Ringing Forums

I think the main table on page 4 is relevant too. "Personnel records etc..." which are 75 years, and "Disclosing and barring...etc

I have finally heard from my diocese about SG records retention and they sent me this document which they claim as being the latest issue. (see from page 3).

My comment is probably for a new discussion.
I am pleased that there is to be a project for 2030. However "together" we seemed in the last week or so, I think that ringing is fragmented at the moment. Certainly there are a lot of good things going on in centres of excellence and its great to see younger ringers making a significant mark, but generally speaking we continue to live off the fat of the land.
I am 71. When I die, I take with me all my knowledge and experience. My learners will never achieve the experience I have because they all started at a "mature" age, and that also means that I can't necessarilly pass on my knowledge either. We are an active tower but with a CC and PB5 repertoire. That's ok, they are a loyal bunch of ringers and we do other things together as well - but I'll give it another 10 years - maybe!
We will work hard towards succession (the queen is dead, long live the king!), but I very much feel that we are on our own. I constantly post on FB, Twitter, Insta and on our community email list to let people know what we are doing.
There needs to be a paradigm shift amongst ringers at grass roots level!
That's all!

Thank you for posting this, we need up to date and concise information so it's much appreciated. However, (and this is not your fault), this is now confusing because although the amended document now mentions D-Day as 9th September they have not re-dated it to the 9th, not helpful to anyone who is only aware of the original 8th Sep document!

I was concerned that I might have given the incorrect information about records retention, so I emailed my diocese.
I am still waiting to hear but I found this on an SG document I received in July 2019. It might have changed since then.
"Please note personnel records relating to lay workers whose role involves contact with children and vulnerable adults including applications, references, disciplinary matters, job descriptions, training and termination documentation should be kept for 75 years after employment. The files should also include all documentation concerning allegations, investigations and risk assessments regardless of the findings."
If I receive a reply from the diocese I will revert.

AS I said in my original post, I "believe" it to be 70 years. I feel I should get more accurate information for myself and others so I am waiting a reply from the diocesan SG officer. I'll share if I get a useful answer.

I believe it is 70 years.

No, neither for QPs but I stay (not in the ringing room) until they go into changes and return before they finish making sure that everything is ok, collect fees and see them safely off the premises.

Paul, you make some interesting points. Ringing lacks stability and experience in some areas. PCCs often lack knowledge and experience in dealing with bell ringers.
There are also too many "experts". Should ringers refer to the CCCBR, or the church, for safeguarding guidelines? Who are our masters? The result of all this is contributing to a confused and risk averse culture. This is why it is important for towers to be represented on the PCC or at least have a very good, close working relationship with it. I have always said that effective communication can solve a lot of problems!
I am fortunate in having a foot in both camps, as an SG officer and a ringer, so I do my best to protect people in my parish and visiting ringers from excessive beaurocracy.
We have visitors next week. No SG qualificiations needed by them, no bits of paper to sign, no forms! As an SG trained person appointed by my PCC I will be there to meet and greet, and stay with them during their visit, as any good host should! (and I might even get a ring!!). Thats all that is needed - just as in the military, a few trained, appointed personnel and then let everyone else get on with it!.
We are fortunate to have the resource in our tower to manage this, and a deputy as back up. Visiting ringers are always welcome but if we can't personally meet them they are not allowed to come.

Answer to Q1.
A DBS certificate can record police convictions, reprimands and warnings. It can advise of any issues around children and adults barred lists and any other relevant information disclosed at the Chief Police Officers discretion. Having something disclosed would not necessarilly mean that a person is unsuitable to visit a church to ring bells.
If there were problems with the certificate this should be discussed between the provider (e.g. the church of england) and the applicant, and if necessary appropriate safeguards put in place to monitor or restrict a person from doing a particular activity.
DBS certificates are strictly private and confidential and the response to a tower asking "Have you got a clean DBS certificate?" would not necessarilly be straight forward.
An independant third party (tower) cannot fully assess a person based on the certificate alone and in any case it's not authorised to make any judgement without reference to the provider. Also, most ringers will not need to have DBS certificates.
If we start monitoring them ringing could become more difficult than catching a ferry at Dover!

We rang four lots of 60 on 3rds this weekend as a preamble to the local amdram performances. We tried some closed hstroke leading which was quite good and brilliant fun. It also produced some good striking. We had excactly 20 minutes ringing on each occasion so gave us time to "get into it" so to speak. (I like set piece ringing but would never confime call changes to 60 on 3rds. That system happens to be the best known but there are plenty of others, or compose them yourselves).

Umm, that's not true in my diocese - at the PCC level there's no flexibility with regard to deciding what training is needed for ringing, they just have to implement what they are told by the diocese. The only relevant optional training is safer recruitment for TCs, if they are involved in the recruitment of paid staff - which I suspect is almost never going to be the case. — John de Overa

I agree. The same in my diocese, training modules are determined by them, not the PCC.

I apologise unreservedly for using such a generalisation.

"I understand what you are saying but the PCC have no say in setting safeguarding policy, it's decided at diocesan level - even though the diocese then make it the responsibility of the PCCs to implement it."

John, yes, I agree but I don't think I explained what I meant as well as I could.

The national church has an SG policy which dioceses implement (not necessarilly in the same way). Each PCC must implement an SG policy which includes the overall key elements of the national policy. But, each PCC has license to include in its policy clauses which relate to activities which are relevant (and approved) in their parishes, e.g. bell ringing So there is flexibility.

"The assumption around volunteer SG training is that people only volunteer in one church, so everything is done at that level. That's increasingly untrue for many volunteers, and never has been true for ringers. It's another manifestation of just how out of touch diocesan/national CofE management has become with its parishes that it's come up with a SG policy that's not fit for purpose - but, CofE so no surprise there."

I entirely agree. Hence my belief that a national basic training which is transferrable is the thing to aim for. There still has to be a management process. Currently this is done through a PCC, or individuals can manage it themselves. The advantage with PCCs managing it is that they can then ensure that ringers do a refresh every three years (currently), whereas left to individuals it would never get done. But as ringers become even more detached from the church there certainly has to be a management sysem of some sort.

"I agree that in an ideal world there should be national, transferable SG training for all CofE volunteers, but there isn't, despite the obvious need for it and I can't see it happening as they've specifically not done that in the first place. Or we get "special case" training for ringing which allows us to continue to operate in the way we have for aeons."

I am not sure that its the type of training which is the problem. Its more the management of it. Why will "special case" training make the process any easier? It's the organisational arrangement between ringers and church which needs to change, as I think we both agree. As you say, the current set up doesn't work for us.

Thanks for the exchange of comments, it is interesting to hear the wide range of views on this subject.

I feel that a national basic SG course for everyone, which is transferrable, is the simplest way forward. The volunteer role of bell ringer has been singled out but I don't think we need a ringers' SG course.
It would probably mean, for example, that if a church worker e.g. refreshments helper had taken a church basic SG course (which is all they need) they would then have to take a bell ringing one too if they learned to ring, or visa versa. And if the church accepts either of them what's the point of having two different ones?
SG in the tower is no different than anywhere else. What is important is that the tower officers are aware of the PCC safeguarding policy and procedures. The PCC must consult the tower officers (whome they have elected or ratified anyway) to understand how ringing works so that the policy is correct. Local tower procedures then underly the SG policy. .(I know - Ideal world - and the problem with this idea is that a high % of PCCs and ringers don't consult each other).
But if they did all this it stil poses a challenge. It is relativley easy in a one band tower! Shared practices are not so easy to manage. But PCCs will have to manage it whatever level of training is required.- it is their responsibility. So I think the emphasis should be on cooperation not segregation. If we think ringers are a special case we will be made to be a special case. Do we want to be different?

The blog is excellent and important.

We are lucky in our village tower because we are part of the church diary. We are always talking with the wardens and rector. We look for any reason to ring and are often asked by the rector to ring for other things. Over the years we have made the effort to be "front of house", always letting everyone know what we are doing. Our close involvement with the church is an advantage but I think it is likely to be more difficult in other towers where ringers might have less contact, or for towers with no local/regular band because they are less likely to have the type of relationship which we enjoy.
Church officers/clergy/PCC members generally have no idea what is even in the tower let alone how the excercise works, and we as ringers have to be continually educating them in this respect. In our parish the ringers don't have and dont need to have any contact with area deans or archdeacons, we have a very flat reporting line which is excellent!
Some Ideas
1. Ringers appoint a main contact between ringers and church (Incumbent/wadens as relevant). This could be the T/C but needn't be.
2. Contact to regularly update church with ringing schedules/tower maintenance/training etc.
3. Contact to regularly communicate with community if possible with details about ringing times/extra ringing and why etc and always give contact details.
4. Actively use social media. We have Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/website accounts.
4. Develop trust between church / community and ringers so that gradually people begin to understand a little about the activity and reasons for it, be they for church or secular. This has worked well for us. I am retired (advantage) and during my interaction with local people, many non-church will ask about ringing and say how much they enjoy hearing the bells. Use this feedback to pass on to church and ringers.
5. Summary - the tower must understand what it needs to do and make the effort; then communicate, communicate and finally communicate again!
Hope this might help. Always happy to answer questions on our experiences.

There should be a national (not church) basic safeguarding training which lasts half an hour and refreshed every year. I am a church SO and getting people to do the several different modules of training (which, let's be honest, they then forget) is like pulling teeth. The nature and content of the training is confusing, (and one questions the relevance sometimes), to say the least and some people are not engaging with the church partly for this reason. I am not speaking against SG training but it should be encouraging, proportionate, consistent and above all - easy.

Thanks for your comments. I agree that bells don't affect attendance but that their sound is appreciated on Sundays and otherwise. We often receive favourable comments about hearing the bells, many from non-church goers.

Our two adjacent villages (Gt & Lt Gransden, Cambs) are about 1400 people and we are always emailing the "list" telling everyone what we are doing. Jubilee weekend PR covers 4 local F/B pages, the village email list, and the Association's F/B pages. Publicity is everything, but that's for a different discussion!

Simon, I was interested to read from the survey commentary that "... 62% of towers with bells rang on the surveyed Sunday and that was seen as a worry (I am sure it’s less than that now),…
Of course, ringing and the church organisation has changed a lot since then but in our own tower, if the survey was run now and the survey date co-incided with one of the three Sundays when there is no service, our data would contribute to the low %. But we hold weekly practices and sim practices, and ring for many other local secular occasions. Sunday service ringing is not necessarily a good indicator as to the health of ringing in an individual parish. We consider SS ringing as an important part of our function but it doesn't significantly contribute to our ringing.