Ringing Forums

My comments were in the context of peal ringing as the commonly-aimed-for top end of ringing. — Tristan Lockheart

If peal ringing is the commonly aimed for top end of ringing, it seems strange that the number of peals and the numbers of peal ringers continues to fall. Perhaps peal ringing is an uncommonly aimed for aspiration?

As it stands, we must and generally do ensure that all ringers feel their contributions are valuable. These aims that I have laid out would be subject to that same expectation. — Tristan Lockheart

It may be that 'generally' ensuring that all ringers feel their contributions are valuable is not really good enough. Perhaps the aim of the exercise is to have happy bellringers who form their own aspirations and take steps to attain them in a way and at a pace that suits them.

I think we need to ask just what is our core aim as an exercise? Our ideal standard that we want most new ringers to reach over time?

For me, it is:

ringing that is a suitable length to be a performance,
in a variety of methods up to the median of difficulty of all methods rung at the moment,
in a way that utilises the full ring*,
and with good striking at all towers which are in a fair condition. — Tristan Lockheart

There seems to be a danger in this approach that the majority of ringers for the majority of their ringing career would be assessed as being sub par. Not that inspiring or that enjoyable in what, after all, is an entirely voluntary pastime.

the simplest option is same people that do so already on a per-association basis. Any decent management system would support that. — John de Overa

Would there then have to be a national level authoriser, to authorise any changes to the association level authorisers?

there's no reason why things such as tower contacts couldn't use centralised infrastructure and distributed management — John de Overa

I agree that providing this kind of information would be useful in a central location. Not so sure how the distributed management would work though, who would be authorised to update the information?

Many thanks :smile:

A J Barnfield 229 registered users as of now — Admin

Two years ago this forum had 229 registered users. Could we have an updated figure please?

If direct membership is clearly so beneficial, then the CCCBR has better set it up and let it rise on its own merits. Isn’t that the pattern set by the youth organisation?

I suppose we could try and tell people that service ringing has nothing to do with the service, but that does seem a little dishonest.

There's an immediately obvious way that change would help - if existing associations can't find enough people to fill their posts then reducing the total number of posts by centralising and removing duplication would achieve that. — John de Overa

That’s not really any kind of a solution though is it? That just piles more work onto those who are engaged at a level that is remote from towers.

I certainly agree that electronic communication has removed the core need for traditional meetings. It’s really restrictive to have to wait months for a meeting to ‘formally’ make a decision. There used to be a necessity for ringers to co-locate to exchange views and make decisions, that is no longer the case.

PS Local government has reorganised many times since Victorian times, I’m not sure that really helps your argument :smile:

Centralising things does not automatically imply being less agile, less accountable, less responsive and more bureaucratic — John de Overa

Clearly you've never worked in central government :smile:

Oddly, moving out into the regions is the flavour of the month for the Home Office, the organisation that was always re-organising to solve the problems that the last re-organisation was supposed to have solved. I am very happy with changes, but only those that have a reasonable chance of improving any given situation.

Don't just tell me change will improves matters, tell me why and how it will improve matters.

You don't need an association to run a BRF, there's a strong case that it would be better done nationally. — John de Overa

There is a chance with local BRFs that those tasked with allocating funds might be familiar with the bells or towers in question. i feel that's going to be difficult to replicate with a national fund which is liable to be less agile, less accountable, less responsive and more bureaucratic.

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

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. — John de Overa

It seems you've answered your own question. Associations are supported where they give a perceived benefit.

Why not just let groups of ringers form up and then decide what scratches their particular itches? — John de Overa

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

Though that would seem likely to lead to greater fragmentation.

There are a myriad of issues with the current structures — John de Overa

That may well be true, but what is the new structure that will replace it, how will it remove those problems without creating a myriad of new ones?

The legacy of our Victorian structure is that ringing is very fragmented with around 50 territorial societies all doing their own thing in different ways. If only they were better able to work together, so much more could be achieved. — Roger Booth

Surely the legacy of our Victorian structure is that what was entirely fragmented began to be pulled together in regional and national organisations.

Being caught with naval rope used to lead to you dangling from the same! — J Martin Rushton

I feel that's an overly harsh tower rule that won't be aiding recruiting and retention :wink:

Yes, but that's not a reason to be fearful of putting anything online. — John Harrison

I fear we’ll have to disagree on that point.

Information Commisioner’s Office advice

I'm sure the mods will understand :smile:

I do hope this comparison isn't suggesting that 62 is old!
— Nigel Goodship

I hope not, otherwise I am :lol:

But it seems to be commonly regarded as "too old" in the ringing world... — John de Overa

It’s odd to me that when I was young, it was all about experience, now that I’m old, it’s all about potential :smile:

I suspect that it maybe when information like a tower correspondent is updated, those responsible for updating that information may not even know all the places where it is published online. I look after a little social media empire (never tell anyone who doesn’t need to know that you are retiring :wink: ) and my motto is wrong information is worse than no information.

I too am wary of putting personal information online. If you put your name, address, email, phone number and birthday in the public domain I suspect those who commit online crime, identity theft, fraud etc. will be delighted. The contact form seems the best compromise.