Dubious coatguard statistics

[Guest]

In the recent coastguard leaflet stating that it is now 'looking after you' when you are on the tidal Thames, the claim is made that 'in one year alone' (presumably recent) the number of persons 'saved' by the CG was 12,000 (twelve thousand). This is an average daily (every single day including Christmas etc) of 32.9 persons.
Assuming there was nil activity on some days, that would mean there were a number of days when several hundred were 'saved'. Which incidents were those? They are not readily apparent from the CG web site (www.mcga.gov.uk - click to news then press releases).
What is the coastguard trying to achieve with such dubious statistics? If you call them for a weather forecast or other message and say you have half a dozen in your crew, do they add them in as saved?!!

 

[claymore]

Isn't this about survival and justification of the cost of running the service? I think it is appalling that they feel that that is what they must do - don't want to sound nationalistic or whatever but we seem to be good at finding billions for foreign aid whilst people die in "soft" accidents around our coastline. I really cannot understand why any Government cannot see it as a statutory obligation to provide an effective and comprehensive coastguard service which isn't constantly under threat of closure or streamlining. But then - we haven't even got a railway really have we!

 

[vyv_cox]

I fully agree. Here's an example.

This summer (summer??) we visited the Thames estuary. On a bleak, windy day we headed for Burnham where, just approaching the Buxey shallows in the middle of the channel near the estuary entrance we saw a Moody anchored in a couple of meters of water. Since it was blowing 6-7 against the ebb it was not exactly millpond smooth, so we called this boat on VHF, thinking they might be in trouble. Almost before I had a chance to draw breath the coastguard had responded, asking a number of ill-advised questions, like could we board this vessel (no chance) could we see its name (no) and could we see anyone on board (no). By the time this was all over we were half a mile past the Moody and the coastguard had made a decision to call out a helicopter!

A few minutes later the helicopter arrived, called the Moody and this time received a response. The occupants claimed to be calculating sextant positions (no comment). They were in no trouble at all. The helicopter then carried out a winch exercise, using the Moody as a victim.

Was this another dramatic statistic for the MCA?

 

[ParaHandy]

Funnily enough...

I sent e-mail to mildly whinge at the press releases which have become very PR oriented eg Chairman's honoray degree, MV Willy in last 6 months. All stories that are on telly. Used to get lots of useful advice from eg Coastguard Fred Bloggins saying (reading between the lines) "silly w**ker went out in ebb tide F6 at Muggins Pt, what did pillock expect?" You knew to avoid said place under these conditions.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Surely the RNLI would want to dispute some of those 'lives saved'. After all apart from cliff and beach work, the CG do very little at-sea rescuing themselves!

My impression is that very few of theses 'lives' were actually snatched from the jaws of death -rather that they are people who might eventually have been in 'grave and imminent' danger, if they hadn't got towed back when the raw water strainer got blocked, or if their lilo had been allowed to drift out of the bay and up and down the channel for a couple of days.

 

[ChrisJ]

I agree they should b funded better.

But to get to the numbers.... How many people are there on a cruise ship? Or on a Ferry?
If the CG say "we wouldn't advise taking that ship down the Roach and out over Havengore", doesn't that count as "saving thousands of people"?

 

[ccscott49]

The coastguard is the government! Ever heard of "Spin doctors" enough said I think, are you expecting the truth, from this lot!

 

[boatone]

If the statistic you quote is verbatim it certainly seems very high and it offers a good opportunity for our worthy journalists to engage in some good old fashioned investigative journalism. I hate phrases like 'in one year alone' as it usually means someone's picked the most dramatic statistic they can find and that a figure giving a more informative 'average per year between 1990 and 2000' would not suit their political purposes!
How about it YM guys, ask a few questions and see what's in the can of worms?

TonyR
boatone@boatsontheweb.com