Ringing Forums

Does this mark the end of direct membership being seen as the way of increasing the funding of ringing — Simon Linford

Personally I'd be prepared to contribute to a direct membership organisation, a likely level of subscription would be less than a round of drinks after a practice. But first I'd like to know what I'd get for my contribution. Has any consideration been given to what a direct membership "package" would look like?

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.

I'm not disagreeing... :grimace:

Broadley Little Bob Maximus is not much better. Even I could ring it :lol:

That just piles more work onto those who are engaged at a level that is remote from towers. — Alan C

That entirely depends on what the "work" is and how much of it is really necessary. For example I get dead tree annual reports from associations that clearly take a lot of effort and cost to produce and distribute, and after a cursory skim they invariably go straight into the recycle bin. Very little of the content hasn't already been published electronically, and a lot of what's in there is out of date by the time it gets to me.

Your position seems to be that the work of the existing associations has sufficient value for it to be preserved, which pretty much requires preserving the structures around it. It's clear that's barely sustainable now, and in a few years it won't be. My position is that we need to start by determining the needs of the people who are going to be ringing for the next few decades, and then creating structures to support them. I see very little value in funding and preserving something that is primarily of interest to those approaching the end of their ringing careers.

Local government has reorganised many times since Victorian times — Alan C

And ringing associations haven't. And it shows.

If they can't do better than local government, associations are doomed anyway :wink:

There's an immediately obvious way that change would help - if existing associations can't find enough people to fill their posts then reducing the total number of posts by centralising and removing duplication would achieve that.

We have a three-level setup at the moment, CCCBR, Association and Branch. Most of the activity that does still take place is at the branch level anyway, so...

there's no reason why the existing bell advisors can't remain, just part of a flattened organisation. Centralising things does not automatically imply being less agile, less accountable, less responsive and more bureaucratic - words that I'm sure you could apply to some of the existing BRFs in any case...

I've seen widespread complaints that existing associations suffer from lack of interest in being "an officer", low turnout and general disinterest, yet if any sort of change is suggested. it's usually shot down. You can't have it both ways - people from the "outside" will not to want to engage with organisations that admit they are struggling but won't countenance change. The result will be predictable.

Change seems to have worked for the CCCBR, I've seen no solid justification of why it wouldn't also work for Associations, which if anything are in an even worse state.

we are hosting a branch practice tonight as it happens, but I doubt the level will get much beyond PB6. Branch practices can only reflect the level of ringing in an area and they are too infrequent to be a meaningful learning opportunity. If a branch wants to bring its ringers on it needs to be running multi-tower sessions weekly, or at least fortnightly, and that isn't happening in any of the associations I ring in. In one there's an email every month announcing a 10 bell practice, invariably followed by one two weeks later cancelling it because of lack of ringers. Many of the people running the associations seem to be catering to the situation as it was 40 years ago, not as it is today. I just think they've had their day.

You don't need an association to run a BRF, there's a strong case that it would be better done nationally. Many BRFs have large amounts of cash that they are sitting on, with a central fund it would be possible to fully fund major projects and perhaps even support proper upgrade and maintenance budgets, rather than the current "Wait until it breaks" setup.

And my point about the branch practices is that if a tower that has been completely isolated for the last 40 years now makes up 50% of the attendance at the events, it's hardly a sign that the association is in good health.

offer people an intensive course of handling lessons, so that they are ringing rounds in a few weeks. — Roger Booth

Do you think a similar intensive approach would work for more advanced ringing as well? I know the logistics are harder as you need more helpers, but it might be easier to get them if the purpose was clear, and if the commitment wasn't open ended?

It might take more effort in the short term, but it saves an awful lot of wasted time and effort in the long term. — Roger Booth

I think another thing is to not be afraid about turning people down, teacher time is a scarce resource and needs to be allocated wisely. We've turned people down, not all for the same reasons and not without thought and discussion, but I'm glad we did - our retention rate since 2018 is 80%.

It is almost impossible to learn anything if all you are going to do is ring it for a few minutes each month. — Roger Booth

I can vouch for that, I taught myself it on the tower sim + tied bell, it took about 3 weeks of several sessions a week, but as I said I already knew Cambridge Minor, plus I'd previously taught myself a number of other Minor methods the same way over COVID. The problem is that my home tower isn't at that level so I have to find other chances to ring those methods, and whilst the sim and moving ringers are pretty good, transferring to real ringers is not straightforward - as I'm finding for Major ropesight.

I think that the rush to Cambridge is a symptom of the current problems in the exercise. — Roger Booth

I don't think that's anything new though, it has long been held up as a lofty goal - it was when I was starting out at at an active Surprise Major tower (that band has now folded).

A more sustainable approach would be to do it the hard way and develop a band that ring together regularly each week and help them work up to it by learning some simpler methods first. — Roger Booth

The two towers I ring in regularly are trying to do that. One is starting from a low base (decades of poor PH5, at best), the other is "Solid PB6". Both are making progress but it's slow. What's made a difference at one is the more regular attendance of 3-4 people who can ring at Surprise Minor level, that's given the others a solid band around them. However it's noticeable that some people haven't really progressed in several years and I have my doubts if they'll get much further, certainly not to Surprise.

There's nothing wrong with people stopping at a level, but if Surprise ringing is to survive beyond the set of people who can already ring it, I doubt that the current environment is going to achieve it. As you correctly said, they key is regular practice, a minimum of weekly, and the number of areas that can provide that seems to be shrinking. If there is a need "More than one tower" organisations could address, it's that - and no, the traditional monthly branch practices are not it.

It's honestly not particularly difficult — Barbara Le Gallez

Agreed it's not, particularly if you already know Cambridge Minor. The difficulty I have is with ropesight on 8, not so much the method. I can ring it fine on a tower sim + tied bell, but 2 half courses every 2 weeks with real ringers means it's slow going. I've learned Yorkshire as well, but when I asked to ring it I was told no.

But on the upside, Minor seems so much easier now :lol:

The important thing isn't my particular situation though, it's the truth of @Phillip George's comment that it's getting increasingly difficult to get beyond basic stuff because there are fewer opportunities to get support - the Major practices that I do go to are rely on the attendance of people from multiple towers, and the 10 bell practice in the branch hasn't happened for many months, despite an email every month about it. And in my "home" association there's nothing at all at that sort of level.

I can ring to surprise royal standard. If I were to learn to ring today that target would be an almost impossible suggestion (speaking generally of course) — Phillip George

You are not wrong. There's a chasm between the level that towers can get people up to on their own (generally simple Plain Minor methods) and anything more complicated. If there's a gap that any "more than one tower" organisation needs to fill, it's that. I've been told several times I should be ringing PB8 which is reasonable advice, except there aren't any practices at that level round here any more. So it's either Cambridge Surprise Major or give up any thoughts of further progress.

I think that the problem is that many societies and their Districts and Branches are continuing to do what they have always done (at least in living memory). Those in charge dislike change, and this is what needs to be tackled. — Roger Booth

Yes. But that's not going to change with "those in charge" still there. Keen people prefer to get on with ringing and organising things that are are directly relevant to them, not sitting on committees. To many recent starters, "The Association" plays little part in their ringing.

Your categorisation of association membership chimes what I've seen. Most of the "stalwarts" round here still ring, but it's primarily advanced stuff with each other, few of them put much in at the grass roots level. My own tower was in the "disconnected" group for many years but it's undergone a renaissance, driven by the enthusiastic adult starters / returners who have come along. We have a new TC, Steeplekeeper & ART teacher, all drawn from the newer members of the band. As well as practices and service ringing we arrange our own training sessions, tower outings, summer BBQ, Xmas meal etc. And we've had our bells rehung, sound control, simulator etc.

We have joined the local Association and we've had advice and funding from the BRF, which was helpful. We now go as a group to occasional branch outings - it's noticeable that our tower usually makes up 1/3 - 1/2 of the attendees.

In business you need to follow the market, and in ringing that is what we need to do. — Roger Booth

And that means listening to your customers and adapting your business to that market. Many of the associations don't, and the consequences will be the same as for businesses. Of course ringing needs some organisation, but it needs to fit current needs rather than just being a comfort blanket for the old hands.

I don't agree with absolutely everything that came out of CRAG, but it's indisputable that it was badly needed and that it's reinvigorated the CCCBR. That mindset doesn't seem to have percolated down to the associations, who seem intent on propping up what we already have and is clearly failing, rather than looking at their area's needs and starting from there.

and how are you going to achieve any of that when membership of associations is voluntary, and patchy at best?

Trying to impose conditions like those will just lead to people not starting, or giving up, I certainly would and I'm heavily involved with my tower and ring in several association's areas.

I don't understand the desire to prop up the current associations, most of which aren't fit for purpose any longer.

People do not fit into neat stereotypes anywa — John Harrison

I agree, I think basing recruitment on one narrow categorisation isn't a useful approach.

They are presumably competitive and individualistic types — Barbara Le Gallez

As an oldish hi-tech worker who works with youngish hi-tech workers, they are as diverse as any other group. I don't think they are all particularly competitive and individualistic, although some will be of course. One of the things that struck me about ringing when I started was the long-standing relationship between what we now call "tech" and ringing, e.g. the maths links, online method & bell databases, phone apps, simulators etc. I'd concentrate on that.

You can tell them that even Knuth references change ringing :lol:

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?