Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Steady on - just joking!
If I were an RNLI donor I would not be happy.
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
Steady on - just joking!
Searush
Well-Known Member
Ahh, but you have now created a personna that is known for winding people up. Whether our perception is true or not is irrelevant, many people now see you in a particular way & will respond to your posts accordingly.
That's how forums work innit?
Grumpybear
Well-Known Member
Or how some forum users work?
Searush
Well-Known Member
Aren't forums made up of users then? Is all the input generated by software after all? No wonder we get so much rubbish! 
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Normally, whenever we do that, it ensures nothing happens for the whole day!
A recent weekend day to give an idea of what we do - and this is a team of 5 people -
10:17 - People on cliff fall site
12:09 - Climber stuck on cliffs
12:39 - Report of a mayday call
13:03 - Medevac, leg injury
13:05 - Kayaking incident
15:35 - Two boats grounded
15:43 - Medevac, injured girl
16:00 - Boat, engine problems
16:06 - Aircraft transmitting emergency
16:46 - Jetski engine failure
16:49 - Boat, engine failure
17:08 - Missing child search
17:18 - Jetski, engine failure
17:55 - Missing child search
18:05 - Helicopter tasked to child in water search
18:52 - Medevac, 70 year old from land
18:57 - Catamaran mast failure
19:34 - Overdue boat search
19:43 - Inflatable blown from shore
19:50 - Persons stuck on cliff
20:24 - Vessel overdue search
Sailfree
Well-Known Member
Can we be naughty and substitute the word sunseeker for every time you have used a generic term boat or vessel??
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
No you can't!!
Actually, thinking back over the summer, I don't think we've had a single Sunseeker job.
Bayliner and Rinker on the other hand
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Discernment?
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Nice to see they gave you a break for a late lunch though!
I wish!
Those are the times the jobs started - you can add at least 30 mins on to each one, significantly more in a couple of cases.
Lunch was (as usual) something grabbed at the desk!
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
You're preaching to the converted there bud, Ex Police and Ambulance controller here! I feel your pain....at least I used to!
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
You're preaching to the converted there bud, Ex Police and Ambulance controller here! I feel your pain....at least I used to!
Don't know about pain, give me a day like that over the dead winter ones any time...
Plevier
Well-Known Member
This is a bit different from the OP's main point but I think is a concern.
The Charity Commission website at http://www.charity-commission.gov.u...steredCharityNumber=209603&SubsidiaryNumber=0 shows that the RNLI in its annual return to 31/12/2011 spent £22.86M on generating voluntary income. (This does not include a further £8.87M on trading activities.)
That is more than SNSM's total annual turnover of £20M (25M Euros). How do they do it!
Out of the RNLI's total income of £173M (£148M voluntary), £117M was spent on charitable activities and £22M retained for future use - that's 12.7% retained profits, in business terms. "Charitable activities" will include the lifejacket campaign etc, not just making rescues. The remaining £33M covers income generation and governance. (Excuse £1M rounding error.)
Some fundraising cost is clearly unavoidable, and as an overall ratio, 15% (i.e. £22.86M/£148M) fundraising cost is good. However I wonder how much of the voluntary income results directly from it? I suspect there is a high diminishing returns factor and you could cut this spend a lot without much effect on income. It really seems rather overgrown and self serving, and getting more and more into sensationalist marketing and exaggerated claims that many of us (going by various forum postings) find dubious and distasteful. I really wonder if it's getting near backlash point. No disrespect to crews who perform near miracles; I'm talking about marketing exaggeration of number of lives saved and so on.
The Charity Commission website at http://www.charity-commission.gov.u...steredCharityNumber=209603&SubsidiaryNumber=0 shows that the RNLI in its annual return to 31/12/2011 spent £22.86M on generating voluntary income. (This does not include a further £8.87M on trading activities.)
That is more than SNSM's total annual turnover of £20M (25M Euros). How do they do it!
Out of the RNLI's total income of £173M (£148M voluntary), £117M was spent on charitable activities and £22M retained for future use - that's 12.7% retained profits, in business terms. "Charitable activities" will include the lifejacket campaign etc, not just making rescues. The remaining £33M covers income generation and governance. (Excuse £1M rounding error.)
Some fundraising cost is clearly unavoidable, and as an overall ratio, 15% (i.e. £22.86M/£148M) fundraising cost is good. However I wonder how much of the voluntary income results directly from it? I suspect there is a high diminishing returns factor and you could cut this spend a lot without much effect on income. It really seems rather overgrown and self serving, and getting more and more into sensationalist marketing and exaggerated claims that many of us (going by various forum postings) find dubious and distasteful. I really wonder if it's getting near backlash point. No disrespect to crews who perform near miracles; I'm talking about marketing exaggeration of number of lives saved and so on.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
In my previous life I had the following quote framed and hanging on my wall
"Managers attend to those things by which they are judged" John Steiner, prominent management writer in the 1960s.
This is why you get ever increasing GCSE pass rates, increasing numbers of first class degrees, increasing numbers of fines for minor speeding offences - the list is endless.
Hardly surprising that RNLI collect and publish "statistics" that show their activities in a positive light.
Suspect that if their income was directly linked to a REDUCTION in incidents we would see the "statistics" change. Until then we will see a steady recorded rise in activity, that of course will require further expenditure in resources to meet demand and therefore more activity to ensure the income is there to fund it.
"Managers attend to those things by which they are judged" John Steiner, prominent management writer in the 1960s.
This is why you get ever increasing GCSE pass rates, increasing numbers of first class degrees, increasing numbers of fines for minor speeding offences - the list is endless.
Hardly surprising that RNLI collect and publish "statistics" that show their activities in a positive light.
Suspect that if their income was directly linked to a REDUCTION in incidents we would see the "statistics" change. Until then we will see a steady recorded rise in activity, that of course will require further expenditure in resources to meet demand and therefore more activity to ensure the income is there to fund it.
maxi77
Well-Known Member
On the other hand I was a fly on the wall so to speak for a mayday where the casualty gave their position as in the middle of a particular channel outside a particular harbour entrance with a fouled propellor in bad weather, the coastguard operator cool as anything came back and asked for a lat and long position, any one with the slightest of local knowledge would have known that the casualty had more important things to do than read of a lat and long from anything as the local harbourmaster pointed out when reporting that he was on his way. The position given to any one who knew the location actually pointed out the really dire circumstances seconds away from the rocks and should have suggested not bothering to much about the paper work and getting on with organising help. I mght add that was a 'local' staion now consigned to the scrapheap.
Plevier
Well-Known Member
jonjo5's post leans toward an interesting point - cost benefit analysis.
If we believe that the RNLI is operating on a cost no object basis for marginal improvements in risk and to give a free get you home service, rather than saying "well they have the money, let them do it", and if we are really concerned about lifesaving, shouldn't we cut what we give them and put it into (e.g.) cancer research instead? It would save a lot more lives, of people who haven't voluntarily put themselves into risk.
I do support RNLI as an Offshore Member, but if I didn't sail, I don't think this wealthy organisation with increasingly aggressive and expensive marketing would be too high on my list.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Just the same when the AA insists on a post code. "In the car park at Tescos Fleetsbridge store, Poole" not good enough as every direction to the patrol is computerised using post codes.
Grumpybear
Well-Known Member
If only I knew how to add a smiley face to a post!
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
How do you know where the operator was? Yes, the c/s might be XXX Coastguard, but it is possible the neighbouring paired station was handling the area at the time - but, on the face of it, it sounds like it could have been handled better.
I'm not sure of the value of such a story though - yes, we all make mistakes, but I can assure you I've come across far more instances of casualties not having a clue where they were, than I have of CGs not knowing their area.
Just mentioning.....
maxi77
Well-Known Member
I am sure you are right, but it was a 'normal' voice for the station. I suspect that those in peril so as to speak are always more likely to get things wrong simply through the adrenoline rush, I once put 2 and 2 together and got 5 which meant I performed my duties exceptionally well during a drill dived night alarm exercise in a submarine. Equally formal procedure is for guidance not slavish obedience when properly trained staff execute those procedures.