Ringing Forums

I wasn't meaning chiming with wheels. Actually, there are hundreds of towers where bells are chimed from a frame, whether or not the tower also rings full circle. A visiting full circle ringer to my home tower chimed Plain Bob Doubles from memory so why is there a general perception that frame chiming doesn't include methods and call changes from full circle ringing?

Its true that I'm barely able to get up the tower these days but it has been my habit to chime minimus methods. I aspire to eventually chime methods on more of "my" available bells. Chorley, Lancs, introduces about 10 students per year to tower bells through frame chiming and even Dove's Guide has now included a few thousand additional towers where chiming is the norm. Chiming is a part of our bells' heritage, albeit the poor relation.

Sure, full circle ringing is the pinacle, but chiming saves many rings from oblivion. If there was ever a suitable method of sounding bells by the masses, that doesn't entail weeks of training, frame-chiming is it.

Every "happy couple" for whom I've chimed my home tower's bells has visited the tower beforehand, had a guided tour and explanations through the belfry, had an opportunity to get up-close-and-personal with the bells, and has gone away happy, having learned to chime "Abide With Me", "Here Comes the Bride" and Rounds & Queens etc on the eight.

All that from a 1 1/2 to 2hr visit.

Don't forget that many people are first exposed to the sounding of tower bells at towers where the bells are chimed, (either currently or permanently). Chiming methods is feasible for many learners after some appropriate instruction and practice. From there to learning to ring full-circle at another tower is a surprisingly small step.

The "Manual of Belfry Maintenance" was in the process of a major review and update but, I think, the only revised version in print has only some bits about the changed Faculty rules. There was discussion as to what would be the best format for the revised MoBM and I understood at the time that the practicalities of basing it online were potentially beyond CCCBR's capacity. "Belfry Upkeep" is an excellent summary of what belfries contain and what needs to be done to keep things functioning, and the compilers are to be commended.

However, it is patently NOT an online edition of the MoBM,

If BU, as it stands, is just the base for an eventually to be much expanded online resource on a par with the intended revised MoBM then that will be a tremendous achievement and well worth the wait. However, if it is not intended to transfer the updated draft content of the MoBM, albeit in modified format, then all the fine work on the latter will have been abortive and BU will never achieve it's true potential.

I have both MoBM and BU in my home tower. I've yet to decide which is more useful - my money is on MoBM.

"Hard hats" (builders' helmets) must be dated as they have an expiry date based upon the date of manufacture. Time-expired helmets ought not to be used on building sites but, like many things, they still have a little useful life remaining. The contractor who worked on my home tower had a small stock of helmets that were required wearing for visitors. When the works were finished, the builder kindly donated those helmets to the tower. In this instance the helmets had years before expiry. A minor task for the Steeple Keeper is to bear that date in mind. In view of the very limited exposure to UV and hardy any impacts, those helmets are likely to offer protection for many years to come. Rule of thumb - touch your toes with your head protection on - if it falls off, it isn't properly fitted. Soft bump caps to industry standards can be obtained from stores such as ScrewFix, Machine Mart etc and are usually available online for delivery.

Rank & file ringers' engagement with CCCBR fluctuates for a multitude of reasons and their individual perceptions of it must fluctuate also.

I've had some highly satisfactory dealings with individuals on different workgroups etc but also some disappointing ones as well. I suspect that the reps of the County Associations, Guilds etc have similar experiences during their working with the CCCBR. Perhaps the problem lies with the quality and depth of the information that gets transmitted from the Guilds etc to their members.

Much of the CCCBR's work would not concern me beyond the fact of knowing that someone, somewhere has a firm hand on each issue. But my opinions on some issues are skewed by lack of knowledge, and hence lack of full understanding, and that nurtures criticism. I laud the work of my County Association, but they are also effectively the gatekeepers for the normal information flow both between myself and the CCCBR.

I suspect that there are times that I only become aware of something that concerns me by catching a comment in the Ringing World or the Presidential Blog. Is there not some way of increasing the amount of information about the CCCBR's work that gets published, and providing it in, say a monthly summary on the website - a position statement, if you will?

Feedback is a two-way street that defeats criticisms such as those discussed on this Forum.