Forcible rescue by the RNLI.

Mark-1 said:
...it would have been aimed at whoever's job it is to stop mentally ill people doing dangerous things.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was any suggestion he was mentally ill.

There may be an interesting question of the powers of anyone to stop you from doing something stupid when drunk, hypothermic or say a hypoglycaemic diabetic.

I don't believe HMCG had issued any requirement to take the boat under tow etc. I am sure such a decision is not taken by the watch officers in the local office but requires SOSREP.
 
Tranona said:
Would you leave a person like that, knowing he would almost certainly die?

It is no different from an individual trying to persuade somebody not to jump off a roof - "authority" does not come into it.
Click to expand...

Quite.

When my brother was a student at Bristol Uni back in the early 80s he prevented a man from throwing himself off the Clifton suspension bridge. The man in question was not happy about it at the time and fought pretty hard.

The police (and many others) told my brother that he'd taken an unacceptable risk & might have been dragged off the bridge by the would-be suicide. His response was that he just couldn't stand by and let it happen.

The man he saved was suffering from severe depression; some time later he contacted my brother and thanked him for saving his life.

I watched the Saving Lives episode in question and thought that the lifeboat crew dealt with the incident in a sympathetic and effective way; the victim was indeed persuaded to board the lifeboat rather than dragged aboard. The fact that he went on to repeat his attempt at whatever he was doing is without relevance to what the RNLI crew did on the day.

I've enjoyed the series. Although some of the rescues may seem a bit mundane, some have had me on the edge of my seat - in particular the rescue of a the crew and a whole bunch of kids off a tall ship which went on the rocks off the entrance to Kinsale. Truly heroic.
 
RobF said:
That was Michael Collis. In 2007, his boat (Gentle Jane) was taken in tow Under Protest. As a retired RN Commander and highly experienced sailor, Michael made a complaint and subsequently received a formal apology from the MCA.
Click to expand...

Thanks. My recollection was a bit hazy.
 
I think a number of the watchers who have posted missed a subtle but importaany nuance, and is relevant to a post earlier.

The RNLI cannot forcibly rescue, but the coast guard apparently CAN authorise a forcible rescue, presumably on grounds of public safety and risk to other maritime users.

If you watch the programme carefully you will see the lifeboat crew requested guidance from coastguard and coastguard authorised the rescue.
 
Bathdave said:
The RNLI cannot forcibly rescue, but the coast guard apparently CAN authorise a forcible rescue, presumably on grounds of public safety and risk to other maritime users..
Click to expand...

Not quite.

The CG have no powers to instruct a rescue, or to instruct a vessel to take a tow - they are merely the communications intermediary.

The Secretary of State's Representative (SOSREP) is hosted by the MCA, but works directly for Dept. Transport - in fact, reports to, unsurprisingly, the Sec of State.

If his authority is gained to intervene, there is a very specific set of wording which has to be read to the vessel concerned and recorded as such, both by HMCG and, if a commercial vessel, in their logbook.
 
chanelyacht said:
Not quite.

The CG have no powers to instruct a rescue, or to instruct a vessel to take a tow - they are merely the communications intermediary.

The Secretary of State's Representative (SOSREP) is hosted by the MCA, but works directly for Dept. Transport - in fact, reports to, unsurprisingly, the Sec of State.

If his authority is gained to intervene, there is a very specific set of wording which has to be read to the vessel concerned and recorded as such, both by HMCG and, if a commercial vessel, in their logbook.
Click to expand...

So referring back to the OP, can the SOSREP powers be applied to non-commercial vessels?
 
penberth3 said:
So referring back to the OP, can the SOSREP powers be applied to non-commercial vessels?
Click to expand...

Yes.

SOSREP powers come not only from the Merchant Shipping Act (parts of which are applicable to general 'shipping', not just commercial, but other pieces of legislation as well.

It is very rarely used though - I believe out the last 800 or so referrals, only 70 Directions were issued.
 
chanelyacht said:
Yes.

SOSREP powers come not only from the Merchant Shipping Act (parts of which are applicable to general 'shipping', not just commercial, but other pieces of legislation as well.

It is very rarely used though - I believe out the last 800 or so referrals, only 70 Directions were issued.
Click to expand...

Thank you, very informative.
 
chanelyacht said:
Yes.

SOSREP powers come not only from the Merchant Shipping Act (parts of which are applicable to general 'shipping', not just commercial, but other pieces of legislation as well.

It is very rarely used though - I believe out the last 800 or so referrals, only 70 Directions were issued.
Click to expand...

Greetings..
Once I was crewing on a ship which was arrested at sea by the MCA, and ordered to an anchorage by SOSREP, over the radio. Then the skipper had to write down and acknowledge the orders, just as you say..it was quite a performance!

We also got featured on the MCA website, and became a local tourist attraction tied on the ship buoys in Dartmouth for a couple of weeks while they decided what to do with us.

(Legally, when they unleash SOSREP, they have total power over the vessel, I don't know what would happen if you refused their orders in a ship... would it escalate to a Navy escort?)

( Nothing to do with me... I was below in the E/R when the original ' incident' happened ;) )
P
 
Last edited:
bedouin said:
Yes - I noticed that too.

I think there is a tendency in a lot of the commentry to over-dramatise the situation turning even the simplest rescue into a major drama.

It is a shame they can't show the unsuccessful shouts, that would add a lot to the realism and give a much better idea of what it is really like.
Click to expand...

it's telly. It's all pretend. And it's not a tendency to over dramtise, it is deliberate and on trend.

The commissioners (they have the cheque book so it's their train set) have decided that:
They have to inject jeopardy.
They have to have happy endings.
There has to be human intrest

etc

The "acting up" will come from the fact that the participants are asked questions (which you don't hear) and you hear about 1% of the answers. It explains why you can't believe anything either.

For example
"do you like being a volunteer"
"yes"
"but it must be bad sometimes"
"no i really like it"
"even in the bad weather"
"yes"
"there must be an example where it was less good"
"not really"
"not really? when was the worst time for you"
"I had to go out on a shout once the day after my nan died, we we short of crew so I had to go. I wasn't really feeling up to it but I felt obliged. I hated the job that day, but that was soon forgotten, I love it."

Then they only transmit, "we we short of crew so I had to go. I wasn't really feeling up to it but I felt obliged. I hated the job that day"

2 things to remember:

Never believe anything you see on the telly.
Someone who knows about the subject is not the intended audience.
 
Elessar said:
Then they only transmit, "we we short of crew so I had to go. I wasn't really feeling up to it but I felt obliged. I hated the job that day"

Never believe anything you see on the telly.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even my holiday photos are a completely misleading. I rarely feel like getting the camera out when it's raining so guess what, all my holiday photos show bright sunny days. Do I keep the photos of me looking miserable and dreadful or the ones where I look great? Anyone looking at my holiday photos would think a good looking cheerful bloke went on Holiday to somewhere where it was always sunny. I can promise you that's not the case!

All you see on TV/Radio is the tale the editor is putting together. That same editor could use the same footage to tell a completely different story.
 
Elessar said:
it's telly. It's all pretend. And it's not a tendency to over dramtise, it is deliberate and on trend.

The commissioners (they have the cheque book so it's their train set) have decided that:
They have to inject jeopardy.
They have to have happy endings.
There has to be human intrest

etc

The "acting up" will come from the fact that the participants are asked questions (which you don't hear) and you hear about 1% of the answers. It explains why you can't believe anything either.

For example
"do you like being a volunteer"
"yes"
"but it must be bad sometimes"
"no i really like it"
"even in the bad weather"
"yes"
"there must be an example where it was less good"
"not really"
"not really? when was the worst time for you"
"I had to go out on a shout once the day after my nan died, we we short of crew so I had to go. I wasn't really feeling up to it but I felt obliged. I hated the job that day, but that was soon forgotten, I love it."

Then they only transmit, "we we short of crew so I had to go. I wasn't really feeling up to it but I felt obliged. I hated the job that day"

2 things to remember:

Never believe anything you see on the telly.
Someone who knows about the subject is not the intended audience.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think some of it will also be “retakes” too - is there evidence of that? I mean, the camera crew won’t always be on hand as the shout comes so they have to kinda do that bit again, maybe?

Some (if not all) of the house-buying programmes are retrospective - they contact someone who has just bought a house, and ask them to go round the houses they rejected and eventually “choose” the house they already bought. Cos otherwise, if they go round with someone thinking about buying a house... well, they might buy a house, and they might not. And either way, they aren’t likely to buy the house inside a couple of days of video shooting
 
In the past programs when using video of reconstructions, those in the know could easily tell because the word 'reconstruction' magically appeared on TV screen.
Yes, editing can distort the meaning of any video sequence, but its not like the RNLI are trying to persuade us to invade France again. Why do some on here need to drag everything down to the lowest level?
No answer required, grumble over.
 
I don't think they did force him. They just very strongly encouraged him. He didn't get dragged off the boat kicking and screaming. They perhaps boarded his boat a bit "forcably" - but I don't even know if that is a crime.

Anyone can legally use reasonable force (Criminal Law Act) to prevent a crime being committed. Can't quite figure out if he would have been committing some crime in terms of the Merchant Shipping Regs. (S 100?)

At worst - it was Assault (it wasn't). While people will say just touching someone is assault - in common law you need to have intended to, threatened to or have caused harm. (Harm could be simple discomfort / fear / alarm). I very much doubt a judge would find them guilty there was no intent to cause harm, they didn't threaten it, and while they might have caused him a degree of fear or alarm I doubt a judge would be minded to accept that argument.

If there was an expectation that he lacked capacity (being hypothermic could result in him lacking capacity) and was to be taken to hospital then I think Deprivation of Liberty rules could be applied - but they would need to have enacted that.

He originally told a yacht he was sailing to America. He wouldn't speak to the RNLI. He was 4miles off shore in a 13ft dinghy taking on water, sailing appallingly, with no prospect of sailing to any place of safety. This was NOT an adventurer.

As far over dramatised rescues: they are making a TV show! Guys go out in rubber dinghy drive about come back in having found nothing - not really great TV!

Pretty sure first series did show a death or two.

One or two of the rescue processes have made me cringe. Woman on canoe the other week with ? spinal injury - RNLI - two guys jump in from ALB (not carefully slide in). Why not launch the Y boat and slowly approach. They did not need to be in the water! But these are volunteers and I don't suppose that call was in the training manual...
 
I believe the rescue of this guy would be covered by the "Good Samaritan" law, (or the "Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism (SARAH) Bill" to give its proper title).

The sailor was certainly in peril, and may have been suffering from mental/physical illness, or may even have been under the influence of drink/drugs. The law would have protected the lifeboat crew from being sued.
 
penberth3 said:
Smiley face icon suggests you know the answer! MHA defines who has power to detain, those powers can't be delegated to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Mrs FP can launch the process, but two doctors would need to approve.
It is the case that Mental Health Services regularly scoop up people from Police custody, that are there for their own (and others) safety.
Police are generally very happy when the van turns up to transfer them ...

The RNLI definitely don't have any of these powers, and nor should they.

.
 
Last edited:
FlowerPower said:
Mrs FP can launch the process, but two doctors would need to approve.
It is the case that Mental Health Services regularly scoop up people from Police custody, that are there for their own (and others) safety.
Police are generally very happy when the van turns up to transfer them ...

The RNLI definitely don't have any of these powers, and nor should they.

.
Click to expand...

Informative. Police can only detain for a limited time (72 hours?) then the person is either released or moved into the health system. Doctors can detain indefinitely for treatment.

Another interesting one in the news a couple of days ago - mountain rescue called out to a group allegedly incapable due to effects of recreational drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top