homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Why, Justin, why? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Why, Justin, why?
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Joespaphat as with GeeD, you likewise haven't responded to my query.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... Joesaphat, I recognise that you are annoyed, that this rankles with you. However, it's impossible for any of us to answer your question or offer any useful comments unless you tell us a bit about the history of the picture you are talking about, what it was of, how it was to be used, where it was to go etc. I am sure that your diocese would have given reasons at the time when they turned down the application. ...

We really can't engage in this discussion with you, either fairly or sensibly, without you telling us this.

I really don't believe that your diocese didn't give you the reasons why it was turning down your application.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493

 - Posted      Profile for Joesaphat   Email Joesaphat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Joesaphat, what about the first sentence of my post. Do you know that they did not have a faculty to remove those items?

BTW Enoch, I knew that no faculty was needed to bring in (or remove) a drum kit. Joesaphat seemed to be proceeding on the basis that one was.

I don't know if they had faculties to remove everything or not. I have no means of knowing it either. I merely wanted to highlight the double-standards. It seems remarkably easy to strip churches bare whereas obtaining a faculty for anything that might be interpreted as too catholic is hard work. I'm loathe to name places or people and have no desire to incriminate or blame anyone. I began the thread by marvelling at the fact that our archbishop can publicly invoke the intercession of the Mother of God whereas if I did something similar (in printed form) people like the good witch-hunters at St Luke's Wimbledon would kick up a fuss. There, you have at least a name, they've p/ssed me off too many times.

[ 12. June 2016, 17:28: Message edited by: Joesaphat ]

--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.

Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd consider pissing off the good denizens of St Luke' Wimbledon a badge of honour, and I'm an evangelical!

Seriously, I wouldn't have thought, without further reason, that Catholic practices in themselves would have caused murch of a stir sarf of the river.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know anything about St Luke's, Wimbledon. Still without any of the facts, I'm assuming from the way this thread has gone that they're lower church than you are, Joesaphat. But do they really go round objecting to faculty applications in other peoples' churches? I'd have thought that sort of thing died out in the 1890s. And are they so 'in' with the diocese that the Chancellor does what they tell him/her?

Or is it just that they were the people who were allowed to remove a Victorian (and possibly rather poor quality) altar so as to make room for their church band?

Even now, there's plenty of C19 ecclesiastical furniture in churches up and down the country which lacks any liturgical, architectural, historic or artistic merit.

Trouble these days is much more likely to come from parishioners who don't like things being changed or those who get their fixes from cultural artefacts as in this well known case..

Either way, though, you still have not told us what was the reason given who your application was turned down.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Joesaphat, I am not sure why you think faculties aren't granted for icons. The local church here has had recent faculties to add a Vicars' Board, an icon, a votive stand and prayer board (those two last are free standing), mostly from donations by parishioners.

In addition there was fundraising to install a chapel in a space that looked as if it was originally intended for a chapel, but wasn't finished when the Victorian building was being built in stages and was being used as a glory hole for storage. It is tucked behind the organ at the east end of the north aisle, next to the chancel, there already being a chapel at the east end of the south aisle. The design details that showed it was intended to be used. The Diocesan architect was amused by that application, as it wasn't something he saw very often, and very supportive.

There is an application (for both funding and a faculty) to create a better shelf to support an already existing relief of the Virgin Mary and Child in a niche in the Lady Chapel.

Other faculties have been requested to replace the lead (after it was taken for the second time) with something less tempting and to add church offices, toilets, kitchen and meeting rooms through the West door to improve the use of the church building.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493

 - Posted      Profile for Joesaphat   Email Joesaphat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Joesaphat, I am not sure why you think faculties aren't granted for icons. The local church here has had recent faculties to add a Vicars' Board, an icon, a votive stand and prayer board (those two last are free standing), mostly from donations by parishioners.

In addition there was fundraising to install a chapel in a space that looked as if it was originally intended for a chapel, but wasn't finished when the Victorian building was being built in stages and was being used as a glory hole for storage. It is tucked behind the organ at the east end of the north aisle, next to the chancel, there already being a chapel at the east end of the south aisle. The design details that showed it was intended to be used. The Diocesan architect was amused by that application, as it wasn't something he saw very often, and very supportive.

There is an application (for both funding and a faculty) to create a better shelf to support an already existing relief of the Virgin Mary and Child in a niche in the Lady Chapel.

Other faculties have been requested to replace the lead (after it was taken for the second time) with something less tempting and to add church offices, toilets, kitchen and meeting rooms through the West door to improve the use of the church building.

I never said anything remotely like this. I opened a thread about the fact that Abp Justin openly asks for the intercession of the Mother of God and yet should you, say, have a statue, icon, stained glass or any other (non moveable, unlike drum kits, as I am well aware) that would say: 'Blessed Mary, pray for us' or 'for the people of such and such place' or for dead soldiers... I guarantee that your faculty will be refused. If anyone can prove me wrong, go ahead.

--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.

Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493

 - Posted      Profile for Joesaphat   Email Joesaphat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
even wordless, if your image of Mary merely looks too catholic, it'll very likely be turned down... one rule at home, another for ecumenical occasions. I think I'll leave it at that now. I was not looking for any explanation as to why one of my faculties was turned down a few years ago, but thanks for the offers of help.

--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.

Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged
Spike

Mostly Harmless
# 36

 - Posted      Profile for Spike   Email Spike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's funny. We recently installed a brand new statue of Our Lady. Not only did we get a faculty, it was blessed by the bishop.

[ 13. June 2016, 09:09: Message edited by: Spike ]

--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing

Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd be very surprised if the relevant people in London were extreme evangelicals. Even in Sydney in the really bad days, approval would be given - probably not an episcopal blessing, though. The same people would have looked at the request from your neighbouring parish, seen that the proposal had all proper consents, called for objections, considered any and then given the necessary faculty. If you don't like the refusal, why don't you appeal? I don't know the current rules, but when I'd see the reports there were quite a few by wardens seeking approval.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even now, there's plenty of C19 ecclesiastical furniture in churches up and down the country which lacks any liturgical, architectural, historic or artistic merit.

There is a wonderful letter by John Betjeman, dated 20th Feb. 1939, in which he writes to the Secretary of the Council for the Care of Churches, asking (hopefully) if a Faculty was needed for the installation of a kneeler which he wants to stop happening.

These were to incorporate "some perfectly hideous 1860 oak communion rails which were turned out of (a neighbouring) church many years ago" and were being provided by "two excellent spinsters of the squiress order" who were "very touchy, very autocratic, and very kind and (would) brook no interference". He says, "They seem to be under the impression that if you are a squiress and intend to pay for a church fitting" no-one can stop you.

Betjeman was told that a Faculty was needed, but I don't know what happened in the end. Perhaps the War put a stop to everything.

quote:
Trouble these days is much more likely to come from parishioners who don't like things being changed or those who get their fixes from cultural artefacts as in this well known case..
Am I the only person who, having read through this judgement, finds its language quite unintentionally humorous?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let me put in another word in defence of the faculty jurisdiction and in particular of the court hearings that go with them if they are opposed. In the Church of My Yoof c 1983 the Vicar wanted to reorder (pews out, chairs in, high altar left in place but moveable nave altar introduced) and a minority, but a sizable minority, of the congregation opposed it. In the end the Commissary General (Canterbury diocesan term for the Chancellor- the ecclesiastical judge) came down to the church one Saturday in his wig and gown and heard the case. The church was full and anyone who wanted to give evidence or express an opinion was allowed to do so, there and then. He awarded the faculty for the re-ordering, subject to one or two amendments (primarily, move back to using the high altar in Lent and Advent).
One or two people did leave but most of the opponents didn't because pretty much everybody felt that they'd been able to have their say and be listened to, and that the because the decision was made by the Commissary General it wasn't a case of the Vicar railroading his plans through.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, having an external and disinterested adjudicator removes the personal element, which is all to the good.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Am I the only person who, having read through this judgement, finds its language quite unintentionally humorous?

I'm not sure it is entirely unintentional. Particularly poignant is the way one can imagine the chappie from the Church Buildings Council sitting there smugly while the vicar and church wardens get roasted, until to his surprise, it's his turn to be chewed up and spat out too from para 21 onwards. Particularly telling is what the Chancellor says about his and the CBC's having no real thought, yet alone policy on the mission of the church, as though that is none of their concern.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Am I the only person who, having read through this judgement, finds its language quite unintentionally humorous?

I'm not sure it is entirely unintentional. Particularly poignant is the way one can imagine the chappie from the Church Buildings Council sitting there smugly while the vicar and church wardens get roasted, until to his surprise, it's his turn to be chewed up and spat out too from para 21 onwards. Particularly telling is what the Chancellor says about his and the CBC's having no real thought, yet alone policy on the mission of the church, as though that is none of their concern.
Yes - I read that all the way through and got the distinct impression the chancellor was less than entirely impressed by the whole thing. In fact the only people who come out unscathed are the archdeacon and the buyer of the picture. Everybody else's ears are probably still ringing from the dressing-down. She certainly didn't mince her words.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Chancellor has been a busy lady ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The Chancellor has been a busy lady ...

I can't help reflecting that churches who have congregational (etc) forms of governance may well look in envy at the idea of a judge making the final judgement on the arrangement of the pews.

That said, in both of these examples, the Chancellor appears to be barely holding together her anger and almost everyone else involved seems like a total imbecile.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't help reflecting that churches who have congregational (etc) forms of governance may well look in envy at the idea of a judge making the final judgement on the arrangement of the pews.

I had much the same thought. One has to balance out the "freedom to make one's own decisions without external interference" with the "benefits of an impartial adjudicator". Not easy, but all we have to appeal to are our Regional Ministers (who can only advise and offer mediation) and our Trustees (who also advise but, in most cases cannot overrule the decision of a properly constituted Church Meeting). Of course there may be issues of Conservation Areas and Listed Building Consent as well.

Of course Nonconformist church buildings "belong" to their congregations while CofE ones "belong" to their parishes. One of the problems with Anglican churches wanting to reorder etc. for mission is that Anglican churches are ipso facto becoming "gathered" congregations, this means that there can be a conflict between the worshippers and the community - aptly highlighted in these judgments.

[ 13. June 2016, 18:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:


Of course Nonconformist church buildings "belong" to their congregations while CofE ones "belong" to their parishes. One of the problems with Anglican churches wanting to reorder etc. for mission is that Anglican churches are ipso facto becoming "gathered" congregations, this means that there can be a conflict between the worshippers and the community - aptly highlighted in these judgments.

I'm pretty sure the buildings belong to the diocese, hence there needs to be a faculty if the building is to be demolished or if the congregation leaves - say to the Ordinariate - and wants to take the building. Most of the time the answer to both is no.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mr cheesy wrote:
quote:
That said, in both of these examples, the Chancellor appears to be barely holding together her anger and almost everyone else involved seems like a total imbecile.
Indeed so. And having read both cases my sympathy tends to be with the chancellor. I suppose you are unlikely to finish up in a case at this level without some sort of pig-headed incompetence having taken place. There is plenty of evidence in the latter example that they were told a way out of the mess by the archdeacon, yet persisted till it was too late.

Also - a timely reminder that the petitioners/PCC were held jointly liable for the fees involved. They can thank their lucky stars that no damages were assessed.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Indeed so. And having read both cases my sympathy tends to be with the chancellor. I suppose you are unlikely to finish up in a case at this level without some sort of pig-headed incompetence having taken place. There is plenty of evidence in the latter example that they were told a way out of the mess by the archdeacon, yet persisted till it was too late.

Also - a timely reminder that the petitioners/PCC were held jointly liable for the fees involved. They can thank their lucky stars that no damages were assessed.

In a non-Anglican church we were briefly members of a long time ago, the minister had a habit of introducing business meetings with words that went a long the lines of "everyone just agree with x so we can get it in the minutes and go home".

It strikes me that there are a lot of people (members of churches, PCCs etc) out there who don't know their legal responsibilities and liabilities - and a considerable number who don't seem to know the basic arrangement of the Anglican system. And possibly also a fair number who are being bullied into decisions by others in the PCC who might be thinking that things like faculties are just legal gobbledegook.

[ 13. June 2016, 19:28: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sure that's right mr. cheesy. It is of course no excuse - you can find similar examples in business, the voluntary sector, parish councils etc. etc. Just look at the sorry story of Camila Batmanghelidjh and the Kid's Company, which has the elements of strong will over-riding prudence and legality.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This started off being something I was not very much interested in, but I am so glad to have had the opportunity of reading those judgments and the Chancellor's style of writing. Hard to say that such cases are enjoyable, but the recording of them is.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Slightly tangential, but something I also find interesting about the Leckhampton judgement is that it includes a copy of the painting. I'm not surprised nobody thought it might be worth anything. It looks like a rather poor pastiche of Raphael. From the meagre information anyone had ever managed to discover about its provenance, one suspects that in 1949 the Bolland family were clearing out furniture and thought, 'well, rather than throw it away, perhaps the church could have this'. That sort of painting would have been very out of fashion before, or just after the war. It could well have been bought in some Old Curiosity Shop for a pound or two.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It strikes me that there are a lot of people (members of churches, PCCs etc) out there who don't know their legal responsibilities and liabilities - and a considerable number who don't seem to know the basic arrangement of the Anglican system. And possibly also a fair number who are being bullied into decisions by others in the PCC who might be thinking that things like faculties are just legal gobbledegook.

Baptist (and other congregationalist) churches with a cash flow of over £X per year are no longer being covered by the Charity Commission's "Excepting Regulations" and are having to become charities in their own right. The Minister and Deacons therefore become the Trustees of the charity.

As it happens, nothing has really changed, as under the old rules they were already "Managing Trustees". But certainly in our case we found that having to make this change focused our Deacons much more on their legal responsibilities and duties. (One of our Deacons is a Solicitor and this, too, helps us think of legal implications).

[ 14. June 2016, 06:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Baptist (and other congregationalist) churches with a cash flow of over £X per year are no longer being covered by the Charity Commission's "Excepting Regulations" and are having to become charities in their own right. The Minister and Deacons therefore become the Trustees of the charity.

As it happens, nothing has really changed, as under the old rules they were already "Managing Trustees". But certainly in our case we found that having to make this change focused our Deacons much more on their legal responsibilities and duties. (One of our Deacons is a Solicitor and this, too, helps us think of legal implications).

I read something earlier which suggested that the Anglican church was not the only one which had a form of ecclesiastical exemption from the planning regulations. According to this thing I was reading, the Roman Catholic, Methodist and Baptist Union churches also had proper systems.

Which sounded rather unlikely to me, given that Baptist Union buildings are (I think still) owned by the individual congregations and I can't really see that any kind of independent arbiter has the kind of legal power to enforce a decision that the Anglican judges have. I find it a bit hard to believe that a baptist minister and elders who decided to sell a donated artwork could be told that they'd sold something they didn't have the authorisation to sell and that the purchaser has no right to the title of the object. Even a civil judge would be hard pressed to show that, I think.

But maybe there is some planning system in the Baptist Union churches that I'm totally unaware of.

On the point about charitable status, I heard a rumour a while ago that a baptist church had to rewrite their constitution because as it was written all the members would have become charitable trustees and therefore jointly liable. I didn't hear what happened, I guess they must have nominated some representatives to be the legal trustees.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Enoch wrote:
quote:
Slightly tangential, but something I also find interesting about the Leckhampton judgement is that it includes a copy of the painting. I'm not surprised nobody thought it might be worth anything.
I don't know about that, Enoch. The thing that puzzles me was the fact that it was known to be an Ittenbach, yet nobody in the church seemed to think about using Mr. Google's esteemed thought-engine to do some research. This was only a couple of years ago after all.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't give houseroom to most Ittenbachs - many of them are in the sentimental, "soppy Jesus" style of 19th century religious works. This one isn't. It has far more classical iconographic overtones by comparison. I rather like it.

But taste is a personal thing, and differences in that are to be expected. In their case, there seems to have been such a head of steam built up about it that it blinded them to any merits it may have had - not least of which was its residual value.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

But taste is a personal thing, and differences in that are to be expected. In their case, there seems to have been such a head of steam built up about it that it blinded them to any merits it may have had - not least of which was its residual value.

Reflecting on that case, I suppose there is a modicum of sense in the actions of the church wardens and vicar. By all accounts it was dirty, stored out of sight, unloved by the congregation and not listed in the book of parish treasures (or whatever it is called).

I can see a PCC member arguing that someone who gave a crappy painting they didn't want to the church 5 years ago, which was never listed in the parish records, would hardly be considered something to bother the Chancellor with, so why should this dirty looking thing? I can also see, if they thought it was completely worthless, that it wouldn't be obvious that it was worth asking for a faculty (and the expense) about. In that scenario, quietly disposing of the painting via a local auctioneer - with the expectation of maybe getting £100 to £1000 might have looked sensible.

I've no idea what the cost of a court is, but I'm thinking it might well be more than this.

The whole thing looks quite different in retrospect when we learn that the painting was by a quite famous artist and had some considerable value.

I agree with the google point, but also see that people tend to see what they want to see - and having first decided it had very little value, there is obviously some resistance to wasting time on it.

[ 14. June 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect, mr. cheesy, we are largely in agreement now. All I would add is that one could extend the arguments backwards to the first assessment of it being a dirty old thing (though actually wasn't the complaint rather that it was "too Catholic"?). Which is probably where the whole set of (incorrect) assumptions started, and never got challenged.

(PS I think the cost of the second case was quoted as around £4000. The first one was a lot more complex so I would imagine £6-8k, possibly more)

[ 14. June 2016, 09:46: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For information, this is the information I was looking at which lists the Baptist Union as an "Exempt Denomination".

I'm now going to be looking for any published reports about planning in the Baptist Union. Maybe there are BU courts..?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This webpage should give you links to the information you are seeking.

[ 14. June 2016, 12:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools