Ringing Forums

The site gives this e mail address as a contact for errors:

errorsatfelsteaddotorgdotuk

Thank you Graham. That seems to work ok.

All I can find is the introduction.

I have just searched the 1914 RW ("survey") no useful hits but I did notice in the editorial of 18/09/14 a reference to "The 25,000 ringers throughout the country..."

I can hear the outrage now:

"...that's for or five bob in real money..."
"... a tax on guild membership..."
"...what are we getting for our money?"

Pile them up off the front, or the back, or both; i.e. call the treble down to lead, then the second down to second's place and so on.
Reminds me of a wedding a few decades back. We were ringing call changes and the conductor was trying to call us round but the bells were drifting out of place quicker than he could call the changes. We must have stopped ringing eventually, somehow.

It is that driving rhythm that is so compelling. At a quick timing of the middle section they seem to be going at about 36 rows per minute; about 35 minutes for a qp. I have rung Triples that sort of speed but generally on the light-ish eights I usually ring on about 32 cpm seem to feel about right to me.
Press on, keep it tight, work hard at it and keep things under control. Too much method ringing is limp and sloppy, IMNVHO.

I was going to make a few comments but while I was thinking about it You Tube popped this up. I stopped it after very short time. The contrast was too distressing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTh9XfMFU8

I have just drawn a cat with a hat out of treble bob at the back (dodge up, two plonks at the back, dodge down .

Just listen...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYDGncj9BBk

... perhaps point-three places-point (say point fourths, thirds, fourths, thirds, point fourths) but off hand I can't think of a common method where that occurs so perhaps something else...

I would have gone for the quarter...

... and this just deals with top down communication. We need systems that are multi-directional and are inclusive to encourage engagement. Personally I find it very difficult to get ringers to engage. In my limited experience of things like Facebook, Yahoo groups (when they existed) and Google groups is that they get used for top down distribution and requests for ringers for weddings and so on but discussion on topics or issues get very little response.

With call changes it might assist if the positions of the bells to swap are called rather than bell-numbers used. Also the learner could be continually questioned as to what position they are in before and after each change and how many bells are above and below them.
I think that the main weakness of call changes is that they do little to develop the ability to continually change the speed of the bell and the considerable amount of physical effort required to chuck lumpy old bells about, especially on lower numbers. I think that the above approach is to be recommended.

a series worth re printing in the RW.

I try not to think about it too much...

From a personal point of view generally I don't ring for weddings as I can't be doing with all the hanging about. If I do ring I don't look to be paid as ringing is my hobby. However if I were to be paid offering me £20 is a bit of an insult; £200 or so might be closer to the mark.
On the issue of the taxability of wedding income IIRC a few years back Steve Coleman contacted HMRC for clarification. Did he ever get a reply I wonder? Time to give him (and perhaps them) a nudge for an update?
It looks like the page below is being maintained but from the dates in the right hand column much of the information is probably out of date. As always without routine information-gathering systems getting information in the first place is difficult and keeping it up to date almost impossible:

https://wiki.changeringing.co.uk/Wedding_Fees

and comments along the lines of "x is a tax on y" generally seems to be assuming that taxation is inherently bad and something to be avoided.

Thank you for a detailed and helpful reply. I'll carry on trying to keep out of trouble.

Seems reasonable. How are we doing generally for third party cover for over 70s?