Ringing Forums

Was tolling to be muffled, 1/2 muffled or open?

Rob - From your questions, I deduce that you may not be a bell ringer. So as this is a topic of interest then I strongly advise that you consider joining a group and learning to ring. You will find advice on how to do this here: https://cccbr.org.uk/bellringing/learn/

Regarding your academic research, I don't know where you are doing your project or at what level - for example, are you a school student, university research student or academic staff? Academic research must show "originality"; but the answers to your questions are known to ringers (as you can see from the reponses already) even though not known to you. So for us to be able to help fully, perhaps you could let us know the aims and context of your project. We may then be able to offer responses that are more appropriate for your research goals.

Double muffles -
if you wish to improvise with double muffles, we have provided some information here: https://cccbr.org.uk/resources/stewardship-and-management/ at the last bullet point in the list

The St Martins Guild had a major review of their constitution and rules a few years ago - i am sure that their members who led that could tell you how they went about that. It is no longer a territorial association but most of their activities are still in the Birmingham area. There are only about 40 towers in the area so the Guild is the size of many branches / districts in other societies. Some of those towers also affiliate to the WDCRA.

A single central organisation for ringing need not be incompatible with a more local association
/ guild / district / branch). Many other voluntary organisations operate this way with a central HQ alongside local / regional units. The enormous benefit is that the central HQ administers all the major matters like safeguarding, GDPR, insurance, legal etc, as well as the major liaison roles and PR, leaving local groupings and reps to focus on what suits the local area as is appropriate to their wants and needs.

Yes, there are parallels with other activities where memory is expected or necessary or both. Conversely, musicians (including marching bands) and choristers usually have their score, as does the conductor. Some education tests and exams are now operated "open book" as it is recognises that they need to examine understanding and ability to apply the knowledge, not just the recall of facts and text.

So why no visual aids in ringing? When we are ringing are we aiming to demonstrate the memory capacity of the ringers or create a good sound for the listeners? After all, those hearing the ringing have no knowledge of whether a memory feat is being accomplished or not.

I agree that some more extreme ringing will be a test of memory and / or stamina. But for more "routine" ringing, we often discuss how improve striking to make our "performances" better for the listening public as well as the ringers.

I wonder how many capable ringers, who can handle and strike bells well, get stuck in their ringing, become frustrated then leave because they simply find it difficult to remember blue lines, compositions etc?

So why do we not encourage the use of visual aids? I accept the point about practicality (safety must be a priority) but with the technology now available, it is not just a board propped in front of a ringer that may be considered. Projectors onto walls, voice input through headphones, and perhaps even head sets could now be considered. Would such an approach help to retain some ringers who have been trained to handle a bell well?

The CCCBR Workgroup I lead has a remit that includes "research and innovation in the advancement of bell ringing, its methodologies, tools and technologies". So, how about reconsidering the "no visual aids" for at least some ringing?

The Central Council has not organised courses on maintenance or rope splicing recently. However, many ringing societies do provide such courses so i suggest that you contact your local Guild / Association.

The Oxford Guild have a well established score sheet for the equivalent of your "... well appointed ringing room... " - This is not a new idea so it would be worth contacting the PDG for their experiences of using this for many years.

The Italian ringers are the masters of ringing chords! Look up some of their videos from ASCSV - their society that is affiliated to the CCCBR. Their UK rep is David Roskelly.

Davis Bagley's web page provides some information http://www.bagleybells.co.uk/veronese/veronese.htm

John - the answer to your specific question appears to be "NO"!

I don't know your motive for asking, but what are the real benefits of this software over standard packages that many people will use routinely? It says that it was "recommended" by the Church of England in 2019 and 2020 so what happened in 2021 and 2022?

A problem with many software packages is that they take a lot of time to customise for the specific organisation and after that individual users need to become familiar with how it works and that still takes effort and time. Even if a lead person in the church is a computer guru, many volunteers in churches may struggle to use different software - is it better that churches stick to using the standard software that many people use routinely and is available widely?

Of course, with any software package, especially from specialist suppliers, there are always risks of the level of support, and conflicts when operating systems upgrade, not to mention take overs and mergers etc.

Having said that, a central repository for information and customised features for church activities such as contacts and communications SHOULD reduce the the risks of data leaks etc. It would also aid handover when those involved change roles. But, as an example, will the email feature in the software be used, rather than private emails? In my experience with various Teams accounts, yet another account to log in and use can be helpful but also frustrating. Content can still be confused (unless you go to the extreme of separate accounts on a single PC, or even dedicated PCs.)

Coming specifically to ringing - i wonder if you are expecting ringers to be users? Or perhaps you have already been asked to do so? As has been discussed elsewhere on this forum, the concept of "membership" of a particular church is not clear so whether the software would really be appropriate for ringers of that church and also the regular and irregular visitors, peal ringers, visiting bands etc would need careful investigation.

Let's hear from others as well.

I would advise against treating ringers as "hirers". When hiring, there is a commercial transaction usually with money exchanged for use of the facility and that then becomes a rather different (typically more expensive) way of engagement. For example, the local bridge club want to have a bridge match so hire the church hall for their event - nothing to do with the church, other than a financial exchange for use of the hall facility. I am not a lawyer or accountant - I hope someone else will perhaps comment more formally.

Bell ringers are considered as volunteers supporting a church activity and churches usually need ringers. Visiting ringers may not be ringing at their "home tower" but increasingly now the concept of a home tower is fading and many ringers help and ring in many towers, not just one. Visiting other towers is all part of what we do as volunteers as helpers and to maintain / gain experience.

So for safeguarding for visiting ringers, John has already noted that this has been discussed elsewhere in this forum. It is the church authorities and the diocese that set the rules, not the ringers so discuss with them. However, as was raised previously, diocese are not making the same decisions on requirements - so it is worth re-reading the earlier set of comments.

As an aside from safeguarding, we could continue the theme on the nature of the transaction between churches and ringers. If ringers using church bells for ringing were to considered as hiring a church facility, then the equivalent commercial arrangement should apply when the church requests ringers to ring for their services etc. ie the ringers should be paid a proper fee for their skill and time spent while ringing at a fully commercial rate, rather than the token amount that ringers receive when ringing for weddings with nothing for service ringing. As has often been discussed, fully paid ringers would be employees and whole set of additional requirements and regulations would come into effect.

Until such time as a special ringing related leadership course may be available, we have to assume that ringing leaders are expected to take a Diocesan course. So are there enough places available on courses for ringers, plus all the other church people with roles who are also expected to take the Leadership level training?

From looking at a few diocesan websites, it appears that in each diocese there are only a few courses a month and a dozen or so participants on each. Does this mean that there is a shortage of places available? If so, would that help make the case for a separate course for ringing leaders?

https://www.ringingworld.co.uk/news-articles/money/114-wedding-fees.html

Julia - would any of the article on the link help - its now rather old? (Can Steve Coleman or someone else provide us with an update please?) Not a direct answer to your question but shows that contributions to expenses for wedding ringing are reasonable.

For the distance that you mention plus parking etc, surely it is a reasonable request, regardless of church connections. £200 shared by 8 ringers is a tiny sum compared with the huge sums paid out for all the other wedding expenses, not to mention hen / stag nights, honeymoon etc. Even £200 each (as suggested by AJB above) is still dwarfed by other wedding expenses!

Yes, lots of information in Simon's blog, but as i asked elsewhere in this forum, how do societies best communicate with ringers nowadays? What is read and what is not used because it is duplicated or out of date before it is received?

So as a specific, can the CCCBR web team add "hit counters" to the blog and the pages on the CCCBR web page please. In this way we should get a rough guide to how often your blog and other content is read.

I still meet a lot of people who never see any information about ringing or ringers, and some don't even know where to find it! Many people put a lot of effort into a wide range content in different formats and media, but which of it offers new information in a timely and effective manner?

Have you compared 1988 with what was reported in about 1914?

This is a quick reminder about the Westley Award closing date - 28th May 2022!

WDCRA peal fee is £0.00
It was reduced from 30p to zero per ringer about 10 years ago; it was too difficult to collect for the value raised (as far as I recall).

Yes, there was something about covering the cost of printing in the report but the economics of report printing is driven by several other factors.

Barbara - people are keen to sponsor a bell and even smaller items as mentioned by John. But they may be less enthusiastic about an RSJ or some of the other important but less attractive items like concrete, and intangibles like labour costs. So sponsorship could be for a "package" ie a bell and a proportion of the necessary hardware and its installation.

Sponsorship of peals and Qs for local family occasions with a certificate produced off bell board (for example) seem to be popular. Not so lucrative, but does raise awareness, with appropriate publicity.

Simon - would you add some information about the images that head each blog please? They can't be expanded (it seems) so I wonder if relevant information is lost.

John - I have borrowed an ipad and we can certainly see all 3 tabs and view the document. It therefore seems to be a problem at your end rather than the CCCBR website. I don't use an ipad regularly so can't help further.

John - is that a problem with the website or the ipad? I have not heard anyone else make a similar comment. If the issue persists, it may be worth asking the webmaster.