I don't quite know how Durham do it, but I take my hat off to them.
I can't imagine any circumstances where applying the chancel liability wouldn't be both grossly unfair and, for that matter, against the best mid-to-long term interests of the parish in questions.
ETA: at St Albans, I believe the chapter reckoned that not only was charging wrong, it would also be counterproductive, as the costs associated with ticketing wouldn't make up for the shortfall caused by a drop in visitor numbers and therefore donations. But the maths will work differently if you're York Minster, which is a much more significant and well known building. Not, of course, that that changes the moral case.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-27 05:40 pm (UTC)I can't imagine any circumstances where applying the chancel liability wouldn't be both grossly unfair and, for that matter, against the best mid-to-long term interests of the parish in questions.
ETA: at St Albans, I believe the chapter reckoned that not only was charging wrong, it would also be counterproductive, as the costs associated with ticketing wouldn't make up for the shortfall caused by a drop in visitor numbers and therefore donations. But the maths will work differently if you're York Minster, which is a much more significant and well known building. Not, of course, that that changes the moral case.