Ringing Forums

I wish I had the courage to say "No Fee No Ring" — Julia Lysaght

If you don't want to confront it head on, I'd just become permanently unavailable on wedding days, because I needed to iron the cat or somesuch. Nobody else has a right to demand your time.

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. — Phillip George

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.

I agree with your point that it's not the type of training that's the issue, I should have been more exact. It's the management of it and the apparently limited applicability of the resulting certification that's the issue. Because of geography I ring regularly in four different dioceses - am I supposed to do safeguarding training for each?

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.

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 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 don't think ringers want to be "different" when it comes to SG, but we need something that works for us, which the current setup doesn't.

completely sensible things that I've seen suggested before, but it's good to know they work in practice :smile:

Things that stood out in particular from the above are the initial intensive handling sessions, the importance of place and the concentration on good handling and listening early on and not pushing people on before they have those skills.

Based on experience from my first two learners I've decided it's better for me to take on one learner at a time and give them 1:1 sessions rather than have 2-3 people spending more than half the time sitting about.

Although my current learner is only just beginning to ring unassisted we've already spent a lot of time on the importance of position on the rope to control the bell. My own experience was that after I'd got to the stage where I was unlikely to kill myself, I was more or left to get on with it, where "it" was call changes, where you can fluff your way through even with poor bell control. Then learning PH took an absolute age because I hadn't really learned how to make sustained changes in speed, and trying to move on to PB5 nearly finished me as a ringer because it required even better bell control, plus ringing by place, ropesight etc - skills which I simply didn't have. I've seen exactly the same problems as I had with both other learners and long-established ringers. If we want to train people as change ringers then I think we need to be training for that from the very start.

Round here we have re-activated a silent tower in a large village over the last nine months. They now have a band of twelve ringers aged 12 - 65, the more advanced of whom are just starting to plain hunt. — Roger Booth

I'd be interested to hear how that was achieved - what worked, what didn't, what sort of existing ringers you need to support the process etc. I think the "Bootstrapping problem" is going to become more and more common.

I'll also be interested to hear about what happens beyond the PH stage. My home band has been stuck at that point for the last 40 years and when we've asked for advice it's almost always been "Plain Bob Doubles", which in my experience is usually a disaster for bands that can't already ring it.

sounds similar to here - 35 towers in the branch, mostly small towns & rural and over an hour to the towers most distant to us. We are on the boundary of 4 associations (Derby, Yorks, Chester & Lancs) so the majority of the towers nearest to us are not in our association, so if we were going to form a cluster, it would make no sense for it to be based on our association. But the situation in most of the surrounding towers in other associations is even worse than ours.

Perhaps we are reaching a point in some areas then where local bands have collapsed to a point where not even viable clusters can be formed in which case the branch or district becomes the first level building block of formal organisation. — A J Barnfield

If local bands have collapsed to that point then I suspect the branch/district will have as well.

The current formal organisations were fine in the long since gone halcyon days, and they tend to be run by people who learnt during those days. Where I ring they don't reflect where we are now and attempts to "improve" things seem to be to just to try to do more of the stuff that worked in those days - exactly as Roger said: "Practices focussed on methods up to Cambridge Minor and the Standard eight, striking competitions against 'expert bands' and quarterly meetings over half an hour's drive away"

As an ART Tutor I have also delivered a number of ART Module 1 courses (how to teach bell handling) since Covid. It is noticeable that most of those attending are keen to learn to teach, or are inexperienced teachers who are keen to improve their skills, but this is not matched by the number of experienced teachers who are willing to support and mentor these delegates in the period after the day course. This is essential to help the delegates gain experience and complete their logbooks. — Roger Booth

That matches my experience. I organised an Art Module 1 course in our tower before COVID and subsequently was teaching two people when the pandemic brought everything to a halt. For various reasons they've not restarted but I do have a new learner who is making good progress. I'm time-limited as I'm working so I can't take on more than 1-2 at a time and give them the 1:1 time they need at the start, even if we desperately need more ringers in the area.

There is an ART teacher I could reach out to if I needed help, however I was one of her pupils when she was being accredited and helped her with her subsequent pupils, so I was aware of much of ART teaching practice before I went on the Module 1 course. As for ART teacher logbooks and accreditation, I suspect that's more important to ART than it is to me and frankly I don't think I'll bother - the hassle my teacher had to get accredited has put me off, and she is much more connected to the ringing community than I am. If there was an assessment day then I'd consider going on that. The ART teaching scheme is really good for the handling stages, it gave me the techniques and confidence I needed to teach handling quickly and safely and I certainly won't be going "off piste", but I think it's unlikely I'll ever be an official ART teacher.

Practices focussed on methods up to Cambridge Minor and the Standard eight, striking competitions against 'expert bands' and quarterly meetings over half an hour's drive away are of little interest to this band. We have just started holding regular 'Improvers' practices (call changes, kaleidoscope and plain hunt) focussed on this group and others in our local Deanery, and they have proved very popular. By being regular, local and sociable, they will make faster progress than the usual annual training day. — Roger Booth

Again, exactly the situation here. Two band members have just become association members but that was hard to arrange and required a drive over the Pennines to one of the occasional branch practices, I think it's marginal as to whether they'll go to any future ones. The same two people have also been going to the monthly Plain Methods sessions at the diocesan ringing centre although that's on the limits of being practical - it's a 2 hour session with a 1-hour drive each way. The rest of the band aren't really interested.

It's adapting to retain the interest of keen new ringers like this that the exercise desperately needs, rather than things returning to the old 'normal'. — Roger Booth

A big yes. And it's not just new ringers either, since resuming and a change of TC my home band people who have been ringing for many years have a renewed interest, there's a band BBQ at the church next month and there's been talk of arranging a tower outing. And for the first time in probably 40 years, the tower band rang something other than CC's & PH at a service yesterday. Yes it was only an easy Minimus method + 2 covers, but the positive effects of getting to that point have been huge.

wow and glad to hear it - thank you. Let's sincerely hope you are successful!

all very good points. Do you think there should be national SG training specifically for ringers, transferrable between a towers? Would that be led by the CofE or the CCCBR? I think there's a strong case that the CofE has done a poor job as far as SG in a ringing context goes.

I'm also unconvinced that SG training should be mandated for all ringers. It isn't for all others in the CofE although it is recommended. That seems about right.

a big +1 to that. The blogs are great not just because of the content but also because they are written in an informal style. They also reach an audience who (like me) don't subscribe to RW who otherwise would hear very little from the CC.

Our TC was chosen by the ringers and approved by the Incumbent and is on the PCC, his mum is Churchwarden, I'm appointed by incumbent as steeplekeeper for the tower, bells & clock and I am on the church maintenance team. The 2018 rehang project was formally approved by the PCC and then delegated to ringers, the PCC treasurer managed the finances. We are on the church calendar and we are a balcony ring so we all say Hi to someone on the PCC every Sunday on the way in.

As other's have said, integrate yourself into the life of the church and talk to them regularly - it's not that hard.

I absolutely agree with everything you said. But your proposal is far too sensible to ever happen :grin:

thanks, that's all interesting information. Making the general point about the relative incidence of SG issues was hopefully enough, rather than trying to hammer the point home :wink:

It will be interesting to see what the RSCM say, what about organists, or are they covered by the RSCM as well as choirs and other music groups?

The first two levels of SG training are centralised so hopefully the certificates are accepted nationally within the CofE - although I note that the certificates do have the diocese on them. I have no idea if that applies to the Leadership level training though. I really think the CofE made a mistake by leaving SG at the diocese level rather than making it truly national - as numbers continue to fall it's going to become more and more common for anyone volunteering for the CofE to be doing so across diocese boundaries.

The comment from the DSO seems to be pretty tone-deaf and out of touch to me. The objections to the current CofE SG mechanisms aren't just coming from ringers, I think it's just that we may be some of the more vocal critics. My tower is very well connected to the life of the parish (TC on the PCC, etc) and I'm hearing the same complaints from non-ringers. The DSO seems to be claiming people object to the principles of safeguarding which is wrong, it's problems with the implementation that are the issue, because the guidance does not reflect the reality of the relationships different people have with the church. That's entirely their responsibility, and is something they need to fix rather than shooting the messengers.

responsibility for implementing the safeguarding regime has been delegated down to Dioceses which are then not consistent with each other. This has been well demonstrated by the different approaches taken by Dioceses over the need for different levels of safeguarding training by Tower Captains. The CofE's safeguarding lead was persuaded that all tower captains did not need to do Leadership and this has become the policy, however some Dioceses published more stringent requirements before this was agreed. — Simon Linford

That's doesn't seem to be what's happened in practice, some dioceses have continued to publish more stringent requirements even after the above mentioned guidance has been published. The CCCBR Safeguarding in Church of England Settings page is dated January 2022 and it says:

Each diocese will determine whether their tower captains have a local leadership role, based on guidance from their parishes and input from the local territorial ringing society or association
...
The way in which each diocese implements the Framework will vary according to local circumstances, both at parish and diocesan level. In practice, each Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor (DSA) has considerable scope to establish guidance which responds to local conditions.

But if I look at my diocese's guidance, updated in May this year, it says very clearly that all TCs have to do Leadership training.

It's appears from the way it is worded that the "agreement" between the CCCBR & the CofE is pretty much worthless and that individual dioceses and parishes can mandate whatever rules they choose. It's the usual CofE shambolic muddle. That's not the CCCBR's fault though.

however despite the booklet having been reviewed by ringers and the Clerical Guild and considered to be excellent, the DSOs who have reviewed it didn't like it at all! — Simon Linford

What didn't they like? The way the information was presented or the concepts themselves?

The question of visiting ringers is particularly difficult because the church cannot fit visiting ringers into their model of bellringers as church volunteers. — Simon Linford

Perhaps if the CofE had engaged more with the ringing community over the years, the reality of what's involved would have come as less of a shock to them, and their "model" wouldn't be quite so badly broken?

However getting ringers out of the 'volunteer' model then has implications for insurance, health and safety and a whole host of other things. We are intending to contact some other groups who might be similar and see if they are treated differently. — Simon Linford

The issue the CofE seem to be struggling to grasp is that ringers have different roles with respect to the CofE at different times:

• Service ringing - that's a CofE activity and would come under their instance, H&S etc rules.
• Association outings, ringing trips etc - that's not a CofE activity, people are ringing as a hobby. And most associations have insurance, safeguarding policies etc for just that reason.
• Weekly practices - who knows? you could argue it comes under either of the above two categories.

And then as you've said, if you throw the "visiting ringer" concept into the mix it becomes even more complicated... But that's the reality of the way ringing works and it's been like that for a very, very long time as far as I can tell. Why is this a surprise to them?

The bad experiences of a small number of DSOs who have been exposed to the more difficult cases involving bellringers have not made this any easier. — Simon Linford

I'm sure, but that suggests a lack of knowledge and proportionality on their part - is there any evidence that bellringers cause any more issues - person-for-person, than any other group?

Yes someone's missing the point, but it's not me.

• Bells without ringers are just expensive ornaments, it's a partnership, not a dictatorship.
• I actually said exactly what you are apparently saying I didn't say, which is that 3rd party organisations using church premises are required to have their own safeguarding policies. Their own not (necessarily) CofE ones.
• I am prepared to do whatever safeguarding training is required of me, I have been told I don't need Leadership, and that's come from the CofE. That overrides whatever you or I think. That doesn't however mean I think it's sensible.
• The CofE has centrally mandated a set of safeguarding rules, including training, yet as far as I can tell, the approval of an individual only applies within a singe diocese, or even perhaps a single parish? How is that not patently bonkers to the people responsible for management of CofE safeguarding?
• I think it was pretty obvious that my suggestion about a breakaway from the CofE was (mostly) in jest. The point I was trying to make is that the current situation is inconsistent, particularly when it comes to ringing outings - we'd be treated entirely differently doing the same activity with the same people if we weren't affiliated with the CofE.

I think you are right that the CofE safeguarding rules often don't make much sense when applied to ringing, for example our TC has to do Leadership level, he leads practices but I do 1:1 handling teaching and I only have to do Foundation.

I think the likelihood of getting common sense applied to how the CofE rules are applied to ringing is effectively zero as the safeguarding system is designed primarily to protect the CofE from litigation.

As far as I can tell, external groups using the church premises are not bound to CofE rules, merely "good practice" and the CofE Safeguarding Handbook says that safeguarding is not the CofE's responsibility for such events. Perhaps the CCCBR and all the regional associations should just break all links with the CofE and then they could come up with a safeguarding regime that's more sensible for non-service ringing? Outings usually pay steepleage anyway, so in such events are already in effect third-party rather than CofE.

Or is that *too* heretical a suggestion, even for ringers? ;-)

Has anyone else thought about that? — Simon Linford

Yes.

https://whitingsociety.org.uk/articles/basic-tuition/the-handstroke-gap.html

perhaps, if you have a band that can already ring PB competently and you are just slotting in a single learner. But many bands, ours included, simply aren't in that privileged position.

the rule about when to make dodges in PB is dead simple - it's whenever the treble leads. However unless you are blessed with either good ropesight or good listening, that's a big ask.

Another way of doing it is by watching where you pass the treble when hunting out - the relationship between when that is and where you make the next dodge is fixed, so even if a bob is called, the relationship still works. Best for you to work it out for yourself, you are more likely to remember it that way ;-)

Alternatively, see if your tower will consider ringing something other than PBD for you, a method which in my opinion has finished off way more ringing careers than it ever progressed. A simple Minimus method with a cover will help you develop ropesight far more quickly than PB, and with that under your belt, you'll likely find Minor methods much easier to move on to.

http://ringingteachers.org/resources/Method-Toolboxes/minimus-toolbox