Ringing Forums

I do not believe such a newsletter would engage ringers o any useful extent. Biannually is too infrequent to be be current and "simple" is not likely to have the scope to provide something of interest to everyone.

There is already a great deal of information and news applicable to just about all levels readily available on the internet, some of it even done by the CCCBR; but a lot of ringers are simply unaware of it or forget about it all too quickly.

I have made a point of referencing such material with people I have recently taught and when I writ articles for our District Newsletter.

I think it requires a great deal of effort from those at the coal face to keep publicising this information and reminding people where to look and to actually make use of the resources available. Those of us with little better to do than hang out on online forums between ringing events may be aware of the wide range of material that is available - but I believe that the vast majority of ringers have little awareness of it.

The availability of useful training material online is a good way of getting new people more aware of the wider ringing community, but for most of them their primary interest will be how it immediately relates to their local tower ringing. Hopefully some will find areas of interest that align with their own personal interests, like history or maintenance work.

I think that one of the challenges to learning new stuff is that some of the more technical stuff can be tricky to assimilate. I think that is an area where forums (such as this could be useful) - if we could get people to use them more. But many are quite nervous about asking questions in an open forum.

It would seem preferable to be on the list rather than not. This is the sort of list that could end up being used as a starting reference by other bodies (particularly government ones) and not being on it might become a barrier to accessing other benefits. For example, being a recognized tradition might make it easier for ringing societies to qualify as a worthwhile cause for charitable or philanthropic support - independently of any religious connection.

Considering change ringing's history in England/UK it does seem like the sort of thing that ought to go on the list.

Could you be a bit more specific about the dangers you perceive. In most cases if something goes wrong "upstairs" there is not much that usually requires immediate attention for safety. Depending on the tower and bell-chamber - an opportunity to check for fouling before lowering other bells might be practical, but generally going into the bell chamber with the bells up is a greater risk.

Not being able to easily do routine checks on the bells might be an issue - but that requires somebody competent and fit enough to do so safely. Given that this towrer appears to have no regular band, there might not be anyone available.

The situation you report might be unusual but seems within acceptable bounds, and may be the most reasonable arrangement for the specific circumstances of that church/tower.

"When societies are wound up, life members get upset that they are losing their 'investment'. ... 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."

Well they are free to propose amendments to the conditions of any change/merger and make their case, or to vote against the proposed change. But ultimately if the society ceases to exist then all memberships cease. In one regard they have had their life membership honoured - they were a member for the life of the society (in rather the same way as a lightbulb's lifetime guarantee).

The KCACR rules (which cover membership) are online here [PDF].

Recently (2019) there was a scaling back of free/discounted membership - you now have to be over 80 to get free membership - and the option of purchased life membership was withdrawn. Existing life members continued as life members.

Teaching bell handling to another is quite different to ringing methods yourself. Competence in one does not assure competence in the other - but there is often a very large overlap because to be a good teacher of bell handling you need your own bell handling to be very good, which typically comes from having progressed to being a good change ringer.

To become a competent teacher of bell-handling requires an interest in the challenges (and rewards) that this aspect of ringing brings and the application of thought and practice in the matter of teaching bell handling. Quite a few very experienced ("star") ringers know this aspect of ringing does not interest them or that they are not temperamentally suited to the task - and quite openly acknowledge that they would be a very poor teacher of bell handling (so they don't do it).

To me the challenge for ringing is getting those who have developed good ringing skills and have a suitable temperament to take an interest in teaching bell handling. But so far I have found it difficult to achieve this - partly due to the sporadic availability of learners (in a country church), but also because of a reticence to take on the job when there is someone else with more experience available (despite encouragment to do so - with the experienced teacher acting as a mentor). As Simon said, there is a need for more good people to step forward and help carry the load.

I can understand some of the concerns that a novice teacher has - taking responsibility for somebody else's safety and having the self-confidence that you will be able to deal with any problems that arise. These are things that can be addressed through the thought and practice aspects of becoming a teacher, in particular I think the practice aspect could be better addressed by novice teachers spending more time with a mentor (in lieu of a learner) to explore different issues that can arise and how to deal with them. Courses such as ART can be a good starting point - but skills need to be honed through regular application.

When I was learning [decades ago] the local tower norm was to call out all the affected bells (2-3, 3-1, 4-2). Most places hereabouts now simply call a pair with several preferring calling UP, others preferring DOWN (I prefer UP). There is more likelihood on reaching agreement on which end to crack open an egg (or which order bits and bytes should be numbered) than get a "standard" for call changes.

In my book the Golden Rule is consistency in the calls used. Unfortunately (and probably due to a lack of experience or guidance) I have known some callers to be rather haphazard in their calling - a common fault being to change the calling when that would involve calling their own bell to move.

There are of course exceptions to a rule - and I don't mean telling a bell to lead when calling UP (this can be readily determined by the ringer themselves and spotting the approach to the lead is a useful skill to acquire IMO). The exceptions I apply are for those in the earliest stages of learning - trying to convert the theory into practice. Confirming the change that they need to make (in addition to the called change) can help build their confidence in their ropesight whilst maintaining a good standard of ringing. (Another useful exception is at District events when the band is a mixture of UPpers and DOWNers).

At the very start of learning it might be more suitable to discuss the change about to be called with them and what change they need to make as a result, then make the call; but once beyond that the basic skills still need to be honed and I find assisting them with an adjunct to the "formal" call to be helpful.

A tip when visiting a different tower is to listen carefully to the first called change to determine whether local convention is calling UP or DOWN (if you hear a smaller number to larger number the calls are UP; larger number to smaller number and the calls are DOWN).

Another tip (for the more experienced ringer) is that if you are asked to call call-changes for a different band check which style of call they normally use; it can help avoid confusion reigning.

I am not convinced that it is easier to ring bells below the balance point. The work and skill required to accurately change position seems much higher. I enjoy ringing at a "cracking pace" - but to do it well requires a very solid familiarity with bell handling.

To my mind tower-bell ringing has a physical skill aspect and an academic study aspect. With the increased availability of computer based ringing software it is practical to separate the two - but this might be a two-edged sword. It could be all too easy for someone's theoretical/method knowledge to quickly outstrip their physical ability to ring it on tower bells. Might this be disheartening and turn the person away from tower bell ringing? Would having people who only meet and ring virtually be good, bad, or neutral for ringing.

One aspect of the initiatives in cycling and running is that people go out and meet with others - there is a community aspect to it. How might ringing develop its community activity aspect - particularly in the context of a shrinking Church. I suspect that cycling and running were able to capitalize on people having the fundamental necessary physical skill and provide a social aspect to it. Given it's a rather specialized physical skill ringing might need to find a different approach.

<going off-topic> I teach from "bell up" and manage to maintain good control and low-stress. Teaching control of the bell (or at least managing the bell) below the balance point is an important stage of learning but can be (and should be) incorporated into a "bell up" approach.

I have seen teaching done badly (and the results of teaching done badly) - I don't know what it did to the learner & teacher, but it put my stress levels up.

Some people particularly avoid subscribing to social media platforms (for a variety of reasons). As platforms proliferate (Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Signal, Telegram, TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat, ...) and move in and out of fashion (Usenet, MySpace) it exacerbates the challenges in having integrated communication, particularly when the platform is closed (either by design or by choice). My local District's Facebook page is open so I can at least view it (having bookmarked the page).

Email based communication also has inclusivity issues, if you are not on the list you do not see the information unless there is an accessible archive somewhere.

It can be useful to shield forums from the full glare of exposure to the WWW - but in choosing to limit access, either explicitly or by the choice of platform, it should be done after taking into account the negative effects the barriers being created will have on inclusivity.

I think this forum has got it about right - read accessible to anyone using just a basic web-browser, participation after identification using limited personal data.

It is regrettable that groups such as this choose to keep their messages private as it means those not subscribed to the group (or even the platform) cannot benefit from the information therein. Computer based communication has a long history of lurkers.

There is a role for private groups, but for generic topics it would seem more helpful to be open.

if these conversations are ongoing it might be useful to point out some of the practicalities of muffling/unmuffling bells. The idea of ringing muffled ahead of the proclamation, unmuffled after, then resuming muffled ringing later is very "quaint" and might be do-able on a light ring with easy access, easy fit muffles, and people young/fit/available enough to do the job: in many cases it will not be very practical - but ringers still want to "do the right thing" given their circumstances.

This might be an area where the CCCBR guidance provides the extra detail as additional notes to the top level guidance.

Ah ... thanks for the "technical name", I have been looking for this sort of thing in preference to a hard hat since seeing the Taylor's guy sporting one when I helped out with a rehang.

FWIW - I agree with other comments, a hard hat can be excessive and the extra height leads to more accidental collisions (which could lead to being knocked off balance or jarring neck), but if in a situation where somebody is/may be working above you with tools (or there are loose items that might be knocked and fall) a hard hat is likely to be advisable protection.

along the same lines as AJB suggested I usually suggest to people that they (initially) work on any desired change by working with each bell in the change in order. This can either be done by working front-to-back, or back-to-front. Your preference might be affected by how well you can see each change and your calling style (bell-up or bell-down). As you gain experience you can play-around with how you reach different changes.

As an example - moving to Queens and back to Rounds building each change front-to-back:

1-2-3-4-5-6 (1 is already in the right place, 3 is not. Currently 2 is in the way of 3. Call 2-3)
1-3-2-4-5-6 (3 is now in the right place, 5 is not, currently 4 is in the way. Call 4-5)
1-3-2-5-4-6 (5 is still not in the right place, currently 2 is in the way. Call 2-5)
1-3-5-2-4-6 (5 is now in the right place, as are 2, 4, and 6. Job done]

1-3-5-2-4-6 (2 is out of place. Call 5-2)
1-3-2-5-4-6 (2 is still out of place. Call 3-2)
1-2-3-5-4-6 (2 and 3 are in place, 4 is not. Call 5-4).
1-2-3-4-5-6 (Job done)

Building from back-to-front the changes would be:

1-2-3-4-5-6 (6 is already in place, 4 is not. Call 4-5)
1-2-3-5-4-6 (4 is in place, 2 is not. Call 2-3)
1-3-2-5-4-6 (2 is still not in place. Call 2-5)
1-3-5-2-4-6 (2 is in place, as are 5, 3, and 1. Job done)

1-3-5-2-4-6 (5 is out of place. Call 5-2).
1-3-2-5-4-6 (5 is still out of place. Call 5-4)
1-3-2-4-5-6 (4 is in place, 3 is not. Call 3-2)
1-2-3-4-5-6 (3, 2, 1, are all in place. Job done).
HTH