Ringing Forums

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?

Being central is compounded by being one layer removed. Starting from scratch we would have a (inter)national body, with a regional structure of suitable granularity to operate locally. That would enable it to 'do' things through its local structure, which would be its visible face. But for historical reasons we don't have that. The Council is loose federation of independent societies, so what it can 'do' is limited, and so is its visibility.
If you read the Council's history that wasn't the original intention. The plan was for a national ringing society but its proponents (a committee) didn't promote the idea very well. They assumed it would be a pushover but the existing ringing societies were against it. The resultant weak structure was Haywood's compromise to get them onside.
One of CRAG's recommendations was to consider converting the Council to a direct member organisation. Despite the merits of the end state, the difficulty is making the transition from the status quo. When the old Admin Committee considered it in 2014 it got kicked into the long grass. More recently the Executive considered it (as the Council's rules require it to do every few years) but decided it was currantly too difficult to do it in a way that would command enough support.
Advocates of direct membership will criticise the Executive for being too timid, but if its assessment is correct then it's a criticism of the ringing community clinging to its Victorian structures.
Returning to the original topic, direct membership properly implemented would almost certainly feel more democratic the the grass roots member.

Jane Wilkinson .... the Council is seen as increasingly undemocratic.” — Simon Linford

I have heard that sentiment several times in recint years, in Council meetings, from opponents of the reforms the reforms that the Council has now overwhelmingly accepted.
Outside the Council the complaints I have heard are about being effective or useful, not about being democratic.
Democracy matters with an organisation that has power, to make laws or whatever. But the Council has negligible power. It can only achieve results by persuasion or example.
It's old structure was slow, cumbersome and erred on the side of not making decisions. Ive seen a lot of good ideas kicked into the long grass during my time on the Council.
In contrast, the new structure gives the Executive a remit to get on and do things, and to report on what it is doing so the representative members can hold it to account. If we don't like what the Execitive does then it's our job to hold it to say so, and in extremist to call in its decisions.
So far, the new system is working better than the old. There's some way to go though, so no cause for complacency.

I didn't say anything about learning only with a simulator. That's not sensible unless you don't have any real ringers to ring with. But I don't think it sensible to inflict the complexity if real ringers on someone, with the confusion of ropesight and the need to ride through other people's inaccuracies, until they have developed the ability to ring rhythmically, fitting in with an external beat. That's why they learn to control a bell with a simulator between learning to handle a bell safely and coping with live ringers. It has other benefits. They know they can hear their bell rather than it being an aspiration for later. The know they can place the next blow by rhythm, so no need to panic if they can't see who's in front of them. And above all they can get nearly an hour of quality rope time for an hour of their time and one other, rather than getting a much shorter amount of less quality time with a much bigger need for supporting effort.
But of course they need a lot of ringing with (and standing behind) other ringers as well as time with a simulator.

not modelling wheel sizes for the moving ringers. An experienced ringer actually picked up on that when I gave him his first go on the simulator — John de Overa

Anyone I teach first rings with the simulator long before trying to cope with lots of moving ropes, real let alone simulated.

he true rhythm of plain hunting with an open hand stoke lead, — Nigel Goodship

This is described on p89 of The New Ringer's Book with diagrams showing the true path when hunting uo and down.

yes , in round figures for six bells the ratios are 5/6, 6/6 and 7/6. Pedantically you would start with your 'normal' speed (in our case around 2h50m, but 3h is near enough to demonstrate the difference.

The first time I did this with someone who was already PH-ing with the band, they were all over the place and they were astonished at how big the speed changes were supposed to be — John de Overa

Some ringers aren't even told they are supposed to change speed, just told to think in terms of places and/or bells to follow. That puts them at a huge disadvantage.
I have always introduced learners to different speeds before they hunt but I now do that in a way that gives them more practice and feedback. I get them to ring rounds at 2 1/2 him and 3 1/2 hour peal speeds as well as 3 hours, which correspond to hunting down hunting up and rounds.
I ask them to ring 'fast' or 'slow', and if necessary adjust the speed towards the target value. Then let them ring for several minutes at that speed, with prompts or comments as required, and then discuss what hey did, what it felt like, and how to overcome any problems.

sport doesn't imply competition. A lot of sports are not. Read the official definition and you will see it is a good fit for ringing.

can't it be both? Ringing has many facets, and shares features with both sports and musical performance.
I think ringing would be better if more ringers considered themselves performers, but the match is far from perfect. For example it's quite hard to map ringing onto the assessment structure used for conventional musical instruments.
If you are interested see: https://jaharrison.me.uk/Ringing/Music/

few years ago there was a concerted effort made to have ringing recognised as a sport in order to try to access grants from Sport England (or some such). The clear answer was a firm 'no'; ringing was not defined as a sport. — Peter Sotheran

That's an over simplification. The biggest objection came from within the CC from those who didn't want to scare the horses (the CofE) by suggesting ringing was anything other than a call to worship. (And if the story ever gets written that related to CC reform like the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand did to WW1)
If you read the official European definition of a sport (which Port England uses) you will see that ringing ticks virtually every box. We would have needed an anti doping policy, but that's not hard (I wrote a draft version).
The biggest problem was internal, as it is when trying to doing anything different in ringing. Ringers argue with each other and leaders give up in preference to upsetting anyone.

I've rung at towers where the Treble rope had a different coloured Sally.

istr we were told 25 years, but. I can't remember the criteria.