Ringing Forums

there's no reason why the existing bell advisors can't remain, just part of a flattened organisation. Centralising things does not automatically imply being less agile, less accountable, less responsive and more bureaucratic - words that I'm sure you could apply to some of the existing BRFs in any case...

I've seen widespread complaints that existing associations suffer from lack of interest in being "an officer", low turnout and general disinterest, yet if any sort of change is suggested. it's usually shot down. You can't have it both ways - people from the "outside" will not to want to engage with organisations that admit they are struggling but won't countenance change. The result will be predictable.

Change seems to have worked for the CCCBR, I've seen no solid justification of why it wouldn't also work for Associations, which if anything are in an even worse state.

we are hosting a branch practice tonight as it happens, but I doubt the level will get much beyond PB6. Branch practices can only reflect the level of ringing in an area and they are too infrequent to be a meaningful learning opportunity. If a branch wants to bring its ringers on it needs to be running multi-tower sessions weekly, or at least fortnightly, and that isn't happening in any of the associations I ring in. In one there's an email every month announcing a 10 bell practice, invariably followed by one two weeks later cancelling it because of lack of ringers. Many of the people running the associations seem to be catering to the situation as it was 40 years ago, not as it is today. I just think they've had their day.

You don't need an association to run a BRF, there's a strong case that it would be better done nationally. Many BRFs have large amounts of cash that they are sitting on, with a central fund it would be possible to fully fund major projects and perhaps even support proper upgrade and maintenance budgets, rather than the current "Wait until it breaks" setup.

And my point about the branch practices is that if a tower that has been completely isolated for the last 40 years now makes up 50% of the attendance at the events, it's hardly a sign that the association is in good health.

offer people an intensive course of handling lessons, so that they are ringing rounds in a few weeks. — Roger Booth

Do you think a similar intensive approach would work for more advanced ringing as well? I know the logistics are harder as you need more helpers, but it might be easier to get them if the purpose was clear, and if the commitment wasn't open ended?

It might take more effort in the short term, but it saves an awful lot of wasted time and effort in the long term. — Roger Booth

I think another thing is to not be afraid about turning people down, teacher time is a scarce resource and needs to be allocated wisely. We've turned people down, not all for the same reasons and not without thought and discussion, but I'm glad we did - our retention rate since 2018 is 80%.

It is almost impossible to learn anything if all you are going to do is ring it for a few minutes each month. — Roger Booth

I can vouch for that, I taught myself it on the tower sim + tied bell, it took about 3 weeks of several sessions a week, but as I said I already knew Cambridge Minor, plus I'd previously taught myself a number of other Minor methods the same way over COVID. The problem is that my home tower isn't at that level so I have to find other chances to ring those methods, and whilst the sim and moving ringers are pretty good, transferring to real ringers is not straightforward - as I'm finding for Major ropesight.

I think that the rush to Cambridge is a symptom of the current problems in the exercise. — Roger Booth

I don't think that's anything new though, it has long been held up as a lofty goal - it was when I was starting out at at an active Surprise Major tower (that band has now folded).

A more sustainable approach would be to do it the hard way and develop a band that ring together regularly each week and help them work up to it by learning some simpler methods first. — Roger Booth

The two towers I ring in regularly are trying to do that. One is starting from a low base (decades of poor PH5, at best), the other is "Solid PB6". Both are making progress but it's slow. What's made a difference at one is the more regular attendance of 3-4 people who can ring at Surprise Minor level, that's given the others a solid band around them. However it's noticeable that some people haven't really progressed in several years and I have my doubts if they'll get much further, certainly not to Surprise.

There's nothing wrong with people stopping at a level, but if Surprise ringing is to survive beyond the set of people who can already ring it, I doubt that the current environment is going to achieve it. As you correctly said, they key is regular practice, a minimum of weekly, and the number of areas that can provide that seems to be shrinking. If there is a need "More than one tower" organisations could address, it's that - and no, the traditional monthly branch practices are not it.

It's honestly not particularly difficult — Barbara Le Gallez

Agreed it's not, particularly if you already know Cambridge Minor. The difficulty I have is with ropesight on 8, not so much the method. I can ring it fine on a tower sim + tied bell, but 2 half courses every 2 weeks with real ringers means it's slow going. I've learned Yorkshire as well, but when I asked to ring it I was told no.

But on the upside, Minor seems so much easier now :lol:

The important thing isn't my particular situation though, it's the truth of @Phillip George's comment that it's getting increasingly difficult to get beyond basic stuff because there are fewer opportunities to get support - the Major practices that I do go to are rely on the attendance of people from multiple towers, and the 10 bell practice in the branch hasn't happened for many months, despite an email every month about it. And in my "home" association there's nothing at all at that sort of level.

I can ring to surprise royal standard. If I were to learn to ring today that target would be an almost impossible suggestion (speaking generally of course) — Phillip George

You are not wrong. There's a chasm between the level that towers can get people up to on their own (generally simple Plain Minor methods) and anything more complicated. If there's a gap that any "more than one tower" organisation needs to fill, it's that. I've been told several times I should be ringing PB8 which is reasonable advice, except there aren't any practices at that level round here any more. So it's either Cambridge Surprise Major or give up any thoughts of further progress.

I think that the problem is that many societies and their Districts and Branches are continuing to do what they have always done (at least in living memory). Those in charge dislike change, and this is what needs to be tackled. — Roger Booth

Yes. But that's not going to change with "those in charge" still there. Keen people prefer to get on with ringing and organising things that are are directly relevant to them, not sitting on committees. To many recent starters, "The Association" plays little part in their ringing.

Your categorisation of association membership chimes what I've seen. Most of the "stalwarts" round here still ring, but it's primarily advanced stuff with each other, few of them put much in at the grass roots level. My own tower was in the "disconnected" group for many years but it's undergone a renaissance, driven by the enthusiastic adult starters / returners who have come along. We have a new TC, Steeplekeeper & ART teacher, all drawn from the newer members of the band. As well as practices and service ringing we arrange our own training sessions, tower outings, summer BBQ, Xmas meal etc. And we've had our bells rehung, sound control, simulator etc.

We have joined the local Association and we've had advice and funding from the BRF, which was helpful. We now go as a group to occasional branch outings - it's noticeable that our tower usually makes up 1/3 - 1/2 of the attendees.

In business you need to follow the market, and in ringing that is what we need to do. — Roger Booth

And that means listening to your customers and adapting your business to that market. Many of the associations don't, and the consequences will be the same as for businesses. Of course ringing needs some organisation, but it needs to fit current needs rather than just being a comfort blanket for the old hands.

I don't agree with absolutely everything that came out of CRAG, but it's indisputable that it was badly needed and that it's reinvigorated the CCCBR. That mindset doesn't seem to have percolated down to the associations, who seem intent on propping up what we already have and is clearly failing, rather than looking at their area's needs and starting from there.

and how are you going to achieve any of that when membership of associations is voluntary, and patchy at best?

Trying to impose conditions like those will just lead to people not starting, or giving up, I certainly would and I'm heavily involved with my tower and ring in several association's areas.

I don't understand the desire to prop up the current associations, most of which aren't fit for purpose any longer.

People do not fit into neat stereotypes anywa — John Harrison

I agree, I think basing recruitment on one narrow categorisation isn't a useful approach.

They are presumably competitive and individualistic types — Barbara Le Gallez

As an oldish hi-tech worker who works with youngish hi-tech workers, they are as diverse as any other group. I don't think they are all particularly competitive and individualistic, although some will be of course. One of the things that struck me about ringing when I started was the long-standing relationship between what we now call "tech" and ringing, e.g. the maths links, online method & bell databases, phone apps, simulators etc. I'd concentrate on that.

You can tell them that even Knuth references change ringing :lol:

These BRF’s are therefore accumulating reserves faster than they are spending them, and as a whole I estimate that they hold enough in reserve to fund the next ten years grants, without more income coming in. Given that Guilds and Associations divert a percentage or fixed amount of their subscriptions into their BRF’s, they could consider pausing this for a while and perhaps diverting this money into training and development, and other benefits for their members. — Roger Booth

The DDA minutes have just arrived, the following bits seem directly relevant to this:

The Ringing Enhancement Fund had offered a £1,000 grant to Derby Cathedral for a dumb-bell and a £1,000 grant to Breadsall towards costs of a dumb-bell and ringing room refurbishment.

Transfer to the Fund to Enhance Ringing It was proposed that a further £2,000 grant be ‘ring fenced’ for the Fund in the general fund. This was agreed. It was also proposed that the General Treasurer would inform the BRF Treasurer of the total amount
‘ring fenced’ for the Fund in the General Account.

There might not be an easy way of extricating money from BRFs (although I suspect it is possible) but exactly as you say, there's no reason why you have to keep putting money into it.

stays are designed to break, and are sometimes either not bolted in properly or cracked but not visibly so. I certainly wouldn't use this method.

They should be looking at using them address the people issues that need to be addressed, whilst there are still enough ringers in those towers where ringing can thrive, so that they can refresh their local bands. — Roger Booth

Yes, and it wouldn't need a big financial outlay to do it either, compared to the cost of an average rehang. I think your point about critical mass is very important - it's much harder to start a new band than it is to reinvigorate an existing one, providing the band are up for it, of course. I know what worked in our tower, but I'm not sure it would be generally applicable - any thoughts on what might be on the menu?

I don't think there's any issue with people ringing cross-boundary here either, it's just that mostly they don't. That probably wasn't an issue when there were more active advanced towers, but it is increasingly a problem.

The Whiting Society of Ringers did that in 1968. What stops any group of ringers from doing what you suggest right now? — Alan C

Indeed they did, and I know of another more recent example. No, there's nothing to stop others doing so, perhaps the fact that they haven't bothered with that or with engaging with the existing structures means there's not much of a need in the first place?

Though that would seem likely to lead to greater fragmentation — Alan C

Why would that necessarily be an issue?

what is the new structure that will replace it, how will it remove those problems without creating a myriad of new ones? — Alan C

Why not just let groups of ringers form up and then decide what scratches their particular itches? What's appropriate for an urban area with high population density and lots of towers may not be for a rural area. And "hard" organisational boundaries are a demostrably a bad idea, why not allow for overlap, so towers can be in more than one group if they want?

If there's a need for provision of central services such as online calendaring, tower contact lists, chat groups, insurance, maintenance advice, teacher training, safeguarding and whatever else then we already have two organisations that either provide much of that already or could do so if required. Why not do that and allow ringer groups to "Pick & Mix" whatever services they need?

Arthur was frustrated with the boring and seemingly interminable business meetings of the Chester Diocesan Guild at that time, which not infrequently overran into, and sometimes wiped out, the time allocated to evening ringing. He determined to form a group dedicated to making ringing enjoyable and actually getting on with it, rather than debate and discussion.

That was 56 years ago, apparently nothing much has changed. It's probably about time to accept that it won't, and just move on.

this excludes large chunk of the membership. Hence the apathy of the majority. The 1988 survey showed that around 50% of ringers had never rung a quarter peal, and today this percentage is probably even higher. — Roger Booth

I'm certain it is, particularly in the newer recruits.

They were bemoaning the fact that in their District there were several local bands that used to ring surprise, so District practices were an opportunity for ringers in these bands to meet up and ring together. However, there are now no surprise bands in the District. Some of the towers which had them are now silent, and the District practices are now the only place where any surprise ringing takes place, and even that is difficult. — Roger Booth

It's hard enough if you can already ring Surprise, it's incredibly difficult if you can't. My last QP inside was over 2 years ago and was PB6, in order to ring on 8 I've had to move directly from that to Surprise, because the only reasonably regular 8 bell ringing in the area is at that level. I've been told a couple of times I should have been ringing Plain Bob Major for X months / years before even attempting Cambridge - the reply I'd like to make is "Where, exactly?" but I've always bit my tongue. At one tower I was berated for messing up and when I reminded the "leading light" that I got very few chances to ring on 8 the reply was "Well, I can't help you" - and they were stood there with 7 other Surprise Major ringers :rage: I'm grateful to the groups that will let me ring with them but even then there are some strange attitudes - for example I felt they must be getting bored only ringing Cambridge for me so I learned Yorkshire as well - but have been told point blank that I'm not allowed to ring it!

We need to welcome their ideas and engage with them, rather than just the 2% who are currently engaged. — Roger Booth

My observation is that branch "establishments" are happy to have new volunteers - as long as they do what they are told, which is invariably "Whatever we have done for the last 40 years". Trying to reinvigorate the current territorial structure seems like a waste of time and effort, better to just let it die and use the available time and effort to create something fit for today.

there is a shift from community based values to values based on competition and individualism. — Tom Ridgman

That may be generally true, but if you are a rampant individualist I doubt ringing would be an attractive hobby to you in the first place, so I'm doubtful that the generalisation really applies.

Its struck me for a while that the Victorian processes embodied in territorial societies AGMs, elections to choose between candidates etc is well out of kilter with three months spent trying to identify a single candidate for a post and twist their arms to do it. — Tom Ridgman

Yes, that alone should be a huge signal that the current system is just broken, but apparently isn't. One issue is that most of the people in positions of influence in associations are heavily invested in a system that's all they have known since they started ringing 40/50/60 years ago. Turkeys aren't going to vote for Xmas.