Ringing Forums

I think some details on how individual ringers would benefit is needed as well. Although the proposed levy is collected via associations, the money is coming from the pockets of rank and file ringers.

@John de Overa that’s exactly my point..what’s in it for “Brian from Bodmin”.. extra ringers, extra courses to go on etc etc.

The Ringing 2030 headlines hint at this, but something more meaningful and specific to “Brain from Bodmin” is needed I think?

completely agree. While Ringing 2030 is a good thing in general, from what I've seen so far the work that's taking place is only tackling the relatively easy parts of the problems, mostly "Pillar One" around branding, publicity and finance. Those can be tackled by a relatively small team whereas what I consider to be more important, and more difficult, is providing for the development needs of "Brian from Bodmin". It's not as if this is a new problem, it was being discussed 10 years ago but it's still a problem that's mostly unaddressed. I'd like to see some concrete goals being set, e.g. "Provide weekly supported lessons/practices at level A within B miles for C% of ringers" or somesuch. Delivering that is going to require mobilisation of the existing ringing community in a coordinated, sustained and cross-association manner, which will not be easy. Doing that is only going to get increasingly harder due to the demographics of ringing, so to me it's probably the most important thing to get started on immediately.

and…. A lot of this will probably rely on local Associations and Guilds (or alternative local structures) to make it possible so it is questionable whether increased funding for central organisation is the key to delivering the support most ringers want locally.
Potentially the affiliate fees rising is only a minor cost increase really and local structures will also need to think seriously about funding if they really want to be able to offer the opportunity to progress to surprise Major in a supported environment for ringers who want to do so with less than a one hour travel time to the practice.
I still find it hard to decide whether money is what is needed as actually so much of what we do relies on people choosing to invest their time and money can’t always change this.

I still find it hard to decide whether money is what is needed as actually so much of what we do relies on people choosing to invest their time and money can’t always change this. — Lucy Chandhial

Money alone certainly can't solve all the problems but it can enable more things to be done better and faster. Without money nothing gets done unless someone can be persuaded to give up the time to do it, with no control over when that is, how long it takes or how well it is done.
Obviously some things like teaching require expertise, which is in limited supply. But people with that expertise have to earn a living. If payment is available it can compete for earning time. With no payment it has to come out of leisure time.

what’s in it for “Brian from Bodmin”. — Andrew G Smith

Good question (and a nice change from the man on the Clapham omnibus). He might not care many ringers there are in 20 years time (he'll be dead by then) or about bells going out of use (if they do he'll stop ringing). And he might not care about ringers having the opportunity to reach their potential (he never felt the need to).
Sorry to be cynical but I fear there might be quite a lot of BfBs around.

if we were to fund teaching, and pay people to teach new ringers, this would require a very different approach to finances and bring huge costs to the learner (presumably, perhaps with some scholarship type funding) which would change the whole dynamic in ringing from community hobby to something like music lessons leading to playing in an orchestra.
This is of course an option but I don’t get the impression that this is the aim of Ringing 2030.
If we assume paid people would be, generally, in administrative and organisational roles then we still need ringers to be willing to teach new ringers, practice together to support those with less experience and offer training opportunities at a variety of levels in their leisure time (perhaps with a better concept of claiming expenses for travel) so we don’t get round the major stumbling block we have for new learners today.
We may want / need to persuade Brian from Bodmin (and the many others like him) that if they don’t want to come to extra practices occasionally to help less experienced ringers progress then their hobby will be lost to future generations and that it is worth a little extra effort to prevent this. That would be a very different internal publicity campaign but perhaps it is worth some energy / funding.

Picking up on a few of the points above…

Perhaps we shouldn’t be aiming at Brian from Bodmin if he’s not fussed and is of an age where he won’t be with us much longer?

With helping ringing to survive or even flourish, I always think on the theme of “training the trainers”.
There is a small and probably overworked group of keen ringers who are out there teaching new ringers / developing band etc. most days of the week.

So how can the CCCBR enable this keen group to flourish and expand before that group collapse with overwork?..perhaps that’s where new finance should go to help keen Henry from Helston and Tina from Truro?

I still find it hard to decide whether money is what is needed as actually so much of what we do relies on people choosing to invest their time and money can’t always change this. — Lucy Chandhial

I think money is much less important than people. Let's assume next week the CCCBR was left a huge bequest so finance was no longer an issue. What would we productively spend it on over (say) the next 5 years?

Ringing's problems are people problems, only one of which is recruitment. Without the ability to deliver appropriate training to all those who need it, recruitment is a waste of time. At present there seems to be not much of a pathway beyond very basic method ringing, there's no point recruiting if people end up against a brick wall 6-12 months later on.

The current focus seems to be on branding, publicity and funding. Whilst they are important, to me they aren't the first item on the list. The approach seems to be very much top-down, that's understandable because it's those people which have the drive and skills to make things happen, but without accompanying change from the grass roots upwards it's unlikely to be successful. For example there's little point setting up yearly summer schools all over the country if people then go back to towers where the menu is lumpy PH for the next 12 months before they can go on the next course, having made no progress for a year - which is exactly the feedback I've heard from some people teaching on those courses. Relatively speaking, setting up courses is trivial, bootstrapping and supporting the thousands of towers across the country is much, much harder, but also much more important.

If payment is available it can compete for earning time. With no payment it has to come out of leisure time. — John Harrison

If you are working full time then it is going to come out of your leisure time anyway and if the impetus is a more youthful age profile then the teachers will increasingly be working full time. I teach at the very "grass roots" level but I'm working full-time and the CCCBR couldn't afford to compete with the day job. So I'm not convinced that paying teachers is going to help much.

Sorry to be cynical but I fear there might be quite a lot of BfBs around. — John Harrison

I'm sure there are but I'm also sure there are a lot of those who's ringing horizons have closed in because of lack of opportunity. My home tower was a case in point, it was stuck in the doldrums for years - then circumstances changed. There's still an awful long way to go but we now have people turning up with method sheets and having done "homework", including an octogenarian who is well up for moving things on. How much is the stasis at many towers because people don't want to move on and how much is because they just don't know how?

we still need ringers to be willing to teach new ringers, practice together to support those with less experience and offer training opportunities at a variety of levels in their leisure time (perhaps with a better concept of claiming expenses for travel) so we don’t get round the major stumbling block we have for new learners today. — Lucy Chandhial

I think "variety of levels" is key, if there's a steady and broadened supply of both recruits and teachers at the lower rungs then the elite levels will mostly take care of themselves - that's certainly been British Cycling's experience for example. There's reasonable support up to say PBM, then a void between there and Surprise Major, or at least that's been my experience. Bridging that gap in one giant leap is proving "challenging" to put it mildly.

We may want / need to persuade Brian from Bodmin ... That would be a very different internal publicity campaign but perhaps it is worth some energy / funding. — Lucy Chandhial

I'd put it much more strongly, I'd say it is vital, and needs to be done first. If we can't motivate and support the existing captive audience who have already been persuaded that Doing Ringing Is A Good Thing, how on earth do we think we are going to do it for people who have no clue of what ringing is about? We aren't going to get the train moving by decoupling the engine and carriages at the front, or by ramming another train into the back. Success is dependent on thousands of towers across the country, many of whom are already struggling themselves and who don't have the ability to help new recruits.

Returning to the original question of 'What new outputs will result from the proposed increase in affiliation fees? The aim would be to achieve the Ringing 2030 aims. To that I would add to better deliver the CCCBR objects as set out in Section 3.2 of the rules of the CCCBR. As discussed above it is hard now to show that extra expenditure would achieve this. The proposed 'proof of concept' approach using CCCBR reserves means that the increased affiliation fees are not significant to start with. By the time they might be there should be evidence one way or the other of the effectiveness of additional expenditure. No doubt not all funding decisions will prove fruitful but the safeguarding the future of ringing does not present a 'do nothing' option. Scrutiny of fully costed, cost-benefit analysed, future plans and budget should be the focus of the CCCBR AGMs. Preparing such plans may well require initial expenditure on business advisor support,

A lot of this will probably rely on local Associations and Guilds (or alternative local structures) to make it possible so it is questionable whether increased funding for central organisation is the key to delivering the support most ringers want locally. — Lucy Chandhial

I think that the wrong question is being asked. It should not be about affiliation fees; instead it should be about how should Ringing2030 be funded?

Proposals to raise affiliation fees have been discussed more than once in the past and met fierce resistance. Over the last 40 – 50 years Guilds and Associations have focussed putting most of their resources into restoring and augmenting rings of bells. There are now far less unringable towers. However, they continue to do this.

The Charity Commission publish the previous five years income and expenditure figures for every charity on their website. Whilst I was a Director and the Ringing Foundation and researching this, I started keeping a spreadsheet to analyse Guild and Associations and their BRF’s, and still do. There is currently about £6million held in BRF’s, and annual grant expenditure has remained relatively static at about £250k each year for the past ten years.

However, income was also static at about £300k per annum over the same period, so the amount held is growing. Whist some money needs to be kept to fund grants promised, there is sufficient to fund well over 10 years’ worth of projects, without any more income coming in. Much of the remainder, whilst unallocated, is also kept in short term deposit accounts. The most notable exception is the Oxford Diocesan Guild. They have a well-managed fund and invest the surplus for the long-term with professional investment advice provided by the Diocesan Office.

As so many ringers are pensioners, or near retirement age, it’s surprising that so many Guilds and Associations are not so financially aware.

In addition to the steady income of about £300k pr annum, it is also apparent that some Guilds and Associations receive large windfalls from time to time through bequests, but that is perhaps the subject for another posting.

Charity Commission guidance is that charities should keep their levels of reserves under review. They are advised not to hold large reserves, but to spend the money on their charitable objectives. Many BRF’s have very narrow objectives and only contribute to bells, frames and fittings. However, the guidance is also that charities should review their objectives from time to time, as circumstances change.

In summary, we shouldn’t be worried about £40k per annum in six years’ time. That figure is far too timid anyway. We have the resources in the exercise to do far more, and to do it straight away. It should also have been done yesterday, if not a decade or two ago!

Lottery Funding available to the Ringing Community in England? (& elsewhere?)

We obtained Lottery Funding for bells - we should try hard to obtain lottery funding for training the ringers in England (similar schemes may apply in Wales & Scotland?):

Look at 'Reaching Communities England'

The application could cover: CCCBR cost of new resources (incl. people) / Guild training costs - train the trainer costs / possibly ART costs of training the trainer & admin to train the recruits anywhere in England.


Lottery Funding is potentially available - applications over £20,000 for projects of say 5 years for people with 'similar interests'. Applicant CCCBR as a Charity & funding for England.

Look at reaching Communities England -

https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/funding/programmes/reaching-communities-england#section-2

We fund projects and organisations that work to make positive changes in their community. By community we mean people living in the same area, or people with similar interests or life experiences. We offer funding that starts at £20,001.

We can fund projects or organisations that’ll do at least one of these things:

bring people together to build strong relationships in and across communities
improve the places and spaces that matter to communities
help more people to reach their potential, by supporting them at the earliest possible stage.

We want to be flexible and respond to your community’s needs. So we’ll offer funding:

for the long or short term
for a specific activity, or for broader costs to help your organisation or community
for one organisation or to bring organisations together
to support people, communities and organisations most affected by the cost-of-living crisis
to help organisations address the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on how they work, now and in the future.

Area England
Suitable for Voluntary or community organisations
Funding size £20,001 or more, for up to five years
Application deadline Ongoing

The '50% new retained ringers by 2030' means we need 800 retained new recruits in the Salisbury Guild by the end of 2029. That would be good but from where & trained by who? So very many more competent teachers needed.

Most of the Salisbury Guild area is rural - compared to the past: churches with reduced viability, reduced congregations, reduced income for church running costs, reduced clergy, reduced service frequency, higher % of population aged over 70, more likely to be away - work or other reasons etc.., AND not many competent 'trained' ringing 'teachers'.

The potential 'training costs' per retained new recruit for the first 3 years of their ringing, to help them to a good standard, is high in terms of helpers required & there are some costs of good training. I expect the CCCBR do not plan to fund any 'direct' training costs within Guilds. So the Guilds need a funding model.

Possibly it would help if the CCCBR assisted in trying to add consistency of funding re 'Education' offered by Guilds - could anything be agreed as a target? As an example: Free training for Trainers - ideally refunded after they are 'qualified'? (Seems odd where the teachers have to fund their own training fees.)

Is charity funding by Lottery (& others - who?) a realistic source or not? National funding - one application,one contact, one bank account for Lottery must be easier for all than local applications.

It is surprising that most 'addicted' ringers give nothing as a financial legacy from their estate - for 'Education' or to bell funds. Is there potential where the ringer does not have family?

If we received any legacies for 'Education' in the Salisbury Guild that would be used as requested. Funds rec'd by the Salisbury Guild only go to the Bell Fund where that was the wish.

Roger would like funds held for bells to spent on ringers:

The Guild bell fund assisted transformation of many rings of bells since the 1970's - without funding many of those rings would be unringable or very difficult to ring for 80% of the Guild ringers. Projects in my Branch of only 11 rings include - a new ring / bells lowered in tower (tower sway) / new frames / new fittings / augmentations / tuned - every project has widened the range of new ringers who could ring to a higher standard than on the previous 'rough going' rings. So 'good' rings is a foundation for more ringers - I would not want any of the rings to go back to their previous condition!

I agree that spending money on rings which will probably only ever be rung by visiting ringers as a one-off grab is a waste of money.

The Salisbury Guild does not guarantee ANY of the £10 annual subs. goes to the bell fund (LEBRF - a charity) - at present a potential 50p per ringer is voted on at every AGM. So subs from 1750 members funded £800 in 2023. (I know some Guilds place most of the Subs. into the Bell fund. Why?)

The Guild bell fund rec'd £2,600 donations from Branches in 2023 (£1.50 per member). In future those donations could go to Education if the Branches decided.

The Guild is very likely to spend all it can on recruitment / training / retention in the future & to reduce the funds held (but the Reserves do not cover 3 years but just over 1).


Roger has stated Guilds have too much held in Bell funds. That is a broad statement & not always by choice of the Guild or Bell Fund as a Charity. The Salisbury Guild is not a charity but the bell fund (LEBRF) is - it held £332 in 1971 but £274,000 in 2023.

This included about £230,000 from Legacies (see notes d) to f)).The £230,000 includes balance of a surprise legacy of £128,000 in 2022/2023 which has transformed our ability to fund projects (aim is 20% grants rather than 10%) & our need to obtain receipts for bell projects.


Details re Salisbury Guild Bell Fund Charity (LEBRF)
a) We paid out £50,000 as grants in 2023 (£14,000 in 2022) Largest grant nearly £30,000
b) We had unclaimed promised grants for new projects of £51,000 at end of 2023.
c) We consider grants 3 times per year & are often 'early funders' - encourages others to give grants.
d) The current fund includes £117,000 which were legacies - we can't spend - all in COIF Investment Fund - about £3,300 receipts per annum.
e) We rec'd a surprise legacy from the estate of a family of ringers. £115,000 in 2022 & £13,000 in 2023 - not capital so spending over 5 to 10 years - depends on the projects arising. Now able to aim to give 20% rather than the previous 10% to bell projects. So all projects re rings of bells likely to get 20%.
f) as the £128,000 legacy will be paid out over a few years we have locked away funds at fixed rates & may lock away maturing funds when the level of grants made is known: £20k for 5 years , £40k for 3 years , £5k for 2 years , £55k for 1 year, £30k for 6 months & £19k is interest bearing instant access. This includes funds lent to the LEBRF to earn interest. Only £3k in a current account.

it is hard now to show that extra expenditure would achieve this. — Paul Wotton

I disagree. Today the Touring Tower is at Hurst Show in Berkshire and the Charmborough Ring is at Billingshurst Show in Sussex. All three mobile belfries will be used at about 30 events this year, and seen by hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands of people at each event. We can show that when followed up effectively, they are not only an excellent PR tool, but also a good way of recruiting new ringers.

The CCCBR launched a crowd funding campaign in 2022 for £30,000 towards the Touring Tower. To date only £20,953 has been raised. However because of delays, costs have increased, so nearer £35,000 is now needed. Fortunately the Charmborough Trust had about £9,000 in its reserves, and this enabled the Touring Tower to become operational. However this has not only depleted the Trust's reserves, but there is still a significant shortfall. Therefore some items of expenditure have needed to be delayed. We had hoped that by now we could have some smart new promotional material to accompany the Touring Tower and the other two mobile belfries, to take advantage of the members of the public that we are now able to reach. However, that is another story.

We would like to be able to do far more, whether that is through the Central Council helping with our capital costs, branding, the design of attractive PR collateral and supporting an effective recruitment portal; and Guilds and Associations contributing through their training and development funds.to the hire of the mobile belfries for fetes and shows, and taking them into schools for activities days.

[

Today the Touring Tower is at Hurst Show in Berkshire and the Charmborough Ring is at Billingshurst Show in Sussex. All three mobile belfries will be used at about 30 events this year, and seen by hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands of people at each event. We can show that when followed up effectively, they are not only an excellent PR tool, but also a good way of recruiting new ringers. — Roger Booth

Great. That's just the sort of evidence I think the CCCBR needs to justify having more financial muscle. I also take on board the various contributions pointing to Guilds and Associations making better use of the funds entrusted to them. As a 'church' associated organisation, perhaps the parable of the three servants is applicable (Mathew 25: 14 to 30).

We can show that when followed up effectively, they are not only an excellent PR tool, but also a good way of recruiting new ringers. — Roger Booth

And then what's next? They end up in a struggling local tower that can barely ring PH? Ringing needs a lot of investment for sure but the biggest need is people's time, not money. Getting someone ringing properly takes a large amount of time for the tutors, the pupils and those around them providing support and a solid band. What we should be worrying about first is running out of the people resources needed to train new ringers, not money.

Ringing needs a lot of investment for sure but the biggest need is people's time, not money. — John de Overa

So how do we set about getting more people's time?

Getting someone ringing properly takes a large amount of time for the tutors, the pupils and those around them providing support and a solid band. — John de Overa

Yes, that's the traditional way, but since the resource is in short supply how can we achieve more with less?
One very under-used resource is the simulator, which for a lot of basic skill development can:
- Replace the need for helpers to ring around the novice
- Provide a much more stable surround then many human helpers
- Remove a lot of the psychological pressure
- Provide far more rope time per novice hour than a conventional practice
- Can give objective feedback on performance
Simulators can be bought (with money) but are cheap compared with bells.
They are by no means the whole solution, but they can have a big effect on the result per person-hour invested in the overall process.

we should try hard to obtain lottery funding for training the ringers in England (similar schemes may apply in Wales & Scotland?) — Ken Webb

ART started looking at this about ten years ago with a professional fund-raiser, and we subsequently worked on an application to the National Lottery Heritage Fund on behalf of ART and the CCCBR to do precisely what you suggest. The feedback from the Lottery was that we cannot expect NLHF to contribute 100% . We would need to show our commitment by putting some of our own resources in first. Also, we wouldn't be able to go straight to a Nationwide scheme. We would need to run local pilots first, to demonstrate that what we were proposing works.

We haven't really progressed this much over the last two years for a variety of reasons, but it is still in the Ringing2030 project list. However. I live close to Ropley where the church was gutted by fire ten years ago. Even though the church was insured, the PCC wanted to provide toilets and a kitchen and have a modern building that could be used by the local community seven days a week. The bells were not seen as a priority.

Fortunately I have been able to use a lot of the NLHF application material that I helped draft for ART/CCCBR in an application to put the bells back at Ropley. A grant for £62k was awarded last November. However the application was about far more than just putting the bells back; it was also about recruiting and training up a new group of ringers (four are coming to tonight's intensive handling lesson at Old Alresford in our local ART Hub), holding regular open days, giving talks to community groups, working with the local History Society to deliver a 'history detectives' project with local schoolchildren, delivering handbelll tune ringing workshops, running an after school handbelll club, delivering ART teacher training Modules and steeple-keeping workshops to ringers from the wider area, working with the Winchester Photographic Society to record the project and to mount an exhibition (not just the rehanging but also all the 'soft' activities as well), etc.

NHLF's mandatory requirement is to 'engage new audiences with heritage' and it's all the soft stuff that that helped us tick the boxes. The rebuilt church is also a wonderful space and is now used for all sorts of activities throughout the week. Unlike many village churches, it now has a growing worshipping community. The emphasis on bringing new people in, whether to worship or not, and especially on working with young people and their families, not only results in enthusiastic support from the Vicar, Churchwardens and PCC, but also the other clergy in our ART Hub. The staff in the Winchester Diocesan Office are also very interested too, and they want us to talk to other parishes in the Winchester Diocese.

That's just the sort of evidence I think the CCCBR needs to justify having more financial muscle. — Paul Wotton

Another piece of evidence is that in 2007 the CCCBR established the Ringing Foundation. In 2009 it awarded the Ringing Foundation £10k to establish the Integrated Teacher Training Scheme (which subsequently became ART). Like two of the three servants, by 2015 the Ringing Foundation had levered in significant additional resources from a variety of other sources to enable it to fund the setting up of ART to the tune of £43k.

Today ART is not only financially self sufficient, arguably far more so than the CCCBR. It currently employs three part-time paid staff to assist its volunteers in delivering its activities. It also ploughs surplus money back into the grass roots through its awards scheme and it is also supporting university societies with grants to recruit new ringers at freshers fairs, and to train other students to teach them. In each of the last two years it has delivered over 50 one-day teacher training modules, attended by over 300 teachers each year, helping to grow the pool of teachers. There is a growing pool of ART Hubs promoting ringing and training new ringers, including the flagship ones at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich and St Clements in Cambridge. ART has also developed the Learning the Ropes scheme, with an attractive website aimed at new ringers, and published a complimentary and attractive suite of publications, with modern colour graphics, aimed at new ringers and their teachers, In all, a remarkable return on £10k.

If the CCCBR wishes to, it could build on its past investment and enable ART to do far more. Looking back to what was said in 2007, much of what was suggested then still applies today, and still needs addressing, and without ART things would be even worse now.

Roger provided examples of Lottery funding.

We need to be clear that the funding required is re people not hardware.

The Lottery funding stream I suggested appears to be re people doing things together such as ringing - so the focus is on skills etc. & people working together - not the bells. That fits well with the need to help people in a community - impact on ringing in England but also in villages etc.. I assume there are 4,000 rings in villages & 1,000 in towns & cities. All are communities & nearly all need or will need new ringers soon.

So how do we set about getting more people's time? — John Harrison

Well, if I knew the answer to that... :wink: I think the trite answer is "more and better engagement of existing ringers". Looking in the Volunteering & Leadership Plan I saw two things that looked related, "Tinder for Ringers" and "Relaunch of Cast of 1000". The first would presumably be for linking up ringers and opportunities to ring but there's no details and it's not listed in the main project plan, and the second is in a section marked "not planned or indeed certain" neither of which is exactly encouraging.

However it's done, I think it's going to be a challenge, which is why it's important to start on it first. Some towers will be capable but won't be interested, for example I know of one Surprise Major tower where 3 people have left because of the TC's attitude to "improvers". For other towers, even PB looks like an unachievable goal. So I think whatever is done, it's going to have to be cross-tower, and likely cross-association, but most importantly, regular, ideally weekly. But I haven't seen any signs of activity towards that yet.

One very under-used resource is the simulator — John Harrison

There you are preaching to the choir :smile: I included a sim in our 2018 HLF bid and it's used at least 3 times a week, to provide sound for basic bell handling and for learning method ringing, with the moving ringers display. I agree with all the benefits you list but as you also say sims only get you so far. Abel for example doesn't model wheel sizes so you have to correct for that when ringing "for real". I've also been told point blank "You can't learn ropesight on a simulator" which is wrong. It's not perfect - I struggle with ropesight anyway - but I certainly struggle less when ringing for real as a result of using the simulator. One of the biggest advantage is the vastly increased amount of ropetime sims allow, which means when people do get a chance to ring stuff "for real" there's a much better chance they'll succeed. My last QP inside was PB6, after a number of intermediate steps I'm now working on Cambridge & Yorkshire Major - every single one achieved first on the sim. But it still needs to be backed up by real ringing, I'm currently travelling 45 mins each way every 2 weeks to a different association for 2 half courses of Cambridge Major, which means that transferring from the sim to real is slow progress. It's that gap which I think needs addressing as a matter of urgency, once we fall below a critical mass of method ringers in an area, it' extremely difficult to re-establish.

the application was about far more than just putting the bells back — Roger Booth

NHLF's mandatory requirement is to 'engage new audiences with heritage' and it's all the soft stuff that that helped us tick the boxes. — Roger Booth

That's exactly the same as our experience with the HLF for our rehang in 2018. We went to the HLF offices for a "How to make a successful bid" day, they made it very clear that "Please fund our hobby" wasn't going to work. They encouraged us to include things in the bid that weren't directly related to the rehang if they increased engagement. As a result we included (and they paid for) a simulator (training), funding to send existing ringers on the ART course (training), CCTV for the bells (accessibility), roller banners on church history, our peal boards & ringing (outreach & accessibility), hire of a mobile belfry (outreach) and even funding for a post-project BBQ. We also showed them our plans for engagement with the community via ringing to open the Xmas market & Autumn fete, tower open days, brownies & scouts visits etc, which we are still doing. We also have a social media presence and the local community know who we are - I get approached on the street fairly often.

without ART things would be even worse now. — Roger Booth

They absolutely would be much worse. I'll never be a top flight ringer but thanks to ART I have the ability to safely train our recruits, and our isolated tower that at one point had just 2 ringers left now has 9, with a goal for another 3 or so. But I can only get people so far, it's a struggle for me to keep progressing my own ringing and I'm concerned about those coming up behind me. ART is great for the early stages but the model is primarily based around individual teachers. Once you get into "serious" method ringing then it needs support from multiple ringers, and that's a much bigger challenge.

We need to be clear that the funding required is re people not hardware. — Ken Webb

Absolutely this. But if I look at the Ringing 2030 plans they are dominated by what I'd describe as "Product management", "Product development" is rather thin. I chose to keep my career in R&D and as a senior engineer I spend quite a lot of my time on management activities so I'm fully aware of their importance. But without something to actually sell, they are pretty pointless - most of the successful products I've worked on have started out with ideas and initial implementations before rolling out all the support that's needed to deliver them as "product". I'd rather see multiple attempts at improving the lot of rank and file ringers happening first, seeing which ones work and then figuring out how to deliver them at scale. "Rapid prototyping" if you like. But I suspect I'm tilting at windmills.

One very under-used resource is the simulator
— John Harrison ---- There you are preaching to the choir[/quote]

Your comments suggest a lot less agreement than the headline comment. The core skills of a ringer are to be able to ring with a reliable rhythm, to vary the rhythm easily and accurately (both to keep in place and to make manouevres - dodges, hunting, places,..) and to hear well enough to correct small errors before they become big errors. Without that underpinning they can't develop confidence in what they are doing, and can't make use of additional information about methods (learnt) or what's happening round them (ropesight).
Ringers taught the traditional way - lots of solo ringing with no external rhythm followed by trying to ring rounds with other ringers - only develop those skills by accident, and many of them never do. Proper use of a simulator (without visuals) starting as soon as handling is reasonably stable and continued alongside later progression to group ringing enables them to develop more solid core skills needed to ring the next blow confidently, even if you can't see a 'bell to follow'.
The weaker a band is, in terms of numbers and skills, the less able it is to provide hours and hours ov rock steady ringing around the learner, and hence the greater valuje of using simulators (at least as many simulators as the number of ringers you expect to be teaching / developing at the same time).

You can't learn ropesight on a simulator — John de Overa

I suspect you can, but I have never used visuals with a simulator so it's academic. People need to be taught how to acquire ropesight, the most important of which is not to focus on following individual bells, something that traditional teaching does thus delaying the acquisition of ropesight.
But to my original point, siumulators are a grossly under-used resource - in terms of both saving manpower and enhancing quality. Why are they not used? I suspect the two classic ringing reasons: that ringers (in general) like to do things the way they always have and don't like to spend money. .

Your comments suggest a lot less agreement than the headline comment. — John Harrison

That's not the case, I just didn't think it was necessary to repeat all the points you'd already made.

The core skills of a ringer are to be able to ring with a reliable rhythm — John Harrison

Yes, I ring at least 50% of the time without looking at the sim screen at all, for the reasons you list. I can ring a bob course of Cambridge Major that way, but the striking is better if I have the screen on so I have vision to help - as is the case for people when ringing "for real". Ropesight in real ringing is different to the sim, it can be quite hard to make rhythm your primary reference when ringing for real as traditional training has such an overwhelming emphasis on "ropesight". Indeed it's currently the most discussed and agonised over topic on the learner's Facebook group.

I suspect you can, but I have never used visuals with a simulator so it's academic — John Harrison

I'm sure it's academic in your case because of your skill level, but for my level it certainly isn't. I started one of our learners on PH two weeks after his first unassisted CCs with the band, on the simulator, with the moving ringers and with a highlight showing which ringer to follow. I did that because I wanted him not to obsess about bell numbers, but instead to concentrate on handling, listening and rhythm. Having "follow the dot" removes the cognitive load of worrying about bell numbers and I stand beside him counting the places so he can start to internalise that as well. There's still a way to go but it only took him 2 sessions to get through his first course of PH.

ringers (in general) like to do things the way they always have and don't like to spend money. — John Harrison

It's worse than that, many of the people teaching can't remember what it was like to learn as they did it so long ago, and just crank out the same things they were taught. They are the survivors of that antiquated approach, the majority never made it.

Simulators seem like a perfect fit for spending some of the cash mountains many BRFs are sitting on as they are an obvious "ringing infrastructure" item.

Simulators seem like a perfect fit for spending some of the cash mountains many BRFs are sitting on as they are an obvious "ringing infrastructure" item. — John de Overa

But we also need to invest some of that money in training people how to use them. So often I see people just using simulators as a form of sound control, rather than as a teaching tool like you are.

I also see people making the case for dumb bells in towers where it relatively easy to pop upstairs and silence a bell, so the dumb bell may just be there as a status symbol. However, spreading good teaching practice is what we should focus our resources on.

yes, everything you say is right. There's nothing wrong using simulators for sound control (we are using ours for an all-day practice this month) but there are a lot of other uses that are often left untapped. I think you are right about dumbbells as well - I know of a ringing centre that has 2 to make up a ring of 10, but they are never used. I think you could make the same case about many augmentations as well...

Your comments suggest a lot less agreement than the headline comment. --- John Harrison ---That's not the case, — John de Overa

Your subsequent comments make it clear that it is.

I'm sure it's academic in your case because of your skill level, but for my level it certainly isn't. — John de Overa

I wasn't talking about my personal use, I was talking about ab initio teaching. As I said, I introduce new ringers to the process of ringing to fit in with an external rhythm as soon as they can handle a bell reliably, and before I inflict other ringers on them. One step at a time rather than throw them in at the deep end. By the time they do face lots of variability and visual input they know they can ring steadily and they know they can hear what they are doing. In the traditional approach those core skills don't get much of a look in while trying to stay afloat visually.

Your subsequent comments make it clear that it is. — John Harrison

Repeat it all you like, but no it isn't. I don't know what the problem is, I haven't disagreed with anything in your approach, indeed I do all the same things. What I've said is that in addition to those, myself and the people I teach find the visuals helpful.

I agree with all the benefits you list — John de Overa

So often I see people just using simulators as a form of sound control — Roger Booth

Yes, and they talk about having sim practices when the simulator is doing no more than a Seage's aparatus.

towers where it relatively easy to pop upstairs and silence a bell — Roger Booth

Our bells are easy to silence, but thanks to proper (effective) sound control for practices we just need to pull four cords in the ringing room rather than climb 57 steps and climb into and out of 8 bell pits. It's also another example of where making a higher financial investment can save both time and effort over the years compared with the cheaper solution.

The CCCBR launched a crowd funding campaign in 2022 for £30,000 towards the Touring Tower. To date only £20,953 has been raised. — Roger Booth

The Scottish Association contributed £250 (roughly £1/member) towards this fundraiser. Scaled up across Great Britain this level of contribution would have fully covered the fundraising target. The decision to do this was made with no more than 5 minutes of discussion.

A few years back the Association made the decision to increase its membership fee without a specific goal in mind or budget set showing how the income would be spent other than it would enable us to "do things". As a result we have a healthy level of funds, and this enables decisions on funding to be made quickly and easily. The benefits are that the project is funded quickly and time isn't dedicated to protracted discussion.

I still find it hard to decide whether money is what is needed as actually so much of what we do relies on people choosing to invest their time and money can’t always change this. — Lucy Chandhial

I think money is much less important than people. — John de Overa

People is the most important factor, and relying on volunteer effort is a very effective model. However constantly trying to run things on a shoestring makes everything more difficult. Having enough funds to ensure that volunteers are able to spend their time on the important things. ART's model of paid administrative support seems to have been extremely successful.