Ringing Forums

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.

...yes, I agree about bell handling stopping when physical survival is achieved. At Gt Gransden we have weekly sim practices where we practice ringing up and down, dodgy call changes and other bell control skills, as opposed to bell handling skills. However, although our ringers are safe they struggle with adjusting their ropes in or out, which is essential for good dodging. Sadly, they are all "of an age" and that definitely doesn't help. If they eventually get to ring PB5 that would be a great achievement. Probably most important is that they enjoy their ringing and come back week after week!

We have never rung during Holy Week out of respect for the tradition of not doing so. Our practice night is Thursday. Instead, we hold our tower AGM, which this year will be at our house when we provide refreshments and have a jolly pleasant evening. If we were asked to ring for a funeral by the incumbent during Holy Week I expect we would do so. Our incumbent consults us on all ringing matters but the ultimate decision is hers. Spring cleaning the whole tower takes place in the summer when the quality of light is better and the weather warmer.

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.