But they have, several times, concluded that they are. It's why bells have been stopped from ringing in several places and have only been allowed to recommence when a compromise with the complainant has been reached.
According to a report in The Times a "sexual risk order" was issued in
2015 by York magistrates on an interim basis pending final determination. The magitrates ultimateley refused to grant a sexual risk order.This above seems to come from a statement by the North Yorkshire police.
_____________
The introduction / overview of the guidance on part 2 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes the following.
Sexual Risk Orders: A Sexual Risk Order (SRO) can be made by a court in respect of an individual who has done an act of a sexual nature and who, as a result, poses a risk of harm to the public in the UK or children or vulnerable adults abroad. For a SRO to be imposed, the individual does not need to have committed a relevant (or any) offence. An SRO may impose any restriction the court deems necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from harm (this includes harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom where those to be protected are children and vulnerable adults), and requires the individual to notify the police of their name and address, including where this information changes. An SRO is available on free-standing application to a magistrates? court by the police or National Crime Agency.
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.
And if the local authority deems it a Statutory Nuisance it will issue an abatement order.
It's how progress is made towards the objectives of the Environmental protection Act which are clearly to give everyone, as far as possible, a pollution free environment. Wherever they choose to live.
Not voluntarily usually. They have been served with an abatement order and have had to come up with ways of adequately preventing the nuisance or else compromise with the complainants, as is right and proper.
Were it not for the Act, you be sure that those creating the nuisance would have continued in perpetuity.
If it's not covered by the Environmental protection Act, you're stuck. But bell ringing is, though, and we're not.
It doesn't have to affect health to be a Statutory Nuisance. Read the Act.
You'll be expected to show the colour of your money now according to the Archbishop
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:
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?:
Should have read: Microsoft X-Box player .. etc
Meanwhile
So what is the solution when someone has done their time?
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).
A complaint is one thing. getting to council to act is another.
Well done for spotting the flaw in your own tendentious bollocks.
The one leads to the other. It's how it works.
And I'd be delighted to read about any of that.
Think hand bells would be more my thang these days. ;-)
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.
And your reason for saying that is what exactly?
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.
It's how it works though.
Whether you like it or not.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.