Ringing Forums

They are presumably competitive and individualistic types — Barbara Le Gallez

As an oldish hi-tech worker who works with youngish hi-tech workers, they are as diverse as any other group. I don't think they are all particularly competitive and individualistic, although some will be of course. One of the things that struck me about ringing when I started was the long-standing relationship between what we now call "tech" and ringing, e.g. the maths links, online method & bell databases, phone apps, simulators etc. I'd concentrate on that.

You can tell them that even Knuth references change ringing :lol:

You can tell them that even Knuth references change ringing :lol: — John de Overa

And that a bellringing program was run on the Manchester Mk1 computer some time in the early 1950s. You can find the story online. Search for terms like 'shaggy dog story' 'Brian Price'. I might even have mentioned it when I wrote up Brian's life. If I did you can find it on: https://history.cccbr.org.uk

Thanks folks. What I am wondering is - if it is necessary to recruit people who are competitive and individualistic (as Tom's book implies it will be) is it better to:
a) encourage them that being competitive and individualistic will assist their rapid progress?
or b) tell them "here you can have a rest from being competitive and individualistic"?
Just wondering which would appeal more.

I wonder how someone who is 'individualistic and competitive' would react to being asked about it. People do not fit into neat stereotypes anyway so it might be better to try to find out what individuals feel they need and try to highlight aspects of ringing that match. That might go beyond personality types into other things. For example someone with a mathematical bent might find theoretical aspects such as composition, port or extension intersting and stimulating.

People do not fit into neat stereotypes anywa — John Harrison

I agree, I think basing recruitment on one narrow categorisation isn't a useful approach.

I don’t see anything wrong with community minded people running the organisations and being the leaders. If that is their skills, what they enjoy and what people value, let the driven individualists go off ringing peals making sure they contribute along the way to the Associations. What’s wrong with that? Good job we are all different I say

I think the challenge comes here: ‘making sure they contribute along the way to the Associations’.
The struggle appears to be that many ringers are happy to ring, enjoy ringing, will turn up for practices, outings, peals, etc but are not willing to put any time into organisation of ringing (ranging from bell maintenance to finances, calendars, publicity of events through to teaching future ringers).
One option seems to be to let people pay and then pay people to take on the organising, this works for an individualistic society (as in the original post).
The other option is to encourage people to give their time to playing a role for a given number of years so that everyone does contribute to the organising at some stage and therefore we don’t run out of (or burn out) our organisers. This is probably harder to do if it is true that more and more people are thinking individualistically and not interested in or motivated by community values.

Bellringing is currently 99% volunteer organisers with a handful of exceptions working for ART and the St Clements ringing centre.
We pay for skilled bell maintenance (and even there often make use of volunteer labour to reduce costs) for the bigger projects but nearly everything else is done with free labour on a voluntary basis.

The question is whether we have enough community minded volunteers who are happy to take on the organisational roles and currently, looking at reports and feedback from many Associations, we don’t. We have vacancies in posts, people with more than one post who would rather do less and districts or branches where nothing is organised for the ringers because no one wants to do the organising.

This could lead to big change, do things differently to need less volunteers to organise or change the way it is done so more people feel able to take on smaller tasks or roles with set time periods or ask AI to use last year’s calendar as a guide and organise the next year’s district practices for you! But right now it seems, in at least some areas, to simply be leading to a gradual fade out of opportunities with towers becoming silent and districts or branches organising less and this is a shame.

Definitely people are different and have time to support at different stages of life but the model currently relies on people willing to do extra for nothing and that’s an increasingly tough model to work with in a busy world where people have all sorts of opportunities and demands on them.

To answer @Barbara Le Gallez’s question…
I think you probably need to define very clear roles with annual ‘elections’ or transfer of roles and make clear for these new learners (once established) that they will need to choose which role to take on once they’ve been ringing for two years (or three years, your choice) so that it is a natural expectation that part of ringing is that you will be in charge of the email inbox for a year or in charge of finding wedding ringers for a year or asked to organise the summer outing or however you break down the tasks.
That might be the best way to ensure they are equipped to run the tower in ten, twenty or thirty years time.

and how are you going to achieve any of that when membership of associations is voluntary, and patchy at best?

Trying to impose conditions like those will just lead to people not starting, or giving up, I certainly would and I'm heavily involved with my tower and ring in several association's areas.

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

The struggle appears to be that many ringers are happy to ring, enjoy ringing, will turn up for practices, outings, peals, etc but are not willing to put any time into organisation of ringing (ranging from bell maintenance to finances, calendars, publicity of events through to teaching future ringers). — Lucy Chandhial

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

I think that the problem is that many societies and their Districts and Branches are continuing to do what they have always done (at least in living memory). Those in charge dislike change, and this is what needs to be tackled. I can't see that paying people is a sustainable solution.

We recruited a large group of new ringers at one of my local towers 15 months ago, and the new ringers were sufficiently enthusiastic to help raise £2,000 over the space of about three months to redecorate the ringing room, upgrade the lighting and lay a new carpet. They also did all the painting. Whilst the local District helped towards the cost, the Society BRF was unwilling to contribute towards this work as it was not 'Bell Restoration'.

It may be what we have done for the past 50 years, but nowadays when we have far more bells than we have ringers to ring them, why are we spending large sums on augmentations, and on rehanging bells in church towers which may close or have just a few services a year in a decade's time? Each of the new ringers were more than willing to contribute significant sums towards the work as they could see the point. However giving money to the BRF when it already has enough funds in reserve to pay the next 10 years worth of grants appears less worthwhile.

We also had a successful District improvers outing on Friday to four towers for about 20 of our new ringers and their helpers. One of the new ringers organised it. We also have a thriving District ringing school holding several sessions each month. People have come forward to help with the organisation, and even learn more about teaching. Just under 60 ringers subscribe to our District Spond app. However, although it is a 'District' group we seem to have three distinct groups of ringers out of the 240 members of our District:

• The stalwarts who attend business meetings and striking competitions, and who seem to come for the tea and chat, not necessarily the ringing any more. The majority don't mix with the improvers, nor have they joined our Spond group, which is a worry as decisions are taken and officers are elected at business meetings.
• The enthusiastic improvers, who do not see much point in attending business meetings, but who are keen to take part in other ringing activities, and are prepared to organise them too!
• Those members who generally never ring outside their own tower. They don't participate in District activities and haven't joined the Spond group either.

In business you need to follow the market, and in ringing that is what we need to do.

I think that the problem is that many societies and their Districts and Branches are continuing to do what they have always done (at least in living memory). Those in charge dislike change, and this is what needs to be tackled. — Roger Booth

Yes. But that's not going to change with "those in charge" still there. Keen people prefer to get on with ringing and organising things that are are directly relevant to them, not sitting on committees. To many recent starters, "The Association" plays little part in their ringing.

Your categorisation of association membership chimes what I've seen. Most of the "stalwarts" round here still ring, but it's primarily advanced stuff with each other, few of them put much in at the grass roots level. My own tower was in the "disconnected" group for many years but it's undergone a renaissance, driven by the enthusiastic adult starters / returners who have come along. We have a new TC, Steeplekeeper & ART teacher, all drawn from the newer members of the band. As well as practices and service ringing we arrange our own training sessions, tower outings, summer BBQ, Xmas meal etc. And we've had our bells rehung, sound control, simulator etc.

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.

In business you need to follow the market, and in ringing that is what we need to do. — Roger Booth

And that means listening to your customers and adapting your business to that market. Many of the associations don't, and the consequences will be the same as for businesses. Of course ringing needs some organisation, but it needs to fit current needs rather than just being a comfort blanket for the old hands.

I don't agree with absolutely everything that came out of CRAG, but it's indisputable that it was badly needed and that it's reinvigorated the CCCBR. That mindset doesn't seem to have percolated down to the associations, who seem intent on propping up what we already have and is clearly failing, rather than looking at their area's needs and starting from there.

Thank you for your most interesting comments. My feeling is that being competitive and individualistic are not necessarily incompatible with being community-minded. An individualistic person might be thrilled at the chance to put their good ideas into practice, and a competitive person might like the idea of pursuing success for themselves and others. So, as others have said, we need to find what motivates each individual.

In business you need to follow the market, and in ringing that is what we need to do. — Roger Booth

Random thoughts! Perhaps we should ask - How would we organise ourselves today if there were no associations? Just as important, how would we see our relationship with the church? Ringing is a modern, exciting secular activity quite distant from the church except for the need to use their buildings and equipment, which by and large we take for granted. My own ringing experience has been based on the associations and church culture. I can ring to surprise royal standard. If I were to learn to ring today that target would be an almost impossible suggestion (speaking generally of course). I would need some sort of experienced group to help me learn but not a traditional association, save the training centres which teach me how to handle a bell, because many towers don't have a good training resource!. The church is a much more important stake holder. In my tower we have installed a six-bell sim, we hold a sim practice every week and between us we visit other practices, and ring quarter peals (and we ring on Sundays) - The association or district could not have provided this for us! Relationship with the parish church is spot on. We've raised money for the tower partly by being known in the community and organising ourselves strongly as a local band. Its hard work and we have been lucky! We do promote membership of the local association because it has one or two aspects which help the wider ringing community such as training centres and bell advice, and at £15 per annum there is nothing to lose!

I can ring to surprise royal standard. If I were to learn to ring today that target would be an almost impossible suggestion (speaking generally of course) — Phillip George

You are not wrong. There's a chasm between the level that towers can get people up to on their own (generally simple Plain Minor methods) and anything more complicated. If there's a gap that any "more than one tower" organisation needs to fill, it's that. I've been told several times I should be ringing PB8 which is reasonable advice, except there aren't any practices at that level round here any more. So it's either Cambridge Surprise Major or give up any thoughts of further progress.

John, go for Cambridge Major. It's honestly not particularly difficult. if you can treble bob you can ring Cambridge. Go for it !

It's honestly not particularly difficult — Barbara Le Gallez

Agreed it's not, particularly if you already know Cambridge Minor. The difficulty I have is with ropesight on 8, not so much the method. I can ring it fine on a tower sim + tied bell, but 2 half courses every 2 weeks with real ringers means it's slow going. I've learned Yorkshire as well, but when I asked to ring it I was told no.

But on the upside, Minor seems so much easier now :lol:

The important thing isn't my particular situation though, it's the truth of @Phillip George's comment that it's getting increasingly difficult to get beyond basic stuff because there are fewer opportunities to get support - the Major practices that I do go to are rely on the attendance of people from multiple towers, and the 10 bell practice in the branch hasn't happened for many months, despite an email every month about it. And in my "home" association there's nothing at all at that sort of level.

go for Cambridge Major. It's honestly not particularly difficult. if you can treble bob you can ring Cambridge. Go for it ! — Barbara Le Gallez

I totally disagree. I had the fortune of learning the standard eight during my student days, when I was able to ring the methods regularly each week, besides being invited to ring in quite a few quarter peal and peal attempts to help consolidate this. A half course of Cambridge Major lasts about four and half minutes, a full course lasts just over seven. It is almost impossible to learn anything if all you are going to do is ring it for a few minutes each month.

I think that the rush to Cambridge is a symptom of the current problems in the exercise. Many of the people who can ring it leant it a long time ago. To them it is easy, but they might now be one or two short to ring it. Hence the pressure on the newer ringers to learn Cambridge early on. A more sustainable approach would be to do it the hard way and develop a band that ring together regularly each week and help them work up to it by learning some simpler methods first.

It is almost impossible to learn anything if all you are going to do is ring it for a few minutes each month. — Roger Booth

I can vouch for that, I taught myself it on the tower sim + tied bell, it took about 3 weeks of several sessions a week, but as I said I already knew Cambridge Minor, plus I'd previously taught myself a number of other Minor methods the same way over COVID. The problem is that my home tower isn't at that level so I have to find other chances to ring those methods, and whilst the sim and moving ringers are pretty good, transferring to real ringers is not straightforward - as I'm finding for Major ropesight.

I think that the rush to Cambridge is a symptom of the current problems in the exercise. — Roger Booth

I don't think that's anything new though, it has long been held up as a lofty goal - it was when I was starting out at at an active Surprise Major tower (that band has now folded).

A more sustainable approach would be to do it the hard way and develop a band that ring together regularly each week and help them work up to it by learning some simpler methods first. — Roger Booth

The two towers I ring in regularly are trying to do that. One is starting from a low base (decades of poor PH5, at best), the other is "Solid PB6". Both are making progress but it's slow. What's made a difference at one is the more regular attendance of 3-4 people who can ring at Surprise Minor level, that's given the others a solid band around them. However it's noticeable that some people haven't really progressed in several years and I have my doubts if they'll get much further, certainly not to Surprise.

There's nothing wrong with people stopping at a level, but if Surprise ringing is to survive beyond the set of people who can already ring it, I doubt that the current environment is going to achieve it. As you correctly said, they key is regular practice, a minimum of weekly, and the number of areas that can provide that seems to be shrinking. If there is a need "More than one tower" organisations could address, it's that - and no, the traditional monthly branch practices are not it.

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.

You don't need an association to run a BRF, there's a strong case that it would be better done nationally. Many BRFs have large amounts of cash that they are sitting on, with a central fund it would be possible to fully fund major projects and perhaps even support proper upgrade and maintenance budgets, rather than the current "Wait until it breaks" setup.

And my point about the branch practices is that if a tower that has been completely isolated for the last 40 years now makes up 50% of the attendance at the events, it's hardly a sign that the association is in good health.

You are right, there is very little opportunities to ring triples and plain major at regular practices. 40 years ago when I learnt to ring that was the standard for many 8 bell towers but that's no longer the case. In NE Branch GDR we run a monthly triples/plain major practice. This month the Guild Education Officer visited us and agreed this would be good to replicate this practice across branches and she's keen to focus some of the Guild training at this level in next year's plans.

It might be worth suggesting this in your local area.

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.

we are hosting a branch practice tonight as it happens, but I doubt the level will get much beyond PB6. Branch practices can only reflect the level of ringing in an area and they are too infrequent to be a meaningful learning opportunity. If a branch wants to bring its ringers on it needs to be running multi-tower sessions weekly, or at least fortnightly, and that isn't happening in any of the associations I ring in. In one there's an email every month announcing a 10 bell practice, invariably followed by one two weeks later cancelling it because of lack of ringers. Many of the people running the associations seem to be catering to the situation as it was 40 years ago, not as it is today. I just think they've had their day.

there's no reason why the existing bell advisors can't remain, just part of a flattened organisation. Centralising things does not automatically imply being less agile, less accountable, less responsive and more bureaucratic - words that I'm sure you could apply to some of the existing BRFs in any case...

I've seen widespread complaints that existing associations suffer from lack of interest in being "an officer", low turnout and general disinterest, yet if any sort of change is suggested. it's usually shot down. You can't have it both ways - people from the "outside" will not to want to engage with organisations that admit they are struggling but won't countenance change. The result will be predictable.

Change seems to have worked for the CCCBR, I've seen no solid justification of why it wouldn't also work for Associations, which if anything are in an even worse state.

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.

If they can't do better than local government, associations are doomed anyway :wink:

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.

We have a three-level setup at the moment, CCCBR, Association and Branch. Most of the activity that does still take place is at the branch level anyway, so...

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:

That just piles more work onto those who are engaged at a level that is remote from towers. — Alan C

That entirely depends on what the "work" is and how much of it is really necessary. For example I get dead tree annual reports from associations that clearly take a lot of effort and cost to produce and distribute, and after a cursory skim they invariably go straight into the recycle bin. Very little of the content hasn't already been published electronically, and a lot of what's in there is out of date by the time it gets to me.

Your position seems to be that the work of the existing associations has sufficient value for it to be preserved, which pretty much requires preserving the structures around it. It's clear that's barely sustainable now, and in a few years it won't be. My position is that we need to start by determining the needs of the people who are going to be ringing for the next few decades, and then creating structures to support them. I see very little value in funding and preserving something that is primarily of interest to those approaching the end of their ringing careers.

Local government has reorganised many times since Victorian times — Alan C

And ringing associations haven't. And it shows.

Just under 60 ringers subscribe to our District Spond app. — Roger Booth

Spond has been mentioned in one of the Facebook groups, it sounds interesting. Has anyone done a writeup of their experiences with it? Even if something custom is eventually produced by the CCCBR / ART, it sounds like Spond would be useful for gaining experience of what works / doesn't and helping provide the information to draw up a full set of requirements.

In my early ringing days in the 1960s & 70s, we were blessed with two territorial associations whose boundaries were almost contiguous - the Cleveland & N.Yorks Assoc and the North East Branch of the YACR. Each organised monthly meetings but they were cunningly arranged to be 2 weeks out of sync with one another, resulting in us enjoying fortnightly meetings.

In those days when communication was by written letter or word of mouth we were all in close touch with other towers and the branch committee. Attendance at the fortnightly meetings was usually around 30+ ringers on each occasion.

Perhaps I'm a digital dinosaur but it seems to me that the proliferation of communication channels - FaceBook, WhatsApp, email, Skype and all other other channels seems to have dissipated the communicatons and unless one subscribes to them all, then communications get lost in the ether.

However, my main point is that frequent well-run meetings that rang from PH methods to Surprise-8 are almost guaranteed to create greater involvement than the occasional meeting every 2 or 3 months.