Ringing Forums

Simon, Is there going to be a final CCCBR photgraphic competition? The last I read (Latest News from the CC 1st Jan) suggested that it would be launched in the New Year. Maybe I have missed something! If it has been decided not to run one, that's ok, but I would be grateful to receive an update. Thank you.

I don't know how long the "custom" is of the PCC approving the appointment of the TC. In my many years of ringing I've only known the ringers to elected their TC - with no reference to the PCC. Appointment by the PCC is a recent thing brought about through safeguarding, but it is still the ringers who elect, and the PCC approve. When I first asked my PCC to ratify election of our TC they were not aware that it was their responsibility.

This requires a real joint effort between parish church and ringers. The ringers need guidance from the PCC and the ringers must educate PCCs about life in the tower. I have a feeling that in many churches there is little or no communication with ringers on the subjects you list.
The CCCBR is an advisory/guidance body for bells and ringing. The church is the governing body for ringers. The ringers pick and choose who they consult. There is a significant disconnect and this might be why towers are not being managed as they should be.

The following information is up to 21 years out of date and statistically insignificant but I present it for interest.
In 2000 and again in 2010 when I was Huntingdon District Secretary (Ely DA), I carried out a survey to get an idea of the health of ringing in all the district towers, which is predominantly a six bell area.
2000 (38 towers responded)
Practice Night - highest technical standard of the band.
Plain Bob 40% of towers. TB/Surprise 21% of towers.
2010 (31 towers responded)
Practice night - highest technical standard of the band.
Plain Bob 41% of towers. TB/Surprise 22% of towers.
These numbers were reduced for Sunday service ringing in favour of call changes by the local band.
The conclusion could be made that during the last two decades Plain Bob is the median ringer's level.
Time for another survey me thinks!

I entirely agree - succession is the challenge. Formal steeple keeping training would be helpful, but hands on, continuous inspection/gen maintenance is what is required to gain experience. This requires dedication/commitment too! I think professional maintenance agreements will be the answer but will probably only work for towers where the bells are regularly rung and the PCC has an understanding of what is in the tower! Other PCCs/unrung towers will probably not consider the cost to be worthwhile.

Yes, I think you are right about architects. I accompanied ours last year so that I was on hand for any questions. The reason this happened was because I liaise very closely with the churchwardens on all things bells, and they asked me if I would attend. I was able to tell the architect that the belfry is cleaned every year (as with the tower as a whole) and the installation regularly inspected. But, I am in the category of an older ringer and not sure how many more years I can crawl about the place with Henry, much as I enjoy it. Planning for succession is difficult because of the skill, experience and dedication required by new steeple keepers. I am sure that most ringers think that the bells and tower look after themselves! This subject is slightly off original topic but one which would be usefully discussed by ringers/associations etc.

Re you first paragraph about infrequent services and poor prospects of establishing local bands. An additional, related problem here is maintenance of the tower and the bells. Speaking generally I would suggest that most PCCs have no idea what is in the tower, or its condition (apart from the architect's quinquennial). They rely on ringers to regularly inspect and maintain the installation. Emphasis needs to be placed on care of the bells even more nowadays.

We are fortunate enough (sadly because we are all retired!) to be able to hold midweek daytime SIM practices. This is mainly to develop bell control skills but it gives us more time to discuss theory than on a practice night, which is predominantly given over to ringing. Theory can be anything - bell control, call changes, method structure etc. I also arrange dedicated theory sessions, if required, as and when ringers want to learn specific methods. Develop the team, make it interseting and exciting and this sort of thing could be arranged for many ringers in many towers, it's all a question of time and more importantly, effort!

Could it be helpful to have a Safeguarding category and somebody responsible for posting the exact and up to date requirements for safeguarding training of ringers according to the Church of England guidelines, as they are updated. Recent exchanges on Facebook have given almost as many different opinions as there were contributors which has led to uncertainty about what training should be carried out. Many ringers refer to the CCCBR, some to their PCC's and other direct to their diocese.