Ringing Forums

The choice of name seems a bit odd though, as not all of us are Residents of Gods Own County.

'Tis a hardship many of us exiles have to bear.

to understand the significance we need to know what an Assiciate Member was. Was it a non ringer? Was it a ringer who had not yet passed some competence test (eg ringing a 120)? Or what?

1. To be eligible for election to the status of Qualified Member a ringer shall have rung to a method either
a) on tower bells 720 changes on either a working bell or the treble; or the tenor covering to 1260 changes; or
b) 720 changes on a pair of handbells.
2. Associate Members are those ringers who have not yet qualified for (1) above.

Interest9ing. ODG u8sed to have 'Probationers' and 'Change ringers', the latter being able to ring a 120, but abandoned the distinction after the First World War. Looks like Yorkshire is doing the same a century later.

The vote of course faced the usual malaise of only c. 2% of members attending the AGM - no surprise as it was in the far west of YACR’s very large area, in the middle of the countryside at Kirkby Malham near the county boundary. No public transport access of course; indeed, it was probably easier to get to from most of Lancashire than large parts of Yorkshire! Very mixed views when the changes were reported back locally.

Sadly YACR has much bigger problems to worry about than categories of membership. Yet unfortunately following almost 2 years of reviews it appears to be the only thing they have chosen to amend. Member apathy is of course the biggest problem with several branches barely functioning and lacking people to take office. No doubt these issues are not confined to Yorkshire.

No doubt these issues are not confined to Yorkshire. — Jane Lynch

Due to geography I ring in four different associations, one of them Yorkshire. They all seem pretty much the same, Yorkshire seems like one of the better ones. I think member apathy is more of an indicator than root cause. As I understand it, the current diocese-based structure is mostly a legacy Oxford Movement Belfry Reform, as a means of the CofE gaining control of ringing. It often doesn't reflect what happens at grass roots any more. I don't think it's really worth rescuing, better to let it quietly fade away and replace it with something better. That's already happening in some places (from the YACR website):

Also in the south, the Halifax Archdeaconry Guild holds meetings and act as a cluster alongside the Branch, and members tend to belong to both organisations.

They are a geographical grouping where there's a lot of interaction between towers. One of the things that's struck me most is that it's normal for beginners to be "out and about" ringing at more than one tower. There's now often not enough critical mass in individual towers to allow people to progress much beyond PH&PB, so smaller clusters of towers where it's normal to ring regularly at more than one seems like a better model for addressing problems like that.

As for the role of the CCCBR, I think they already provide useful resources and there's scope for more, e.g. the discussion about membership management systems. But a lot of the CCCBR's contact with ringers is indirect, via the mostly moribund diocesan structure. Breaking those barriers down so the CCCBR is seen more as a "provider of useful stuff" by rank and file ringers rather than "something only our reps care about" seems like a good approach to me.

Breaking those barriers down so the CCCBR is seen more as a "provider of useful stuff" by rank and file ringers rather than "something only our reps care about" seems like a good approach to me. — John de Overa

Agreed

Sadly YACR has much bigger problems to worry about than categories of membership. Yet unfortunately following almost 2 years of reviews it appears to be the only thing they have chosen to amend. Member apathy is of course the biggest problem with several branches barely functioning and lacking people to take office. No doubt these issues are not confined to Yorkshire. — Jane Lynch

Quite. For the context of readers not from Yorkshire, two of our branches are defunct, and a third bears a close resemblance to defunctness.

Many ringers in Yorkshire struggle to understand what it is the association itself does. When I quiz people on this, they generally mention branch activities and the Yorkshire Tykes young ringers - neither of which are really association-level activities. Even I don't have a very good understanding of what they do beyond general meetings, striking competitions, the ailing Snowdon Dinner and run the (creaking) website. Some of this is down to the poor communication; there a reliance on the antiquated association<branch<tower/member system and this doesn't really get the message through - getting info from the branch is sometimes unreliable, let alone from the association.

As for the role of the CCCBR, I think they already provide useful resources and there's scope for more, e.g. the discussion about membership management systems. But a lot of the CCCBR's contact with ringers is indirect, via the mostly moribund diocesan structure. Breaking those barriers down so the CCCBR is seen more as a "provider of useful stuff" by rank and file ringers rather than "something only our reps care about" seems like a good approach to me. — John de Overa

We were asked at the AGM whether Central Council communications should be passed onto members. It was framed as generally dull procedural information, so I had to stick up for it as some of the information is actually useful for tower captains and ringers to receive. I am generally reluctant to do this at the meetings of associations for which I'm not a council rep but it needed to be said. It was resolved that the association would start passing on emails from the CC to branch secretaries to forward at their discretion.

The CC doesn't help itself though. Some of the stuff we get sent to pass onto our members is decidedly dull, and needs to be translated into a more engaging format.

For the context of readers not from Yorkshire, two of our branches are defunct, and a third bears a close resemblance to defunctness. — Tristan Lockheart

The Halifax Archdeaconry group that I mentioned earlier seem to be doing fairly well, although they are in Yorkshire rather than being part of the YACR. Most of their communication and organisation seems to be at the grass roots level and pretty dynamic.

The CC doesn't help itself though. Some of the stuff we get sent to pass onto our members is decidedly dull, and needs to be translated into a more engaging format. — Tristan Lockheart

True, but if you steer clear of the organisation stuff, minutes etc I think it has got a lot better, take this for example.

It makes a bit more sense. When I first joined, the Associate Members paid a lower subscrirption than the Full Members. Allegedly this resulted in a number of ringers never admitting to having rung a 720 or a QP in order to avoid the higher subscription rate!

I've recently been reading a book about changes in societal culture. It makes the argument that there is a shift from community based values to values based on competition and individualism. He suggests that the more individualistic people still want to join organisations but not take any part in running them.

This mirrors what many of us active in territorial associations are finding and I can think of some different possibilities:

1. Carry on in slow decline hoping that there will be a sufficient residual of community minded volunteers and/or society will change back at some time.
2. Minimise the number of volunteer roles and try to focus the capacity we have on the essentials.
3. Think of smarter ways of trying to maximise the number of ringers and bells ringing to a good standard. 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.

I wasn't there so don't know what was discussed. Doing away with associate membership does not of itself abolish the qualification requirement; one would simply not be entitled to any kind of membership until qualified and thus eligible. Was the qualification requirement itself abolished?

Isn’t the problem that the Victorian reformers wanted to spread method ringing as they thought it would attract a better class of people into their belfries, and our territorial Guilds and Associations act as clubs for some of the more experienced method ringers. However, 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.

I had an interesting discussion this week with some people down South who I used to ring with around 40 years ago. 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.

If only societies could be more inclusive and focus on rebuilding things from the bottom up, then things might gradually improve. It’s not too difficult to find new younger ringers (age <60). .Just look at all the new RfK ringers and what they want. These people bring with them fresh ideas and a lot of transferable skills. Of course, they will want to do things differently. We need to welcome their ideas and engage with them, rather than just the 2% who are currently engaged. As the great Spock said “…the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…”

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.

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.

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.

I think one of the possible outcomes is that ringing starts to pay people for the organising and administrative roles, becoming more like a gym. We see a little of this with ART and the Cambridge ringing centre but are 99% volunteers right now.

Many people enjoy ringing without imagining that they would need to take on additional responsibility for five years out of twenty (or something similar) for tower, branch and guild responsibilities to be shared evenly. They rely on other people to take responsibility consistently, often in more than one role.
Partly this is a sign that people lead busy lives with multiple responsibilities. Many new ringers are surprised that it costs almost nothing but, probably, would rather pay more than have to find time to be an organiser, steeple keeper, society treasurer, etc.

I think this would be a shame as it could start to exclude some people and it changes the dynamic of a relatively grass roots, localised set up which helps to build community but getting the message out that all ringers need to volunteer to take extra responsibility for part of their ringing career is not so easy when learners are just starting out.

I don't think a village cricket team would become less grass roots because it paid someone to cut the grass, or paint the pavilion.

No. but typically they probably don’t pay the coach who turns up every Saturday to get new young cricketers trained up. And they are probably also struggling to find volunteers to drive the minibus to away matches, maintain the website with the information about upcoming matches, etc.
It’s not only bellringing which is finding it harder to generate volunteers to take responsibility.

I'm sure there are many clubs who pay for some things and rely on volunteers for others, but that wasn't my point. I was questioning the suggestion that paying people to do things stopped an organisation fromm being 'bottom up', and I can't see why it should. The same people are making the decisions whether they are telling the contractor how often to cut the grass or twisting arms to find volunteers to do it more often.

That's really interesting, Tom. Actually I think the pendulum is swinging back and we are getting more community minded again these days. But perhaps we now have a different way of implementing it..
I really like your idea of a new organisational structure. How about - each TOWER leads the Association for a month? So a person with a good idea gets a chance to implement it without feeling that they are insulting the current post-holder by pushing in.
The following might be relevant - a quote from the barman at a very successful beer festival I attended over the weekend: "The main thing was - everyone had a good time. That's why we do it." Perhaps that should be the mission statement of our ringing societies. Perhaps that is what community-minded means these days, rather than the pious and worthy Victorian sentiments that we oldies are used to.
Regards, Barbara

Interesting idea I'm sure some would do a great job, not sure how to proceduralise it. One of the interesting things of watching an association over a period of time is how unstable towers and other ringer groupings are. An enthusiast comes along, a tower blossoms, attracts a wider following, then splits and breaks down.

I understand, Tom, that the Association provides much-needed stability.
But my suggestion would capitalise on the "blossoming" towers that you mention.
The Association could, for instance, operate a calendar on which the towers of the Association are each given a month to be "lead tower". As you know, my home tower is currently on a roll. So imagine that I think "What the Association needs is a beer festival". I then see that my tower is "lead tower" in October 2024. So I round up my chaps and say "Let's organise a beer festival in October". And we do it.