Has the RNLI has gone mad?

[JumbleDuck]

What happened at beaches before the RNLI took over? Some in the South West had local authority Life Guards but most had nothing.

Many in Cornwall had local surf lifesaving clubs who were booted unceremoniously off beaches they had looked after for years or decades when the RNLI suits arrived and sold councils their services. I gather there was quite a lot of bad feeling about it.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

When I was a child I do not remember the RNLI having Anything to do with monitoring swimmers off beaches. As far as I remember it’s roll was confined `to saving lives at sea, ie. ships and boats.

I blame TV shows like Baywatch . It raises expectations and er.. probably other things too.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It's a fact of life that if you have first hand knowledge of a subject and it gets reported in the media, you will recognise the report to be wrong. They know nothing and usually fail to check facts.

I've previously called this the "New Scientist effect": all their articles seem clear and authoritative until you read one about your own subject in which case it's invariably nonsense.

That said, I have been scientific consultant for a lot of BBC programmes, and I have worked with producers who are very concerned with getting the facts right. On the other hand, there are some producers and some researchers there who honestly believe that half an hour on wikipedia gives them a better grasp of subjects than experts in the field. They can be tricky.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I blame TV shows like Baywatch . It raises expectations and er.. probably other things too.

Nah. I've seen an RNLI lifeguard in action and all he did was whizz around Porthmeor beach in St Ives on a quadbike shouting at people, most of whom ignored him. No slow motion running at all, and nothing bouncing.

 

[Tomahawk]

Except that he hasn't.

His letter is here RNLI Chief Executive, Mark Dowie, writes open letter during pandemic | RNLI

Nowhere does it say it wants to ban people from the beaches - it just complains ( fairly of it's true) That it wasn;t warned in advance that it's services would be required.

I'm normally one of the first to criticise the RNLI for some of it's more ridiculous publicity guff but in this case i think the letter is reasonable but has been misrepresented.

Reading the letter he says..We have to work out how to do in-water rescues and give first aid..... It is clear the RNLI has failed to get ready for the inevitable end of lockdown..

 

[sur-la-mer]

Could not people really give going into the water for a few months?

Beaches, fine, get your **** out and soak up the Vitamin D.

Diving into rip tides, or showing off on Jet Skis, and expecting others to risk their lives to bail you out ... less so. What happened to need over want?

All seems really thoughtless, self-centred and indulgent to me.

An an aside, about time people had to have full insurance that covered the cost of rescuing them.

 

[mainsail1]

The thing is, the RNLI seems to assume we all want them to take charge of our safety. Not me!

 

[JumbleDuck]

Diving into rip tides, or showing off on Jet Skis, and expecting others to risk their lives to bail you out ... less so. What happened to need over want?

So what you're saying, basically, is that nobody should use beaches without lifeguards. How far from an RNLI station should we be allowed to sail. And what was your previous username, because the style seems wearily familiar?

 

[sur-la-mer]

I would say, the government's advice should have been at the very least to not go into the water. To flag up that there would not be any lifeguards, to consult with the RNLI first.

If the RNLI - quite rightly - felt that they should not put volunteers' lives at risk to rescue yachtspeople, then similar announcement should be made for them. "If you do it, they'll be no one to save you".

I have a little more regard for (most) members of the sailing community, than average beachgoers off their heads on whatever. The decision to go sailing is not a necessity, and should be a very serious one.

Society's mores would not allow for my response which would be, " if you get in trouble, no one's coming to help you, and you're going to die", and I'd sign off on the RNLI doing so.

Unfortunately we seem to have to spend inordinate amount of resources, on saving morons from themselves or paying for their idiocy and lack of self-control. Darwin would argue that's not a good evolutionary strategy. I'm not sure where the idea that it was arose from.

--
You've clearly been infected by the user called Mountain. I have had no previous username. If you'd care to tell me who is it I am suppose to be, I'll get a moderator to check the IP history for you.

 

[Stemar]

The thing is, the RNLI seems to assume we all want them to take charge of our safety. Not me!

Absolutely! Keep the buggers out of our water

Until I need 'em

 

[JumbleDuck]

I would say, the government's advice should have been at the very least to not go into the water.

Even in places where there is not and never has been any form of lifeguard cover?

You've clearly been infected by the user called Mountain.

Among other things. I'm actually quite impressed that the "Mountain" character has been kept going so long.

 

[Juan Twothree]

The thing is, the RNLI seems to assume we all want them to take charge of our safety. Not me!

The problem is newspaper articles like this:

RNLI are slammed after THREE people die on UK coastline

holding the RNLI responsible for three deaths.

Although seeing as one of them invoked a jet ski at 9.15 at night, I'm not sure a lifeguard would have made much difference.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The problem is newspaper articles like this:

RNLI are slammed after THREE people die on UK coastline

That is in the Daily Mail, so I now doubt the existence of the RNLI, the sea and death itself (HIMSELF?).

 

[sur-la-mer]

Even in places where there is not and never has been any form of lifeguard cover?

Absolutely.

It's not just about lifeguards, it about the people in the boats and helicopters too. We need them for when this is OK, and they are far too valuable to lose.

No one should be require by law (contractually), or morally, to risk their own life for an selfish idiots.

They are what we have natural selection for.

 

[FlyingGoose]

Absolutely.

It's not just about lifeguards, it about the people in the boats and helicopters too. We need them for when this is OK, and they are far too valuable to lose.

No one should be require by law (contractually), or morally, to risk their own life for an selfish idiots.

They are what we have natural selection for.

are the lifeguards and helicopter pilots aged 75 , live in a care home, over weight with diabetes, have COPD heart disease,
N o then the chances of A, the person they are saving having he virus , then for that to pass to them them for them to get seriously ill ,then for them to pass it on to a member of society who is vulnerable,
See how so many steps are needed before we even consider a death, but fear has got you Shark man they risk death every day more than catching a virus

 

[sur-la-mer]

It's not fear, it's costs.

a) no, but their mothers other contactees might be, and
b) being sick of Covid-19 is no fun for anyone, as Boris and Dom can attest.

You don't appear to realise how it spreads, even if it does not affect. I guess it's one of the downsides of a socialised healthcare system, that when people don't have to pay for stuff, they think it's all for free and adopt a different, more entitled attitude. Then you have the Americans spoiling the soup by going on about freedom, liberty and tyrannical governments.

Despite statistical preponderances, it still strikes widely and randomly and has no cure, and very poor tests.

A crew being infected will be taken out for at least 14 days, during which time there might be other a real emergencies, and cause other costs to be incurred, eg disinfecting of an entire equipment, station, vessel.

No of which you are doing or paying to be done, or there to save.

All so a plonker can go boarding or jet skiing?

Currently Covid-19, is also causing other serious illness and deaths by proxy, eg cancer. (It's estimated that up to 60,000 cancer patients could unnecessarily die because of a lack of treatment or diagnosis).

Costs both financial and human.

 

[sur-la-mer]

Tell me, when HIV first came out, did you go around shagging everything just to prove you weren't afraid of it?

 

[FlyingGoose]

It's not fear, it's costs.

a) no, but their mothers other contactees might be, and
b) being sick of Covid-19 is no fun for anyone, as Boris and Dom can attest.

Despite statistical preponderances, it still strikes widely and randomly and has no cure, and very poor test.

A crew being infected will be taken out for at least 14 days, during which time there might be other a real emergencies, and cause other costs to be incurred, eg disinfecting of an entire equipment, station, vessel.

No of which you are doing or paying to be done, or there to save.

All so a plonker can go boarding or jet skiing?

Currently Covid-19, is also causing other serious illness and deaths by proxy, eg cancer. (It's estimated that up to 60,000 cancer patients could unnecessarily die because of a lack of treatment or diagnosis).

Costs both financial and human.

The stats are pretty robust, 80% get mild symptoms , Mr Cummings did not go to hospital, the PM is clearly overweight, which is a risk factor,
The coastguard crew and RNLI have plenty of staff to take up any slack, what do they do in peak summer time if one staff member goes ill
It is no ones right to be saved from the water , but as a humane country we will,
Cancer has nothing to do with people going to a coast, cancer patients will die because the NHS was put in hyerdrive for this big fluctuation of patients which has not happened at no point did critical care beds outwith the Nightingales . which have never been used did the capacity go above 60% at its peak and last night figures showed only 12% of critical care beds in England taken up by covid patients
Poor management , poor government advice, and poor preparedness will kill of more people this year than the virus ever will , because of this poor planning and adaptions of this government
Nothing to do going to the sea and having a wee swim

 

[sur-la-mer]

Nothing to do going to the sea and having a wee swim

What's your bottomline, let people do what they everything want?

You know how people think ... "if he is going to have a wee swim, I'll have a game of fitba; if he is going to have a game of fitba, I'll go dancing; If they are going dancing, we'll go the mosque; If they are going to the mosque, we'll go the church; if the churches and mosques are open, we'll open the pubs and cafes", and then what you end up with is what's happening now, which will be followed by a second spike.

What's so terrible about staying at home?

Apparently they are running live medical tests on human beings right now, so if you are so confident of winning at Russian Roulette, you can volunteer.

From North Korea we say,

Stay at home, Wash your Hands, Crash the Economy, No Corporate Bail Outs, Bring in UBI.

 

[NormanS]

The sea is dangerous. The hills are dangerous. The obvious solution is to flatten the hills into the sea - problem solved. ?

I come from a generation which believes that you should be responsible for your own safety, and I've played about on beaches since long before lifeguards were invented. Far from the madding crowd.