On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 21:55:21 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"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.

Like hell it is when NOT ONE church has had to stop ringing its bells in 26 years.

Several have actually. It's just that when push comes to shove bellringers are
suddenly inclined to compromise, and those who have complained, being the jolly
reasonable souls that they are, have setlled the matter and allowed the bell ringing
to proceed

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...ears-1.1535206

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 19:52:27 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
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.

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

Those are clock bells,

they are bells that make a noise end off.

Wrong, as always. They were in fact DIFFERENT
bells to the ones use to tell the god botherers
it is time to show up and start grovelling etc.

reams of your pathetic excuse for trolling any 2 year
old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

nothing even remotely like the church bells used to tell the
god botherers that its time to show up in the church to
grovel to some god or other and to listen to some altar
boy raper in a dress telling them what they can and can not
do while he rapes any alter boy that doesnt run fast enough.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 19:52:27 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
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.

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

Those are clock bells, nothing even remotely like the church
bells used to tell the god botherers that its time to show up in
the church to grovel to some god or other and to listen to some
altar boy raper in a dress telling them what they can and can not
do while he rapes any alter boy that doesnt run fast enough.

2nd link didn't paste in previous reply.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...ears-1.1535206

Those are clock bells, nothing even remotely like the church
bells used to tell the god botherers that its time to show up in
the church to grovel to some god or other and to listen to some
altar boy raper in a dress telling them what they can and can not
do while he rapes any alter boy that doesnt run fast enough.

On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 11:41:28 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 19:52:27 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
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.

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

Those are clock bells,

they are bells that make a noise end off.

Wrong, as always. They were in fact DIFFERENT
bells to the ones use to tell the god botherers
it is time to show up and start grovelling etc.

They are bells that make a noise.


reams of your pathetic excuse for trolling any 2 year
old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

if only you had the ability of a two year-old.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:55:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"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?

Tell the 3 prats to **** off back where they came from if they don’t like
the bells.


You would and so would many others. Norman ducks the question.

--
AnthonyL

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:47:01 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 04:16, Bill Wright wrote:
I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!" and wonder if you could add your name too.

The more support we can get the better chance we have of succeeding. You
can read more and sign the petition he

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petition...ingers-to-ring


I have read a story in the local paper where the church give their
reasons for sacking the bell ringers and preventing their access to the
church.

It has nothing to do with safety or noise. One of the bell ringers in
question is being investigated for dubious sexual practices, and their
name is given in the article.

So, for a problem not related to bellringing with one person, the whole
team and the city has to suffer. What a typically Christian attitude.

Petition signed, and comment left.

You'll be expected to show the colour of your money now according to
the Archbishop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCdpG9CZrE

The person with the sanctimonious grin is the Dean.

They appear to be making stuff up as they go along their witchhunt
trail.

The man involved has his lawyers making a statement at:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1480...erns_is_named/

Innocent or not the fact that he is a bell ringer is to me quite
immaterial. You don't take vulnerable people up countless steps to
ring on challenging (physically and mentally) bells to abuse them with
a dozen other people around.

There is little protection for someone accused of child abuse whilst
the accuser can go on and on causing damage particularly if they can
get the ear of a Dean who has an agenda perhaps.

There was a story a year or so ago about an Essex Bell ringer who
abused kids and was imprisoned. But all indications are that he
enticed X-box players, so why the headline?:

http://www.essexlive.news/goldhanger...ail/story.html

Should have read: Microsoft X-Box player .. etc

Meanwhile

http://www.essexlive.news/bell-ringe...ail/story.html

So what is the solution when someone has done their time?


--
AnthonyL

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


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.


2nd link didn't paste in previous reply.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...ears-1.1535206

You are aware that Dublin is the Capital of a foreign country and will
not be subject to UK legislation.


G.Harman

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:55:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:
"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 theyshow 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?

Tell the 3 prats to **** off back where they came from if they don’t like
the bells.

You would and so would many others. Norman ducks the question.

I haven't ducked the question at all.

The newcomers are as entitled as anyone else to complain about what they feel is a
nuisance. The Council investigates and decides whether it is. If it is, the
complaint was justified. If it isn't, the complaint won't be of any effect.

What's the problem?

On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 12:55:33 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


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.


2nd link didn't paste in previous reply.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...ears-1.1535206

You are aware that Dublin is the Capital of a foreign country and will
not be subject to UK legislation.


So you missed the "Have fun listing even a single example of that ever being successful"

I've had fun now.
Why didn;t he say the incident had to happen within two feet of his arse ?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:16:29 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 12:55:33 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


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.

2nd link didn't paste in previous reply.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...ears-1.1535206

You are aware that Dublin is the Capital of a foreign country and will
not be subject to UK legislation.


So you missed the "Have fun listing even a single example of that ever being successful"


Which was said with

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


I've had fun now.
Why didn;t he say the incident had to happen within two feet of his arse ?

Because most people will realise the discussion in a Newsgroup
prefixed UK and mentioning legislation and laws will regard the one
appertain to the UK to be the ones that matter to the debate without
feeling the need to clutch at the straw of searching worldwide to find
a supporting point.

If someone on here stated that it was illegal to stone woman as a
punishment would you pipe up and say "thats wrong" and post a link to
such an event in Saudia Arabia.

Does this educational establishment you work in know that you spend
most of the day reading and posting to usenet because you would rather
have fun than working?
If you have so much time to do so it suggests that they are over
manned.

G.Harman

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!" and wonder if you could add your name too.

The more support we can get the better chance we have of succeeding. You
can read more and sign the petition he

Thanks, Bill, for crossposting this and introducing yet more nutcases to
uk.d-i-y. We have more than enough of our own.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

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

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:48:55 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!" and wonder if you could add your name too.

The more support we can get the better chance we have of succeeding. You
can read more and sign the petition he

Thanks, Bill, for crossposting this and introducing yet more nutcases to
uk.d-i-y. We have more than enough of our own.


However the work involved in maintaining bells and fittings including
where appropriate, sound proofing, is all good stuff for the diy-er.

There are heating issues, worn steps, lighting, ropes of various
types, arguments about the right grease to use on old bearings, what
is the best material for clapper bushes, how to keep the pigeons out,
how best to get the bells (up to 4 ton) into and out, ceiling bosses
for ropes, rope guides or not and where best positioned, catenary
action on ropes if the pulleys are in the wrong place, etc etc.

You want to show of some skills, get up a bell ringing tower
(providing you are squeaky clean of course).


--
AnthonyL

On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 13:44:11 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:16:29 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 12:55:33 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


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.

2nd link didn't paste in previous reply.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...ears-1.1535206

You are aware that Dublin is the Capital of a foreign country and will
not be subject to UK legislation.


So you missed the "Have fun listing even a single example of that ever being successful"


Which was said with

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

not sure what that has to do with it.


I've had fun now.
Why didn;t he say the incident had to happen within two feet of his arse ?

Because most people will realise the discussion in a Newsgroup
prefixed UK and mentioning legislation and laws will regard the one
appertain to the UK to be the ones that matter to the debate without
feeling the need to clutch at the straw of searching worldwide to find
a supporting point.

Dublin world wide yeah sure.
OK then
..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...int-noise.html

What the excuse this time it's the dailymail ?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/316...y-church-bells

is somerset close enough.


and for the record I don't agree with silencing such things when you move in to the area that has them.

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

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

In your world, maybe. In the real world, it's very relevant, as moving in
will be accepted as proof that you accepted the situation should the case
go to court.

The law is the law. And it says nothing at all about moving in or implied
acceptance. A complete newcomer is entitled to complain about a nuisance just
as much as anyone else.

A complaint is one thing. getting to council to act is another.

The one leads to the other. It's how it works.

And if the local authority deems it a Statutory Nuisance it will issue an
abatement order.

Well done for spotting the flaw in your own tendentious ********.

Eh?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:




Because most people will realise the discussion in a Newsgroup
prefixed UK and mentioning legislation and laws will regard the one
appertain to the UK to be the ones that matter to the debate without
feeling the need to clutch at the straw of searching worldwide to find
a supporting point.

Dublin world wide yeah sure.
There is no half measure with legislation, if it's a foreign land then
the distance is irrelevant . Are you going to tell the Irish that
modern UK legislation still applies in Dublin just because they are
closer than Katmandu.
OK then
.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...int-noise.html

What the excuse this time it's the dailymail ?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/316...y-church-bells

is somerset close enough.


and for the record I don't agree with silencing such things when you move in to the area that has them.


Both those examples are again automated systems as part of a method to
indicate the passage of time, not a team of campanologists ringing
the bells manually . That they are on a church isn't really critical
to the complaint as there have been similar concerns with such chimes
on village and town halls and it easy to find examples.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...lences-8364510

I chose that one because I silenced the chimes there myself many years
ago when we used to stay there while restoring a nearby canal.
Bloody chimes at night kept us awake so we stuck some welly socks on
the clapper after climbing up to the belfry, trouble was we used to
forget to remove it next day which resulted in the caretaker ,a mild
lady who has long passed getting a bit annoyed.

Now go and find me a link where church bells are rung by permanently
by on duty manual bell ringers right around the clock .
G.Harman

In article ,
AnthonyL wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:48:55 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!" and wonder if you could add your name too.

The more support we can get the better chance we have of succeeding. You
can read more and sign the petition he

Thanks, Bill, for crossposting this and introducing yet more nutcases to
uk.d-i-y. We have more than enough of our own.


However the work involved in maintaining bells and fittings including
where appropriate, sound proofing, is all good stuff for the diy-er.

Very true.

There are heating issues, worn steps, lighting, ropes of various
types, arguments about the right grease to use on old bearings, what
is the best material for clapper bushes, how to keep the pigeons out,
how best to get the bells (up to 4 ton) into and out, ceiling bosses
for ropes, rope guides or not and where best positioned, catenary
action on ropes if the pulleys are in the wrong place, etc etc.

And I'd be delighted to read about any of that.

You want to show of some skills, get up a bell ringing tower
(providing you are squeaky clean of course).

Think hand bells would be more my thang these days. ;-)

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

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

On 19/10/2016 16:06, Norman Wells wrote:

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

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

In your world, maybe. In the real world, it's very relevant, as
moving in
will be accepted as proof that you accepted the situation should the
case
go to court.

The law is the law. And it says nothing at all about moving in or
implied acceptance. A complete newcomer is entitled to complain
about a nuisance just
as much as anyone else.

A complaint is one thing. getting to council to act is another.

The one leads to the other. It's how it works.

And in the case of church bell ringing, the action is more likely to be
writing a letter to the complainant telling them 3oplitely they are
mistaken than anything else.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 19/10/2016 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:

The newcomers are as entitled as anyone else to complain about what they
feel is a nuisance. The Council investigates and decides whether it
is. If it is, the complaint was justified. If it isn't, the complaint
won't be of any effect.

What's the problem?

The waste of money and effort involved in investigating a gratuitous
complaint.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 16:06, Norman Wells wrote:

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

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

In your world, maybe. In the real world, it's very relevant, as
moving in
will be accepted as proof that you accepted the situation should the
case
go to court.

The law is the law. And it says nothing at all about moving in or
implied acceptance. A complete newcomer is entitled to complain
about a nuisance just
as much as anyone else.

A complaint is one thing. getting to council to act is another.

The one leads to the other. It's how it works.

And in the case of church bell ringing, the action is more likely to be writing a
letter to the complainant telling them 3oplitely they are mistaken than anything
else.

The law is that they have to investigate it, properly and impartially. They can be
held to account if they don't.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:

The newcomers are as entitled as anyone else to complain about what they
feel is a nuisance. The Council investigates and decides whether it
is. If it is, the complaint was justified. If it isn't, the complaint
won't be of any effect.

What's the problem?

The waste of money and effort involved in investigating a gratuitous complaint.

Tough. The law specifically provided for it, and expected the procedures to be
used.

"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:47:01 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 04:16, Bill Wright wrote:
I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!" and wonder if you could add your name too.

The more support we can get the better chance we have of succeeding. You
can read more and sign the petition he

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petition...ingers-to-ring


I have read a story in the local paper where the church give their
reasons for sacking the bell ringers and preventing their access to the
church.

It has nothing to do with safety or noise. One of the bell ringers in
question is being investigated for dubious sexual practices, and their
name is given in the article.

So, for a problem not related to bellringing with one person, the whole
team and the city has to suffer. What a typically Christian attitude.

Petition signed, and comment left.

You'll be expected to show the colour of your money now according to
the Archbishop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCdpG9CZrE

Fark, couldn’t even manage a minute of that ****.

The person with the sanctimonious grin is the Dean.

They appear to be making stuff up as they go along their witchhunt trail.

Beats burning people at the stake again I spose.

The man involved has his lawyers making a statement at:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1480...erns_is_named/

Innocent or not the fact that he is a bell ringer is to me quite
immaterial. You don't take vulnerable people up countless
steps to ring on challenging (physically and mentally) bells
to abuse them with a dozen other people around.

He clearly does and did.

There is little protection for someone accused of child abuse
whilst the accuser can go on and on causing damage particularly
if they can get the ear of a Dean who has an agenda perhaps.

There was a story a year or so ago about an Essex Bell ringer
who abused kids and was imprisoned. But all indications are
that he enticed X-box players, so why the headline?:

http://www.essexlive.news/goldhanger...ail/story.html

Should have read: Microsoft X-Box player .. etc

Meanwhile

http://www.essexlive.news/bell-ringe...ail/story.html

So what is the solution when someone has done their time?

Hung drawn and quartered. That would stop them doing it again.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 12:55:33 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


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.


2nd link didn't paste in previous reply.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...ears-1.1535206

You are aware that Dublin is the Capital of a foreign country and will
not be subject to UK legislation.


So you missed the "Have fun listing even a single example of that ever
being successful"

You missed the "And even you should have noticed that that legislation is
more than 25 years old now"
That legislation is irrelevant to Dublin because that is a different
country, stupid.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:16:29 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 12:55:33 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:29:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:


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.

2nd link didn't paste in previous reply.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...ears-1.1535206

You are aware that Dublin is the Capital of a foreign country and will
not be subject to UK legislation.


So you missed the "Have fun listing even a single example of that ever
being successful"


Which was said with

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


I've had fun now.
Why didn;t he say the incident had to happen within two feet of his arse ?

Because most people will realise the discussion in a Newsgroup
prefixed UK and mentioning legislation and laws will regard the one
appertain to the UK to be the ones that matter to the debate without
feeling the need to clutch at the straw of searching worldwide to find
a supporting point.

If someone on here stated that it was illegal to stone woman as a
punishment would you pipe up and say "thats wrong" and post a link to
such an event in Saudia Arabia.

Does this educational establishment you work in know that you spend
most of the day reading and posting to usenet because you would rather
have fun than working?

If you have so much time to do so it suggests that they are over manned.

Over trolled, actually.

On 19/10/2016 18:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

And in the case of church bell ringing, the action is more likely to
be writing a letter to the complainant telling them 3oplitely they are
mistaken than anything else.

The law is that they have to investigate it, properly and impartially.
They can be held to account if they don't.

And the result will almost certainly be that there is no statutory
nuisance from bell ringing.

Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is
automatically upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against the
wall until that idea sinks into whatever it is you are attempting to use
as a brain.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 18:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

And in the case of church bell ringing, the action is more likely to
be writing a letter to the complainant telling them 3oplitely they are
mistaken than anything else.

The law is that they have to investigate it, properly and impartially.
They can be held to account if they don't.

And the result will almost certainly be that there is no statutory nuisance from
bell ringing.

And your reason for saying that is what exactly?

Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is automatically
upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against the wall until that idea
sinks into whatever it is you are attempting to use as a brain.

If it's noise that's complained about, someone will be along in a minute to measure
it with a meter, and a watch to measure its duration. If it's loud enough and long
enough, it will be a Statutory Nuisance. There's no real getting away from that.

On 19/10/2016 21:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is
automatically upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against
the wall until that idea sinks into whatever it is you are attempting
to use as a brain.

If it's noise that's complained about, someone will be along in a minute
to measure it with a meter, and a watch to measure its duration. If
it's loud enough and long enough, it will be a Statutory Nuisance.
There's no real getting away from that.

Gives up in disgust at the stupidity displayed

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 21:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is
automatically upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against
the wall until that idea sinks into whatever it is you are attempting
to use as a brain.

If it's noise that's complained about, someone will be along in a minute
to measure it with a meter, and a watch to measure its duration. If
it's loud enough and long enough, it will be a Statutory Nuisance.
There's no real getting away from that.

Gives up in disgust at the stupidity displayed

It's how it works though.

Whether you like it or not.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:18:17 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:47:01 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 04:16, Bill Wright wrote:
I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!" and wonder if you could add your name too.

The more support we can get the better chance we have of succeeding. You
can read more and sign the petition he

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petition...ingers-to-ring


I have read a story in the local paper where the church give their
reasons for sacking the bell ringers and preventing their access to the
church.

It has nothing to do with safety or noise. One of the bell ringers in
question is being investigated for dubious sexual practices, and their
name is given in the article.

So, for a problem not related to bellringing with one person, the whole
team and the city has to suffer. What a typically Christian attitude.

Petition signed, and comment left.

You'll be expected to show the colour of your money now according to
the Archbishop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCdpG9CZrE

Fark, couldnt even manage a minute of that ****.

The person with the sanctimonious grin is the Dean.

They appear to be making stuff up as they go along their witchhunt trail.

Beats burning people at the stake again I spose.

The man involved has his lawyers making a statement at:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1480...erns_is_named/

Innocent or not the fact that he is a bell ringer is to me quite
immaterial. You don't take vulnerable people up countless
steps to ring on challenging (physically and mentally) bells
to abuse them with a dozen other people around.

He clearly does and did.

There is little protection for someone accused of child abuse
whilst the accuser can go on and on causing damage particularly
if they can get the ear of a Dean who has an agenda perhaps.

There was a story a year or so ago about an Essex Bell ringer
who abused kids and was imprisoned. But all indications are
that he enticed X-box players, so why the headline?:

http://www.essexlive.news/goldhanger...ail/story.html

Should have read: Microsoft X-Box player .. etc

Meanwhile

http://www.essexlive.news/bell-ringe...ail/story.html

So what is the solution when someone has done their time?

Hung drawn and quartered. That would stop them doing it again.

That would be a trifle "terminal". How about imprisonment in a bell
tower?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:18:17 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:47:01 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 04:16, Bill Wright wrote:
I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!" and wonder if you could add your name too.

The more support we can get the better chance we have of succeeding.
You can read more and sign the petition he

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petition...ingers-to-ring


I have read a story in the local paper where the church give their
reasons for sacking the bell ringers and preventing their access to
the church.

It has nothing to do with safety or noise. One of the bell ringers in
question is being investigated for dubious sexual practices, and their
name is given in the article.

So, for a problem not related to bellringing with one person, the
whole team and the city has to suffer. What a typically Christian
attitude.

Petition signed, and comment left.

You'll be expected to show the colour of your money now according to
the Archbishop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCdpG9CZrE

Fark, couldn‘t even manage a minute of that ****.

The person with the sanctimonious grin is the Dean.

They appear to be making stuff up as they go along their witchhunt
trail.

Beats burning people at the stake again I spose.

The man involved has his lawyers making a statement at:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1480...erns_is_named/

Innocent or not the fact that he is a bell ringer is to me quite
immaterial. You don't take vulnerable people up countless steps to
ring on challenging (physically and mentally) bells to abuse them with
a dozen other people around.

He clearly does and did.

There is little protection for someone accused of child abuse whilst
the accuser can go on and on causing damage particularly if they can
get the ear of a Dean who has an agenda perhaps.

There was a story a year or so ago about an Essex Bell ringer who
abused kids and was imprisoned. But all indications are that he
enticed X-box players, so why the headline?:

http://www.essexlive.news/goldhanger...ail/story.html

Should have read: Microsoft X-Box player .. etc

Meanwhile

http://www.essexlive.news/bell-ringe...ail/story.html

So what is the solution when someone has done their time?

Hung drawn and quartered. That would stop them doing it again.

That would be a trifle "terminal". How about imprisonment in a bell tower?

Shades of "The Nine Tailors".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:18:17 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...

Innocent or not the fact that he is a bell ringer is to me quite
immaterial. You don't take vulnerable people up countless
steps to ring on challenging (physically and mentally) bells
to abuse them with a dozen other people around.

He clearly does and did.


Where clearly does it ever say that, anywhere?


--
AnthonyL

In article ,
AnthonyL wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:18:17 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...

Innocent or not the fact that he is a bell ringer is to me quite
immaterial. You don't take vulnerable people up countless
steps to ring on challenging (physically and mentally) bells
to abuse them with a dozen other people around.

He clearly does and did.


Where clearly does it ever say that, anywhere?

all it says is that 16 years ago, he was suspected but never charged.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 18:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

And in the case of church bell ringing, the action is more likely to
be writing a letter to the complainant telling them 3oplitely they are
mistaken than anything else.

The law is that they have to investigate it, properly and impartially.
They can be held to account if they don't.

And the result will almost certainly be that there is no statutory
nuisance from bell ringing.

And your reason for saying that is what exactly?

Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is
automatically upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against the
wall until that idea sinks into whatever it is you are attempting to use
as a brain.

If it's noise that's complained about, someone will be along in a minute
to measure it with a meter, and a watch to measure its duration. If it's
loud enough and long enough, it will be a Statutory Nuisance. There's no
real getting away from that.

How odd that NOT ONE example of any church which uses its bells to
inform their god botherers that its time to show up at that den of inequity
and grovel to some god or other has EVER been ordered to stop doing
that when some prat like you has shown up where that has been going on
for centurys and has made a complete prat of themselves whining about that.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 21:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is
automatically upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against
the wall until that idea sinks into whatever it is you are attempting
to use as a brain.

If it's noise that's complained about, someone will be along in a minute
to measure it with a meter, and a watch to measure its duration. If
it's loud enough and long enough, it will be a Statutory Nuisance.
There's no real getting away from that.

Gives up in disgust at the stupidity displayed

It's how it works though.

No it doesn’t. NOT ONE church which uses its bells to inform their
god botherers that its time to show up and bother their god again
has EVER been ordered to stop using their bells to do that. NOT ONE.

On 19/10/2016 21:55, charles wrote:
In article ,
AnthonyL wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:18:17 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...

Innocent or not the fact that he is a bell ringer is to me quite
immaterial. You don't take vulnerable people up countless
steps to ring on challenging (physically and mentally) bells
to abuse them with a dozen other people around.

He clearly does and did.


Where clearly does it ever say that, anywhere?

all it says is that 16 years ago, he was suspected but never charged.

Yerrr, well, there's no smoke without fire, innit, guv? Sheesh!

It's amazing how many people will believe any accusation of sexual
misconduct, no matter how tenuous it is. Maybe it's "There but for the
grace of God go I, thank goodness I wasn't caught." It's also worrying
how many devout Christians will extend that assumption of guilt to
others who associate with the accused even after the charge has been
disproved, no matter what the reason is for that association. (For
Christian, feel free to substitute other fundamentalist religious sects)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:18:17 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"AnthonyL" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:47:01 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 15/10/2016 04:16, Bill Wright wrote:
I just signed the petition "Allow the York Minster bell ringers to
ring!" and wonder if you could add your name too.

The more support we can get the better chance we have of succeeding.
You
can read more and sign the petition he

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petition...ingers-to-ring


I have read a story in the local paper where the church give their
reasons for sacking the bell ringers and preventing their access to the
church.

It has nothing to do with safety or noise. One of the bell ringers in
question is being investigated for dubious sexual practices, and their
name is given in the article.

So, for a problem not related to bellringing with one person, the whole
team and the city has to suffer. What a typically Christian attitude.

Petition signed, and comment left.

You'll be expected to show the colour of your money now according to
the Archbishop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCdpG9CZrE

Fark, couldnt even manage a minute of that ****.

The person with the sanctimonious grin is the Dean.

They appear to be making stuff up as they go along their witchhunt
trail.

Beats burning people at the stake again I spose.

The man involved has his lawyers making a statement at:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1480...erns_is_named/

Innocent or not the fact that he is a bell ringer is to me quite
immaterial. You don't take vulnerable people up countless
steps to ring on challenging (physically and mentally) bells
to abuse them with a dozen other people around.

He clearly does and did.

There is little protection for someone accused of child abuse
whilst the accuser can go on and on causing damage particularly
if they can get the ear of a Dean who has an agenda perhaps.

There was a story a year or so ago about an Essex Bell ringer
who abused kids and was imprisoned. But all indications are
that he enticed X-box players, so why the headline?:

http://www.essexlive.news/goldhanger...ail/story.html

Should have read: Microsoft X-Box player .. etc

Meanwhile

http://www.essexlive.news/bell-ringe...ail/story.html

So what is the solution when someone has done their time?

Hung drawn and quartered. That would stop them doing it again.

That would be a trifle "terminal".

No trifle involved, just bread and water if they are lucky, paid for by the
relos.

How about imprisonment in a bell tower?

Not viable, he'd just start raping the bell ringers again when they show up
next time.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 21:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is
automatically upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against
the wall until that idea sinks into whatever it is you are attempting
to use as a brain.

If it's noise that's complained about, someone will be along in a minute
to measure it with a meter, and a watch to measure its duration. If
it's loud enough and long enough, it will be a Statutory Nuisance.
There's no real getting away from that.

Gives up in disgust at the stupidity displayed

It's how it works though.

No it doesn’t. NOT ONE church which uses its bells to inform their
god botherers that its time to show up and bother their god again
has EVER been ordered to stop using their bells to do that. NOT ONE.

Chimes have been stopped quite frequently. If chimes can be stopped, it's
inevitable that ringing, which is much louder and more objectionable, will be
stopped too in various places if we just bide our time. All it will take is one
hero willing to stand up to the bullying and oppressive behaviour of the ringers to
set a precedent, and that will open the floodgates.

Bell ringers can't afford to be complacent or arrogant about this. They only have
to annoy one person enough and it will happen.

On 19/10/2016 22:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 21:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is
automatically upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against
the wall until that idea sinks into whatever it is you are attempting
to use as a brain.

If it's noise that's complained about, someone will be along in a
minute
to measure it with a meter, and a watch to measure its duration. If
it's loud enough and long enough, it will be a Statutory Nuisance.
There's no real getting away from that.

Gives up in disgust at the stupidity displayed

It's how it works though.

No it doesn’t. NOT ONE church which uses its bells to inform their
god botherers that its time to show up and bother their god again
has EVER been ordered to stop using their bells to do that. NOT ONE.

Chimes have been stopped quite frequently. If chimes can be stopped,
it's inevitable that ringing, which is much louder and more
objectionable, will be stopped too in various places if we just bide our
time. All it will take is one hero willing to stand up to the bullying
and oppressive behaviour of the ringers to set a precedent, and that
will open the floodgates.

Church clock chimes have been voluntarily stopped between the hours of
23:00 and 06:00 in a number of places after requests supported by many
parishioners of long standing, as due to the growth in home ownership of
clocks readable in the dark, these chimes were deemed unnecessary, in
the same way as there are now very few town cryers. If you know of a
court case where cessation of use has been forced,please quote details
of court, date and participants' names, otherwise we will know that it
didn't happen.

Bell ringers can't afford to be complacent or arrogant about this. They
only have to annoy one person enough and it will happen.

I take it you are planning to be the one person. I hope you get landed
with all the costs when you lose.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 22:39, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Chimes have been stopped quite frequently. If chimes can be stopped,
it's inevitable that ringing, which is much louder and more
objectionable, will be stopped too in various places if we just bide our
time. All it will take is one hero willing to stand up to the bullying
and oppressive behaviour of the ringers to set a precedent, and that
will open the floodgates.

Church clock chimes have been voluntarily stopped between the hours of 23:00 and
06:00 in a number of places after requests supported by many parishioners of long
standing, as due to the growth in home ownership of clocks readable in the dark,
these chimes were deemed unnecessary, in the same way as there are now very few
town cryers.

Now there's a dangerous precedent for bell ringers if ever I heard one. Why should
bell ringing ever be deemed 'necessary'? It serves no useful purpose.

If you know of a court case where cessation of use has been forced,please quote
details of court, date and participants' names, otherwise we will know that it
didn't happen.

Bell ringers can't afford to be complacent or arrogant about this. They
only have to annoy one person enough and it will happen.

I take it you are planning to be the one person. I hope you get landed with all
the costs when you lose.

I wouldn't lose. The noise from bell ringing is a Statutory Nuisance, you see.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 21:09, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
Proper and impartial investigation does not mean the complaint is
automatically upheld. Maybe you need to just knock your head against
the wall until that idea sinks into whatever it is you are attempting
to use as a brain.

If it's noise that's complained about, someone will be along in a
minute
to measure it with a meter, and a watch to measure its duration. If
it's loud enough and long enough, it will be a Statutory Nuisance.
There's no real getting away from that.

Gives up in disgust at the stupidity displayed

It's how it works though.

No it doesn’t. NOT ONE church which uses its bells to inform their
god botherers that its time to show up and bother their god again
has EVER been ordered to stop using their bells to do that. NOT ONE.

Chimes have been stopped quite frequently. If chimes can be stopped, it's
inevitable that ringing, which is much louder and more objectionable, will
be stopped too in various places if we just bide our time.

How odd that it hasn’t happened in 26 years. There is a reason it hasn’t.

All it will take is one hero willing to stand up to the bullying and
oppressive behaviour of the ringers to set a precedent,

Wrong. What it would take is a council actually stupid enough
to do that, and that wouldn’t survive an appeal, you watch.

and that will open the floodgates.

Just another pathetic little drug crazed prat fantasy.

Bell ringers can't afford to be complacent or arrogant about this. They
only have to annoy one person enough and it will happen.

Just another pathetic little drug crazed prat fantasy.

On 19/10/2016 18:10, Norman Wells wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 19/10/2016 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:

The newcomers are as entitled as anyone else to complain about what they
feel is a nuisance. The Council investigates and decides whether it
is. If it is, the complaint was justified. If it isn't, the complaint
won't be of any effect.

What's the problem?

The waste of money and effort involved in investigating a gratuitous complaint.

Tough. The law specifically provided for it, and expected the procedures to be
used.

There is one law that says all Hackney Carriages must carry a bale of
hay at all times while it is plying for hire, and another that says
Local Planning Authorities must not authorise changes to the character
of a listed building unless there is a public benefit rather than a
commercial one. There are plenty of other examples that nobody complies
with nor has councils enforcing them.

Regardless of what the law specifically provides for, the level of
compliance cannot be assumed.

Jim