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
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.
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
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
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 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
Do you think there should be national SG training specifically for ringers, transferrable between a towers? — John de Overa
Would that be led by the CofE or the CCCBR? — John de Overa
whereas left to individuals it would never get done. — Phillip George
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. — John de Overa
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? — Phillip George
So tailored courses leading to transferable qualifications — John Harrison
We should distinguish between the training, which will be more effective if it is tailored to draw on the experience of those on the course, and the result, which is the possession of relevant knowledge and judgmental skills, which are transferable between contexts.
When I did the courses (both the new C0 and the old half day course) the examples used bore little resemblance to situations I would meet as a ringer, which made the less effective. — John Harrison
You will only be able to post and/or comment once you have confirmed your email address and been approved by an Admin.