Ringing Forums

Wasn't it much easier in the 'good old days' — Nick Cronin

Yes, but in the good old days I was younger and more sure footed. Now I find I need to take great care if there isn't a rope or handrail.

would it not be more sensible to judge an organisation by its results rather than focusing on what you consider a silly name?
I hope recruits aren't put off by what (to a non ringer) are silly method names.

don't suppose anyone wants to perform badly, but why people ring is their own business and their motives are not subject to the a — Alan C

I'm sure no one wants to perform badly, but if their motivation doesn't include performance as an objective, I've they don't see themselves as performers, the question might not enter their heads.
And I don't think motivation is 'their own business' if it undermines what others can achieve. And it is certainly a legitimate interest for anyone investing lots of time and energy into their teaching and support.

If bands perform badly, that reflects on their ability rather than their motivation — Alan C

In most cases it will depend on both, since motivation will be a strong determinant of whether they try to improve their ability, whether they are aware if they have done so, and whether they choose to inflict what they are capable of on an involuntary audience.

individual cases are different, so a standard answer might not be the best. That doesn't mean do nothing, it means look for a better solution. On a narrow staircase how about installing the rope/rail around the central column, where you are unlikely to stand anyway?
I have to say, as I get older and less steady I appreciate having my hand on something, in case needed.

What do you want to achieve in ringing? — Phillip George

The long list, even omitting according to preference, all seem to be secondary, means to one core reason. I get reward from helping others to succeed and fulfil themselves as ringers, but if I got no fulfilment from my own ringing, now or in the past, why would I put the effort into helping ringers rather than say footballers or wood carvers? And why would I want to be part of a community of people with whom I didn't share a any aspiration?
I agree that everyone doesn't want to ting S12 or whatever, and most people don't aspire to win competitions, but surely there aspire to some level of performance that gives therm and their audience satisfaction. There has to be San element of fulfilment in the ringing itself, otherwise why do it? If all you want is the social side just go straight to the pub. If all you want is to serve your church, give out hymn books or make the coffee which is much easier, or join the choir where the average standard of performance may be higher.

never play the 'desparate for new ringers' card — Peter Sotheran

Agree entirely. I used the phrase 'begging bowl or welcome sign' in the first of my articles on relationship with the public for our branch newsletter, see: https://jaharrison.me.uk/New/Articles/UsThem/

interesting that you frame the constraint on a DMO in terms of the weaknesses of local organisation rather than as a weakness of the CC per se. Your views in that direction are well known but I hadn't linked them directly with the problem of making the transition to a DMO.

but a couple of sentences after saying we need buy in, he does reiterate that: 'we really need to do it'.
So let's not sit cynically on the sidelines expecting nothing to happen, but rather engage in whatever ways we can to help make something happen.
People said the CC would never reform itself, and a few attempts by various presidents did fizzle out. But once the work had been put in to make the case for change, there was a strong majority in favour.
As I have said before, if we were there already it would be accepted as normal. The problem is working out how to make the transition from where we are now. That's what makes folk uncomfortable.

someone who was on a geology field trip. They were in the middle of a field and were told they had to wear hard hats. The only injury was when one of the hats blew off, bounced across the field and gave someone else a nasty gash on their face. — Robin Shipp

That story should be kept and quoted to anyone demanding unsupported precautions in the name of 'health and safety'.
In fact anyone using the term 'health an safety' as justification is likely not to have thought through the rationale, because health risks and safety risks are usually quite different. Health risks are generally long term side effects, often 'slow burn' and not appreciated, of things working as designed, whereas safety risks are generally the immediate effects of something going wrong. Think asbestosis v falling off scaffolding.

what are the hazards? If the only one is the trapdoor then it might be simpler to pad the edge. Hard hats are essential if there's a risk of anything falling on you but one downside if worn when moving in specs with limited headroom is that they increase the number of impacts because your brain 'knows' where your head ends but not where the helmet ends..

Overall though I still think it's had a negative impact, at least at the present time, because the last four of your points appear to have completely eclipsed the first tw — John de Overa

I think it's hard to weigh up the balance because you can't put a number on each poor and con, and in any case it would be comparing apples and bananas.
The test is to compare ringing now with what it would be like if the church had never taken over ringing with Belfry Reform. Things would certainly be different but would they be better or worse? It would be an interesting exercise to try to work that out.

Yes, relevant to safeguarding in general, but the responsibility for keeping reasonable things like records of DBS clearances is down to the church rather than the ringers. I was responding to the earlier comment about attendance records, which are in the first instance at least help by ringers, and whose retention for extreme lengths of time is more onerous.

most of that is about concerns,a.legations, etc. The only thing relevant to our recent discussion is 'records of children's activities'. One could infer if a child is present at ringing ghen it becomes a 'children's activity', but ringing with no children present clearly isn't (unless you follow the argument that you have to record everything that everyone does in order to prove that children weren't there.

Seems like it. The irony is that at the vast majority of the ringing at which my presence is recorded there are no minors or vulnerable adults. The rationale seems to be that the record is needed to prove that. But if we follow that line of reasoning we should be recording all aspects of our lives where we meeti other people, to prove there are none present. In fact we should probably record everything we do to prove there were not other times that we shopuld have recorded.
Maybe we should applyn the mathematical tool of reductio ad absurdum. Would that help?

Clearly it's not possible to 'keep getting better' indefinitely, so that simplistic goal is easy to shoot down by those who don't want to make any effort. But the CC vision doesn't say nthat, it says: 'That no ringer should hit a barrier to their own progression'.
At first sight that just refers to external barriers (poor training, lack of opportunity, etc) but I think it should also refer to internal barriers. An obvious barrier is that facing a ringer who hasn't been equipped with core skills during the formative process. Another, relevant to this discussion, is one who has been deprived of a wider view of ringing and the ringing community, leading to a closed approach, to both external engagement and personal development.
These are often quoted as the failings of many 'local ringers' but they are in fact failings of the bands, leaders and teachers from whom they acquired all they know about ringing and their approach to it.

I think we are still dealing with the damage caused by Belfry Reform, historically change ringing was separate from service ringing, and I'm sure that's what drove innovation and standards, not clanking away on a Sunday for 30 minutes — John de Overa

Belfry Reform was the biggest thing to hit ringing since the Restoration but it is widely misunderstood. For example, before it there was no 'service ringing'. Services were introduced by chiming and 'ringing' was completely divorced from services. Ringing often took place on Sundays (to the displeasure of the church) because that was the only day most workers were free. Even Ellacombe (the earliest reformer) didn't want ringing for services. He wanted his ringers to practice their art twice a week and to attend services, but for services he invented his eponymous apparatus to improve the quality of chiming.
Belfry Reform had two huge benefits:
1 - It promoted change ringing. One effect of that can be seen in the dramatic growth of peal ringing
2 - It brought all ringers together, not just the elites and those in the major centres. We might deride the ringing societies but they served all ringers and at the time they clearly met a need, with far higher participation rates than anything seen today.
But not all its effects were beneficial:
3 - It disconnected ringing from the public. Ringing for services eclipsed ringing for public events in the public mind, so it is largely seen as a church thing rather than a community thing. The appetite is still there, as shown with recent ringing for the Queen, but such public ringing is now the exception whereas once it was the norm.
4 - It disconnected ringers from the public. After ringing some of us join the congregation (a tiny fraction of the populace) while the rest go quietly home, whereas once we would have gone out to join in the communal festivities of which we were a part. Our striking competitions are mainly gatherings of other ringers, whereas pre-reform ringing was a communal entertainment and the turnout would have made the sponsor enough profit to pay for the prizes.
5 - It fossilised the structure. The organisations set up were designed for the needs of the time but they achieved a permanence that made them hard to change, even when the need becomes apparent.
6 - It imposed a 'year zero' mentality. Most ringers believe things have always been as they have been since Belfry Reform. If they have heard of the Reform they probably think it was just about misbehaving ringers being persuaded out of the ale house and into the pew.
The future will not be like the past, but we could learn a lot from our past that might help us to create a better future.

that's not the most obvious test of democracy, but of course it is possible, as indeed it was before the reform.
The premise of your example was 'if they can't get the relevant committee interested', which implies a degree of engagement already and a desire to escalate the matter to the next level. Each workgroup has an Executive sponsor to whom the workgroup lead is responsible, so he/she would be the person with whom to raise the question, and there's no need to wait until the annual meeting. Of course if you also disagreed with the Executive then you could raise it at the annual meeting, and seek the support of other members.

it is less democratic in that individuals get fewer chances to make their voices heard. — Barbara Le Gallez

I think you've misunderstood how the Council does and did work. Under the old regime the only requirement for officers or committees to report to members was at the annual meeting, and apart from electing committee members there wasn't much more voting than now. Under the new regime the officers are empowered to do more, but they have to report on their decisions monthly, and members can 'call in' any decision if required.

I think my comment about life support hasn't quite been understood. Of course life support for a band is better than death, and worth the effort to succeed and get back to health. But I was referring more generally to ringing. To be sustainable in the long term it needs to do more than avoid dying.
Excellence at all levels is a good focus, and I would interpret it in terms of attitude more broadly rather than narrowly in terms of just striking.

It's easy to assume that most young ringers are good ringers whereas I think it's truer to say that there's some heavy selection going on ... the dedicated, and almost by definition, good ones who stick around. — John de Overa

I'm sure that's true. Of the ringers I've taught it's the good ones who are still ringing. And I'm sceptical that youngsters have more alternative uses of their time than older folk. I suspect they only stick of they get something out of ringing, whereas older people may be motivated by other factors, loyalty, service, etc.
I remember when I met Pat Canon in 1964 he bemoaned the fact that most of his band only rang out of duty, and weren't really interested in ringing. That remark stuck with me, and I think it is very relevant. Do we want keen ringers who will ensure ringing thrives? Or do we want it kept on life support by well meaning people who aren't that keen?