Ringing Forums

You may find more advice on the Ringing Simulator Users and Suppliers Facebook group. It currently has 572 members https://www.facebook.com/groups/1441867412528870/

enabling people to easily show support for a view expressed or for an idea posted could be helpful. — Lucy Chandhial

Yes (thumbs up)

so getting approval for a change of the charity’s purpose from the Charities Commission would be needed? — John de Overa

It’s far simpler than you might think, the main problem will be those officers who have been in post a long time and who are resistant to change.

To start with most Guilds and Associations put a proportion of their annual subscriptions straight into their BRF, where it becomes a ‘restricted fund’. If it’s not going to be spent for a decade or two, why not reduce that proportion, or even pause doing it, and put that money into a separate training and development fund, to be spent on things such as putting on promotional events, paying teachers expenses and providing training equipment and materials. If properly engaged, members will be very supportive. When consulted in 2022, members of the Essex Association came up with some very useful suggestions - see https://eacr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/survey-feedback.pdf

Societies could even increase their subs to help. That does not require any approval from the charity commission either. Also, many BRF trustees have not reviewed their charitable objects for decades. However, charity commission guidance is that they should review them regularly and make sure that they remain relevant. Guidance is also that they should spend money on delivering charitable activities and not accumulate large reserves. If they are holding large amounts of cash on deposit for a long period, they should also take professional investment advice (how may people would leave their pension pot in a deposit account?).

Many BRF’s have very narrow objects, so a review would be welcomed by the Charity Commission. For example, nowadays it would be prudent to consider installing a dumb bell and/or simulator, even as a stand-alone project and for this to qualify for a grant. There are also many unattractive and unwelcoming ringing rooms. Grants towards painting, improving the heating and lighting and replacing worn carpets etc. ought to be eligible.

Also, how about periodic inspections and maintenance visits by a bell-hanger, perhaps using it as an opportunity to train-up local steeple-keepers at the same time. This would be useful, especially if several towers in the same local area could be visited in the same day.

There’s a lot that could be done. The Central Council ought to be encouraging Guilds and Associations to follow best practice, like it used to do with its regular triennial surveys up to 1996.

We seem to have covered a lot of ground and are in danger of veering off topic. However, aren’t these all symptoms of our Victorian structures, and an ageing ringing population.

Ringers identify with a tower, which is part of a District/Branch, which is part of a Guild/Association, which sends representatives to the Central Council, which is remote and under-funded. It can set up initiatives, but it cannot ensure that they are delivered at a local level.

Human motivation is such that being a tower captain, officer or representative in this labyrinthine structure confers prestige and power (Maslow), so there is resistance to change the structure. There is also evidence that people are able to cling on to power long after their ‘sell by’ date, putting others off, and leading to a slow overall decline.

CRAG recommended replacing the Council with a new national body for all ringers, but this has not been pursued. However, new ringers are willing to pay hundreds of pounds to attend residential ringing courses, and there are vast resources lying unused and poorly invested in BRF’s, which could instead be used to arrest the decline at a local level.

Why would anyone commit to giving or raising more money without knowing how it will be spent. You have to ask people to commit to a costed (so it is clear how much money is needed) cause / project, — Graham John

But ringers do this. According to figures published by the Charity Commission, over the last 15 years they continue to raise money for stand-alone BRF's faster than they are spending it. The amount raised by these BRF's has grown steadily from about £300k to about £400k per annum, thanks in certain years to large bequests, whilst the amount of grants paid out has remained relatively static at around £250k per annum, despite inflation.

So much money is now held in reserve that at current spending levels around 20 years of grants could be funded, without more income. In 1996 this was 5.3 years. Put another way £1 donated today will probably not be spent for 20 years, and rather than being invested for longer term capital growth, much of this is invested in short term deposit accounts.

Anything that gets members more involved and debating important issues such as this is welcome. Our ringing societies need to move forward and adapt, not remain firmly rooted in the past, just because that is what we do.

Half of the guild members in our district didn’t attend any of the 50 or so practices etc that we run during the year. — John Harrison

I was curious about what practices you are offering your members. However I see that the ODG website is down because of an attack by cyber criminals. Are you able to provide a summary? Recent decades have seen a massive gap open up between those at the top and the bottom of the ability spectrum. Could this and the death of the red zone be a factor in engagement?

Also the fact that many of the more experienced ringers are now in their 60's, 70's and 80's and no longer have the energy and enthusiasm that they once had?

What I am looking for are mechanisms in which we can break free from our current situation of pretty much one meeting per year where any 'decisions' can be made - these are usually restricted due to the running order to electing (or re-electing more often than not) people into positions for which the have varying degrees of enthusiasm and drive. — Fran Watkins

I think that you are focussing too much on a voting system, when what you need to think about is a consultation and engagement strategy with your membership. In a bottom up organisation, voting is the end of the process, not the beginning.

Several Guilds and Associations have been conducting reviews of how they operate and it would be worth looking at what they have done. For example, the Bedfordshire Association undertook a review process starting in 2022, with various surveys and workshops to consult with their membership, and with regular monthly update newsletters to keep members informed, ending up with them voting in a substantial change in their structure and rules at their AGM in 2024.

If you do something like this, people will come along in person, express their opinions and vote. You're never going to achieve anything as radical as what the Bedfordshire Association achieved through electronic voting.

https://www.bacbr.org.uk/association/association-review-information/

I think this specific kind of consultation has a better chance of engagement than the general meeting which often has a running order of going through the motions and little to be discussed. — Lucy Chandhial

I agree. Sticking to the general running order is probably one of the main reasons why there is a lack of engagement by members and why many ringing organisations are finding difficulties filling vacant positions. Whilst it’s a source of comfort for some to have the consistency of doing the same thing decade after decade, it’s not going to set others alight.

We’ve been running three-day ringing courses for the last 50+ years, but what Lynn and Barry are doing in Cambridge, and what others are doing elsewhere, is a source of inspiration. One of our newer ringers attended two three-day courses last year and was concerned about the lack of 'rope time' they received. Two or three touches for their benefit each morning and afternoon did not result in them mastering what they came to learn.

Three-day courses teaching around 60 students at a time are not going to make a significant impact on delivering 10,000 new ringers over the next few years. Regular weekly sessions at a local level like those at St Clements are far easier to organise, less expensive to attend, and could engage a lot of new people But that is not what we always do, so is less likely to be considered at the typical general meeting.

To improve engagement you really need to step back and consider how your organisation is structured and what it is there to do. In my experience ringing organisations tend to be run along the top-down model, rather than designed to serve from the bottom up. Votes are important in the top-down model, but far less important in the bottom-up model. People will become engaged when things that matter to them are discussed, and they are consulted in a way where each person’s voice is valued. There are lots of ways to do this.

My own District is probably typical of many. We have an ageing population of tower captains who do everything in their towers, and who have been in post for decades. They are not grooming their successors, and no-one dares to disagree or stand against them. Consequently, when they are no longer able to ring, the band collapses, resulting in little or no regular ringing. Since before Covid this has happened with four local bands covering six of the thirty-three towers in our District. I can see a similar number of others on the danger list. In the space of around ten years about a third of our towers could have gone silent.

Fortunately, we have an enthusiastic group of new ringers who have learnt since Covid. We have run a lot of regular training sessions, and they have got to know each other very well. However, there is a disconnect with many of the long-term ringers in the District. Whilst several decades ago the older ones would have come and participated in the ringing before the District meeting, and afterwards, and even gone down the pub once ringing had finished, they now just turn up for the tea, cake and chat, and go home immediately afterwards. The newer ringers do not benefit from ringing with a strong band, and rather than being engaged, are turned off by the ritual of electing new members, minutes, badges, certificates, annual reports and raising money for the BRF etc.

The new ringers are engaged as active members of our SPOND App which we use to book training sessions. There is also a vibrant What’sApp group where they share experiences and photos etc. The new ringers are keen to progress, and our training sessions are often over-subscribed. The attendance on our Improvers group outings is better than the typical quarterly District meeting, although with a substantially different clientele.

The new ringers have ambitious plans to establish a training centre, similar to those in Norwich and Cambridge. We’ve consulted all towers by conducting a baseline survey of the state of ringing in our District, and conducted a well-attended consultation evening, where there was constructive discussion and everyone put their suggestions down on post-it notes. This project is being driven from the bottom up, where there is a lot of enthusiasm, and expertise brought in from other walks of life. However, my worry is the disconnect, and that votes at a District meeting would not produce the same results.

It's not that unusual. About a third of Guilds and Associations are Charities, the other two thirds just the BRF. As you don't own or lease property or employ staff, there are not the same risks.

However, what is concerning is, as you say, many Trustees are not aware of their duties, particularly in respect of not accumulating large reserves, investing money wisely (and with professional advice if necessary) and keeping the objects of the charity under regular review.

This an education issue, and something that the CCCBR Bell Restoration Funds Committee used to cover well. However, this is something that is not covered by the current workgroups, even though the CCCBR is still run on a shoestring, yet there are large piles of cash accumulating in Guilds and Associations, which could be put to far better charitable use.

From our research we know that one of the best managed bell-related charities is the ODG one, who take professional investment advice from the Diocesan Financial Adviser to invest surplus cash for capital growth. They are now able to offer 20% grants for eligible works. The Coventry Diocese also manages the investment of a large bequest on behalf of its Guild.

Stephanie, we're currently in the process of registering the Winchester School of Bell Ringing as a CIO as we wish to employ a part-time administrator like the Mancroft Ringing Discovery Centre and teaching centre at St Clements Cambridge do.

However in terms of your Association I wonder whether it is really necessary to convert to a CIO. There are not the same risks of owning/leasing property or employing staff. I think it also depends on what you see the roles of the Trustees to be, and what the roles of the Association Officers are, and how they should interact.

The former Central Council Bell Restoration Funds Committee used to encourage Guilds and Associations to register their whole society as a charity. They also carried out a triennial survey of BRF's, the last of which was 1994-6. The Charity Commission encourages trustees to spend their funds on delivering their charitable purposes, not accumulate large reserves, and in the 1996 survey of BRF's there was about 5.3 years worth of reserves held in BRF's

Income and expenditure figures for each registered charity are now published on the Charity Commission website, and since 2009 I have been working with Simon Linford and others on the Ringing Foundation and CRAG to maintain a spreadsheet with these figures, and to research what is happening. The two thirds of societies where just the BRF is a registered charity are easier to analyse and in the latest three year period there was an average annual income of £290,439, and an average spend of just £200,614. This trend has been going on for so long that there are now 20.2 years of reserves locked up in those BRF's without any more money coming in. Much of that surplus is invested in short term deposit accounts with poor investment returns.

As so many ringers are pensioners, or saving for retirement, I am surprised that so many BRF trustees do not invest their reserves elsewhere for better returns, or spend them on their charitable purposes, or take proper external investment advice, as the Charity Commission requires them to do (Perhaps a role here for the CCCBR to help). The ageing ringing population is also giving rise to five and six figure bequests, adding to the accumulation of reserves, whilst the amount spent is relatively static and going down in real terms. The Keltek Trust spends its bequests as soon as practical and the Association of Ringing Teachers has a policy to hold only 1 - 2 years worth of expenditure in reserve.

Charity trustees are also required to keep the objects of their charity under review, and at a time when we have a surplus of bells and shortage of ringers, they ought to be spending more resources on recruitment and training initiatives. A typical £5,000 grant for a restoration/augmentation project at one tower could benefit many more towers instead.

Therefore I think it important that you need to be clear on what the most important issues affecting your association going forward are, what the risks are, where resources are best deployed and what the respective roles of the trustees and officers need to be. You also ought to talk to the other societies where the whole Guild/Association is a registered charity to see how they operate. I see for example that the Essex Association has 15 Trustees and the Gloucester and Bristol has 20 Trustees. Their annual returns are published on the Charity Commission website, with the following reference numbers:

Carlisle Diocesan Guild 512111
Chester Diocesan Guild 1148441
Essex Association 292250
Gloucester and Bristol Diocesan Association 281431
Lichfield & Walsall Archdeaconry Society 1095998
Peterborough Diocesan Guild 258271-1
Suffolk Guild 266869
Truro Diocesan Guild 268122
Sussex County Association 268588
Bedfordshire - Association 263781
Durham and Newcastle Diocesan Association 507497
East Derbyshire & West Nottinghamshire Association 513642
East Grinstead and District Guild 280023

Our community of practice is numerically dominated by people whose interest is less in the art of ringing and more on doing something for their church on Sunday morning. — John Harrison

I don't think that this is true, and it illustrates the point that I have been making. Looking at my District, with 35 towers and 246 members, we seem to have five distinct groups of people:

[1] Long-standing ringers, many now in their 70's and 80's who come to the three District meetings each year. They don't come to ring, but come for the tea and chat, even though a fair proportion are red zone ringers. About 15% of the membership
[2] Other experienced ringers mainly in the red and black zones who whilst members do not come to any Guild or District meetings, but whose needs are met by privately organised practices, quarters and peals etc. Generally aged under 70
[3] New ringers most of who whom have learnt since Covid. We have an active 'improvers' group in the District, who are firmly in the blue Zone. They are keen and willing to visit other towers, but find District meetings boring. The majority are in their 40's, 50's and early 60's. About 40% of the District membership
[4] Ringers who only ring in their local tower, who we never see. We only have 15 active bands in the District. This group of ringers are typically listed at the other towers, where there might now only be one or two services a month and practices are 'by arrangement'. They are quite happy to continue to pay their Guild sub, except they are probably not very active. We've even some living in care homes. About 20% of the membership.
[5] New 'probationary' members who have taken up ringing in the last year, the majority of whom seem to be female and in their 50's, taking up ringing when their kids leave home. However a large proportion of them seem to give up ringing within 2 years of starting. About 10% of the membership

Sunday service ringing is a Victorian concept, spearheaded by clergy such as the Rev Elllacombe. Whilst the majority of ringers in groups 1 and 4 probably identify with this, they are not in the majority. The ones in group 1 may wish to defend the ones in group 4, but if ringing is to survive, they are not the future. We need to tap into our rich pre-Victorian heritage, ensuring this is recognised, to maximise public support for our exercise. This will enable us to lever in much needed resources, and put us on a more sustainable footing to complete with other activities for people's time and attention in this modern world.

There are two things we need to be clear about in developing an application. The first is why are we doing it? I’m assuming that it is to strengthen the case that we make to external funders such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, who are a major funder of bellringing projects. Their current investment principles include:

• Heritage at risk of loss, decline, damage, neglect or of being forgotten – ensuring it is valued and better understood.
• Measurably reduce the amount of heritage identified as ‘at risk of being forgotten.
• Involve a more diverse range of people in heritage,
• Enable organisations to remove barriers to access and participation,
• Support all communities to explore and share their heritage,
• Support organisations to develop the skills and capacity to ensure a sound long-term future
• Support organisations to increase their financial and organisational sustainability by developing their commercial and digital skills and strengthening governance and leadership.

This leads to the second point. Our ’community of practice' probably has a very narrow view of our heritage. How far do we go back? Modern peal ringing grew to several thousand peals a year from about 1880 onwards’ leading to many of the methods that we ring today becoming widespread. However, it was not always thus. From the first peal in 1715, for around 175 years only a few dozen peals were rung each year.

1668 saw Tintinnalogia the first book on change ringing published, containing some recognisable methods. However, prior to this early change ringing was practiced in whole pulls, not half pulls, and simple sets of changes such as plain changes were rung.

As far back as 1549 recreational ringing was common, with the German reformer Martin Bucer visiting England and complaining about the recreational use of bells by foolish youths.

We are the custodians of a very rich intangible heritage, firmly embedded in aspects of British culture and the historic soundscape, with wide public appeal. We need to celebrate that far more than we do.

but in my view the cultural heritage is distinct so separate cases need to be made for their inclusion. — John Harrison

Yes, but we need to be careful not to perpetuate the Victorian version of our heritage, which goes back much further than them and is very rich. We haven't discussed prize ringing, focussing on rounds ringing and rounds and call-changes. This was prevalent throughout the country in the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, but did not find favour with the Victorian reformers. However, it has survived, notably in Devon and Cornwall, and I believe in parts of Yorkshire. The Victorian clergy like Elllacombe promoted scientific change-ringing as they believed that it brought a better class of person into their belfries.

That's an interesting question, should they be registered together or separately? What about in-hand ringing that is tunes rather than changes? — John de Overa

In my opinion living heritage includes all three forms of ringing as up until the Victorian belfry reformers changed things (and re-wrote history), all three forms were closely linked. If we just focus on change-ringing we're missing out on a lot of our living heritage. Many villages had sets of handbells which were used for tune ringing. Many belfries still contain them. In the North of England in particular it was quite popular with some teams having upwards of 100 bells. It was Phileas T Barnum the Great Showman that saw a team of tune ringers performing in Liverpool in around 1850 and took them to perform in the USA. They also rang the first tower bell peal in the States. There are also connections with West Gallery bands, which took over from the church organs that the Puritans took out, with the Victorians later ripping out the galleries and putting back organs. Have a read of Peter Fawcett's book Ringing For Gold, and let's focus on a very rich 400+ years of heritage.

I would say there is a problem lower down than the red zone. — Charlotte Boyce

I agree. There's a big barrier between ringing plain bob doubles/minor inside and Cambridge minor inside, and you need to be able to practice it weekly with a strong band, not a few minutes once a month. There's a missing generation of ringers resulting in a squeezed middle, so fewer and fewer opportunities to do this. I see this everywhere in my travels around the country.

Many of the newer ringers are in their 40's and 50's and are early retired, working from home or are empty nesters looking for something interesting to take up. They are keen and prepared to pay, as evidenced by the success of the Mancroft and St Clement's Cambridge teaching centres, and demand for the new residential ringing courses in the Northwest and Southwest, which are three times over-subscribed with these people.

However many of the old timers learnt as teenagers, so learnt much more quickly and they can be impatient with the newer ringers, expecting them to do things before they have mastered the basics, which does not work. Many also often just ring as a service to their church, so are not interested in ringing elsewhere, or progressing further.

As benefices become larger and services in village churches become less frequent, village bands ring less often and I fear for the survival of these bands. Round here several have collapsed since before Covid. Many of the remaining village tower captains are people who have been in post for decades, doing everything themselves. Others are people who have needed to take over from one of these long standing tower captains who are no longer able to ring, and there is no one else left in the band willing to take over.

Training up and getting the enthusiastic newer ringers into these roles is of paramount importance and could make a huge difference. It was really pleasing this week when two of my Ring for the King learners invited me to attend a Plain Bob Minor training session which they were organising!

Yes, I agree. I think that we are in an 'information vacuum'! I haven't heard anything about Ringing 2030 through my association except from the report of our only CC rep who attending the meeting in Sheffiled. (some absences due to work comittments.) There is no energy or interest! — Phillip George

Same in my Guild, except that the Central Council Representatives have not even reported back to the Guild yet.

Wearing another hat, my mobile belfries one, we wrote to 20 Guilds and Associations back in August abut helping with four large jamborees next year, which were in their area, or adjacent. Only two responded to the initial e-mail, one negatively. Six weeks ago we chased the other eighteen, pointing to the objectives of Ringing 2030 and the ability to reach out to thousands of young people. Just over half have now responded, although in many cases the response is that they have passed our request down to Branch/District secretaries, even though we were asking for a strategic commitment from each Guild/Association. Therefore I'm not confident that much will happen.

If the officers and CC Reps in Guilds and Associations don't get behind Ringing 2030, is it going to succeed, or just hit the buffers as similar initiatives to address our demographic time bomb have done so often in the past?

Of course, your question assumes acceptance of shrinking church congregations. However the Bradoc experience was about bringing people into the church. I have noticed that the eyes of the clergy here light up when you talk to them about attracting young people and families, and working with local schools. My own benefice of Alresford is currently raising funds to employ a part time youth worker, whilst at the same time exploring combining with a neighbouring benefice to ‘share resources’. A euphemism I believe for reducing the number of clergy, and some of the parish churches in the two benefices becoming festival churches.

We’re also exploring setting up a teaching centre similar to Mancroft/Cambridge at a church in Winchester and the PCC there are very enthusiastic about working with the local schools. I am currently being pressurised to do some tune-ringing with them in the lead up to this Christmas, even though installation of the tower bells is several years away.

Of course, tune ringing may be an anathema to those change ringers steeped in our Victorian culture, but our landlord is changing and we need to adapt too. Traditional services like Evensong are being replaced with Breakfast Church, Café Church, and Sunday afternoon teatime services.

We need to move with the times, work with our landlord, and invest our resources in people and those places where ringing can thrive, rather than just the hardware.

If we can't retain people and get the very best out of them, what's the point? — John de Overa

Before we veer too far off topic, the point that I was trying to make was that we’ve been kicking around the looming problem of the ageing ringing population for at least the last 25 years, and have not made significant progress. But, its now here. The number of active ringers has dropped by around 25% since 1990, and the majority of ringers are now aged over 60, if not 70, making it even more difficult to turn things round.

We can learn a lot from what we have tried in the past, and what has not worked, but we need an open mind and fresh ideas in a changed world. So much in ringing is outdated and inconsistent. Many tower bookshelves are stacked with textbooks that were written in the 1960’s, and the Ringers Handbook was first published in the 1930’s! Many ringing chambers have not seen a fresh coat of paint for decades.

It’s not going to be the Central Council that turns things round, it’s going to be the many ringers at grass roots level that will need to do the hard work. The Central Council can provide the central support, but that will only work if the people on the ground take it up. It will need public relations officers, teachers, tower captains and Guild and Association and District and Branch Officers all working together, year after year.

There is an issue at the moment that many of the experienced ringers ring surprise, but there’s a squeezed middle between plain hunt and surprise, which many people who wish to progress find difficult to cross. In the past there were fewer surprise ringers and there were more opportunities to ring intermediate methods to facilitate progression.

Feedback from those that responded to a questionnaire sent to Ring for King learners was that many of the experienced ringers seemed to prefer to ring with each other, rather than new ringers. However, whilst it is the experienced ringers who hold office at tower, district/branch and guild/association level, it is these new ringers that are the future of ringing. Many have skills from outside that would be valuable. As CRAG identified, communication from the centre down to these people at grass roots level is hampered by the many ‘gatekeepers’ in the way.

Therefore, perhaps the most important thing that the new PR Workgroup could do is to find ways of reaching grass roots ringers, especially the new ones that have taken up ringing since Covid. In my experience they are often very keen, have useful skills, and would like to help turn things round. Otherwise they will just give up in frustration and put their energies elsewhere!

All very well having business cards, but most Guild and Association websites are aimed at ringers and are difficult for non-ringers to navigate. I'm also worried about all this old advice. Yellow YoYo produced some excellent strategic advice for the Council two years ago https://cccbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Bell-ringing_Future-Vision-document-_24.08.23_Final.pdf

The Council seems to go round in circles and not move forward. We been talking about a lot of these issues since the Council meeting in Lincoln 25 years ago, and the Wellesbourne Conference and the regional 'Change Ringing for the Future' conferences ten years ago etc. have come and gone. It's strange that the Council financed the setting up of the Ringing Foundation, which levered in significant other resources and then funded the establishment of ART and the Learning the Ropes scheme. Looking at this year's AGM papers there's now talk of identifying non-ART teachers.

Would the RYA or similar organisations not focus on promoting their schemes? If we're going to recruit many thousands of under 30's each year, were going to need to move with the times and have a consistent message. However my experience with the mobile belfries is that many users use them in a very amateur way, so spreading best practice is essential. There are also issues in following up enquiries as so many towers these days so not have active bands.