|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bunch of bell ends
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
The point that seems to be lost is that bells are an essential part of the presence of a cathedral within its community. They literally transmit its presence beyond walls etc., as well as marking celebrations, funerals, services, etc.
Therefore, the ringers are specialists who bring a specific aspect of the cathedral to life, and project its presence into its wider community. They are also part of the cathedral community itself: their investment in the cathedral, particularly in the case of volunteers, is the offering of their skill, and they can expect to receive at least respect in return.
They are not freeloaders, nor tourists; they are people of skill with a distinctive part to play in the life of any cathedral.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I would have expected a series of recorded meetings to deal with the issues causing the problems before this particular pass was reached.
apparently there were no pre meetings or warnings about issues just a meeting withdrawing them from the role of volunteers.
So even if the Dean and Chapter were right in principle they were wrong because there was a failure to communicate what the problems were.
I volunteer with a large charity. I would be blazing if my role were suddenly terminated with no discussion as to any problems.
It wouldn't happen. We have supervisors and monthly consultation group meetings with the managers at the charity.
It's not about being Christian, it's about being human. I don't feel any sense of entitlement or expect to be pandered to. But my charity work is my whole life - and terminating it so suddenly without explanation would be simply unkind and inhuman imo.
The publicity will confirm many predjudices about the Church in general ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The point that seems to be lost is that bells are an essential part of the presence of a cathedral within its community.
They seem to manage OK without bells in Norwich.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The point that seems to be lost is that bells are an essential part of the presence of a cathedral within its community.
They seem to manage OK without bells in Norwich.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
They may not be a standard peal, but they are there and quite a distinctive presence. Admittedly, the main peal of bells in Norwich is at St Peter Mancroft, but there again, the argument works when translated in that the bells of that church are a huge part of its presence in the city.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Boogie: quote:
I would be blazing if my role were suddenly terminated with no discussion as to any problems.
This. It's the utter disrespect towards the volunteers that gets to me about this situation. Respect and earlier transparency would have gone a long way to help the transition if it needed to be made. People do count, but those who run the Minster have blown that off.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And you know that it is going to cost more, how exactly? How do you know that this new arrangement would not be able to bring in more money (I've no idea how) to the Minster?
In the parish churches I have been involved with bells as far as I could ascertain bells brought money into the church because of charges for weddings and this taking into account the expense of bell rope replacement etc. The bell ringers seem to do a lot of regular maintenance themselves which saved the PCC money.
In all places I have been they have rang on a Sunday as volunteers.
In a cathedral I would imagine bells are not going to contribute a large amount of money and so they will run at loss whether used or not used. Having a paid captain of a bell tower is only going to add to the cost. The hidden saving of regular maintenance by keen volunteers may also be lost. I can't even imagine it what way this approach will save money.
It is possible the Dean & chapter have made the correct decision but what is clear they have carried it out very badly indeed.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
It is possible the Dean & chapter have made the correct decision but what is clear they have carried it out very badly indeed.
What's clear to me is that whoever is right or wrong, the Dean and Chapter have been comprehensively outplayed at media and story management. It may be that they have been inept at this, it may be that they are prevented by legal, pastoral or other concerns from publicly sharing their side of the story. For example the press reports referenced in this thread all report that the Cathedral made these decisions without the decency to go along and talk to the ringers. In contrast the only person actually to say he had "no intention of going" to a scheduled meeting (after trashing the Cathedral on social media) was the Carillon playing co-ordinator - who then seemed amazed to find himself out of a job.
The Dean and Chapter may be absolutely, completely, totally wrong. But nothing I've seen so far proves this either way.
anne
Incidentally, in re-reading the original story I noticed that one of the ringers' grievances was "the decision to stop them having a new year’s celebration in the minster before they rang the bells" which at least has the potential for H&S (and PR) disaster.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Many ringers are also regular congregants - but in my experience, most are not. In one church where the ringers stood within the sanctuary, the start of worship was marked by the ringers, with 2 exceptions, walking the length of the building and out of the door.
It's worth pointing out that in many cases the ringers are going on to the next church to ring for service there - I think my record is four in a morning. I'm not sure even the priests manage that sort of number. Are we being selfish, or aiding as many churches as possible to call the faithful to worship? You tell me.
It's also possible that the ringers may not be Christian - the one reading this over my shoulder is quite firmly not, and I can just about rise to agnostic on days when I really feel the need to believe.
AG
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Do you know that Lambeth considers a bellringers wedding to be "sensible"? No. Do you know if Lambeth told the people at York Minster that they'd not get a license if they applied for one again? No.
And do I know those things to be false? No, and nor do you.
What we are told is that ringers used to be able to marry in the minster, but that this was no longer permitted. It is possible that this comes from Lambeth, and it's possible that it comes from the Dean and Chapter. Either has the ability to deny a wedding.
If a special licence was applied for, and Lambeth rejected it, then it seems likely to me that that would have been mentioned in the article. The implication of the article is that the Minster had said no without asking.
Now, you could be right - the Minster could be saying no because it has been told that a special licence would be denied. That is a possible story, but it is by no means a necessary story.
As far as the "hassle" of having a wedding in the Nave goes, here's my opinion:
People should marry in their communities. In normal circumstances, that means their parish church (and indeed people have the right to marry in their parish church.) We have, however, decided that cathedrals are going to have regular congregations - that despite them not being a parish, they nevertheless have a body of people who attend regular services there and consider the cathedral, rather than the parish that contains their home within its physical boundaries, to be their church community.
Those people should marry at the cathedral, in their community. Without question. This should always be permitted. (And yes, they should also baptize their kids there.) If we have decided that cathedrals should have a community and a congregation, then we have to accept the consequences, however inconvenient they might be.
The single open question is whether someone who shows up every week to ring the bells before the service is part of the cathedral community. The decision of someone (perhaps the Dean and Chapter, perhaps Lambeth) seems to be that no, they don't count - they're not really one of us, they're just the (un)hired help. I can't support that kind of exclusionary behaviour.
Apart from anything else, it seems terribly petty - how many bellringers can possibly get married in the average decade?
[ 16. October 2016, 19:53: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
For example the press reports referenced in this thread all report that the Cathedral made these decisions without the decency to go along and talk to the ringers. In contrast the only person actually to say he had "no intention of going" to a scheduled meeting (after trashing the Cathedral on social media) was the Carillon playing co-ordinator - who then seemed amazed to find himself out of a job.
The first linked article quotes Alice Etherington, the ringer who started the petition, "The minster has suspended all bellringing with absolutely no prior warning." It says that the ringers were summoned to a special meeting, and told there that they were no longer needed, and that they could apply to be volunteer ringers again next year.
The Minster did have the decency to tell the ringers in person, although what they were told seems to be a blank "we're stopping ringing for now" without any kind of explanation that makes sense.
IME, the lack of an explanation that makes sense is a big problem when it comes to dealing with people. The Minster produced explanatory words, but they don't actually explain anything - there's a bunch of management word-salad, followed by a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise. There has been speculation in this thread that something bad happened, or almost happened, that the actions are a response to that, and that there are pastoral or legal reasons preventing a proper explanation.
Perhaps there's no better way to handle this than to hang the Minster leadership out to dry, and to say "please trust us, we're not being arseholes on purpose, but we can't tell you anything more" - but in order to manage that, you need to have built up a significant prior pattern of not behaving like an arsehole.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Fortunately the Archbishop of Canterbury has made reconciliation a key part of his ministry. This is a place that needs this.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Apparently it is all about health & safety. Feels slightly spurious as all that probably would be needed is an up to date risk assessment, a training course & maybe some minor physical changes.
From a PR viewpoint the chapter should have provided a list of the issues that needed to be sorted out to preempt them sounding like control freaks.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lincoln Imp
Apprentice
# 17123
|
Posted
This is a very measured and well-crafted response from the York Young Ringers: letter
The Minster authorities thought they would crush a slow-worm. Instead they have awakened a cobra.
--------------------
There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds. (Tennyson)
Posts: 30 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
This passage is short but says much:
quote:
One recent example of this was the introduction of a new sign-in sheet with which we all complied every time we entered and left the tower. If the reasons behind this policy were explained, they were certainly not fully understood, but regardless the whole band was happy to comply.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Apparently it is all about health & safety.
I'm afraid that most of that link is hidden behind a pay wall and thus inaccessible to many of us.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
In the interests of balance, the reasons why you might want a signing-in policy seem fairly self-explanatory to me.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In the interests of balance, the reasons why you might want a signing-in policy seem fairly self-explanatory to me.
But it would be common courtesy to explain this new policy to the bellringers.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
The Lord Mayor has weighed in.
"Just because volunteers have no employment protection in law, it does not follow that they should be treated with such disdain. Maybe there are underlying reasons which have not yet come to light, but on the face of it, this human resources disaster has drawn national condemnation and reputational damage."
I agree with this and it's what bothers me most, I'm sure many others feel the same - people like me, who have no connection whatever to the C of E or bell ringing. Tho I do love the sound of our local bells every Sunday morning.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
From the linked article (updated I think since it was linked):
quote:
Dr John Sentamu said that earlier this summer, it was necessary for the Chapter to take action regarding a member of the bellringing community on safeguarding grounds.
I confess that Lamb Chopped, BroJames and others were right and I was wrong.
Let the flaming begin ...
[ 17. October 2016, 13:10: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Full statement here. Not so much Health & Safety as Safeguarding, it seems. And one of those issues where the clear need for confidentiality causes problems in itself.
But now everyone will be asking mote questions ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
....and the same people who have been lambasting the Minster would have been equally vocal if they had found out that the safeguarding issue had been ignored.
Yes, maybe the matter could have been handled more sensitively by the Dean and Chapter, but they may well have had to take drastic action with little or no notice.
Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place!
And will the ringers now comment on how and why one of their members has caused safeguarding concerns? I doubt it - confidentiality must surely apply to both sides. I suspect it may come as much of a surprise to them as to the rest of us...
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
And will the ringers now comment on how and why one of their members has caused safeguarding concerns? I doubt it - confidentiality must surely apply to both sides. I suspect it may come as much of a surprise to them as to the rest of us...
Ian J.
I have been thinking that probably few of the ringers knew about the problem with safeguarding so they're probably all shocked and wondering who it was. Such a horrible situation.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Indeed it is, and one wonders if the blanket dismissal of all the ringers simply had to be done in order to hide the identity of the one.
Pure speculation on my part, of course.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lincoln Imp
Apprentice
# 17123
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed it is, and one wonders if the blanket dismissal of all the ringers simply had to be done in order to hide the identity of the one.
...
Let's look at this scenario: Safeguarding concerns have been raised against Priest A in the town of B in the Diocese of C. Therefore, let's axe all priests in town B and lock them out of their churches with immediate effect without telling them why.
One should not joke about safeguarding. More's the pity that the people in authority have made it into a joke by their pitiful mis-handling of this business. "Earlier this summer..." concerns were raised. Well, it would seem that proper safeguarding did not become relevant until it was autumn.
--------------------
There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds. (Tennyson)
Posts: 30 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
No, the issue as reported by the Archbishop is that after the concerns were raised, *other* ringers decided to ignore the Chapter's decision on the matter.
So at least *some* of the ringers knew perfectly well why they were sacked, but nonetheless decided to sound off to the press (or let others do so) - presumably in the hope that the Minster wouldn't dare admit to safeguarding issues.
(Yes, I was stupid to start this thread.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed it is, and one wonders if the blanket dismissal of all the ringers simply had to be done in order to hide the identity of the one.
...
Let's look at this scenario: Safeguarding concerns have been raised against Priest A in the town of B in the Diocese of C. Therefore, let's axe all priests in town B and lock them out of their churches with immediate effect without telling them why.
One should not joke about safeguarding. More's the pity that the people in authority have made it into a joke by their pitiful mis-handling of this business. "Earlier this summer..." concerns were raised. Well, it would seem that proper safeguarding did not become relevant until it was autumn.
No-one is joking. Apparently no-one is apologising for leaping to uncharitable conclusions either.
anne (eta: sorry, I've cross-posted with at least one apology - but I'll leave this here as a lesson to myself about motes, beams and so on)
[ 17. October 2016, 15:14: Message edited by: anne ]
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But now everyone will be asking mote questions ...
Such as why they didn't say this in the first place? With this explanation, the Chapter's actions make sense. IMO, this should have been in the letter to the volunteers (because it is the actual issue). The letter should have said more or less exactly what today's statement said. The Dean and Chapter are responsible for seeing that safeguarding policies are followed. Several ringers have repeatedly expressed their intention to ignore those policies. The Chapter cannot permit this situation to continue, so ringing stops now.
That's clear and unambiguous. Instead, what they produced was a pile of management word-salad that made no sense.
quote:
Other members of the group “consistently challenged” the minster’s governing body, the Chapter of York, on this and other matters, Sentamu said in a statement.
If the Chapter is as bad at explaining all their decisions as they have been at explaining this one, I'd probably "consistently challenge" them. Probably by saying "that makes no sense. Do you have a reason that does? What do you actually want to achieve?"
This issue rather reminds me of some of the interesting discussions that I've had with safety people over the years. Most of the safety people I've worked with have been good, but there have been a couple of zealots who have been blinded by their convictions. Typically, these people have decided that a choice made to fit one particular environment is applicable to a very different environment about which they don't know as much as they think, and then dig their heels in when you tell them that their proposal makes everyone's lives much harder for no actual safety gain.
You have to fight these people continuously and without letting up, or you accumulate an enormous shell of useless safety theatre and end up mired in nonsense.
But from the outside, you can't tell the difference between people who are resisting the kind of safety theatre that is actively harmful, and people who are resisting actual sensible safety changes because "we've always done it that way." You have to dive all the way into the details to understand who is right.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
No, the issue as reported by the Archbishop is that after the concerns were raised, *other* ringers decided to ignore the Chapter's decision on the matter.
That's how it sounds, I suppose we're very unlikely to know what the details are.
quote:
So at least *some* of the ringers knew perfectly well why they were sacked, but nonetheless decided to sound off to the press (or let others do so) - presumably in the hope that the Minster wouldn't dare admit to safeguarding issues.
(Yes, I was stupid to start this thread.)
No, I think the thread was perfectly valid and your initial reaction was understandable - I think mine was as well.
I suppose the lesson here is that whilst it is entirely possible for Anglican structures to be completely stupid and arsey, if they've made a rare and rapid decision, the chances are that something has happened that we're not aware of.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Such as why they didn't say this in the first place? With this explanation, the Chapter's actions make sense. IMO, this should have been in the letter to the volunteers (because it is the actual issue). The letter should have said more or less exactly what today's statement said. The Dean and Chapter are responsible for seeing that safeguarding policies are followed. Several ringers have repeatedly expressed their intention to ignore those policies. The Chapter cannot permit this situation to continue, so ringing stops now.
That's clear and unambiguous. Instead, what they produced was a pile of management word-salad that made no sense.
I suspect there was a combination of things, including that their communications advice was a bit crap, that they didn't expect the bellringers to go to the press and that the Chapter thought it was rather more important to deal/co-operate with the secular agencies on this issue than to tell everyone exactly what happened.
I think the chances are that they've a shortage of staff so they could only deal with one major crisis at a time.
quote:
If the Chapter is as bad at explaining all their decisions as they have been at explaining this one, I'd probably "consistently challenge" them. Probably by saying "that makes no sense. Do you have a reason that does? What do you actually want to achieve?"
This issue rather reminds me of some of the interesting discussions that I've had with safety people over the years. Most of the safety people I've worked with have been good, but there have been a couple of zealots who have been blinded by their convictions. Typically, these people have decided that a choice made to fit one particular environment is applicable to a very different environment about which they don't know as much as they think, and then dig their heels in when you tell them that their proposal makes everyone's lives much harder for no actual safety gain.
Whilst this might be an issue here, it doesn't sound like it from the ABofY's statement linked above.
quote:
You have to fight these people continuously and without letting up, or you accumulate an enormous shell of useless safety theatre and end up mired in nonsense.
Oh please do start having a totally irrelevant discussion about H&S gorn mad, you're obviously such an expert on the subject.
quote:
But from the outside, you can't tell the difference between people who are resisting the kind of safety theatre that is actively harmful, and people who are resisting actual sensible safety changes because "we've always done it that way." You have to dive all the way into the details to understand who is right.
Oh shut up already.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ah crap.
This sucks.
There are probably some poor dedicated bell ringers who knew nothing about all this mess and just dedicatedly did their stuff and are now horrified and devastated and it's such a shame.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Ricardus - no harm, no foul. The community service aspect of flushing out those whose knees are just a little too ready to jerk has been invaluable.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed it is, and one wonders if the blanket dismissal of all the ringers simply had to be done in order to hide the identity of the one.
A "safeguarding issue" doesn't necessarily mean any crime has been committed. It could be something as daft as them not always ensuring they have two or more adults in the car when ferrying the kids to and from band practice.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
In my experience, church staff/leaders, even very senior ones, seem to panic and produce word salad when faced with situations like this. Or to overlook decisions they could take that would make everything easier but are only obvious to them in hindsight.
I think it might be due to a kind of amateurism, to so many of them dutifully learning about safeguarding type issues and the events that require a major response, but in their heart of hearts they don't expect to encounter such things. Though of course they would say otherwise if challenged. Mentally they are aware, but emotionally, well, like new soldiers under fire for the first time. Not every leader, obviously. But enough of them that they are caught flatfooted when it happens. And their responses get scrambled.
At least, that's what I've seen in my own denomination, on several levels of leadership. I had a senior leader say to me once, after several rounds of explanation, "but... but... you're accusing him of deliberately breaking the eighth commandment!" No shit, Sherlock. I think he must have been in the habit of dismissing every conflict as some sort of misunderstanding which could be ironed out if we only sat down together.
The result in my case was that they spun their wheels and couldn't figure out a proper response to make to downright evil.
Sometimes I think a year of riding along with the local police would do our church leaders a world of good.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A "safeguarding issue" doesn't necessarily mean any crime has been committed. It could be something as daft as them not always ensuring they have two or more adults in the car when ferrying the kids to and from band practice.
I don't think the local authority would be involved if the Child Safeguarding policy of York Minster stated that two adults had to be in a car but the bellringers refused to co-operate.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I wonder if the displaced ringers have thought of cheering themselves up by helping to ring in other towers of the city (there must be some)?
Not the same as ringing at the Minster, but at least the good people of York would be dragged out of their bell-less misery...
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think the local authority would be involved if the Child Safeguarding policy of York Minster stated that two adults had to be in a car but the bellringers refused to co-operate.
No; and we have been told that this was "a complex multi-agency activity involving City of York Council, York Diocese Safeguarding Adviser and the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Officer". Big stuff, or at least allegations thereof.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A "safeguarding issue" doesn't necessarily mean any crime has been committed. It could be something as daft as them not always ensuring they have two or more adults in the car when ferrying the kids to and from band practice.
I don't think the local authority would be involved if the Child Safeguarding policy of York Minster stated that two adults had to be in a car but the bellringers refused to co-operate.
Perhaps, but I'd have expected to see the North Yorkshire Constabulary mentioned if the issue was a criminal one. Involving the city council could be for any number of policy-related reasons.
That said, I imagine (without any evidence other than the articles posted here, so take with a pinch of the condiment of your choice) the real issue is that one of the ringers had a skeleton in his/her closet, the Minster wanted to get rid of him/her because of it, but the other ringers didn't want him/her to be got rid of.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect there was a combination of things, including that their communications advice was a bit crap, that they didn't expect the bellringers to go to the press and that the Chapter thought it was rather more important to deal/co-operate with the secular agencies on this issue than to tell everyone exactly what happened.
It doesn't matter whether or not they expected the ringers to go to the press. The Chapter owes the ringers honesty and clarity regardless of whether or not there's an audience. Today's statement doesn't "tell everyone exactly what happened" but does explain (at least partially) what the problem is, which the original letter completely failed to do.
It's bad communication.
quote:
Whilst this might be an issue here, it doesn't sound like it from the ABofY's statement linked above.
You're right - from today's statement it doesn't sound like the safety bull getting loose in the china shop. But we didn't have today's statement until today.
Given only the word-salad in last week's letter, it was a whole lot more likely.
quote:
quote:
But from the outside, you can't tell the difference between people who are resisting the kind of safety theatre that is actively harmful, and people who are resisting actual sensible safety changes because "we've always done it that way." You have to dive all the way into the details to understand who is right.
Oh shut up already.
No, this is rather the point. If you don't look at the details, it's hard to tell the difference between sensible precautions and silliness, because they use the same words and justifications. The only way to tell them apart is to be clear and unambiguous.
"We need to avoid this situation. This is how we're going to avoid it." is something that is easy to understand and accept. People can look at the "how" and understand how it avoids the "what".
And safety should be understood. People should understand how and why some particular safety protocol keeps them safe - it's all part of understanding the risks you're working with.
Burying safety under bureauratese is a bad thing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
So now everyone is looking at people and wondering who was involved and it's a multiplied version of the police charging into Cliff Richard's house.
Could it be worse?
And why not do it until now, and why do it for the months over the major festivals?
Very, very difficult.
And I hope no-one feels really seriously bad about it. This could go very bad.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps, but I'd have expected to see the North Yorkshire Constabulary mentioned if the issue was a criminal one. Involving the city council could be for any number of policy-related reasons.
Well there might be a element of truth to that - but again, I still think it sounds that it is a rather more systematic and widespread issue if those outside bodies are involved.
quote:
That said, I imagine (without any evidence other than the articles posted here, so take with a pinch of the condiment of your choice) the real issue is that one of the ringers had a skeleton in his/her closet, the Minster wanted to get rid of him/her because of it, but the other ringers didn't want him/her to be got rid of.
Maybe. It is a rather strange combination of agencies involved, I'm struggling to think of a scenario where the local authority would be consulted about an issue at a church which wasn't criminal.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
From still being mired in a safeguarding issue at the moment, the local authority tends to have a draconian statement on how much you can reveal on safeguarding issues which will undoubtedly have thrown anyone who hasn't had to deal with such an issue before.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I couldn't access the story from that link, so here it is again.
Lord Mayor weighs in
And this morning the bells have been made safe.
This looks like a very hurried or lazy piece of journalism. Reporting about the Archbishop of York's statement has simply been added to what had already been published, and the rest left unchanged as if nothing about that reporting has been affected by the statement that has been made. And the comments from last week have simply been left in place.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
AboY statement: quote:
Some members of the York Minster Society of Change Ringers have consistently challenged the Chapter’s authority on this and other important matters.
Repeated disregard of the Chapter’s attempts to fully implement the Church’s national policies for safeguarding, health and safety and security meant that decisive action was required.
The reasons for shutting down the whole shebang look reasonably clear to me now. The one individual could have been dealt with individually, but the Society of Change Ringers included some folks who expressed the view that their policy opinions were above the Minster's and the diocese's and possibly the law's. BZZZT! Game over. The Minster swatted them like a fly. And since it came down to legal policy, the Minster had all the good reasons they needed to take the action. And this had the added benefit to the Minster leaders of waving the fly swatter vaguely in the direction of any other upstart fiefdoms that might get fresh.
And, yes, they just could have said so in the first place.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe. It is a rather strange combination of agencies involved, I'm struggling to think of a scenario where the local authority would be consulted about an issue at a church which wasn't criminal.
Well it is York Minster we're talking about - far from just any old church! Is there some form of shared policy-making between the Minster and the Council (which could include the local tourist or heritage agencies) perhaps?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You can have issues that are pre-criminal but that definitely require drastic measures.
We had a student once who was in a semi-official learning position at our congo and who insisted on making close friends with members of the youth group. As in, "let's go on overnight trips together, just you and I."
He was perhaps ten years older than the students he approached. He was also studying for a social services type position where he would be in constant contact with children and vulnerable adults.
We told him to stop. He defied us and kept on defying us.
What can you do? He might have been nothing but an ass. Or he might have been a sexual predator in the making. We couldn't tell. It wasn't a police matter--yet. And we didn't intend to let it get to that point.
We informed his school who promptly dealt with him. I fear he hates us to this day and feels hard done by. Some of the youth were also quite angry with us for victimizing the poor guy. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) If he was wholly innocent, he paid a high price for refusing to cooperate with safeguarding policy. If not, we caught it just in time.
I think we did the only thing we could do. But we couldn't publicize the details, particularly as we had no proof that any impropriety had been committed. We couldn't identify the person. And we couldn't explain to the community much about what had happened.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
The C of E's record re safeguarding has been pretty bad in recent and not-so-recent times ( pace Chichester Diocese).
Nowadays, it seems as though efforts are at least being made to address issues swiftly and effectively. If this is done sometimes with less sensitivity than one would like, that's a shame - but far better than the old way of sweeping issues under the carpets of the Bishops' palaces. YMMV.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The ringers have posted a response.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The ringers have posted a response.
They really need to stop digging - they've just admitted that contrary to what was said before, they knew exactly why the band was disbanded.
"Due process" in that context is utter garbage, the Dean has a responsibility to take action, not to convene a pseudo-court where the bellringers try to tell her why her own policy shouldn't be applied.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
