Cold Called by the RNLI

No we wouldn't , but if my office was anything like theirs , and operated on charitable donations instead of hard earned cash , I'd be seriously embarrased . I pay to support the lifeboats and crew , not a plush office for admin who would never put their lives on the line
 
I have to admit to being slightly saddened by this thread. Like most of you I hate cold calling. However, I do understand that the RNLI must raise enough funds to cover it's costs each year, if they don't then the service suffers and so potentially do you.

And just to clear up a few miss-conceptions: The RNLI is not rich, it has under 18 months reserves and so without fundraising would quickly cease to operate. Neither are RNLI headquarters luxurious.....they are in fact in a rather tired and sorry looking old building.....the crew training facilities and stores depot are a different story, they are modern and of a high quality (but are still not luxurious).

As a serving crewmember I am very greatful to be backed up by a professional and thorough management and admin team. I have seen the job adverts for all grades and can state categorically that they are not over paid (I wouldn't work for what they pay!)

So.......please be measured in your responses. E-mail the institution at info@rnli.org.uk and let them know what you think of cold calling. But for goodness sake, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and cease you financial support. We really do need the money to provide the level of service that we do.

John
 
A friend of mine's relative left a percentage of her estate to a favourite charity (can't remember which one but think it related to animals). Turns out they couldn't settle the estate for months as the charity had a team of solicitors who were hired to fully audit everything so that they had every penny they could get their hands on.

Turned reasonably nasty and the relative certainly wouldn't have contributed had they understood the consequences and added distress it caused. Advice would be to leave a fixed sum as many charities are businesses just like any other.
 
I've got no intention of cancelling my subscriptions and I've e mailed them to try to set up additional sponsorship , two weeks ago , still no reply so I don't think we'll have any luck trying to get them to stop cold calling by sending e mails
 
All seems a bit strange.

I was checking all my direct debits a few weeks back and found for some reason there were two in favour of the RNLI so I cancelled them both in the sure knowledge that they would contact me asking me to re-commence.

I've been a governor for 10+ years and have no problem supporting them. Sure enough the letter arrived asking me to give them a ring which i did. Unfortunately I was connected to a voice mail asking me to leave my phone number and they'd get back to me..

That was about a month ago and so far I've heard nothing!! Maybe their priorities need to be reviewed.
 
Althougth I've not been cold called yet I'm wondering whether there's any mention of Gift Aid, which would automatically increase a members subscription at the Governments cost?
 
In a sense this thread now has a different focus which is one of the inefficiency of the RNLI's fundraising department. It could be that some of this has been outsourced and is not being monitored closely enough. I will copy this thread to the appropriate head of department and make them aware of all your concerns. Clearly the institution cannot afford to alienate, annoy or even ignore valuable contributors.
 
I was cold called last year (Offshore Member) and also not best pleased and reported same on here. I've been a member since Noah was dinghy sailing and we always buy lots of extra stuff from their shops too, like a full collection of cuddly bears /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif Was also asked about gift aid but we already had that set up.

We also felt uncomfortable at being stopped and questioned agressively at Southampton Boatshow a few years back, as a result we beetle past the stand these days without stopping, their loss although probably we make it up in Yarmouth's shop next visit.

I like to give to charities voluntarily, any sign of pressure and the blinds come down as far as I'm concerned.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Where the money goesFor every £1 raised, 78p goes on operations, 3p on support and 19p on fundraising.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our running costs averaged around £330,000 per day in 2005

[/ QUOTE ]

Have just been on their web site and was somewhat shocked to see that 19% of their budget is used on fundraising. On the same page it says they need £330,000 each day to keep the service running.

Using their figures that means they spend over £60,000 each and every day on fundraising activities!!! I find that shocking.
 
Misconceptions...

[ QUOTE ]
And just to clear up a few miss-conceptions: The RNLI is not rich, it has under 18 months reserves and so without fundraising would quickly cease to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]The RNLI's accounts showed total reserves of £481 million at 31 December 2004. By my reckoning, that equates to about 4 years operating costs.

Interestingly, the RNLI has stopped publishing its accounts on its website.
 
I've not been called by them as I refused to fill out my phone number when I became an OffShore member. I also noticed the sneaky direct debits creeping up and up so I cancelled my direct debit. I will pay them my annual donation via standing order instead so I know how much they are getting!

I find it pretty cheeky but it seems to be the way of all major charities these days. Once you're a donor, they keep on at you to keep increasing your contributions or to sell raffle tickets or donate to another specific cause. I cancelled my WWF membership because I got so sick of the vast quantities of junk mail, and ignore all the extra WDCS junk that comes through my letterbox. It just feels like they're never grateful for what you already give - sometimes I feel like a parent with a whining child when the charities always want more, more, more!
 
Re: Misconceptions...

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, the RNLI has stopped publishing its accounts on its website.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2005 ones are there (and were published in April 2006)but not 2006 yet, I'm sure they will be within the month.

I have to admit to being slightly out of my depth here. 2005 reserves were stated as £481.5m........sounds a lot, but, only £93.7m was net free reserves. The remainder was restricted reserves as fixed assets (boats and boathouse?), and designated reserves for fixed assets and capital expenditure.

I remain convinced that the Directors of the RNLI are planning sensibly for a secure future for the service which it provides to us boat users.

Be re-assured, I have been closely involved with the RNLI for some 7 years now and have yet to see any evidence of anything that I consider to be wasteful. The staff, like the volunteers, work hard to provide a world beating service. I for one am proud of this and am comforted by the secure financial situation.
 
Re: Misconceptions...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, the RNLI has stopped publishing its accounts on its website.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2005 ones are there (and were published in April 2006)but not 2006 yet, I'm sure they will be within the month.

[/ QUOTE ]The 2005 Annual Review is on the website. However, as I said, the RNLI has stopped publishing its accounts on the website. The 2004 Annual Report & Accounts was the last one to be published online.

The RNLI's policy of having so many different categories of "reserves" is designed to counter criticism of the level of their funding.
 
Re: Misconceptions...

You almost manage to make this sound like a conspiracy designed to miss-lead.

Another way of looking at it is that they are trying to show clearly how funds are committed and thus justify the need for money. They are a charity with a large annual expenditure which can't rapidly be reduced. Without money the service doesn't get provided, ipso facto I can't rescue you when you get into difficulties.

The bottom line is, the RNLI has no darker motive than to rescue those in danger at sea. Feel free to support them if you so wish. If you would rather not then that is your choice. Though for both our sakes, lets hope there are still plenty who continue to support them.
 
Misleading...and an apology...

Yes, I think that a lot of the corporate communications from the RNLI are misleading. Nobody disputes that the RNLI crews themselves provide a magnificent service, but a frequent criticism of the RNLI’s corporate communications is that they always stress that their prime activity is saving lives, when it patently isn’t. The statistics they quote deliberately highlight the large number of “rescues”, rarely the relatively small number of lives saved. They leave the uninformed public (and government) to draw the conclusion that boating is dreadfully dangerous, when the opposite is true. Just as an example, their press release about the 2005 figures says “68% of the people we rescued last year were rescued from pleasure craft”, which carries a strong implication that these people were physically taken off their boats. We all know that this isn’t true. Most worryingly for the boating community, the RNLI is highlighting that the vast majority of their “rescues” are to pleasure boaters, and this will in time be turned against us as a justification for legislation.

Last summer, I received a begging letter from the Swanage Lifeboat Station. It started off “Our volunteer lifeboatmen and women were called out over 8,200 times to help people in danger off our coasts in 2005. Most dramatically, the crew of the Swanage lifeboat once plucked to safety five people on board Be Happy, a yacht being battered by huge seas in Violent Storm Force 11 winds.” I didn’t recall hearing of the rescue of Be Happy so I looked up when in 2005 it had taken place. It didn’t – it happened in 1996! I think that’s another example of misleading communications.

Finally, I must apologise for saying that the RNLI has stopped publishing its accounts on its website. With persistence (and help from Google), I've discovered that they are still there, they’re just well hidden. Rather than being in the Media Centre with the Annual Review, they’re now in a dark corner, although the caption (without a link) is still in the download list.
 
Re: Misleading...and an apology...

Another 'problem' I have with RNLi is the expansion of their services onto inland waters.

I'm particularly miffed about the tidal Thames, where rescue used to be tasked to the Met's river police. Since the introduction of the RNLI on the Thames, I'm sure I've seen less police boats going about their duties. Can't help feeling RNLI was persuaded to take on the Thames, so that some Met Police marine funding could be redeployed elsewhere - essentially, the voluntary sector pulling some government chestnuts out of the fire.

So now we have four stations on the Thames, three of them manned permanently, so paid employees rather than volunteers and the RNLI saving the government capital and employment costs.
 
Re: Misleading...and an apology...

Being slightly provocative...

Would anyone like to suggest a HQ cost which once exceeded a well meaning charity becomes a business?

The one thing that I would never disagree with is the courage and dedication of the actual lifeboat men but am I being slightly suspicious if others market this dedication and change it more into a business or is my perception wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top