Ringing Forums

Not cohesive - how so? Inward looking - how so? What issues need tackling? — Stuart Palin

For the avoidance doubt: I am not saying these things are incorrect - it is just they do not set out the challenges that need to be addressed. How can any alternative structure be assessed if we do not have a clear expression of what is needed. — Stuart Palin

The major issue in ringing that needs tackling is that we have far more bells than we have ringers to ring them. In the longer term, many of our rings of bells are also hung in churches where the frequency of services is being substantially reduced, or they are under threat of closure.

Our inward-looking structures are slow to react and are dominated by those who remember the heydays of 40+ years ago. Many societies are sitting on substantial financial resources, some are even in receipt of six figure bequests, but are still focussed on spending them on hardware. They should be looking at using them address the people issues that need to be addressed, whilst there are still enough ringers in those towers where ringing can thrive, so that they can refresh their local bands.

what is the new structure that will replace it, how will it remove those problems without creating a myriad of new ones? — Alan C

The new structures are already emerging. They need not result in a myriad of new problems as they will be flexible, responding from the bottom up, rather than the top-down Victorian approach. New local groupings will spring up, and ringers will align with others of similar interests.

The National 12 Bell Competition has successfully operated outside the Victorian structure for around five decades. The Association of Ringing Teachers has been delivering a considerable amount of teacher training for the past 15 years. It is not run on a shoestring and currently employs three part-time staff to help with workload and support its volunteers. The Whiting Society is run by a small group and focusses on ringing, rather than holding business meetings. The ASCY and SRCY are thriving and existed for centuries before the Victorians.

CRAG also resulted in the CCCBR replacing its committee structure with an executive and workgroups, where people can volunteer without first needing to be a representative member. We are also seeing new local groupings of ringers emerging, responding to needs at a local level, and challenging existing boundaries and monopolies.

Several territorial societies are also taking steps modernise. In recent weeks we have seen the Bedfordshire Association vote to restructure itself and simplify its General Committee and District structure. The Kent County Association is also considering altering its Bell Restoration Fund rules to move away from ‘advancing the Christian religion’ to ‘provide financial assistance to towers and churches’. This may sound subtle, but an increasing proportion of rings are hung in towers that are not, or are no longer churches.

Many societies still have their Victorian objectives in their rules such as “…promoting co-operation with incumbents and an appreciation and observation of the tower as part of God’s House; the recognition of the position of ringers as church workers; and the encouragement of ringing for Divine Service, the cultivation of change ringing and the preservation of the church bells in an efficient condition…” The ringing of bells and the art of change-ringing is an important cultural and heritage activity, appreciated by the wider community. It will be those societies who look at their objectives and update them that will survive in the new structure.

I'm sorry, but the the entire territorial society/CCCBR structure was set up around 125 - 150 years ago. It's not cohesive, it is inward looking, and is not suited to tackle the issues that we face in the modern world, both now and in the future. If we were setting up a structure today, we would set up something totally different.

Isn’t the problem that the Victorian reformers wanted to spread method ringing as they thought it would attract a better class of people into their belfries, and our territorial Guilds and Associations act as clubs for some of the more experienced method ringers. However, this excludes large chunk of the membership. Hence the apathy of the majority. The 1988 survey showed that around 50% of ringers had never rung a quarter peal, and today this percentage is probably even higher.

I had an interesting discussion this week with some people down South who I used to ring with around 40 years ago. They were bemoaning the fact that in their District there were several local bands that used to ring surprise, so District practices were an opportunity for ringers in these bands to meet up and ring together. However, there are now no surprise bands in the District. Some of the towers which had them are now silent, and the District practices are now the only place where any surprise ringing takes place, and even that is difficult.

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

Based on my experience with ART and Phil Gay's and my own experiences with mobile belfries, it will take decades, but there are probably 2 or 3 willing guinea pigs out of the 50 to start with, and gradually others will come on board, once they see the benefits.

The legacy of our Victorian structure is that ringing is very fragmented with around 50 territorial societies all doing their own thing in different ways. If only they were better able to work together, so much more could be achieved. I'm not suggesting imposing anything on any of them, it's more a case of developing something which is sufficiently good that one by one they may wish to join in. It may take a couple of decades, and some might never wish to join. But by working together as a team, inputting experience and ideas, the workload on any one participant would be far less.

From a project management perspective, doing the simple quick and dirty solution is not necessarily the most economic option in the long term. It's best to explore all options before proceeding.

I would have thought that any IT company would prefer to deal with one customer, rather than offer each of a particular group of customers a discount. That would save the IT company costs and hassle.

Also, you wouldn't need all of the customers to join at the outset. You could run a pilot at first with just a couple. Then the incentive for others to join would be the offer of a working system at a discount. You also get round the problem of a lot of societies needing to change their rules. Think outside the box and don't get bogged down by the Victorian mindset. Doing so will only make it more difficult to transition to a 21st century system later.

As ringers we need to appreciate that we can't continue to do things on shoestring, if we want to enjoy the benefits of bringing ringing into the 21st century. I am sure that the membership will appreciate the need and the costs, if it is put to them in the right way.

I am sure that we could pay for Membermojo or another system to be adapted, but in doing so let's not adapt it to preserve our antiquated Victorian ways of doing things, when we are bringing things into the 21st century, with all the benefits that will bring.

One suggestion that I made as a member of CRAG was to have dual membership. A fixed amount to go to the Central Council, and then another amount to go direct to the Guild/Association of your choice. I am sure that with modern technology this would be simple to do.

I have known towers where one bell swings into the louvres on one side of the tower and it shouts out above the others on that side, when you listen in sight of that side of the tower at ground level. Also, other towers where there is a badly fitting trap door or clock weight shaft adjacent one bell, which results in that bell shouting out above the others when listened to in the ringing room. Rather than a clapper problem, could it be one of these?

What on earth has either the sex or the racial background of people to do with maintaining bells? — J Martin Rushton

I can point you to a number of towers in London where the congregation is majority black Afro-Carribean, even the vicar and Churchwardents are non-white. I suspect that the same is true elsewhere outside London.

and funding slightly easier. I think any effect on recruitment would be indirect. — John de Overa

and associated physical infrastructure. — Tristan Lockheart

It would be useful to hear if there is a strategy in place by the CC to pursue this. — Peta Steadman Bee

In the 1990's I was a member of the CC's Ringing Centres Committee an we received a large grant from the Founders Livery Company to set up new ringing centres, with the objective of being a focus for the promotion of ringing and the training of new ringers. Whilst to start with this resulted in a number of new ringing centres being set up, this became increasingly difficult, and we had to work very hard to spend all the money. There was a focus on physical infrastructure, and some of the proposals were used to justify ambitious augmentation schemes, whereas there were other towers that would make ideal teaching centres with far less investment. We also learnt that successful ringing centres were about people. Once a key leader ceased ringing there, they became no different to any ordinary tower.

In the 2010's I was also involved in the CCCBR establishing the Ringing Foundation. This had the objective of levering in external finance to support ringing. We quickly realised that we could not make the case to external funders to plough in large sums of money, unless we had an effective training scheme in place. Hence, why we established what is now ART.

We also talked to a fund-raising consultant about approaching external bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. Following an initial enquiry to HLF we were advised that we would need to demonstrate a successful regional pilot first, before rolling out nationally. Also, we would need to put in some of our own money first, before they would consider matching it. The problem was that the CC and RF had limited funds, whereas it was the Guilds and Associations that held large reserves. We identified over £3m held in BRF's, but any suggestion to increase CCCBR affiliation fees, or for Guilds and Associations to change the amount allocated to their BRF, and allocate a proportion of their subs towards PR, recruitment and training projects, was highly controversial.

The RF did lever in significant donations from private individuals, and was able to allocate some grants. You can support a lot of very worthwhile PR, recruitment and training projects with the amount spent on just one typical restoration or augmentation project, but the other problem was that the ringing community generally is not yet in right mindset to do this on the scale that is needed, especially now.

It was very interesting that the Essex Association received two very large bequests totalling £373,000 in 2021, and many good ideas were put forward by its members, but I am not sure what progress there has been since https://eacr.org.uk/about/bequests.html

I think sometimes we need to be more open about our needs within a Committee of Officers and ask for volunteers who can update the website, or visit less visited towers with news of the activities available and not worry that people who might volunteer to do this are not the most experienced ringers. — Lucy Chandhial

I think a lot of our problems in ringing in the moment are down to a lack of ladership at all levels. Old Fred who has been a tower captain, District/Branch or Guild/Association officer for 20, 30 or 40 years is applauded. They are not challenged, and they prove a very difficult act for anyone to follow. Everything becomes stuck in a rut, becuse we always do things that way, and people with fresh ideas are discouraged and put off.

What we need are more maximum terms of service and contested elections. There are plenty of people who could take over. They might make mistakes to start with, but the old Fred's should be there in the background supporting them.

It's quite a major culture change from where we are at the moment in many of our ringing organisations, and I'm pretty sure that a few simple introductory guidlines on a CCCBR website are not going to have the necessary impact. Reaching down to the grass roots, such as the RfK learners, and bypassing the 'gatekeepers' who are resistant to change is what we need to do.

...given that it is claimed that younger generations may no longer be interested in engaging with email. — Jon Warbrick

I don't know where this comes from, but is seems untrue. You cant do much on-line these days without an e-mail address, and the younger generation do most things on-line. However, it is true that they are not particularly keen on Facebook, preferring instead to use other forms of social media, whilst many of the older generation still prefer Facebook.

Guilds such as my own already have effective email distribution and communication mechanisms in place, at Guild and Branch level (in our case based on MailMan). — John Harrison

So, I think, and I’m not yet an expert, that we couldn’t easily use this as a newsletter route (which is okay for Middlesex as we have a Google group for easy distribution of information to interested ringers (members or not). — Lucy Chandhial

One of the attractive features of integrated mailing lists (as provided by systems like LoveAdmin, MemberMojo, etc) is that it is possible to have more specialised lists, with members opting in or out themselves. — John Harrison

It seems that we have up to around 50 territorial ringing societies, all experimenting with different systems, but there is limited sharing of information between societies. There used to be a computer Coordination Committee. Is there now a Central Council Workgroup that could take this sharing role on? I am sure that societies would benefit from sharing the experience of other societies in setting up and using these systems.

My original suggestion was just that a simple CCCBR newsletter be prepared centrally and circualted electonically by societies to their members a coulple times a year, just to inform grass roots ringers of some of things going on which may interest them (e.g. the new logo and branding, the new mobile belfry, residential courses, teaching hubs, young ringers and the YRCA, putting ringing on a more sustainble footing etc).

Below this top level communication, there are various applications which societies can use to engage with their members such as Mailman, Mailchimp, Google Groups, Facebook groups, 'X' etc. Locally WhatsApp has become popular with a number of towers, and one of our new ringers who brings a lot of expertise in this field is helping us to move to Spond, which seems very well suited to our needs, both for our own local band and the District training sessions that we run.

Different things inerest different people. Therefore, beyond the top level communication to everyone, which needs to be limited to just a few times a year and kept relevant in order to avoitd it becoming ignored (how many call-change ringers are interested in surprise practices?), there needs to be the flexibility to establish different groups for different interests, and these may also extend across traditional Guild/Association/District/Branch boundaries.

However where can I access exprtise and find case studies of things that have worked, and which are the best systems to use. Also, just as important, what has failed, and why?

The grass roots ringers that you mention though include, I fear, many who only ring at their own tower and who see no point in joining the association. Your quarter peal courses sound fantastic, but are irrelevant to someone who rings plain hunt by the bell numbers and regards methods as beyond them. — J Martin Rushton

I'm afraid that you're still missing my point. Whereas there are some grass roots ringers who only ring in their own tower, and not interested in doing more, there are many others who are keen to progress, but unable to do so. In my experience there have been a lot of people taking up ringing since Covid, especially last year, and they are very keen, but frustrated because they are held back in their own towers.

If you still don't believe me, have a look at my wife's latest podcast on www.funwithbells.com where she interviews three of the ringers who learnt in our local ART Hub last year. Andy Pearce was one of those who previously rang in a call-change tower as a teenager, where the local band was not interested in ringing elsewhere, however he has really enjoyed ringing with us and is doing fantastically well progressing into method ringing. The band at his previous call change tower has died out, and it has been a silent tower for quite a few years now. He is far from unique, as we are often turning up lapsed ringers who are quite impressed how much rapid progress they can make in method ringing with the Learning the Ropes scheme.

Another example is that in our Guild most of the Districts take turns in holding a practice at Winchester Cathedral in August. Last year each of these practices attracted between 50 and 70 ringers, mostly rounds and call change ringers, to gain the first experience of ringing rounds on 10, 12 and 14 bells. These pracctices were far better attended than the traditional fayre of Guild/Association/District/Branch practices and events.

The point I am making is that in this day and age, if we could only communicate better with this group of new ringers, and make them aware of what is possible outside their own tower, we could have a far more vibrant ringing community. However I fear that if we sit back and do not adapt because of the tired old cliche that these people are not interested, these keen people are either likely to give up and do something else, or be ground down by the system and just be another ringer that only, at best, rings shalky plain hunt by numbers in their own tower. In doing so, we will be losing a lot of the more able recruits and potentially good method ringers.

You can't tell these people what they want, and expect them to come to you, fit in with your existing offering, and join your Guild or Association. You need to listen to them, find out what they really want, and adapt to provide it. Then they will see the point and enthusiastically join and take part.

“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning." - Bill Gates

“If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.” — Tony Robbins

I think you are missing my point. It's not about numbers for the sake of numbers, but there are a lot of grass roots ringers out there who are not engaged, and many Guilds and Associations, Districts and Branches are stuck in a rut, doing the same as they were doing a long time ago. Many are also struggling to find volunteers to fill vacancies. Contested elections are a thing of the past.

However I've come across many grass roots ringers who are on the verge of giving up because the support that they receive is so backward. Only about 50% of ringers have ever got as far as ringing a quarter peal. Only about 12,000 ringers rang one or more quarter peals last year (Coronation year) out of an estimated 30,000 ringers.

As a District Ringing Master I have been focussing on getting the newer ringers in my District up to the stage of tringing heir first quarter peal, and have 18 who have signed up for our regular fortnighltly Saturday morning ringing school to help them reach this stage. Demand is so high that we have increased the number of groups to three and now have a waiting list. These inexperienced ringers bring with them a lot of enthusiasm, and useful skills from their day jobs.

As a member of ART I also regulalry receive requests from ringers from elsewhere who would like extra tuition as they are frustrated with progress in their local tower. They are willing and often expect to pay. Some have even paid quite a lot to attend residential ringing courses, and want more. It is perhaps no coincidence that last years NorthWest ringing course was three times over-subscribed for the elementry group, whilst the more advanced groups had almost as many applicants as places available.

Therefore the evidence that I have seen is that rather than run things on a shoestring, the same as we have always done, there is a vast un-tapped group of people out there who could become more engaged and revitalise many of our towers, Guilds, Associations, Districts and Branches, by bringing with them their enthusiasm, fresh ideas and the resources needed to do things better.

Whilst MemberMojo moves us away from the old fashioned way of collecting subscriptions via the tower correspondent at each tower, and into the 21st century, I wonder if there is not another major benefit here? We've talked in the past about the fragmented communications in the exercise, and the difficulty of engaging with grass roots ringers. Hence the proposal for a Direct Membership Ognaisation, which seems to be stuck.

However, with so many Guilds and Associations now using MemberMojo, could the Central Council consider producing a quarterly newsletter to be districuted electronically, by Guilds and Asociations with items of interest for grass roots ringers? With project 2030 on the horizon, I am sure that there is plenty of material that would interest the grass roots ringer, rather than talking about methods and peals which they will never ring etc. There is also potential to collaborate on this with the Rining World and ART's Tower Talk.

All many grass roots ringers usually see for their membrship is a certificate and their name printed in an annual report. However I know that many would like to see more, and this would be a start.

I don’t know how many of you have followed the link and completed the survey, but as ringers we are often too focussed on our own perspective. At this stage it is a consultation about what categories of intangible rather than tangible heritage should be included.The Convention text groups Intangible Cultural Heritage into 5 categories or “domains”:

• oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage;
• performing arts;
• social practices, rituals and festive events;
• knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;
• traditional craftsmanship

The following additional categories are also being consulted about.

• traditional games and sports; and
• culinary traditions / knowledge.

To be listed, itangible cultural heritage needs to be something that is currently practiced and recognised by the wider community. Therefore, things such as the ringing of bells to mark the new year would seem to qualify quite easily.

A while ago I attended a Heritage Lottery Fund seminar for applicants, and one of the other applicants there was a group promoting Caribbean Cookery. As a bellringer this might seem a little odd, and not heritage in the same that restoring a set of bells is. However, by participating in the seminar I came to realise that those who came across on the Empire Windrush had brought their culture with them, and several generations later it is now established as one of the UK’s diverse cultural traditions.

Therefore, it is important that we as ringers do not stay out of sight in our church towers, in our own little world, but engage with the wider community in every way that we can. Otherwise, we will lose out.

I was a member of the CCCBR’s Ringing Centres Committee for quite a long time. I saw quite a few proposals to establish new ringing centres, but these were often focussed on doing something with a particular ring of bells, rather than a well thought out plan to recruit and train new ringers. There are many towers out there which with just a little investment would make ideal teaching towers, rather than undertake an ambitious project elsewhere.

We also have a problem in the exercise that many Guilds and Associations have been focussed on hardware projects for the last five or six decades, but so many rings of bells have been restored, and with modern fittings they now need less maintenance going forward. The need for new rings of bells and augmentations is also not top of most PCC’s list of priorities. Therefore, we need to review our priorities.

With much bell restoration fund money invested in short term deposit accounts, and losing value through inflation, we could invest that money far more effectively in people projects. A typical grant of £10k spent on one major bell restoration project at one tower, would go a long way to helping to regenerate local bands at sevral towers.

If members see a large balance in the BRF they have less incentive to raise funds for it. With property prices where they are, in recent years several Guilds and Associations have also received large windfall bequests, far more than they know what to do with.

The CofE has a dilemma. It needs to attract younger people, but it cannot afford to upset the older members of its congregations. It also has a large number of buildings which are inflexible, not situated in ideal locations and expensive to insure, heat and maintain.

In our local Deanery we have a ring of three in a small village. Five years ago, they were augmented to six, but there is only one service a month. The benefice has two other village churches with ring of bells, but since Covid there are just two ringers left in the benefice, and they don’t have the time or energy to train a new band.

A neighbouring benefice has four churches, two with bells. One of these is a ring of five which were installed fifteen years ago in an empty tower. This is now a ‘festival’ church with a handful of services each year. The Christmas service is at 8am, and the church has no churchwardens.

Another benefice also has two towers with bells and they too both have difficulties filling churchwarden and PCC vacancies. One of these churches is also now also a ‘festival’ church.

Evensong is now almost non-existent at any church in our Deanery, having been replaced at the larger churches with family orientated teatime gatherings.

One thing is certain, we cannot expect ringing to continue the way it has continued over recent decades. We cannot restore every ring bells and add more. We need to recognise the realities adapt. We have significant resources at our disposal and as ‘Ring for the King’ has shown, an activity which many members of the public are willing to participate in, and these new people are needed to help address our own demographic challenges and preserve the exercise.

PS Talking to Annie Hall, Secretary of the Coventry Diocesan Guild earlier about another matter, I learnt that investment of a large bequest that they had received a few years ago is managed by the Diocese and held in long term investments. As a result of the income that this generates, the Guild BRF is now offering grants of up to 50% to major projects.