If I were an RNLI donor I would not be happy.

[caiman]

If you want to help the NHS etc lobby your MP to give their workers an income tax/NI break.Just a thought,while your at it,lobby your MP to give all paid charity workers an income tax/NI break as well.This should put the donation money on which people have allready paid tax/NI, straight towards the 'front line' objectives of the charities involved.
Or,do you want your taxed donation money to be taxed again?
I am quite supportive of what I believe Sybarite is trying to point out.Maybe the £2m could go towards funding the new boatbuilding facility that is in the pipeline,which, should, reduce the costs of further new Lifeboats?Unfortunatly I am not a manager in the RNLI,the desicions they make are at a much higher payscale than I enjoy.
Cheers

 

[chanelyacht]

But the government is already funding the RNLI to a much greater extent by tax relief, in any event the RNLI do not spend all the money they have at present so the extra 2 million would just go into the reserves.

Any charity that spent all its income annually would be in trouble pretty quickly.

Anyway, the government does not "fund" the RNLI - it just deigns, as for all gift aid contributions, not to take money it has no business to be taking. Wow, the generosity.

Don't forget the tax contribution to the economy made by RNLI employees either.

It isn't a sacred cow, but neither does it deserve some of the comments on here.

 

[epervier]

Not too sure what it is you're moaning about. Is it still the request to pay an increased membership fee or the unsolicited letter asking for a donation?

I can see little in this thread that would cause the Charity Commissioner to look into the RNLI. Their admin and management costs are well within the usual for a charity of this size, they pay slightly less than the market rate to most of their more senior people and I feel that the kit that they provide to their crews is first rate. I only wish that the Armed Forces could plug into their procurement systems, which seem to deliver the kit they really want and need at a fraction of the percentage cost of the MOD system......

The point I was trying to make is they already had a donation by Direct Debit from me, but wanted to increase it, it's a charity not a bloody utilities bill, because I refused them the increase the person on the phone said there was no way in their system to continue taking the donation without increasing it, so the only course of action was to put a stop to the DD. which I did.

Then this letter arrives today, asking residents in Hampshire for a £20 donation to the RNLI. I was already giving then 3 X that before, but that apparently wasn't good enough.

I've never asked to be a member of the RNLI, it was a donation I was asked for years ago at a visit to SIBS, to set up a DD would be easiest the young lady said.

I have said before and will repeat it again now, I have nothing but praise for the people who've got hold of the ****y end of the stick, going out in atrocious conditions to preserve life, but their administration and fund raising needs to lift their game to the same level as their crews.

Maybe it was a bad day for the lady I spoke to, but she didn't seem at all concerned that she just lost my sixty quid a year.

Just for info I now give my donation direct to my local station, that's mainly due to the fact my boat is less than 100 metres from their front door, and know half the crew personally, including the station manager.

 

[Frogmogman]

As a new member of this forum, I hesitate to join in this thread. I confess I have skimmed through it and I haven't read all the posts. As is usually the way with such a lengthy thread there is a general drift away from the real subject by (in this case) talking about the finer points of the propulsion systems of the RNLI's boats compared to the SNSM's ones, or the way that they are launched & recovered. The main point of the original post is whether the RNLI's donors are getting the best value for money. I do think there is a general point to be made about charities in the UK and the way many of them are administered, and I'm not just talking about the RNLI. Many of the big charities have developed in the style of the bloated public sector. Anyone who questions the culture of a top heavy (paid) management structure (previously a charity like the RNLI would have been administered retired mariners whose motivation was the well being of seafarers rather than forging a career and demanding a massive salary), fancy offices, company cars, expense accounts and the like gets howled down and accused of being disloyal and critical of the wonderful work being done by the volunteers. For the record, I'm sure we all think the lifeboat volunteers in ANY country provide a wonderful and valuable service. It doesn't mean that the guys at the top aren't p*ss*ng the donors money up against the wall. Oh and while I'm on, it does my head in people describing a charity as " a business". Guess what, it ain't.

 

[PilotWolf]

Oh and while I'm on, it does my head in people describing a charity as " a business". Guess what, it ain't.

I think youll find that's how the RNLI run it though!

IIRC the RNLI is broken up into several smaller charities under the same umbrella - the saving of lives at sea bit, the boatyard, the fuelling side, the lifeguards (which are charged for), the training school, the hotel (which charges people for rooms and food - including crews unless they are at the school). I understand the reason for this being their reserves would take them out of charitable status?

W.

 

[Bajansailor]

Just a few errattic scribbles, in no particular order, re the RNLI, based on having spent 5 enjoyable years working in their design office at the HQ in Poole.
I am not taking sides re the above arguments, and I apologise for the fred drift, but I thought that the observations below might be useful for 'both sides' as general background info.

When I started working at HQ in 1989, all of the admin, design, operations, fund raising and purchasing work was carried out in the single relatively small shoebox 70's building on West Quay Road.
Technical bods were on the first floor, Fund raising, marketing etc on the 2nd, and Operations (along with the folk who dealt with wills and legacies) on the top floor. I suppose you could say it was all very lean and basic compared to the facilities that they have now.
(The sales folk were mostly over in the Depot then).
Soon after I joined, work commenced on the diamond shaped extension which effectively doubled the size of the main building, and we wondered at the time how it would be filled......
But it was filled, and subsequently the Maerk building (next door, on the west side) was acquired, used for a while, and then I think it was later flattened and a new purpose built building constructed (this is where the Technical Department is now).
(I usually go back to visit them every year or 2 to say hello, and catch up with my old mates - altho' not too many of them left there now).

I think that their proposal to now build all new boats totally 'in house' is excellent - I think that all of the approved Builders in the past regarded the RNLI as a most lucrative gravy train.
I would not be at all surprised to hear that they can bring down the costs of building new boats now by adopting this approach (they have already acquired part of Green Marine for doing the specialist composite moulding work).

And this will easily be full time employment - the first Severn class 17m lifeboat is now over 20 years old, and they will need to start developing its successor, as well as building the production run of Shannons to replace the fleet of Merseys.

Re costs, I remember data being made available comparing the costs of building the Trent and the new USCG 47' lifeboats (which are similar in terms of the work they are expected to do, and the conditions they are expected to operate in).
And the USCG boats were (I think) about half the cost of the Trents.
More about the 47' USCG boats here - http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/47mlb.asp

I am so pleased that the Operations department finally saw the light re waterjets for the carriage launched boats. I remember noting (it was very obvious) when I first joined that the Ops guys appeared to have a pathological dislike for water jets, and were determined to not approve the prototype Medina class lifeboat (I think it had PP jets?).
Yet Hamilton water jets had already established a fairly sound reputation then (what make of jets are fitted to the Shannons?).

The poor Merseys need to have good protection for their propellers, hence why they are in tunnels, with bilge keels, and these are not conducive for high speed operations - the Shannon is light years different now.
One of my colleagues described the Merseys (and the Severn and Trent as well) as 'blood and thunder' machines, because they needed so much grunt to acheive their intended service speeds.
The Shannon with her much improved planing hull form, and much less appendage and form drag, could hardly be described as such now.

I saw on the Shannon YouTube video that they appeared to have a Spade anchor on the foredeck - is this across the range, or are they just evaluating these as a possible successor to using Delta anchors?
Do the Severns and Trents still carry massive Fisherman anchors as well as Deltas?

Re seat belts, these are not a new idea on the fast offshore boats - the Severn and the Trents had them from the beginning. I remember going on sea trials on the prototype Severn, and the Trials Coxswain's brief was basically to take her out and give her as much abuse as possible.
So we were doing full speed straight into a F 7 gale, falling off waves, slamming hard and carrying on - if we didnt have seat belts on we would have hit the roof with the G Forces involved.
The Coxswain was a heavy chap - well over 200 lbs - and I think a few of the initial Bostrom seats were broken in these decelerations. The seats nowadays look amazing, far superior to those old Bostroms, which were amazing in their own right.

Finally, re the issue of the lifeboat crews not being paid, this is true, but they do receive pocket money every time they go out on a shout, and quite rightly so - they deserve it every time, and this pocket money can only be a fraction of the cost of keeping a pair of 1,200 hp Caterpillars supplied with diesel when running at 25 knots.
I don't know the standard allowances these days, but it was really quite generous 20 years ago, and I am sure that many of the volunteer crews relied on this pocket money to help keep them going (and still do).

 

[Chrusty 1]

Interesting post Martin, thanks for sharing!

Charlie.

 

[chanelyacht]

As a new member of this forum, I hesitate to join in this thread. I confess I have skimmed through it and I haven't read all the posts. As is usually the way with such a lengthy thread there is a general drift away from the real subject by (in this case) talking about the finer points of the propulsion systems of the RNLI's boats compared to the SNSM's ones, or the way that they are launched & recovered. The main point of the original post is whether the RNLI's donors are getting the best value for money. I do think there is a general point to be made about charities in the UK and the way many of them are administered, and I'm not just talking about the RNLI. Many of the big charities have developed in the style of the bloated public sector. Anyone who questions the culture of a top heavy (paid) management structure (previously a charity like the RNLI would have been administered retired mariners whose motivation was the well being of seafarers rather than forging a career and demanding a massive salary), fancy offices, company cars, expense accounts and the like gets howled down and accused of being disloyal and critical of the wonderful work being done by the volunteers. For the record, I'm sure we all think the lifeboat volunteers in ANY country provide a wonderful and valuable service. It doesn't mean that the guys at the top aren't p*ss*ng the donors money up against the wall. Oh and while I'm on, it does my head in people describing a charity as " a business". Guess what, it ain't.

And would retired mariners have the skillset to run a multi location, large operation?

I have been involved with a number of charities, one very similar in inception to the RNLI. In the early days we did, indeed, have a number of "retired mariners" running it - and the infighting, quibbling, and lack of vision was spectacular. Board meetings rapidly degenerated into debates on the lines of "shipping has gone soft since they enclosed bridges" and there was no appreciation that in the modern world, you need things like supplier management, financial planning, training, and written agreements with the other organisations you operate with.

Just look at local councils - loads of non-qualified councillors placed in charge of things they have no knowledge of and making decisions just on the grounds of getting elected next time.

I'd rather the RNLI had (as it does now) a professional staff and their management committee listened to them. That is how the RNLI has got to the size it has, and why it is the envy of most other charities around the world.

It's not infallible, but considering it's all done at no cost to the taxpayer, it ain't a bad deal.

On the subject of multiple charities, it has to be that way by law - trading arms must be seperate entities from the charity itself, although their "profits" are usually covenanted back to the "parent" charity.

 

[Keen_Ed]

I'd rather the RNLI had (as it does now) a professional staff and their management committee listened to them.

Abso-blooming-lutely.

 

[Juan Twothree]

I fervently disagree with their having commissioned a La-di-da artist at great expense to fashion a memorial outside their new HQ, which could have easily been produced by a ship-builder or similar - (It isn't that arty!)

From the RNLI website:

"The funds for this memorial were raised and managed through the RNLI Heritage Trust, and were raised specifically to fund the memorial. The RNLI family – crews, supporters and staff have helped to fund the memorial. Former Chief Executive Andrew Freemantle raised over £60,000 with a sponsored cycle ride from Poole to Rome in 2007."

 

[epervier]

Finally, re the issue of the lifeboat crews not being paid, this is true, but they do receive pocket money every time they go out on a shout, and quite rightly so - they deserve it every time, and this pocket money can only be a fraction of the cost of keeping a pair of 1,200 hp Caterpillars supplied with diesel when running at 25 knots.
I don't know the standard allowances these days, but it was really quite generous 20 years ago, and I am sure that many of the volunteer crews relied on this pocket money to help keep them going (and still do).

AFAIR a shout is worth £8.00 just about covers their fuel to the station and back home, at my local station the second cox'n/ mechanic was a salaried job, but they've got rid of the AWB and replaced it with an atlantic, so no need for second cox'n/mechanic. OH, his salary was the princely sum of 22k, hardly top dollar.

 

[viago]

As a new member of this forum, I hesitate to join in this thread. I confess I have skimmed through it and I haven't read all the posts. As is usually the way with such a lengthy thread there is a general drift away from the real subject by (in this case) talking about the finer points of the propulsion systems of the RNLI's boats compared to the SNSM's ones, or the way that they are launched & recovered. The main point of the original post is whether the RNLI's donors are getting the best value for money. I do think there is a general point to be made about charities in the UK and the way many of them are administered, and I'm not just talking about the RNLI. Many of the big charities have developed in the style of the bloated public sector. Anyone who questions the culture of a top heavy (paid) management structure (previously a charity like the RNLI would have been administered retired mariners whose motivation was the well being of seafarers rather than forging a career and demanding a massive salary), fancy offices, company cars, expense accounts and the like gets howled down and accused of being disloyal and critical of the wonderful work being done by the volunteers. For the record, I'm sure we all think the lifeboat volunteers in ANY country provide a wonderful and valuable service. It doesn't mean that the guys at the top aren't p*ss*ng the donors money up against the wall. Oh and while I'm on, it does my head in people describing a charity as " a business". Guess what, it ain't.

welcome to hell! popping your head above the parapet like this is no way to ingratiate yourself to this community.

to have the audacity to suggest that the hallowed non sea-faring management of the rnli are taking the piss is nothing short of pure blasphemy.

ffs, management are value for money and worth every penny. you can see their value from the way british industry and banking is thriving.

it is clearly demonstrated throughout this thread that we are more than happy for those at the top to claim whatever rewards they choose so long as they chant the sacred mantra of "the best equipment possible"

 

[chanelyacht]

welcome to hell! popping your head above the parapet like this is no way to ingratiate yourself to this community.

to have the audacity to suggest that the hallowed non sea-faring management of the rnli are taking the piss is nothing short of pure blasphemy.

ffs, management are value for money and worth every penny. you can see their value from the way british industry and banking is thriving.

it is clearly demonstrated throughout this thread that we are more than happy for those at the top to claim whatever rewards they choose so long as they chant the sacred mantra of "the best equipment possible"

Funny how none of those who think a charity / organisation the size and scale of the RNLI could be better run are actually..err..running an organisation the size and scale of the RNLI ...

 

[viago]

Funny how none of those who think a charity / organisation the size and scale of the RNLI could be better run are actually..err..running an organisation the size and scale of the RNLI ...

i think the issue is value/reward/checks and balances rather than competence in this instance.

 

[jordanbasset]

ffs, management are value for money and worth every penny. you can see their value from the way british industry and banking is thriving.

it is clearly demonstrated throughout this thread that we are more than happy for those at the top to claim whatever rewards they choose so long as they chant the sacred mantra of "the best equipment possible"

The difference is people running banks are not getting £60,000 plus but a £1m plus. People running banks have cocked it up big time, people running the RNLI have not. People ruinning the banks get very large bonus' for doing their jobs (sometimes for not doing their jobs!), there is no comparison with the RNLI.
There is no bigger opponent than me for people claiming hugh pay packets and bonus' when undeserved, but that is not a charge that can be levelled at the RNLI.

To offer some objective views look at this report from 2010 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/02/charities-shine-reputation-chart

"The Reputation Institute is a company that works with corporate clients across the globe on improving and defending their profiles. This year, for the first time, it has extended to a group of leading UK charities its model for measuring reputation by gauging public opinion. And the results have broken all records.

While the global average score for corporate reputation on the institute's scale is 64.2 out of 100, and the highest UK corporate score is the 87.2 achieved by high-street chemist Boots, nine of the 10 charities that were assessed have come out above 80 and three are above 90. Top of the tree is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) on 95.1, the highest score ever recorded by the institute."

Why people feel the need to knock the RNLI I do not know, but I suppose there is a trend to attack success in this country.

 

[Chrusty 1]

The difference is people running banks are not getting £60,000 plus but a £1m plus. People running banks have cocked it up big time, people running the RNLI have not. People ruinning the banks get very large bonus' for doing their jobs (sometimes for not doing their jobs!), there is no comparison with the RNLI.
There is no bigger opponent than me for people claiming hugh pay packets and bonus' when undeserved, but that is not a charge that can be levelled at the RNLI.

To offer some objective views look at this report from 2010 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/02/charities-shine-reputation-chart

"The Reputation Institute is a company that works with corporate clients across the globe on improving and defending their profiles. This year, for the first time, it has extended to a group of leading UK charities its model for measuring reputation by gauging public opinion. And the results have broken all records.

While the global average score for corporate reputation on the institute's scale is 64.2 out of 100, and the highest UK corporate score is the 87.2 achieved by high-street chemist Boots, nine of the 10 charities that were assessed have come out above 80 and three are above 90. Top of the tree is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) on 95.1, the highest score ever recorded by the institute."

Why people feel the need to knock the RNLI I do not know, but I suppose there is a trend to attack success in this country.

+1

 

[viago]

The difference is people running banks are not getting £60,000 plus but a £1m plus. People running banks have cocked it up big time, people running the RNLI have not. People ruinning the banks get very large bonus' for doing their jobs (sometimes for not doing their jobs!), there is no comparison with the RNLI.
There is no bigger opponent than me for people claiming hugh pay packets and bonus' when undeserved, but that is not a charge that can be levelled at the RNLI.

To offer some objective views look at this report from 2010 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/02/charities-shine-reputation-chart

"The Reputation Institute is a company that works with corporate clients across the globe on improving and defending their profiles. This year, for the first time, it has extended to a group of leading UK charities its model for measuring reputation by gauging public opinion. And the results have broken all records.

While the global average score for corporate reputation on the institute's scale is 64.2 out of 100, and the highest UK corporate score is the 87.2 achieved by high-street chemist Boots, nine of the 10 charities that were assessed have come out above 80 and three are above 90. Top of the tree is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) on 95.1, the highest score ever recorded by the institute."

Why people feel the need to knock the RNLI I do not know, but I suppose there is a trend to attack success in this country.

its warming to hear that the rnli pr department are doing a sterling job.

 

[Chrusty 1]

its warming to hear that the rnli pr department are doing a sterling job.

Along with everybody else in the organisation I would say.

 

[viago]

The difference is people running banks are not getting £60,000 plus but a £1m plus.

it is also warming to know that we share the view that there is little correlation between reward and competence.

There is no bigger opponent than me for people claiming hugh pay packets and bonus' when undeserved, but that is not a charge that can be levelled at the RNLI.

its just a pity we differ on the definition of huge.

Why people feel the need to knock the RNLI I do not know, but I suppose there is a trend to attack success in this country.

i have not seen a single post knocking the search and rescue element of the rnli. and those accused as knockers are questioning rather than knocking.
it is the pro-lobby who are aggressively defending their corner but in the end they will understand that resistance is futile.

 

[mikefleetwood]

it is also warming to know that we share the view that there is little correlation between reward and competence.



its just a pity we differ on the definition of huge.



i have not seen a single post knocking the search and rescue element of the rnli. and those accused as knockers are questioning rather than knocking.
it is the pro-lobby who are aggressively defending their corner but in the end they will understand that resistance is futile.

Then, perhaps you could explain just what your problem is with the RNLI?

Is it the management pay scales? I wish I earned £60k+, but in this day and age it's a pretty low salary for a management position, especially without bonuses, profit-sharing, or similar perks.

Are the RNLI management incompetent? I haven't seen any example given where they are.

As far as I can see, (cost of boats notwithstanding) the only complaint anyone has been able to make is that the organisation has a lot of money.