Subtitling on zero budget

Accessible subtitling is critical for disabled users, and increasingly essential for all users, due to the popularity muting sound while consuming social video. Producing subtitles is not difficult, and can be done for free. This guide helps explain how subtitling works and takes you through the process of creating a subtitle file at zero cost. Video is not finished until it has been subtitled or captioned.

What does a subtitle file look like?

A subtitle file connects speech in the video with text. Depending on the intent of the Caption Writer, other elements of the video may also be conveyed. Subtitles can be stored in many different digital files. The simplest is SubRip (.srt) which is accepted by Facebook and Youtube as well as semi – professional applications like Adobe Premiere Pro CC

What you need:

  • a transcript of your video
  • a video player that will display ‘Audio time units’ – i.e. time in HH:MM:SS;mS and which you are familiar with
  • a text editor (notepad will do if you are desperate)

SRT formatting is exceptionally simple. This makes it suitable for hand coding into a plain text file. The format is simply this:

  • Subtitle index (starts at zero increments +1 per subtitle)
  • Start time –> end time (h:mm:ss;ms)
  • Subtitle content (as plain text, hard line breaks are honoured on screen)
  • Blank line to terminate this subtitle
1
00:20:41,150 --> 00:20:45,109
In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 
Lets open up this tricky passage of scripture. 

2 
00:20:45,110 -->  00:20:50,001
The wise ones, Magi, brought gifts to the infant Christ of 
Gold Frankinsense and myrh

There is a very readable guide at Wikipedia about the format and also some formatting permitted by convention in many SRT clients

Step 1: Obtaining a transcript of your video

  • The simplest strategy is just to type one. I recommend not trying to type your transcript in SRT format to start with. Instead transcribe it into natural chunks. If you are very familiar with what was said, you may find that transcribing chunks from the end of the video and moving ‘backwards’ towards the beginning gets you a more accurate transcript.
    • This technique is great if you have poor internet upload speed, or are constrained to keep the content of the video on your local machine – for example in the developing world
    • Hand coding also works well if you have poor quality sound in the video
  • An alternative method is to use an AI speech recognition service. There are several with adequate free plans for a lot of work:
    • At the time of writing Otter.ai works well providing you give it clean audio. Helpfully Otter can handle multiple speakers competently.

Step 2: Splitting your transcript for best effect

Subtitling for effective communication is an art. You can’t expect to just split every n words. That creates very poor intelligibility. You want to help the viewer through the video. Your role is important and should not be rushed. Here’s an example

Christmas has come and gone and also the new year.
And if we are honest,

we would probably have to admit that most of us,
if not all of us have been feeling rather exhausted.

We do it every year, the mad rush to buy the presents before
the shop closeson Christmas Eve;.

Step 3: Adding timings

Now there is nothing to do but some hard work. In the absence of any other tools you need VLC the excellent free video player to play the video out. You need an VLC extension ‘Time’ which allows you to put the time in an useful format on screen in ms.

Simply go down the file adding in the time stamps and index numbers

Step 4: Finalise

Now name the file *.srt perhaps video-date.srt and you are good to go.

Sony PXW-Z190, ffmpeg batch transcode to ProRes Quicktime: Explained

Specific guide on using ffmpeg to transcode Quicktime (ProRes) from the native MXF as recorded by Sony PXW-Z190 cameras. Also of interest to users of the PXW-Z280. For those of you desperate to cut and paste an incantation into Terminal – here you go:

 for i in *.MXF; do ffmpeg -i "$i"   -map 0:0 -map 0:1 -map 0:2 -map 0:3 -map 0:4 -c:v prores_ks -profile:v 1 -quant_mat:v 3 -qscale:v 13   "./output/${i%.*}.mov";done

Read on to understand what it does and why it works. If you’re not technical or used to Terminal – don’t worry we do it step by step.


So for the transcode we want to operate on the video stream particularly which is in h264, and transcode that to ProRes. We could do things to the audio stream but here we are just going to copy the four tracks of audio straight over.

Video transcode

Using ffprobe find the information about the zeroth stream which in this camera is the video…

Stream #0:0: Video: h264 (High), yuv420p(tv, bt709, progressive), 3840x2160 [SAR 1:1 DAR 16:9], 29.97 fps, 29.97 tbr, 29.97 tbn, 59.94 tbc    

So lets write a ffmpeg command to just make a QuickTime video file with no audio to illustrate what we are about.

ffmpeg -i INPUT.MXF -c:v prores_ks -profile:v 1 -quant_mat:v 3 -qscale 20  OUTPUT.MOV    

Exploding the command term by term

  • -c:v Selects the zeroth stream. If your video is somewhere else or there are n video streams then you need to map it / them formally
  • prores_ks selects the codec – This is one of number of ProRes options but is the one that I’ve had most luck with. Here’s a slightly despairing blog by one of the original authors: ProRes KS
  • -profile:v a preconfigured profile in prores_ks options are specified by an integer thus: -profile:v 3
    • 0 ‘proxy’
    • 1 ‘lt’ (suprisingly useful especially when output to web)
    • 2 ‘standard’
    • 3 ‘hq’
    • 4 ‘4444’
    • 5 ‘4444xq’
  • -quant_mat a preconfigured matrixes in prores_ks options are specified by an integer thus: -profile:v 3
    • 0‘auto’
    • 1‘default’
    • 2‘proxy’
    • 3‘lt’
    • 4 ‘standard’
    • 5 ‘hq’
  • -qscale Quantiser. Very broadly this is about the way the encoder picks the amount of compression per frame. Setting a fixed qscale speeds up the encode because a whole chunk of processing to get best quality is short-circuited.
  • bits_per_mb higher values will improve speed. I don’t recommend specifying both this and -qscaleat the same time because predicting the outcome gets tricky if you aren’t intimate with the maths

Audio copy

ffmpeg -i INPUT.MXF -map 0:1 -map 0:2 -map 0:3 -map 0:4 -c:a copy  OUTPUT.MOV    

Creating a straight copy over of the audio as PCM – i.e. without transcoding needs the use of the map command. There’s a better explanation of what’s going on here than I can give ffmpeg wiki some systems may struggle with the raw audio.

 Synthesising the command

ffmpeg -i INPUT.MXF -map 0:1 -map 0:2 -map 0:3 -map 0:4 -c:v prores_ks -profile:v 1  -quant_mat:v 3 -qscale:v 12  -c:a:0  pcm_alaw  -c:a:1  pcm_alaw -c:a:2 pcm_alaw -c:a:3 pcm_alaw OUTPUT.mov
    

Note that we now need to map the video channel explicitly.

Now some magic to make I process a directory of files.

This works in OSX and probably works in most Linux. I’m not going to explain because why ‘$I’ works isn’t straightforward…

The only requirement here is that you probably should pre-create a directory called /output in the active directory. So if you’re working dir is
$usr/video then $usr/video/output

 for i in *.MXF; do ffmpeg -i "$i"   -map 0:0 -map 0:1 -map 0:2 -map 0:3 -map 0:4 -c:v prores_ks -profile:v 1 -quant_mat:v 3 -qscale:v 13  -c:a:0  pcm_alaw  -c:a:1  pcm_alaw -c:a:2 pcm_alaw -c:a:3 pcm_alaw "./output/${i%.*}.mov";done

Use your friend ffprobe

use ffmpeg without a solid understanding of the file you are feeding it as an input is fairly futile for all but the most straightforward cases. So first steps is always to use ffprobe to examine the input.

The bits we need from the screed of the Metadata report are the stream definitions – since they help with specifying the right options for the transcode.

 Video definition

 Stream #0:0: Video: h264 (High), yuv420p(tv, bt709, progressive), 3840x2160 [SAR 1:1 DAR 16:9], 29.97 fps, 29.97 tbr, 29.97 tbn, 59.94 tbc    

The first stream is the video – h264 encoded, colour depth 4:2:0,

N audio streams

 Stream #0:1: Audio: pcm_s24le, 48000 Hz, 1 channels, s32 (24 bit), 1152 kb/s

Then we get to the audio streams of which there are at least four – two external microphones, and two internal mics. I haven’t been able to test the Sony special interface

Mysterious fifth stream

There is a data stream which it isn’t quite clear what it does – It’s timecode related but I don’t do enough TC specific stuff to have worked out what.

Have a nature bath

In these frenetic times the #NatureBath series aids reflection, prayer, mediation and peace. This is social media for the common good. To see more or keep in touch: follow @ianwyllie on twitter.

A #WheeelyBeastFilms project. Everything you see has been filmed from a wheelchair. @IanWyllie is available for your creative interview or project around faith, disability, hope, recovery and Hampshire news.

Licensing

Licensed under an Attribution, Non Commercial, No Derivatives license is in force. In principle other licenses for specific users in the sphere of disability, mental health and religion could be agreed. Please contact Ian Wyllie.

Creative Commons License
Nature Bath Series by Nature Bath Films is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://vimeo.com/manage/showcases/6307526.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.exior.co.uk/wp/archives/2019/naturebath/.

The Hillier’s meditations

Hillier’s Gardens, are full of life at the moment, and as spring tends to summer the plants are at their flourishing best. I’ve spent a few afternoons there recently, in part to explore making some mediative reflections for Disability and Jesus, who are a user led collective doing all sorts of transformational access stuff as well as the amazing An Ordinary Office project. Do check it out.

So here are some of the very little films, from a strikingly windy gardens, rendered apparently less so by the judicious use of slow(er) mo(tion), at least as much as the PXW-Z190 will provide. It’s fair to say it’s not one of the camera’s strong points.

The gardens were very much less busy and calmer when this was shot – all handheld, which isn’t an excuse, but was an opportunity to check out the handling on the camera, which doesn’t get off a tripod much.

And finally the Woodland Pigs which were very much full grown and seem to have ‘mysteriously vanished’ with replacements due soon. Sausages anyone?

https://vimeo.com/331461940″

Music therapists in the wild

Meta Killick from Living with Harmony Music Therapy, has a side gig busking in Winchester. She finds it a non threatening and impactful way of engaging people and sharing the difference music therapy can make to wellbeing and mood. 

Living with Harmony is a specialist Music Therapy practice run by Alistair Clarkson and Meta. Together they have a formidable range of expertise, but a gentle and generous approach to the power of music fully participated in to change moods, health and ultimately lives. They work in a range of residential and community settings. 

In an innovative move they are engaged in a project to explore how Music Therapy can make a positive contribution to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. In an innovative move they are engaged in a project to explore how Music Therapy can make a positive contribution to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults

Busking doesn’t just keep the pennies rolling in. Meta finds it a useful opportunity to engage people and educate them about the benefits of Music Therapy.

She said: “I’m here busking, it’s a magnet. People come and tell me how beautiful the Harp is, and I tell them how wonderful Music Therapy is. I engage people in conversation, People like the Harp, it’s a pretty sound, and if I’m sitting down, I’m non threatening.”

Meta Killick, Winchester 3 May 2019

Here’s a longer piece of relaxing harp busking, video in the street ambience of Winchester. 

Social media or not in Lent?

Should we advocate fasting from social media over Lent given that so many faithful believers with disabilities rely on digital social media threads to connect them to worship, and to life?

In watching a small storm unfold over this social media or not in Lent issue and seeing public figures and bodies in various churches posting both web reflections at the same time as advice that perhaps we should consider abstaining the digital world during Lent. I’ve been struck how we risk falling into the great trap on social media, of seeking a ‘digital, or binary mindset’: that is seeking dichotomous solutions to every problem.

In this discussion I’d like to appeal to the community to remember that we have advice on this very situation straight from Romans 14 which includes the admonition: ‘Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains’ and vice versa.

The parallel with the text in Romans should be clear: food is vital to long term survival, and eating together is at the heart of community. These are the two arguments being put about how abstaining from social media can hurt the disabled community. I understand both perspectives and I’m writing as someone affected by disabilities, and I implore you let’s heed the advice given by Paul: don’t quarrel about it.

In thinking further about this I suggest that as followers of the Christ we should urgently resist this trend towards seeking a digital or binary outcome to every problem in society, politics, ethics and faith:

First, we don’t worship a God whose being is anyway simple. The economy of the Trinity is very clearly not straightforward. In fact it often seems irreducibly complex, the very opposite of binary.

Second, we should rejoice that @churchofengland and other churches are including the digital sphere both in their provision of resources to help disciples journey in Lent, and in their consideration of what and appropriate Lenten discipline might be.

Third, the nature of our personal journey in faith should mean that God is calling us to be made more holy day by day. That means change and growth. This journey of sanctification to use the posh word, demands different changes from each of us according to the issues God wants to touch in our lives. So it seems credible that without contradiction God can at the same time be calling one to abstain from Social Media and another to engage with it.

Fourth I’ve come to be an advocate for Lenten discipline. I’ve come to find this yearly season a treasure. Fasting is a biblically commended, valuable and powerful act. How it works and exactly what it does I have no idea. I do know that I’m sad that disease puts me in that group of people for whom the classic biblical fast from food is a very bad idea. I’m coming to learn that fasting from other natures of input can bring growth and blessings to my soul.

For the record, I don’t recommend anyone affected by chronic health conditions or serious disease fasts without serious consideration and medical advice. 

So finally, please sisters and brothers in the church let’s not fight, or even have a storm in a tea cup about this. It’s not worth it, and there are many, many things out there that can hurt the body of Christ and the very being of this United Kingdom. Let’s attend to those, to the cure of souls, the welfare of our communities – on or offline, and being the witness that this nation needs right now.

This isn’t a deeply considered post, its just a reminder that we worship the God who made all things, whose character and being is complex and wonderful beyond all things. I’m sure there are many theologians, academics and clergy who could share views on this to the benefit of us all.

Addressing access challenges

The access and sensory challenges posed by church buildings are significant, especially in the Church of England. An approach including nationally endorsed generic fabric changes by architectural period; requiring churches seeking to make fabric changes to present comprehensive access development roadmaps; and mandating consideration of community need in regard to hygiene related proposals.


Nationally endorsed generic changes by architectural period

The Church of England’s built estate is sufficiently large that there are few truly ‘unique’ examples or architecture from a given period. That is not to say, of course that there are no uniquely ‘valuable’ buildings

The Church Buildings Council or some other suitable body could draw up portfolios of generic adaptions for different architectural periods, with the cooperation of disability organisations, architectural professionals and ‘historical societies’. Parishes considering alterations could be assured that

  • these adaptions are proven both in functional and civil engineering terms.
  • Faculty applications for projects clearly using an appropriate generic design will be warranted to be favourably looked on by Diocesan Advisory Committees

Currently much expertise (above diocesan level) in alterations is vested in commercial architectural practices. This liberates this experience for the common good, and equips parishes to understand what sorts of adaption might work for their building, allowing them to focus on planning for development.

Comprehensive access development roadmap

Diocesan Advisory Committees (who grant planning approvals) should insist that any change to church buildings which has at its core sensory, hygiene or physical access adjustments be accompanied by a definite outline plan (including initial drawings) indicating a roadmap of all major changes necessary to ensure that the building will be no impediment to welcoming the whole community including the full spectrum of disabilities.

Presently it is possible for a parish to request a faculty (planning permission) for hygiene alterations, for example the provision of disabled toilet), when the relevant building continues to rely on a system of portable ramps to provide disability access. This provision combats the present non-sensical situation.

Community need consideration for any hygiene related change

Churches should be mandated to consider community benefit when changing hygiene provisions in their building, for example by altering toilets, installing disabled facilities, or changing areas.

For example a church installing disabled toilets should consider whether it can improve wider community accessibility through provision of a space meeting the Changing Places standard

Church Resource Hub?

Changes in patterns of ministerial service mean that a resourcing service at provincial level that can support the life of faith in the local parish church is urgently needed. An enabling Hub can draw locally generated resources into a national asset library. Such a hub is a critical necessity to equip commissioned or licensed lay leaders so they may serve and sustain the light of incarnate faith in local churches across England.


One of the humbling and inspiring features of the Church of England is the quality of thought, discernment and creativity found in the people of faith scattered across the 15,000 or so parishes. The commitment to subsidiarity in the Anglican churches, including this Church of England, means that there are few readily available platforms for drawing these invested gifts back to make them available for the common good across the wider church.

An authorised hub with national leadership would allow the best content and resources produced in Church of England to surface for the benefit of the whole people of God.

Why is this needed?

Changes in the pattern of ministerial deployment and creative acts by Bishops in various places are leading to the rapid authorisation via ‘Bishops Commission’ or similar instrument of lay people to act as service leaders, discipleship coaches, as pastoral workers or preachers.

The probability of success for such initiatives would be greatly enhanced were resources available to this new cadre of lay leaders in the church.

What sort of resource are we talking about?

Predominantly resources which enable the new cadre to effectively serve their congregation in their role. We anticipate that very many of these leaders will be ‘time poor’ and that resources which enable them to spend more time ‘doing’ and less time ‘preparing’ will predominate. Four classes of material might be considered:

  • drawing existing resources together with minimal modification
  • providing access to appropriate projects provided by para church organisations, or research by appropriate bodies.
  • adapting existing programmes from specific churches or areas to make them ‘widely deployable’
  • Least commonly, at least initially, to commission specific projects.\

How would we know what to provide in such a hub?

The true scope of such hub can only be precisely determined as users interact with the service. The project would benefit from an Agile approach similar to that commonly used in software development which would iterate rapidly from minimally viable product based on the analytics gained from users.

Why doesn’t it happen already?

The commitment to subsidiarity in the Anglican churches mean that there are few internal organisational vehicles for sharing the true span of the quality of invested in the lives of the faithful. Many excellent para church projects contribute valuable work in specific areas, but there is a specific lack of a provincially authorised source of curated products.

What models could we look at and learn from?

The model of the best bits of Open Access publishing in the Academic world is striking. Here are ‘Journals’ of every flavour, which provide a neutral space for academics from many different (and frequently competing) institutions to share knowledge. Typically they are managed by a largely volunteer editorial board, and the requirements for peer review, and other academic activities are met voluntarily from within the user community.

Recent developments have seen the Open Access community focusing on preserving the entire asset stack relating to the research paper – rather than just the final text. This move the Open Access journal towards a fusion of a document server and digital asset mangers.

These developments both conceptual and suggest that both in terms of concept and available platforms the church could be pushing at an open door in implementing such a resource hub.

Who should run this?

People who understand

  • the software design aspects of the problem
  • the user needs and interface issues
  • the existing resources available across the world
  • the future of the English Church
  • developments in missiology

What roadblocks might exist

Proposed digital products such as this require considerable user literacy, which evidence suggests is lacking in wider congregations. Whether it is lacking in the specific cadre of new ‘lay leaders’ is unclear. There are also barriers relating to bandwidth in some of the more isolated parts of the country, which mean there may need to be a physical media request service.

Finally where resources include provision for leaders to interact with digital products in the context of leading services there are issues because many churches lack the hardware to permit this. It may be necessary to think creatively and provide a standardised product similar to a mobile digital advertising display adapted to be suitably elegant and compatible with the listed buildings etc, to aid the delivery in some of the smallest and most delicate settings.

Where did this idea come from

I’m indebted to a collection of people including Tom Pearson for ideas presented at the 2018 Church of England Digital Labs hack day concerning a project called the ‘Church Support Hub’. 

 © Ian Wyllie 2019 for this post, with every expectation of sharing freely in the Church should someone be interested in taking the ideas on. I assert my moral rights etc. 

Ordinands: disabled under-represented?

Only four percent of candidates sponsored for a BAP (the gateway process in selection for ordination) declare a disability. Relative to national proportions of disability in working age adults there seems to be massive under-representation in the selection process. Is pernicious, cumulative and hidden discrimination to blame, or does poor measurement and lack of focus by the Ministry Division bear the blame?

4% of those sponsored for a BAP declared a disability… 

Bishop Seeley (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich), as chair of the Ministry Council

In written questions at Synod on 20th February 2019 Mr Williams asked the Chair of the. Ministry Council about the proportion of candidates with disability at four points in the process of discernment surrounding ordination and appointment

  • Entering the vocations process for ordained ministry;
  • Being recommended for training;
  • Completing training; and
  • Receiving a stipendiary vs non-stipendiary title post?

His question is perceptive since since the potential for filtering as a function of the protected characteristics the candidate expresses during the discernment process could poses a discriminatory force on ordinations, and the published data does not suggest the issue has high visibility for the Church of England.

A further necessary question Mr Williams neglects

Based on my personal experience of the Vocations system in the Church of England Mr Williams might also have useful added a fifth point at which the proportion of disabled candidates could usefully be recorded:

  • when their Vicar recommends them to meet with the DDO

This is necessary because this might in fact be the point at which the greatest effort needs to be focused on combatting discrimination.

 Response at Synod from Bishop Seeley

In a written response the Bishop Seeley (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich), as chair of the Ministry Council said

In the 2017/2018 academic year, 4% of those sponsored for a BAP declared a disability, the same percentage were recommended for training and a slightly higher percentage, 5%, sponsored for a stipendiary post.

I have no doubt that the answer given by Mr Seeley is accurate in the terms given. It is in fact those terms which causes most concern

Self declaration results in under identification of disabled candidates

Specifically the answer refers to candidates ‘declaring a disability’. In the 2014 report on Ordained Vocation Statistics it was clear that disability was being assessed based on ‘self declaration’ for reasonable adjustment at a panel. Assessing on this basis is known to result in under reporting, as the report acknowledges

As those declaring a disability are only doing so if it is relevant to BAP, the numbers are low and do not reflect the likely number of ordinands with a disability. This makes the data unreliable and indicates a need to take steps to improve the monitoring process.

The similarity in the 2014 and 2019 language ‘declaring a disability’ suggests a continued reliance on self declaration as a method for monitoring levels of disabled candidates in the discernment process. Relying on self declaration almost always fails to identify significant proportions of the disabled community. The reasons for under-declaration are complex but are thought to include applicants:

  • Believing their condition or disability has nothing to do with your ability to perform the role
  • not wanting an ‘employer’ to focus on the disability during a selection process
  • assuming that the ‘employer’ will expect you to have difficulties, need more time off, or support.

Achieving a realistic estimate

It’s almost certain that there is a problem with the statistics being reported, both in the 2014 report and Mr Seeley’s answer. The Papworth Trust’s disability stats reference 2018 suggests 18% of the working age population has a ‘disability’ of some sort.

 Do we know what pool the church is picking its ordinands from?

We don’t know what proportion of worshippers experience a disability. That matters, because we can’t assess whether the figures given in 2014 and by Mr Seeley are helpful without understanding the population the process is selecting from. Sadly discrimination in ‘right to access worship’ may mean that the pool the Church of England is choosing its ordinands from differs substantially in respect of type and severity of disability in respect to the wider population.

What should we want the answer to be?

I hope I worship in a church where there is a commitment to the poor, the excluded and the disabled. That care for, and responsibility to the ‘outsider’ is something that jumps out at me from the whole of scripture. So for the church to be finding that only four percent of those sponsored for a BAP declared a disability fills me with horror. Even if that answer is 100% below the actual, i.e. 8% of the BAP population is disabled, the proportion of candidates with a disability is still far below the proportion of disabled people in the working age population. Something is probably going very badly wrong

Is sufficient attention being paid to this by the Church of England?

Since it’s been known that the Church of England’s understanding of the potential problem of discrimination in it selection of candidates for ordination is incomplete since 2014 (nine years after the Disability Discrimination Act) passed, reasonable questions should be asked as to whether sufficient priority has been given to what is an important statistic.

The names we choose…and are given in the Church of England

Questions about digital conversion efficiency of church, parish and benefice names in the Church of England

In the social media / digital product domain what is the most effective form for naming:

  1. parishes
  2. multi-parish benefices

In this context effectiveness has three dimensions:

  • conversion efficiency in terms of ‘engagement’
  • openness to messaging from
  • affinity to church / parish / benefice

If you work or help with communications in a church with many congregations or a denomination with many churches how do you handle this. I would love to hear from you. I’m @ianwyllie on twitter or comment below… 

Why this question important?

In our area we see, and the anecdotal evidence also suggests that:

  1. There is poor recognition:
    • of the names the Church of England uses for benefices and ministry units larger than one parish
  2. Parish names are typically
    • longer than is ideal for conversion on social media and convenient display in digital products
    • do not unambiguously connect the parish to the Church of England
    • do not unambiguously locate the parish geographically
  3. Church names
    • do not unambiguously locate the church geographically
    • do not unambiguously connect the parish to the Church of England
  4. We also see confusion between ecclesial and civil parish names and their boundaries.

Some observations:

There is no common pattern for the naming of multi-parish benefices. Yet these supra parish structures are becoming more and more common, and often function, and are encouraged to function, as integrated ministry units. Here are some names in use locally with issues I note

  • The Church of England in Village, Village, and Village (a benefice) used by Ampfield, Chilworth and North Baddesley where I assist with communications, but is cumbersomely long and doesn’t convert as well as we hoped. This suggests to us that either
    • the association between the local church name / dedication and the geography is strong, OR the association of the church name / dedication and Church of England is weak
    • There is poor recognition of the name / dedication of the church – its simply ‘the village church’ and understanding of a) name / dedication or in fact denomination is weak
  • The ‘Avon Valley Partnership’: Partnership of what? relating to which Avon? – two Avon rivers in Hampshire, nine in the UK – three in Scotland)
  • ‘North Hampshire Downs Benefice’: Geographically this area is diffuse and the ‘Benefice’ seems to be very poorly understood
  • ‘Pastrow Benefice’ 12 churches in the Diocese of Winchester. Pastrow is a historic ‘hundred’ division of Hampshire
  • All Saints C of E:
  • All Saints Church in Village
The Owl is watching… and always wise.