Ringing Forums

Hi everyone, I'm really interested to hear from Guilds/Associations/Societies that have moved to Direct Membership, rather than the traditional mechanism of membership via a particular tower. — Steph Pendlebury

Mine (which I think may be the same as one of John's) is fairly simple, although still (sort-of) the traditional tower model. There is a digital PDF form which can be completed and emailed back to the membership manager, and then the fees bank transferred/or cheque posted. The admin could be reduced with a small amount of additional tech. Alternatively, this can be done on paper and with cash at any district event. Sometimes individuals are emailed about subs, sometimes towers, depending on who is the membership manager at the time.

I don't think you need to move one way or the other. In my association, you have to opt-in to be listed as being under a specific tower. Whether they'd object if you declined to give your home tower is a question of debate. Combined with the option of doing memberships both as a tower or individually, I don't see that there would be any objections other than potentially a concern over the erosion of tower control. Direct membership would definitely reduce the admin burden at a tower level, and helps cut back on some of the redundant admin and lines of communications established long before the digital era.

I don't think transitioning away from tower-based subs would be confusing; I suspect most of us newbies are more surprised by the member<tower<district<association model than just paying the association!

Did you lose a significant number of members when you went from membership by tower to direct membership? And does it actually matter?? — Steph Pendlebury

I wouldn't know if this has had an effect with more people paying individually, but I would suggest that if people despite prodding can't do their own subs once a year (obvious exceptions aside), then they are unlikely to contribute much to association life and thus their loss is not something which matters. The money which they pay in would perhaps be missed, but if it was just coming out of tower funds, then perhaps the money would be put to a more productive use?

@John de Overa what I have found is that there is no pathway within ringing to acheive what you want to acheive. The idea that you have to advance through word of mouth of opportunities, then try out all sorts of towers to try and find one which works for you, is not an incentive for people with busy lives.

Perhaps this is where a census comes in? Identify where the centres of method ringing are and promote them, and identify where resources need to be directed to establish more opportunities for method ringing.

Information and support are really quite crucial to get people to make the jump into method ringing, and what we have at the moment is clearly not working.

Bellringing is traditionally run on a shoestring. Pretty much everything we need to pay for, bar major repairs, is covered by tower donations from visiting groups, practice donations, wedding fees and the church (incidentally, perhaps the "going-rate" for all sorts of donations needs reviewing - materials for repairs are much dearer, but I doubt fees and donations have increased in the interim). Perhaps we ought to check our reliance on the church to subsidise the exercise - it's £170 for a peal at one private tower currently!

As @John Harrison mentioned, time cost is the big cost, and is often overlooked. From my perspective as a learner, I really need two practice nights a week, and general practices tended to be a bit of a waste when it was one go at rounds, then sitting on the side for the remaining 1hr20. Even in London, finding a tower where I can actually progress means travelling quite far - a good practice could get me travelling on three buses to my destination, costing me money for the fares and time (I can easily spend 2-4 hours just on travelling to a practice). I could go to the tower at the end of my road, except it is silent now. This is a barrier to progression - young people in particular are reliant on public transport or lifts from others, which means any sort of distance incurs time and monetary cost penalties. People have other things going on in their lives, and taking out an entire evening multiple times a week is not going to happen.

From my perspective as treasurer, I really want to send some of our members on ART courses so they can lead and teach handling. The course tailored to university societies is in Bristol this year (so further away from most university societies than, say, Birmingham), and train fares + accommodation + course fees take it up to a cost of over £120 per person. I can only afford to send one person, but we rather keenly need to send two. Therefore, the cost stunts both the number of people able to teach and keep the society afloat, and the skills of our ringers who could go out to make very fine leaders wherever they settle after university.

From my perspective as a tower officer and a service planner, the time burden is also on the teachers and leaders. The first type is the Respected Leader. They become known for being the person who always steps up and is good at what they do. They train up people, act as tower captain, become a district officer, try and set up clustering, fill in last minute at peals and weddings, etc. They carry too heavy a burden, such that they burn out due to the emotional, time, and monetary costs, causing the numerous responsibilities they hold to fall by the wayside. The second is the Firefighter. They are filling in all over the place because there is no-one else to take their roles on. Their cost is that they're too stuck with just trying their best to resolve immediate crises, with the opportunity cost of their own development, and maximising their time.

Overall, I'm not sure that quantifying the cost of providing tuition is helpful in itself, but we do need to identify where we can cut the costs of taking up ringing, cut the costs of providing ringing locally, and optimise the use of our money to provide facilities and trained leaders which improve the cost:benefit ratio of both providing and undergoing teaching.

I talked through a few of the issues with developing young ringing during the St Martin’s Guild Summer Walk. If your branch, district or association is looking for something different to do, you can do worse than a long country walk, between a small number of towers and a couple of pubs. We’ve had a few of them, with weather ranging from monsoon (“there’s no such thing as bad weather, only unsuitable clothing”) and extreme heat. One thought shared with me was whether it is actually possible to inject young ringers into a tower if the rest of the band is of grandparent age. Have we left it too late? Recruiting to fill the missing age gap is also important. — @Simon Linford

In my experience with the older side of young ringers (university level), one thing I have noticed is the need for "safety in numbers". Some find older groups intimidating (and many towers are not welcoming places for young people). If a group of us go, young people are more willing to go. I think it comes down to the social differences between younger people and older people. Some of us are able to deal with it fairly easily (I went to a lot of meetings with the board of governors when I was a prefect so have experience with dealing with older people), but others will find the cultural differences too great to attend on their own. Even having a 30 year old, or the child/grandchild of an older ringer, in the band would help to bridge the gap.

So it is not impossible to inject younger ringers into a band given the right circumstances, but it also relies on the band wanting younger people.

Sorry John, that should read "groups of visiting ringers". Little has been said about what we actually need to do as the host tower if a group books the tower and has under-18s in the band.

We should distinguish between the training, which will be more effective if it is tailored to draw on the experience of those on the course, and the result, which is the possession of relevant knowledge and judgmental skills, which are transferable between contexts.
When I did the courses (both the new C0 and the old half day course) the examples used bore little resemblance to situations I would meet as a ringer, which made the less effective. — John Harrison

Yes, being surrounded by child and youth workers on one of these courses with the focus being on their situations would do little to fill me with confidence that the training would provide me with a satisfactory level of skills needed in the tower environment.

By being regular, local and sociable, they will make faster progress than the usual annual training day. — Roger Booth

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. I am the representative for a university society, and regular practices, a tower local to the students (how else would you get them out of bed for it!) and sociability (see our events page) underpin our model for success. We often organise joint practices with other bands in the area to enable our learners to experience different bells and people, and provide opportunties for the more experienced to ring with others at a similar level and do more advanced methods. Our crowning moment of the year was probably ringing at York Minster with York and Durham unis.

At tower level a number of the rural towers round here have lost key personnel, and those left are content to ring three (in a six bell tower) on Sundays. They have no one to teach new ringers, and these towers now increasingly rely on social media to source ready made ringers for weddings and special services. — Roger Booth

Yes. Ringing is an ecosystem. Many places are relying on existing ringers to move into their area, as there are no longer enough people willing or able to teach. This is increasingly happening in the urban areas too. But the net result is that we are relying on a dwindling number of people to provide the new blood the exercise needs, and that comes with the risk that they'll burn out or age out, and then we will be stuck. A good exercise to conduct is a "bus factor" calculation - i.e. how many ringers in your area getting hit by a bus would it take to make things go seriously pear-shaped. It may be less than you think. Is it the same people steeplekeeping, leading practices, teaching, and providing the energy in the district? If so, you need to consider what you would do without them. We cannot afford to be relying on one or two people to keep ringing going in a large area. Ask too how many people are attending multiple practices in the area. If they move away, how many towers will be below-strength and thus not have attractive practices, thus declining?

It seems that the more experienced ringers are being more choosy on what they do with their time. As an ART Tutor I have also delivered a number of ART Module 1 courses (how to teach bell handling) since Covid. It is noticeable that most of those attending are keen to learn to teach, or are inexperienced teachers who are keen to improve their skills, but this is not matched by the number of experienced teachers who are willing to support and mentor these delegates in the period after the day course — Roger Booth

Again, it's an ecosystem. We need to act now before we don't have the capacity to train up new teachers, let alone new recruits. Once we lose critical mass, then I wouldn't want to be the one coming up with the solutions.

Perhaps we are reaching a point in some areas then where local bands have collapsed to a point where not even viable clusters can be formed in which case the branch or district becomes the first level building block of formal organisation. — A J Barnfield

If we've reached this point, then we might as well throw in the towel now! We do need to act before we reach this point though. The trouble is getting people to admit that we are heading in that direction without action - people go on about "it's a cycle", but how else do areas revive but with people taking action and working hard to build things up again?

Yes, although I would suggest that you could retain the branches as geographical entities and as sub units for the purposes of district masters and sub masters who could act as area coordinators (particularly for the guilds with many towers and a broad area such as Yorkshire).

Is it time for a more local approach? I hesitate to suggest adding another level to the hierarchy, but clusters/sectors may be what is needed to provide progression opportunities on a local level without leading to excessive centralisation of the upper talent in a small number of towers nationally. More formal organisation of clusters/sectors could lead to a greater understanding of their activities and greater buy-in.

An appropriately-designed course plus a warning to towers to steer clear of 27 pages of required reading before visitors can attend would encourage greater engagement with safeguarding rules.

The Yorkshire Association offers a one day course tailored to ringers, which apparently had very useful content. Unfortunately, our branch has had its turn now, so its a case of shell out for our new officers to trek across the county by train and country bus to an obscure village hall, potentially needing an overnight stay if far enough away, or persuade the parish to send us to a diocese-run session which goes into far too much detail, requires too much prep, and is not really suited to ringers (and is probably on a day when people work). Persuading people to ring is hard enough already; persuading people to take leadership and support roles is harder still. Add in hours of training at inconvenient times and you either end up with a) the rules on training being ignored, or b) people not stepping up to take posts or even ring at all.

Then again, we have it good where we are. Rabid parishes who demand mountains of paperwork for leaders and ordinary ringers alike are one way to kill off ringing, and putting too much bureaucracy in the way of visiting other towers is also likely to kill off interest as well as affect local bands who benefit from visitors. I am happy to sign a book with my name and home tower, and for this to be enforced. I am not happy to have to bring my "papers" with me as if I am trying to cross the border, and fill in consent forms as if I am applying for a passport.

When I am organising ringing tours, I am not going to go through this farce for each tower on the tour and subject the participants on the tour to the same, particularly if each diocese and parish does its own thing. Beyond booking the tower and sending ahead details of children and vulnerable adults, I am not prepared to mess about with paperwork for each tower, except for "special" towers like York Minster.

At the end of the day, this is a voluntary role, as the Sunday School role is for the person you met. I am giving my time up to help ring bells for the church and all I get in return for said activity is the enjoyment of ringing and the associated community. If I am having to put in additional time and effort which have no additional benefit to me, then the church ought to be making it easy for us or compensating us for the additional time accordingly.

Not having any experience at association level, I would not wish to comment on whether that part of the system still works. But for most ringers, the most influential force in their ringing activities must be the benefice/parish level. They are the one who call the shots, and interpret diocesean rules and advice as they see fit.

This is where the problems lie, because the concept of local bands is in decline, or local bands are more transient. @Phillip George's tower seems to be a case study of "how to do it" for a local band, but you're not going to get that same relationship if you are covering multiple towers, or if there is only ad-hoc ringing from bands from other areas or non-territorial bands.

In this case, who is the main contact to be?

• A ringer who happens to live locally? They don't have as much of an incentive to keep relations particularly strong as they are not necessarily maintaining opportunities for themself if there is no band to ring with, and they are just one person.
• A member of the church team, either formally or informally? They don't necessarily have the contacts with the ringers or an understanding of our culture or practices.
• A member of the cluster or area band? Are they keen to do it or is it that they're the only one who is willing to do it and someone is needed to keep the bells ringable and make sure the church continues to allow ringing for the cluster or area band?

Giles, the traditional model only works if most towers have a tower band. But if we were to do a census of all towers nationally, how many would have a tower band who practice regularly with all bells and ring for Sunday services? And if there was data from 1990, what would be the difference in numbers?

I would be interested to hear from others of examples of best practice where there is no local band (either with no local ringers or with clustering/area arrangements).

Our parish changed the service times and neglected to inform us, and low numbers post pandemic preventing Sunday service ringing was not commented on by the vicar... I suppose its changing priorities. Clustering is definitely the way forward for keeping ringing going on Sundays at churches which want it (which do not always correlate with the towers with a resident band).

For members at the smallest end, we are paying over four times more per head than the larger societies, and we have fixed costs too.

As for "what are we getting for our money", you can't have an effective Central Council without a suitable budget, and I don't think everyone is happy to pay for said effective council.

I think one of the issues is the lack of 'involved' people. The 88 report states concerns about the number of teachers and steeplekeepers, and a lack of vibrancy at guild level. Certainly at my tower, one person is all three and is the only one who can do all of those things. It'd be interesting to see the bus factor for each critical role in towers and guilds - I know in our area, this dedicated individual getting run over by the bus could cause a chain reaction locally and result in a number of towers falling silent.

On overall numbers, a proposal is being put to the CC meeting in September to move CC affiliation fees to being based on the number of members rather than the number of Reps. Under the current Rules associations have justified their number of Representatives based on declared membership numbers, and whilst it's very unlikely that numbers are exaggerated just to get an extra Rep, there has been no motivation either to be absolutely certain the number is right. Moving to a model which has a direct link between number of members and cost (albeit not a particularly high cost) is likely to lead to much tighter scrutiny by societies of how many members they actually have. — Simon Linford

Sounds interesting - what sort of cost per member is being looked at?

I am increasingly of the opinion that some sort of census of ringers is required. No-one knows how many active ringers we have, their standard, if they can/do teach, and how often they visit each tower. Association/guild membership numbers seem to mean nothing now, with people not being active, not bothering with membership, or being double-counted by being a member of multiple guilds.

My worry is that we are overlooking areas where ringing is on the edge. The critical mass of ringers is faltering in some of the major cities even, and it's getting to the point where we don't have the handling instructors to take advantage of many of the recruitment opportunities which present themselves. Progression routes are minimal - there are call-changes towers and the elite towers, and increasingly little in-between.

The current layered system is overly-bureaucratic, and I'm really not convinced that the officers needed to run them are the best use of the increasingly-limited number of people willing to take on a leadership role.

A very sobering read; even more so given that so much of what that series discusses is still a problem now.