates is not a nuisance'

the fact there is a law governing their use where they cause a nuisance?

There isnt with church bells.

Church bells will always be a nuisance to some,
because the whole point of them is that they are
there to be heard over a considerable distance.

That has always been the whole point of them.

Then their use falls squarely within Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act
and can be stopped.

Thank you for your admission of that.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Nothing enlightened about prats like you that are actually stupid
enough to show up where churches have been ringing bells for
centurys and try to get them to stop doing that and get the
authoritys who have been stupidly given the responsibly to
consider the complaints prats like you make, tell you to shove your
complaint where the sun don’t shine in appropriate bureaucratic language.

If you don't like what Parliament enacted 26 years ago, you can of course
complain.

In the meantime, the law applies as is.

And church bells keep ringing, even tho it isnt even possible
to avoid being a nuisance to someone when they are rung.

You get to like that or lump it.

Only until a complaint is made by someone with a pair who is willing to take the
bell ringers on. And it surely can't be long delayed in view of the arrogance you
display that is shared by most of them.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2016 02:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/10/2016 22:44, polygonum wrote:
On 17/10/2016 22:35, Fredxxx wrote:
Can you cite this exception?

The Church of England can't:

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/394399/bells.pdf

That's what I thought. Perhaps Rodders is getting confused with
Australian law?

Nope, I have noticed that church bells keep ringing in that soggy
little frigid island, even tho it is impossible to ensure that there
will be no nuisance to anyone with a particular church bell ringing.

So no law then that excludes church bells from being a nuisance in the
UK.

Have fun listing any british church bells that arent allowed to be rung
anymore.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
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,

Everyone can see for themselves that I have never ever said anything like
that.