Ringing Forums

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

It became very obvious to me quite some time ago that I wasn't going to get any further than PH without learning "properly", which I've done. Having already made the transition myself I'm looking for ways of helping others do the same, but many of them have been scared off ages ago by ill-advised and ill-taught attempts to get them to ring PBD. It's a challenge to find ways around that block.

Yep, I know what coursing order is, the diagram is for the band members who break out in a cold sweat unless there's a set of bell numbers to be chanted out...

Small steps and all that!

thanks!

No worries if the survey isn't available online, it was just idle curiosity.

I tried looking for the report online but it doesn't seem to be available. But I did come across this, which mentions it:

Reflections on why some ringers fail to progress much beyond ART Level 2/3

Some snippets that particularly caught my eye:

Perhaps we need to accept that most ringers are not that much into it. They ring every week on a Sunday, they go to a weekly tower practice and the odd outing or association meeting, but that is where it ends for them.

To achieve the modest goal of ringing some rounds and call changes on a Sunday we do not need to progress much beyond ART level 3. We do not need to learn blue lines, to understand bobs, to get to grips with the structures of methods.

There's a lot more there, much of which I also disagree with. The low expectations expressed in the article are disappointing but no great surprise as they seem to be the default in most of the towers I've been in. It really doesn't need to be that way, indeed we can't afford for it to be that way.

As far as I can make out, it is at least 40 years since my tower's band could ring anything other than poor PH5 with "Fred's bell", "Eve's bell" and so on. Over the last few months we have been starting method ringing. Yes it's only Minimus + covers but people have started moving bells, ringing inside and actually getting all enthusiastic, even though many of them have been plodding along not making any progress for decades.

It's great that there's a focus on recruitment, but I think we shouldn't forget all the "stuck in the mud" bands, because we need those people just as much as we do new blood.

You could do a halfway house and publish it in PDF or an eBook format. That would allow it to be saved on a phone and still used when there's little/no signal. PDF would preserve the video links, for when there is a signal. And it's possible to get a PDF printed as a book quite cheaply online - one site quoted me less than £5 for a one-off print.

I've done a very rough and ready conversion of the web pages to PDF, link below. Ideally you'd take the existing content and author it directly into EBook format using something like Calibre, which is free.

I think your second paragraph is an accurate summary. I suspect teaching and progression has never been great round here, but in the past when more people were starting it was always possible to "muddle through" and the consequential attrition didn't matter. That's a luxury that can no longer be afforded - every new ringer is precious.

There are mechanisms, but they are not cheap. It's all part of the increasing balkanisation of the internet, I'm afraid.

Yes, I go along to a their weekly practice. But they are also short of ringers - it's an 8-bell tower but there are usually only 6-7 of us. I don't mind the travelling, it's more that it's a symptom of there being effectively no method ringing and therefore no way for me to progress any further, this side of Manchester.

I think the changes are slim, unfortunately. The geographical area in question is split across 4 different associations - Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire & Derbyshire. Whilst there is some movement between the small number of towers that are still active it's limited. The experience level is not great - most towers are CC only, and struggle with PH. Most of the long standing ringers are elderly and have never got beyond CC/PH, so there's nowhere for new recruits "to go to" in terms of progression. Change ringing is effectively dead in the area - there are a couple of surprise-level towers outside the immediate area but they tend to keep themselves to themselves. I have to travel to the opposite side of Manchester to do anything more advanced, and I'm reliant on the goodwill of the ringers there as I can't service ring there, for example, as I'm helping keep the last remaining tower in my town going.

Myself and a couple of others are trying our best but it's a monumental struggle. I helped get our bells rehung in 2018, we had a simulator installed and I've been on the ART bell handling course and got 2 people almost to the point where they were just about ringing on their own - then, COVID...

The problem isn't bells - we have empty towers full of them - it's people, and momentum.