Ringing Forums

These BRF’s are therefore accumulating reserves faster than they are spending them, and as a whole I estimate that they hold enough in reserve to fund the next ten years grants, without more income coming in. Given that Guilds and Associations divert a percentage or fixed amount of their subscriptions into their BRF’s, they could consider pausing this for a while and perhaps diverting this money into training and development, and other benefits for their members. — Roger Booth

The DDA minutes have just arrived, the following bits seem directly relevant to this:

The Ringing Enhancement Fund had offered a £1,000 grant to Derby Cathedral for a dumb-bell and a £1,000 grant to Breadsall towards costs of a dumb-bell and ringing room refurbishment.

Transfer to the Fund to Enhance Ringing It was proposed that a further £2,000 grant be ‘ring fenced’ for the Fund in the general fund. This was agreed. It was also proposed that the General Treasurer would inform the BRF Treasurer of the total amount
‘ring fenced’ for the Fund in the General Account.

There might not be an easy way of extricating money from BRFs (although I suspect it is possible) but exactly as you say, there's no reason why you have to keep putting money into it.

stays are designed to break, and are sometimes either not bolted in properly or cracked but not visibly so. I certainly wouldn't use this method.

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. — Roger Booth

Yes, and it wouldn't need a big financial outlay to do it either, compared to the cost of an average rehang. I think your point about critical mass is very important - it's much harder to start a new band than it is to reinvigorate an existing one, providing the band are up for it, of course. I know what worked in our tower, but I'm not sure it would be generally applicable - any thoughts on what might be on the menu?

I don't think there's any issue with people ringing cross-boundary here either, it's just that mostly they don't. That probably wasn't an issue when there were more active advanced towers, but it is increasingly a problem.

The Whiting Society of Ringers did that in 1968. What stops any group of ringers from doing what you suggest right now? — Alan C

Indeed they did, and I know of another more recent example. No, there's nothing to stop others doing so, perhaps the fact that they haven't bothered with that or with engaging with the existing structures means there's not much of a need in the first place?

Though that would seem likely to lead to greater fragmentation — Alan C

Why would that necessarily be an issue?

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

Why not just let groups of ringers form up and then decide what scratches their particular itches? What's appropriate for an urban area with high population density and lots of towers may not be for a rural area. And "hard" organisational boundaries are a demostrably a bad idea, why not allow for overlap, so towers can be in more than one group if they want?

If there's a need for provision of central services such as online calendaring, tower contact lists, chat groups, insurance, maintenance advice, teacher training, safeguarding and whatever else then we already have two organisations that either provide much of that already or could do so if required. Why not do that and allow ringer groups to "Pick & Mix" whatever services they need?

Arthur was frustrated with the boring and seemingly interminable business meetings of the Chester Diocesan Guild at that time, which not infrequently overran into, and sometimes wiped out, the time allocated to evening ringing. He determined to form a group dedicated to making ringing enjoyable and actually getting on with it, rather than debate and discussion.

That was 56 years ago, apparently nothing much has changed. It's probably about time to accept that it won't, and just move on.

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. — Roger Booth

I'm certain it is, particularly in the newer recruits.

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. — Roger Booth

It's hard enough if you can already ring Surprise, it's incredibly difficult if you can't. My last QP inside was over 2 years ago and was PB6, in order to ring on 8 I've had to move directly from that to Surprise, because the only reasonably regular 8 bell ringing in the area is at that level. I've been told a couple of times I should have been ringing Plain Bob Major for X months / years before even attempting Cambridge - the reply I'd like to make is "Where, exactly?" but I've always bit my tongue. At one tower I was berated for messing up and when I reminded the "leading light" that I got very few chances to ring on 8 the reply was "Well, I can't help you" - and they were stood there with 7 other Surprise Major ringers :rage: I'm grateful to the groups that will let me ring with them but even then there are some strange attitudes - for example I felt they must be getting bored only ringing Cambridge for me so I learned Yorkshire as well - but have been told point blank that I'm not allowed to ring it!

We need to welcome their ideas and engage with them, rather than just the 2% who are currently engaged. — Roger Booth

My observation is that branch "establishments" are happy to have new volunteers - as long as they do what they are told, which is invariably "Whatever we have done for the last 40 years". Trying to reinvigorate the current territorial structure seems like a waste of time and effort, better to just let it die and use the available time and effort to create something fit for today.

there is a shift from community based values to values based on competition and individualism. — Tom Ridgman

That may be generally true, but if you are a rampant individualist I doubt ringing would be an attractive hobby to you in the first place, so I'm doubtful that the generalisation really applies.

Its struck me for a while that the Victorian processes embodied in territorial societies AGMs, elections to choose between candidates etc is well out of kilter with three months spent trying to identify a single candidate for a post and twist their arms to do it. — Tom Ridgman

Yes, that alone should be a huge signal that the current system is just broken, but apparently isn't. One issue is that most of the people in positions of influence in associations are heavily invested in a system that's all they have known since they started ringing 40/50/60 years ago. Turkeys aren't going to vote for Xmas.

nothing to be sorry about :wink: because you are spot on. The doublethink that bemoans the parlous state of many ringing association whilst being intractably opposed to burning them with fire and starting over is a constant source of wonder to me... :chin:

Surely the legacy of our Victorian structure is that what was entirely fragmented began to be pulled together in regional and national organisations. — Alan C

There's an assumption there that there were insurmountable problems with the previous state of affairs and that the Victorian structures are an improvement - the fossilised state of many ringing associations suggests not. The current organisation of ringing is closely aligned with CofE diocesan boundaries, because the impetus behind the formation of ringing societies was Belfry Reform and the CofE wanting to impose their control. In my area, prior to Belfry Reform there was a lot of movement of ringers over an area that's now covered by 4 different associations, because that made both geographic and social sense. That's mostly stopped, and ringing in the area has suffered greatly because of it.

I'm not going to make a 3 hour round trip every week to Derby to ring, but I do ring in three other associations, because they are the towers that are closest to me. In fact I don't ring in any other tower in my "home" association. I'm a notable exception in terms of cross-association ringing, very few ringers do, even experienced ones.

There are a myriad of issues with the current structures, to the point where the cluster of towers to the north of me have formed a breakaway group (although they wouldn't call it that) that's independent of both the territorial association and the CCCBR. It's based on geography and social links and is vibrant as a result.

For the context of readers not from Yorkshire, two of our branches are defunct, and a third bears a close resemblance to defunctness. — Tristan Lockheart

The Halifax Archdeaconry group that I mentioned earlier seem to be doing fairly well, although they are in Yorkshire rather than being part of the YACR. Most of their communication and organisation seems to be at the grass roots level and pretty dynamic.

The CC doesn't help itself though. Some of the stuff we get sent to pass onto our members is decidedly dull, and needs to be translated into a more engaging format. — Tristan Lockheart

True, but if you steer clear of the organisation stuff, minutes etc I think it has got a lot better, take this for example.

No doubt these issues are not confined to Yorkshire. — Jane Lynch

Due to geography I ring in four different associations, one of them Yorkshire. They all seem pretty much the same, Yorkshire seems like one of the better ones. I think member apathy is more of an indicator than root cause. As I understand it, the current diocese-based structure is mostly a legacy Oxford Movement Belfry Reform, as a means of the CofE gaining control of ringing. It often doesn't reflect what happens at grass roots any more. I don't think it's really worth rescuing, better to let it quietly fade away and replace it with something better. That's already happening in some places (from the YACR website):

Also in the south, the Halifax Archdeaconry Guild holds meetings and act as a cluster alongside the Branch, and members tend to belong to both organisations.

They are a geographical grouping where there's a lot of interaction between towers. One of the things that's struck me most is that it's normal for beginners to be "out and about" ringing at more than one tower. There's now often not enough critical mass in individual towers to allow people to progress much beyond PH&PB, so smaller clusters of towers where it's normal to ring regularly at more than one seems like a better model for addressing problems like that.

As for the role of the CCCBR, I think they already provide useful resources and there's scope for more, e.g. the discussion about membership management systems. But a lot of the CCCBR's contact with ringers is indirect, via the mostly moribund diocesan structure. Breaking those barriers down so the CCCBR is seen more as a "provider of useful stuff" by rank and file ringers rather than "something only our reps care about" seems like a good approach to me.

sure, nothing in life is free :wink:

Nothing you choose is going to be effort-free, any security updates would likely make up just a small part of that.

It doesn't sound like MemberMojo is a particularly good fit and customising it will likely be both expensive and time consuming, if indeed MemberMojo are prepared to take on the job the first place. Worst case, it may not be feasible to make your required changes at all. It would be better to choose a package that does most of what you want out of the box and adapt your processes to it rather than the other way around. Ask Birmingham City Council :rofl:

You could always run a pilot with a couple candidate packages first, with mock data.

I've done it when there was no other option, to reattach pieces of shrouding that were inaccessible when the bell was down. I looped climbing slings through the spokes of the wheel and then used rope to tie the slings off to the frame. I did this on both sides starting with the side that resulted in the stay being held against the slider, then the opposite side. So even if the stay went the wheel wouldn't move. I also did all the work from the side of the wheel, keeping out of the the bell pit.

Because I was drilling the wheel there was a risk of accidentally pushing it off the stay, so tying it was definitely the lower risk option.

I'm sure you are right :roll: and if that's the case it's unlikely a commercial membership service will be around that long.

I don't disagree with your comments about the current territorial setup being outdated (I ring in 3 different associations most weeks), but I think you'd probably want 2-3 willing guinea pig assocs if there was to be any chance of success developing something.

1. To be eligible for election to the status of Qualified Member a ringer shall have rung to a method either
a) on tower bells 720 changes on either a working bell or the treble; or the tenor covering to 1260 changes; or
b) 720 changes on a pair of handbells.
2. Associate Members are those ringers who have not yet qualified for (1) above.

The choice of name seems a bit odd though, as not all of us are Residents of Gods Own County.