"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"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.

Why can't you tell us what it is then? With reference to the law.

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.

Don't you see, though, it's that sort of breathtaking arraogance, typical of bell
ringers, that one day will upset someone so much they will take it all the way
through the courts.

And although you think they would lose, you don't seem able to give a sensible legal
reason why.

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

No there isn't:

"According to taxi drivers, the law did exist. The1831 London Hackney Carriage
Actmade it an offence for drivers to feed their horse unless it was from a bag of
corn or with hay from their hands. The law was repealed in 1976."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17610820

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.

Quote the law please.

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.

Councils can be held to account if they do not apply the law. And they will have to
if someone complains. It's how it is.

"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
...
"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.

Why can't you tell us what it is then?

Already did. Those you run whining to tell you to shove your complaint
where the sun don’t shine, in suitably bureaucratic language.

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.

Don't you see, though, it's that sort of breathtaking arraogance, typical
of bell ringers, that one day will upset someone so much they will take it
all the way through the courts.

And the courts will tell them to shove it where the sun
don’t shine too, again in suitably bureaucratic language.

And although you think they would lose,

I know they have, for 26 ****ing years when the bells are used
to tell the god grovellers its time to grovel the god again.

On 20/10/2016 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:

"Indy Jess wrote in message
...

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.

Quote the law please.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990 and numerous
pieces of Case Law from the "Hammercrest" verdict onwards.

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.

Councils can be held to account if they do not apply the law. And they will have to
if someone complains. It's how it is.

The Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government Act
1982 makes it clear that the decisions of a Local Planning Authority can
only be appealed if the decision is one of refusal. Planning
permissions granted despite the legislation indication that it should be
refused can only be challenged by a High Court case, and even then the
High Court will decide whether or not the challenge will be granted a
hearing.

In short, there is nothing in law that forces a Local Planning Authority
to comply with the extant legislation. Somewhere at home I have my
correspondence with the office of the Communities and Local Government
Minister in which it is confirmed that there is no Government Department
with the authority to force a Local Planning Authority to comply with
the extant legislation nor punish one that doesn't. In a nutshell,
councils cannot be held to account.

Jim