Ringing Forums

Greater information both on the Central Council website and in the Ringing World will be arriving shortly from what I understand.

Tristan Lockhart mentioned the Yellow Yoyo report. Please could it be made generally available, urgently?
The reason I ask is that our tower has a massive recruitment opportunity, with a new town being built on our doorstep. But we need to know how to run our sales pitch, and for that it would be a big help to see the Yellow Yoyo report. — Barbara Le Gallez

I would recommend getting in touch with Allison Devine who is the public relations officer (proatcccbrdotorgdotuk) and can point you in the the right direction. There is a report and a PowerPoint; both are fairly long and may not be entirely relevant throughout for local situations, but nonetheless would be most useful. I understand that there are plans for wider circulation.

You aren't exactly making a compelling pitch. Why would anyone put their time and energy into something that appears not to be considered worthwhile or valued? — John de Overa

When people are working on a voluntary basis and have a lot to be getting on with already, you have to bid for their attention, and perhaps include a contribution of your own time as part of the bargain. Young ringers are a bit more of an exciting and mainstream project than improving the environment for older learners, so it's not entirely surprising that more people are developing initiatives for the former than the latter. It's not a great pitch but I don't think there's any point sugar-coating the issue!

as far as I can tell that has been ignored and my feeling is that I wasted my time participating. — John de Overa

This is what my quotes from the report are in response to. It has made its way into the branding report, and the point has been raised at several subsequent meetings too. That is not to say that more lobbying wouldn't be valuable to raise the issue's profile amongst the CC's volunteers, particularly the new Executive.

I'm not sure how broadly the YellowYoyo report has been circulated, but here are a few quotes:

The strategy should attract a younger cohort without alienating older, experienced ringers, and engage with relevant institutions and social media platforms. — YellowYoyo

Craft a compelling brand story that highlights the heritage, inclusive community, health benefits, and intellectual aspects of bell ringing, appealing to both younger and older generations. This would form part of the positioning framework above. — YellowYoyo

I agree that there is no clear strategy for specifically improving the opportunities available to older (50+) learners, but without the interest of people willing to put the time and energy into it, such a focus won't happen.

Still not convinced that we'll be able to recruit 4,000 quality recruits per year, averaging about 80 per association (with the larger associations having to recruit more than this to compensate for smaller associations). But the longer we leave it and the more viable recruits are not recruited or not retained and developed, the bigger a problem we're left with in 2030!

so much of this I want to say 'but it shouldn't be like that' or 'but we never do it like that'. Even teaching other kids in my teens with no access to books or courses I'm sure we did better than that, so I wonder why such customs have become so widespread. We probably need to understand that as much as knowing all the ways to do things better. — John Harrison

Survivorship bias may come into play here, given you made it through. Maybe you always had the skill needed to run a good practice or get people into method ringing? I was not around in such times, so can only speculate.

I find that some towers are unrealistic as to their ability to teach the skills needed for methods and to then teach methods. It usually manifests itself as a headlong charge into methods with minimal preparation, rarely producing any basis for further progression. It then judders to a halt and then there is often not the skills or the humility within the tower to unpick the previous flawed teaching and put it right. The learner is stuck in a position where to progress would require them to unlearn and relearn which can be a difficult and perhaps embarrassing experience, damaging confidence. Perhaps we have to accept that some bands without additional support will need to take a much slower pace into methods than is traditional, or perhaps could instead explore the broad possibilities within the call changes world instead?

However, once we have got our new ringers to ringing Grandsire and Plain Bob, and having put all the hard work in, we wouldn’t want to see the more able ones travel and join another band in order to learn to ring even more advanced methods. That can’t be sustainable, especially if those bands haven’t put the hard work in. It will just reinforce a two-tier system or downward spiral which towers cannot escape from. I don’t mind the new ringers taking opportunities to progress, by ringing with others in the District or Guild, but they also need to remain members of the local band in order to help the others on the lower rungs of the ladder. That way the band as a whole will progress further.

Nor does my local band wish to see our practices over-run by learners from other towers, especially when we may have to invest time in re-teaching some of them to handle, or some of the other basic skills needed to ring simple methods successfully. We support the neighbouring practices where the bands are at the call-changes/kaleidoscope stage, as they have an important role to play in teaching the foundation skills well. — Roger Booth

In several of the areas I have rung in, you need to band-hop a number of times to get the teaching and support you need at each step in the learning journey. Clusters would seem to me to be one solution. You retain the benefit of your effort within the (larger) group but the ringer receives the opportunities they need. It also gives you the structure to be able to nudge people to where they're most needed (e.g., getting a critical mass of ringers for more advanced ringing, teaching handling etc.) without them needing to get in with a new group. You also get more control over the quality of handling etc. Clusters come with their own problems but I don't believe many parts of the country actually have the resources to develop all or even nearly all tower bands into bands which can teach and sustain competency in basic methods.

There needs to be far more emphasis on developing bands, and less on individual advancement. Far more leadership training will help. — Roger Booth

This presupposes that there are enough people with the requisite skills to support the improvement. Whilst in some bands, that talent is already there and just needs a catalyst, in others you would need to attract such people, who are likely to already be going to multiple PNs, and so you'd quite possibly be poaching them from other towers.

I suppose what I am saying is that if a group cannot provide the opportunities needed for progression, then people who are minded to progress will go elsewhere. If the group is lucky, the ringer will stick around to help out at the lower level, but obviously that falls apart if they have to move tower multiple times or move away from the area. Worse still, those who want to progress but can't take advantages of the opportunities elsewhere (due to transport, conflict with PN, different atmosphere in the other band, etc.) will get stuck at the level of the band, potentially sapping their enthusiasm and certainly wasting their potential.

If you look at the ringers who have progressed to the mid and higher levels of ringing in the last couple of decades, I'm sure you'll find that most of them have acted in their self-interest a few times to keep their progression going.

There needs to be a proper pipeline, I don't see much signs of one at the moment. — John de Overa

I'd be interested to know what form this might take. It's difficult for me more towards the lower levels than the higher levels to visualise such a thing!

↪Tristan Lockheart You mentioned going to the pub afterwards after talking about transport. For Londoners (and probably other cities too) talking public transport may be a fag, but at least you can have a drink and get home. Outside London such public transport as there is often ceases early and of course if you've driven to a practice then having a pint or two afterwards is obviously out of the question. — J Martin Rushton

It’s more for the social side of things and band bonding than alcohol consumption (many post-PN pub trips have plenty of Cokes as well as beers), but I take your point. As someone who doesn't drive, I have to be very careful about where I choose to live and I'm very limited in where I can regularly ring too. Outside of the main metropolitan areas, there are few places where I could live and maintain my current lifestyle, both in ringing or more broadly.

Not surprisingly, it sounds like London has a decent pool of method ringers. The ringing in the towers in my vicinity is mostly CCs & PH on 6 with occasional Plain Minor methods, but that requires ringers from several towers. Anything beyond that requires significant travelling, so you need to be motivated to keep moving on. — John de Overa

I think the issue is that your fairly extreme situation still has parallels with the situation in London (although perhaps not to the same extent); here, we have fairly large parts of outer London which are fairly thin ringing territory. There are some towers which provide opportunities, but they are easily 45 minutes or more away by public transport (and of course, more ringers in London are without cars). There are plenty of opportunities in Central London and many in the inner suburbs too, but again you have to travel. I think, as Lucy suggested further up the thread, that older learners (as with younger learners) need to be encouraged to engage with other bands in their local areas from an early stage. This would mean that they are more likely to be open to attending the most suitable practice for their need rather than limiting themselves only to their local band (of course, the hope is that they in time attend multiple practices and in time share the benefit of their skills and experience). Looking to the future, a culture of travel will need to be normalised if ringing is to remain sustainable; we will not necessarily benefit from the same number of towers and bands given church closures and the decline in the number of ringers. We ideally want our ringers to travel further if they are no longer able to ring at their current tower for whatever reason rather than stop ringing altogether.

More broadly, the older learners I know who engage with the wider world of ringing beyond their home PN and Sunday service ringing (ringing outings, other PNs, going to the pub after ringing, the Ringing World, ringing courses, social events etc.) tend to progress more. You have to go out and grab the opportunities and said opportunities need to be out there in the first place. There was a positive initiative in Middlesex recently where new members of the association were invited to try out 12 bell ringing with lots of support from experienced ringers at St Martin-in-the-Fields followed by a tour at St Pauls Cathedral and plenty of opportunity to get to know ringers from other London towers and get an introduction into the wider world of ringing.

83% of ringers want to improve their ringing, which obviously includes older ones. — John de Overa

We were really pleased with this statistic. It shows that there is considerable energy in the exercise which is one thing we'll need in abundance to ensure the continuation of the art.

Whilst there's an understandable focus on youth opportunities I don't think older ringers should be forgotten, as at the moment they are the backbone of most towers, and will be for some considerable time, even if youth recruitment is successful. — John de Overa

Quite. There wouldn't be many young ringers around if it weren't for the older ringers teaching, mentoring, taxiing, etc. for a start! We need to get the balance right between giving special attention to young ringers rather than giving all of the attention to them, if you catch my drift.

Our (not a cathedral) nearest defib available in the evenings is half a mile away uphill at the railway station, and we have a fairly long and narrow staircase. Getting the defib to the casualty would not be quick, and neither would the arrival of paramedics/evacuation of the casualty (it requires the Hazardous Area Response Team specialists and our practice exercise with them took ages to extract the 'casualty', so not going to help in a heart attack situation).

We've taken precautions, such as signage with the tower with the address of the tower and location of the station's defib, instructions to remind 999 that the HART will be required for casualty extraction, and ensured that the ambulance and fire services have information about the constrained access in their despatch systems. Any visitors are advised of the access situation and to consider any medical conditions they may have before going up the tower.

To be blunt, if someone has a heart attack in many towers in this country, their odds aren't going to be great, particularly if there are not people able to deliver CPR in the tower. However, having a defib in your vestry is probably a better situation than many towers will be in. Defibs are not cheap, so I can understand their reticence, although it would be ideal to have one up the tower.

Speculation time here, but what could be the factors behind fewer people going on

• Less spare time? - an open day eats up time on a weekend, and people tend to have busy lives. An ongoing trend throughout ringing and hobbies/volunteering in general - hours are down across the board.
• Maybe people don't like dashing around to get to all the towers? A more relaxed schedule with fewer towers might make for a better balance between energy and tower grabbing.
• You need a car or someone to share a lift with to take part - petrol isn't cheap these days either.

Less dashing around could also increase the quality of the ringing; I for one certainly wouldn't be up to much by tower number 8!

That said, I'd echo @Lucy Chandhial's observation - there are plenty of young people into tower grabbing, so I don't think Open Days will be going away any time soon. There may be fewer people coming onto the tours and thus a lower level of income, but probably still enough to be worthwhile (particularly in areas where Open Days are less common).

We’ve been chasing quite a few towers for a while, asking if they need help, but it seems that those towers that are under strength often have an inexperienced ringer in charge, left over from a once active band. We note from our mailing system that some don’t even bother to open our e-mails or newsletters. The traditional cascade system falls down, and the local ringers are not engaged with the District or the Guild. The response below, received yesterday, is typical of the reaction to our offers of help that we have experienced.

It’s a shame as the keen new ringers who can now ring rounds unaided would love to ring at more than one tower on the big day. Some have been turning up to two or three practices a week for a couple of months, often at different towers. Teaching them has stretched the resources of those of us with active bands, yet it’s the towers in the other two categories that need new ringers the most. — Roger Booth

There's a sort of inevitability in that some ringers just want to do their own thing. In most areas, we are not short of towers, so we have no need to worry about an unproductive band 'hogging' a tower. And given that these sorts of bands are not often willing/able to recruit, there isn't much of an opportunity for them to spread an ethos which doesn't involve visiting and working with other towers. I suspect there is little more to be done if active branch leaders are still not able to effectively get through to these certain towers; too much time can be spent trying to save bands which don't really want to be saved which could instead be invested into those who are willing to engage and accept the help that is being offered.

Never mind church halls, Porthmadog's church has relocated to this rather petite former dentist's surgery! The latest I heard, the Porthmadog bells were to be relocated to Betws-y-Coed, which as the headquarters church of the local ministry area of 7 churches has weekly services and thus a more secure future than many churches in Wales.

'The church would have few if any ringers or musicians for its goings on if only churchy people were allowed.
— DRJA Dewar

The last two recruits to our band came from the congregation, so I think this is somewhat of an oversimplification. — Alan C

Perhaps, but not excessively so. If, say post-1975, the church banned non-Christians from ringing, I suspect little or no method ringing would exist now, and call changes would also be limited. It's not just a question of the church membership status of the individual ringer; it is a question of those who taught and mentored, rang with them, cast, hung, funded and maintained their bells too.

Not the most inclusive turn of phrase I've heard used. I thought church bell ringing was for those with a faith as well as those without. — Alan C

It's a turn of phrase which did not originate from me. It is a sentiment expressed to me by clergy and lay-preachers in the CofE. My post above did not advocate the exclusion of Christians; it was in response to Mary asking whether we were too embarrassed to mention the link to the church and was in the context of recruitment. Do you think that most of the general population would consider a church/religious connection to be positive and something that attracts them to ringing?

ringing as a service to the church? Has that connection gone or are we too embarrassed to mention it? — Mary Jones

Christianity, or more specifically, the church, is an increasingly unattractive, or even toxic, brand. Only a portion of the UK population are suitable to be change ringers. A smaller part of that portion are Christians. We cannot survive on Christians alone. The number of Christians continue to decline in the UK, and the traditional CofE who have most of the bells is declining faster. Evangelical churches which are growing in popularity range from indifferent to outright hostile towards bellringing.

At Freshers Fairs when recruiting for my university ringing society, when asked what Change Ringing is about, we answer “We ring church bells” followed by a quick “it’s a secular activity and you don’t have to be a Christian” when you see their interest plummet upon the mention of the word “church”. In simple terms, ringing as a service doesn’t sell, even to members of the Christian Union. Christians and many non-Christians will understand the religious aspect of ringing because we do it in churches and we ring for services. However, mentions of religion put others off. Therefore, omitting overt mentions of religion and service would appear to be the best overall strategy.

Lots of statistics and charts showing the decline in peal ringing since about 1980. The only charts which are showing an increase are the average number of peals per peal ringer, the average age of peal ringers, and the percentage of peal ringers who only ring one. — Simon Linford

Well, from the sound of those statistics, it seems to me like peal ringing is becoming more concentrated amongst a shrinking pool of people. Of course, this means that there are fewer opportunities to progress into peal ringing, worsening the cycle. However, a fair few university societies have avid peal ringers in their number, sometimes enough for an entirely resident band. So all is not lost (yet).

So the big question is, does it matter? — Simon Linford

What do you get out of ringing peals? What does the exercise get out of peal ringing? (these are questions for the whole class :D)

If, say, it is the notion of an extended performance or acquiring the skills needed to ring continuously for a longer period of time, is that already covered by QPs?

I have been involved in membership matters from old students' associations to railway preservation societies, and life memberships do cause problems.

When societies are wound up, life members get upset that they are losing their 'investment'. Let's say the Anytown & District Guild wants to merge with the Countyshire Association, as the two societies no longer have critical mass individually. However, many of the life members are life members of both associations, but no longer derive the benefit of being life members of both societies. Likewise, if a Direct Membership Organisation was introduced, there would be no way to equitably transfer life memberships should any particular association decide to call it a day.

Often, the loss of annual fees causes a severe monetary loss for the society. For many years, a (non-ringing) society I am a member of offered life membership for £300, accounted for as £15 per year over 20 years as opposed to £20 per year plus fee increases. Those who purchased it for £300 are 'paying' their last £15 this year; meanwhile, new members now pay £43 annually (for various good reasons). In another society I'm a member of, they coughed up something ridiculous in 1972 like 50p, and haven't paid since. Life membership probably makes sense if they are past retirement age and it's a decent lump sum, but otherwise it causes nothing but grief financially.

Since people are more likely to move from of a society area much more often now than was the case decades ago when most society rules were written, is length of membership the point that should be acknowledged or the contribution that someone has made to the society? — Alison Hodge

I imagine this will increasingly become an issue, especially for those who have been ringing since they were young. I can't justify five guild memberships, so I flit between guilds as needed. I don't think I will ever qualify under continuous or even discontinuous membership rules!

How on earth do you keep track of them?? — Steph Pendlebury

We have a similar issue at the Leeds University Society. All persons who have held any sort of membership automatically becomes an honorary life member as per our constitution. We don't hold any constitutions from before the 1990s but the provision probably goes some way back. We have no list of such members, so our return for the Central Council is based on our alumni mailing list, which is only probably 1% of the possible total members. Simply put, we can't keep track of them and if someone turns up and wishes to exercise the privileges of an honorary life member, the young adult who has been in the society for less than a year, potentially, will have no choice but to afford them said privileges.

We should … be more selective and weed out those unlikely to make the grade at an early stage, and use the time saved to bring on the ones we keep.

I think Philip Gorrod's rather harsh approach is probably not the most appropriate solution for most towers. It is necessary to prioritise - perhaps think about it in terms of opportunity cost.

Continuing to teach one rather struggling learner versus:

• focusing on the more able learners to give them the support they need
• getting others to plain hunt
• mentoring an aspiring ringing teacher
• helping on a ringing course
• teaching others to be steeple-keepers
• helping with the activities of the local guild, the Central Council, ART etc.
• organising a ringing tour for the band
• helping the band prepare for a striking competition
• your own personal development or wellbeing (you need to look after yourself too!)

... etc. etc.

Ditching learners is not needed. However, a 'strategic reallocation of resources' in management-speak may prove necessary in the event of limited resources. So one learner, and they're struggling? You can probably keep going with them. But if you're doing everything in your tower/area already, then it is probably time to consider what would be best for your band, yourself, and ringing as a whole.

.

.