[Cambridge-youths] Fwd: Report from the bells working party +
agenda
Ali Brooke
ali.brooke at ntlworld.com
Mon, 07 May 2007 11:08:38 +0100
Dear George
Given that we would like to gather as many comments as possible,has the
report been circulated to all those who replied to Barry's survey?
Whilst those no longer resident in Cambridge or ringing at GSM will
probably not be entitled to vote or be able to attend the meeting they
may have comments to make.As we sought their opinion in the first place
it would be good to invite them to contribute to the discussion at this
stage. Those who took the time to respond would probably be pleased to
receive an update.
Best wishes
Ali
Ms George Unsworth wrote:
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Many thanks for your email and I’m sorry for the delay in replying.
>> I think Richard may be away for the weekend so I’m replying on his
>> behalf without his specific input.
>>
>> First, the easier bits:
>> - You are quite right that a flat 6th is the note we would want,
>> not a sharp 6th. - Our use of the phrase ‘unanimous’ just referred
>> to the fact that every person that responded to the question in
>> question agreed with it. Your point is well made, though.
>> And then the most important bit:
>> - We made a single proposal because, having spent so much time
>> looking at the issues we unanimously (there goes that word again!)
>> agreed that it was the only proposal we could recommend. I assume
>> that, as with all meetings, it will be up to the members to decide on
>> whether they like it or not and, if not, either put forward an
>> alternative or postpone any decisions until another meeting.
>>
>> And then the more mundane bit:
>> - Having spent many weeks angle-grinding rust off the frame at
>> Spitalfields prior to re-painting, I know what a gruesome job this
>> can be – even with the right equipment! Should we decide to keep the
>> old frame I would only put in one plea and that is that we find the
>> money to pay a professional to do it!
>>
>> And finally:
>> - We haven’t come across anyone that thinks we should do nothing
>> so your comment that ‘we should do whatever we can to improve the
>> conditions for ringing’ is spot on. The EGM just needs to decide
>> what will actions will produce the best improvement.
>> Best wishes,
>> George
>
>
> Patrick Brooke wrote:
>> Dear George,
>>
>> The Property Committee are meeting to discuss the Quinquennial, among
>> other things, on the 15th. The report mentioned that the frame was
>> showing signs of rust (Jonathan has previously raised this at SCY
>> AGMs on more than one occasion), but I do not recall that it was
>> flagged as a requirement. There is also some repair work needed to
>> the stone work on the tower, but again this does not need immediate
>> attention. If you have any other specific queries, I can raise this
>> at the Property Committee meeting.
>>
>> There is another typo in addition to those that Jonathan has
>> mentioned: on page 10: I do not think that adding a sharp 6th is
>> particularly desirable, though I would agree with possibly adding a
>> flat 6th.
>>
>> In section 2.1 you make several uses of "unanimously". 11 votes from
>> 26 responses does not represent unanimity (ref page 22).
>>
>> The remit on the first page states that you should research further
>> solutions and make formal proposals, and yet in section 3 you have a
>> single proposal. You acknowledge that there are a variety of views,
>> but do not present any proposals to accommodate those views.
>>
>> I do not agree that Great Saint Mary's has one of the country's worst
>> ring of bells. I believe that if it had the Society would be nowhere
>> near as strong as it has been for at least the last 30 years. You
>> mention the difficulty of the bells for learning, and yet the tower
>> has been responsible for an active and successful recruitment program
>> over the last few years.
>>
>> I do feel that we should do whatever we can to improve the conditions
>> for ringing. I thought that the Whitechapel report looked as though
>> it would have several sensible proposals, so I think that we should
>> at least seriously consider this among other options.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>> Ms George Unsworth wrote:
>>> Dear Jonathan,
>>>
>>> It would be nice to pretend we included the deliberate mistakes to
>>> check you were all still awake but, alas, I fear I must claim sole
>>> responsibility as typo-checker! Sigh.
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, Sue has given me the church architect's
>>> contact details and I will be meeting her in a couple of weeks to
>>> see if the Quinquennial has thrown up any problems with the church
>>> building that we ought to know about, so it may be that she suggests
>>> a tell-tale might be a good idea.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, congratulations on your media performance on the radio.
>>> You'll be on Big Brother next!
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Shanklin wrote:
>>>> This seems a very comprehensive review.
>>>>
>>>> I spotted a couple of interesting points, though I fear that both
>>>> are typos.
>>>> Section 2.2 suggests that we now only have one ringer.....
>>>> and I'm not sure what is going to cause an influx of refugees from
>>>> Oxford in
>>>> 2009 as indicated in 2.4.
>>>>
>>>> One possible gap is the statement that the crack in the east wall
>>>> of the
>>>> ringing room is likely to be cosmetic. If so, why has it grown ?
>>>> It is
>>>> perhaps worth monitoring to see whether changes in the structure
>>>> are actually
>>>> taking place, although given that a decision is urgent there is no
>>>> time to do
>>>> so in order to affect the decision.
>>>>
>>>> Given that whatever we decide is going to affect the ringers for
>>>> the next 50 to
>>>> 100 years, I suggest that whilst the debate is carried out by all,
>>>> votes are
>>>> only cast by those likely to be ringing in 50 years time. I won't
>>>> be one of
>>>> them, so my bias towards reducing the number of bells won't count.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan Shanklin
>>>>
>>>> j.shanklin@bas.ac.uk
>>>> Head of Meteorology and Ozone Monitoring Unit
>>>> British Antarctic Survey, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, England
>>>> http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds
>>>> http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~jds
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only.
>>>> NERC is subject
>>>> to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
>>>> email and any
>>>> reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from
>>>> release under
>>>> the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
>>>> records management system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Cambridge-youths mailing list
>>>> Cambridge-youths@lists.beasts.org
>>>> http://lists.beasts.org/mailman/listinfo/cambridge-youths
>>>
>>
>>
>