The bells at York

[Norman Wells]

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.

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

Those who have been creating nuisances for years need to smell the coffee and get up to speed. Times have changed. Civilised members of society have decided that we're all entitled to a nuisance free existence, and that 'We've always been a nuisance' is not a valid defence.

[polygonum]

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

Or Brains brewery on mashing days?

Or a Lush shop?

[The Natural Philosopher]

A Concerned Citizen!

[Tim Watts]

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

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

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

[F Murtz]

[F Murtz]

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

[F Murtz]

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

[whisky-dave]

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

[John Williamson]

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.

[John Williamson]

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.

[Norman Wells]

Read the Act. Section 79 (6A).

[Norman Wells]

Read the Act again.

[Norman Wells]

That's irrelevant.

If it's doing something that constitutes a Statutory Nuisance, yes you can.

That's no defence under the Act.

You're inventing law that doesn't exist.

[F Murtz]

I live near a Rail museum and the line goes past about a street away.

[Norman Wells]

Local authorities will apply the law. They have to, regardless of any pressure groups or petitions or vox pops.

They are not allowed to ignore it. They have a legal obligation to investigate any complaint that is made.

No, it too will have to obey the law.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

If I lived near them, I'd sign that. Being in Scotland I don't really give a shit either way.

[RayL12]

Nice option.

Many 'calls to prayer' have been stopped. Allowing one religion to do so would mean all other religions should also be allowed to.

Given that I live in a multicultural area, I really don't want to hear bells and wailing voices again.

[John Williamson]

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 vcase go to court. Nobody has, so far as I am aware, ever won a case against a church complaining about daytime bell ringing, while a few churches have imposed a voluntary curfew on their hourly chimes.

Oh, good, then maybe I can get Heathrwow airport shut down due to the pollution damaging my car's paintwork and noise stopping me sleeping well. get real.

As long as there is no risk to health, there would be no statutory nuisance. If there is a provsble risk to health, then the satutory nuisance rules are a last resort after the health and safety at work rules.

No, just referring to case law over many years. Pre-existing problems are generally deemed to be accepted, new ones aren't.

For a better opinion, ask in uk.legel.moderated.

[John Williamson]

And in light of past experience, conclude that ringing of church bells according to centuries old custom does not constitute a statutory nuisance.

They will look briefly at the previous investigation, agree that church bells do not constitute a statutory nuisance and move on.

Repeated complaints from a single person will be treated as malicious and then ignored or responded to with a letter saying that nothing has changed since your previous complaint, so no new investigation will be made.

How is life under your bridge, by the way? No floods lately?

[John Williamson]

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.