Tows, and legal/financial matters

[lustyd]

Take the word "lifeboat" off the side and you have a situation where one mariner is onsite and can assist another - conventional wisdom would dictate this requires no further thought.

Some might say required to offer assistance if able. Although I guess fundamentally this was just an anchored boat in no danger by that point

 

[Blue Sunray]

It’s illegal to listen to any radio transmission unless it’s intended for general reception (BBC, etc), on a license-exempt band (eg PMR446), or you have an appropriate license. Most here will have a ship station license allowing them to listen to ch16, but most of us are not licensed to receive ch0. The fact that it’s easy to do so doesn’t make it legal.

Pete

Yes all in the same section of the act. One wonders if @Forum Admin Team have thought through that they are potentially also committing an offence by allowing/publishing such posts.

A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority —

(a) he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or

(b) he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message.

 

[lustyd]

I imagine OFCOM will prosecute them all right after they check our qualifications and licences. And of course our emmissions calcs

 

[Blue Sunray]

I imagine OFCOM will prosecute them all right after they check our qualifications and licences. And of course our emmissions calcs

If they are anything like other government agencies they'll take the easy option first. Though judging by the phone call I got from them the other week they do seem to be taking the emmision calculations surprisingly seriously.

Though I'm not sure that lack of enforcement action justifies ignoring the law unless one is a cyclist of course.

 

[Vega1447]

If they are anything like other government agencies they'll take the easy option first. Though judging by the phone call I got from them the other week they do seem to be taking the emmision calculations surprisingly seriously.

Though I'm not sure that lack of enforcement action justifies ignoring the law unless one is a cyclist of course.

The law is similar here in Ireland I think.

I've never heard an explanation as to what is the purpose/rationale of the prohibition of "disclosure of information as to contents of radio telephony".

Anyone?

 

[Bru]

The law is similar here in Ireland I think.

I've never heard an explanation as to what is the purpose/rationale of the prohibition of "disclosure of information as to contents of radio telephony".

Anyone?

Firstly the obvious - privacy! At times, of necessity, conversations will contain personal information

Secondly historic - telephone link calls (now no more). Personal and business telephone conversations taking place over open radio channels

Thirdly, the legislation doesn't apply only to marine VHF. It applies to all two way radio calls - including emergency services, commercial usage etc.

(There is a common tendency to think only in terms of marine VHF when discussing legislation applicable to radio telephony. We're only one of dozens of applications the legislation covers)

 

[INT QRK]

Firstly the obvious - privacy! At times, of necessity, conversations will contain personal information

Secondly historic - telephone link calls (now no more). Personal and business telephone conversations taking place over open radio channels

Thirdly, the legislation doesn't apply only to marine VHF. It applies to all two way radio calls - including emergency services, commercial usage etc.

(There is a common tendency to think only in terms of marine VHF when discussing legislation applicable to radio telephony. We're only one of dozens of applications the legislation covers)

I'd add to that some of the comments about overheard radio conversations on these fora have been pretty judgmental and unpleasant, that is not healthy and could make users, particularly inexperienced ones, reluctant to use what is after all a safety tool.

 

[Mister E]

So is it illegal to complain about radio checks?

 

[JumbleDuck]

I noticed that our beach lifeguards now have their yellow and red clothing now sporting RNLI branding - I assume the local council now pays the RNLI rather than employing the young folk direct. Things are changing!

Originally local councils paid after the RNLI scared them with tales of what might happen if they didn't, and despite paying the lifeguards themselves the service became a nice little earner for the RNLI. Then austerity hit, councils declined to pay and the RNLI, having told everybody of all the beuatiful big eyed tots who would die otherwise, were compelled to fund the lifeguards themselves. They are still paid, so it's a significant drain on RNLI funds.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I imagine OFCOM will prosecute them all right after they check our qualifications and licences. And of course our emmissions calcs

It's well known that radio waves propagate better at night, so perhaps they should check our nocturnal emissions as well.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The Lowestoft Lifeboat was doing some exercises between the two piers.

Repeat anecdote alert. A few years ago my crew's beloved sailing dinghy, which we were using as a tender, swamped, sank and inverted in the just north of the Sound of Sanda. No immediate danger but I called the coastguard to explain why were were doing weird looking things and to say that help, though absolutely not essential, would not be unwelcome.

Both the Campbeltown lifeboats (AWB and ILB) were on exercise off th eentrance to Campbeltown Loch. They joined the conversation (which was all on Ch 16), said they would be happy to help and were with us within ten minutes. There may have been some discussion on Ch 0 which I couldn't hear, of course, but from the speed of things I think it unlikely.

 

[Blue Sunray]

So is it illegal to complain about radio checks?

The statute is quoted above, work it out for yourself.

 

[Bru]

Originally local councils paid after the RNLI scared them with tales of what might happen if they didn't, and despite paying the lifeguards themselves the service became a nice little earner for the RNLI. Then austerity hit, councils declined to pay and the RNLI, having told everybody of all the beuatiful big eyed tots who would die otherwise, were compelled to fund the lifeguards themselves. They are still paid, so it's a significant drain on RNLI funds.

Oooo nice anti RNLI slant there!

The reality, of course, differs somewhat.

Some beaches had local authority funded lifeguards, many didn't.

Existing lifeguards had varying degrees of training and varying levels of equipment

The RNLI identified a need - for better trained and equipped lifeguards on more beaches - and proactively acted to fill that need

Unlike the entirely in house funding of lifeboats and associated services from donations, the lifeguarding service has been funded from the start from multiple sources including local authorities, the RNLI themselves and others

Yes, austerity led to cuts in LA funding but happily not to cuts in lifeguarding services, which would surely have been the case otherwise, because the RNLI absorbed the funding shortfall

So rather than being snide and negative about the RNLI getting involved in lifeguarding (and i cannot think of a single argument against it) why not look at it positively?

Many more beaches are patrolled by better trained and equipped lifeguards with a reducing burden on the public purse and fewer people drowning than would otherwise have been the case... oh and fewer callouts for the big boats too i would expect

And before some muppet says "we didn't have lifeguards when i were a lad and we didn't drown" ... obviously you didn't cos you're still here but plenty did and there are more people on the beaches now than ever before

 

[lustyd]

significant drain on RNLI funds.

It would take a fairly hefty wage to be a "significant" drain on their funds! They're getting to the stage where they could afford to drain the sea to keep us safe!

 

[JumbleDuck]

Yes, austerity led to cuts in LA funding but happily not to cuts in lifeguarding services, which would surely have been the case otherwise, because the RNLI absorbed the funding shortfall

So we agree, then, that it used to make money for the RNLI and now costs them money? The last set of annual accounts I looked at certainly suggested that the latter was the case, as there was no significant funding stream from lifeguarding, that I could see anyway.

I feel rather sorry for the lifesaving clubs who were unceremoniously booted off beaches in Cornwall which they had served for many years in order to allow the RNLI to make money. But then supporting existing providers would not have been as profitable.

So rather than being snide and negative about the RNLI getting involved in lifeguarding (and i cannot think of a single argument against it) why not look at it positively?

Is there evidence that fewer people are drowning now? I've only see RNLI lifeguards in action once and all they seemed to do was whizz around on quad bikes and shout at people.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It would take a fairly hefty wage to be a "significant" drain on their funds! They're getting to the stage where they could afford to drain the sea to keep us safe!

£9.50 - £11.40 per hour. There are 1,500 of them, so on 40 hour weeks for six months that would be £16.3m. I doubt they work as much as that, but I'll estimate £10m per annum, plus on-costs. £15m or so in total?

 

[Bru]

So we agree, then, that it used to make money for the RNLI and now costs them money?

No i do NOT agree that it used to "make them money"

It was never run to make a profit

Yes, outside funding has tailed off, that's not the fault of the RNLI and indeed it is to their credit that far from funding cuts by councils reducing services, lifeguarding services have continually expanded

As for feeling sorry for lifeguarding clubs etc, I'm sure the RNLI would welcome volunteers ... of course, and i know this from my own long involvement in charitable and voluntary activities, it wouldn't be their little balliwick any more and it's human nature that some would resent that (and doubtless, as is also human nature, resent having to work to rules and standards - a constant source of aggravation when trying to manage volunteers)

I don't know whether there's been a reduction in cases of drowning. It might even have increased. Bald statistics would most likely be misleading because they'd have to be compared to increased beach usage (or not, I'm guessing it's increased) etc.

For 100% certain, people are less likely to drown on a beach patrolled by lifeguards than on one that isn't. And thanks to the RNLI many more beaches are now patrolled than was the case twenty years ago

As for lifeguards shouting at people ... maybe the people concerned were about to get into trouble! Better a shouty lifeguard than an actual rescue or worse a dead body

Let's face it, if people were sensible, aware of their surroundings and understood the dangers there'd be no need for lifeguards. They ain't and there is.

 

[lustyd]

£9.50 - £11.40 per hour. There are 1,500 of them, so on 40 hour weeks for six months that would be £16.3m. I doubt they work as much as that, but I'll estimate £10m per annum, plus on-costs. £15m or so in total?

As I said, not significant at all, RNLI have that kind of cash down the side of the sofa!

 

[JumbleDuck]

No i do NOT agree that it used to "make them money"

It was never run to make a profit

That's not what was said at the time.

As for feeling sorry for lifeguarding clubs etc, I'm sure the RNLI would welcome volunteers ...

"Sorry we persuaded the council to kick you out after thirty years. You can come and work for us for free if you want."

For 100% certain, people are less likely to drown on a beach patrolled by lifeguards than on one that isn't.

Doesn't necessarily follow. Got any statistics to back up that claim?

 

[lustyd]

Doesn't necessarily follow

Agree, logically the opposite is true, the beaches where people drown now generally have lifeguards