"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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

Yes.

and can be stopped.

Have fun listing even a single example of church bells
being stopped by some prat like you moving to where
there are church bells being used and whining about
them being a nuisance.

"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.

No answer then?

By the way, the plural of 'century' is 'centuries', not 'centurys'. Using the
latter just displays your ignorance.

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.

No, the law doesn't work like that in England. You see, it's the courts who decide
here, not the petty provincial backwoods bureaucrats you seem to deal with.

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, they'll tell you to go away and learn what the plural of 'authority' is.

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
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.

Only in connection with employment contracts.

It's not a universal get out of jail free card.

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

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.

Here are some where it came very close and where, had the complainants not been very
generously willing to compromise, they would have been:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...omplaints.html

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/...he_bells_toll/

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/dalton...053df400728-ds

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

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever being successful.

And even you should have noticed that that
legislation is more than 25 years old now.

There might just be a reason why no one has EVER got the bell ringing
stopped.

In article , Norman Wells
scribeth thus
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news:nu39qp$vp3$1@dont-
email.me...
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 didnt 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.


Right. Where i live the drone from the M11 motorway is a bit of a PITA
do you think the council could shut it down?...

--
Tony Sayer

"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.

No answer then?

That is the answer, ****wit.

By the way, the plural of 'century' is 'centuries', not 'centurys'. Using
the latter just displays your ignorance.

I CHOOSE to spell it that way, ****wit.

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.

No, the law doesn't work like that in England.

Corse it does. That's why NO ONE has managed to get any church
bells stopped using that legislation in more that 25 years.

You see, it's the courts who decide here,

And NOT ONE of them has EVER ruled that church bells can no
longer be run when some prat like you has showed up where
they are rung and whines about them being a nuisance.

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.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
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.

Only in connection with employment contracts.

Wrong, as always.

It's not a universal get out of jail free card.

No one ever said it was.

Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

Here are some where it came very close

Bull**** it did.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...

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

Only in connection with employment contracts.

Wrong, as always.

Care to find some examples outside employment law? Otherwise, your argument carries
no weight whatsoever.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Norman Wells
scribeth thus

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.

Right. Where i live the drone from the M11 motorway is a bit of a PITA
do you think the council could shut it down?...

No. You have to read the law, you see. Section 79 (6A) specifically excludes
traffic noise from the scope of the Act.

It's roughly where you'd expect to find an exclusion for church bells too if any
existed. But they're not mentioned at all so they're not exempted.

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

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.

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever being successful.

And even you should have noticed that that
legislation is more than 25 years old now.

There might just be a reason why no one has EVER got the bell ringing stopped.

There are several cases where it has been stopped, to which I've referred you
elsewhere. Most have been resolved, however, by the goodwill of the complainant
being willing to compromise to allow the bells to restart under certain conditions.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...

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

Only in connection with employment contracts.

Wrong, as always.

Care to find some examples outside employment law? Otherwise, your
argument carries no weight whatsoever.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to substantiate that claim.

THAT'S how it works.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...

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

Only in connection with employment contracts.

Wrong, as always.

Care to find some examples outside employment law? Otherwise, your argument
carries no weight whatsoever.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to substantiate that claim.

THAT'S how it works.

You can't then.

Thought so.

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

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.

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever being successful.

And even you should have noticed that that
legislation is more than 25 years old now.

There might just be a reason why no one has EVER got the bell ringing
stopped.

There are several cases where it has been stopped, to which I've referred
you elsewhere.

You haven't cited even a single example of the bell ringing
being STOPPED and they were all the SAME set of bells.

"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
...
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...

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

Only in connection with employment contracts.

Wrong, as always.

Care to find some examples outside employment law? Otherwise, your
argument carries no weight whatsoever.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to substantiate that claim.

THAT'S how it works.

On 18/10/16 11:08, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...

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

Only in connection with employment contracts.

Wrong, as always.

Care to find some examples outside employment law? Otherwise, your
argument carries no weight whatsoever.

YOU made the claim.

YOU get to substantiate that claim.

THAT'S how it works.

You can't then.

Thought so.
I've already stated that footpaths and rights of way and indeed land
ownership are all heavily based on 'the way its always been' or 'customs
and use'



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 11:16:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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.

Have fun listing even a single example of that ever being successful.

And even you should have noticed that that
legislation is more than 25 years old now.

There might just be a reason why no one has EVER got the bell ringing
stopped.

There are several cases where it has been stopped, to which I've referred
you elsewhere.

You haven't cited even a single example of the bell ringing
being STOPPED and they were all the SAME set of bells.

Even if he did you;'d be to stupid to read it and understand it.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/saints-...ail/story.html

On 18/10/16 11:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"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€št 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.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The calssic one here were the suburbanites who bought a house with three
aspens in the front garden, and chopped them down 'because our daughter
was frightened by the noise'.



--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 18/10/16 11:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"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€št 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.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The calssic one here were the suburbanites who bought a house with
three aspens in the front garden, and chopped them down 'because our
daughter was frightened by the noise'.

Bit in the Times seen briefly at the barbers... something about possible
kiddie fiddling bell ringer at York.. I know no more.




--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:59:18 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

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

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

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

Church bell ringing is not an undesirable practice and if it is
decided that it has become an undesirable practice, the law
should say that explicitly, like it did with slavery, beating the
wife, child prostitution, female genital mutilation etc etc etc.

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

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


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

--
AnthonyL

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

"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€št 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.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise nuisance, not those
causing it.

Best get used to it, eh?

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:44:12 +0100, 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


Excellent - thanks for that.

--
AnthonyL

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:00:27 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 18/10/16 11:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"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€št 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.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The calssic one here were the suburbanites who bought a house with
three aspens in the front garden, and chopped them down 'because our
daughter was frightened by the noise'.

Bit in the Times seen briefly at the barbers... something about possible
kiddie fiddling bell ringer at York.. I know no more.

Just google the name. Cleared in 2000 before he got an MBE.

Witchhunt and digging deeper holes for themselves comes to mind.
Think Cliff Richard and the outcome there.

--
AnthonyL

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?

F Murtz wrote:
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?




Every sunday a steam train chuffs past my place and toots its
whistle,should I complain and be able to get it stopped?

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?



Every sunday a steam train chuffs past my place and toots its
whistle,should I complain and be able to get it stopped?

On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 13:33:20 UTC+1, F Murtz wrote:
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?



Every sunday a steam train chuffs past my place and toots its
whistle,should I complain and be able to get it stopped?

A friend used to live near halsted he had a trian at the bottom of his garden
swimming pool too. When he retires he plans on joining a railway presavation society

On 18/10/16 12:19, Norman Wells wrote:
The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise
nuisance, not those causing it.

I suggest you contact anyone of a thousnad anti-wind farm action groups
with that comforting piece of knowledge.

Oh. I forgot. 'Noise' is as measured on an 'A' weighted sound meter.

Not as perceived in terms of thumping rotor blades and subsonic impulses
in a regular basis.

--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 17/10/2016 17:33, Norman Wells wrote:

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?


Did you move there after the bells were installed? If so, tough, you are
deemed to have known about it and accepted it before you moved in. In
the same way, I can`t complain about the tarmac plant about 200 yards
from where I live. It was there before me, and I had the choice of
moving into a place near to it or not.

Bear in mind that the vast majority of bells in the UK have been rung
for various reasons for well over a century. You may have a case if
someone builds a mosque near to your home after you move in and starts
making loud calls to prayer every hour or two, though.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 18/10/2016 09:28, Norman Wells wrote:
"Indy Jess wrote in message
...
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.

Only in connection with employment contracts.

It's not a universal get out of jail free card.

I didn't say it was. The point I was making is that if something is
established practice then the consensus of the people affected by a
complained-about noise nuisance will be taken into account when a court
decides whether there really is a nuisance to be dealt with or a
vexatious complaint.

Jim

On 17/10/2016 21:19, Norman Wells wrote:
"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.
Snip
It's not me that has the power to stop it. It's the Council, using the
powers the law gives it.

Those powers are granted subject to the democratic process. If you are
the only one complaining, you will be ignored, or the council chucked
out at the next election and one elected which will go with the majority
opinion.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 18/10/2016 12:19, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"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€št 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.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise
nuisance, not those causing it.

Best get used to it, eh?

Can I shut down Heathrow, the planes are very noisy and definitely
constitute a nuisance?

Phil M

On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 16:25:24 UTC+1, phil m wrote:
On 18/10/2016 12:19, Norman Wells wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

"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€št 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.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise
nuisance, not those causing it.

Best get used to it, eh?

Can I shut down Heathrow, the planes are very noisy and definitely
constitute a nuisance?

Phil M

Doesnt the number of flights reduce at night and in some cases the flight paths are channged.

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

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

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

Church bell ringing is not an undesirable practice and if it is
decided that it has become an undesirable practice, the law
should say that explicitly, like it did with slavery, beating the
wife, child prostitution, female genital mutilation etc etc etc.

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

Ha ha ha, no, it's arseholes like you who are the arrogant ones.

The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise nuisance, not
those causing it.

Oh doubtless. But in this case the law is an ass. Just as you are an
arse. There really ought to be a provision whereby a poll of
parishioners trumps this particular article.

Best get used to it, eh?

What, you being an arsehole? I'm used to that already.

I just tell you how it is, matey.

See, most reasonable people would work with, not against, their
neighbours. Specially in a small community.

Why don't bellringers then?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/16 12:19, Norman Wells wrote:
The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise
nuisance, not those causing it.

I suggest you contact anyone of a thousnad anti-wind farm action groups with that
comforting piece of knowledge.

Oh. I forgot. 'Noise' is as measured on an 'A' weighted sound meter.

Not as perceived in terms of thumping rotor blades and subsonic impulses in a
regular basis.

I am sure a thousand groups can do their own research and come up with their own
arguments.

"phil m" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2016 12:19, Norman Wells wrote:

The law, nevertheless, is on the side of those who suffer noise
nuisance, not those causing it.

Best get used to it, eh?

Can I shut down Heathrow, the planes are very noisy and definitely constitute a
nuisance?

Why don't you do the obvious thing and go and read the Act?

You'll find the answer in Section 79 (6).

"F Murtz" wrote in message ...
F Murtz wrote:
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?

Every sunday a steam train chuffs past my place and toots its
whistle,should I complain and be able to get it stopped?

Read the Act. Section 79 (6A).

"F Murtz" wrote in message
eb.com...
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?

Every sunday a steam train chuffs past my place and toots its
whistle,should I complain and be able to get it stopped?

Read the Act again.