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

reginaldon said:
How many times does one have to say that competance is not being impugned?

but they seem to spend their money in a spendthrift way because they are able and in common with far too many charities, they are not shy at rewarding themselves with money that many have often done without in order to be charitable.
Click to expand...

My nephew has just stood down after a 3 year stint as Chairman of CHIVA, the Children's HIV Association. Their reserves are £161000. AFAIK no remunerations.
 
OR4751 said:
Once you have your operating and investment costs covered... Why the need to build a humongous surplus.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but presumably these reserves also include funds raised by local committees for new lifeboats and lifeboat houses - the going rate for which is heading for £5M for boat+house (because the new Tamars wou't fit in the evisting houses). My guess is that it also includes legacies where it has been stipulated what the funds can be used for - waiting for a suitable project.

The RNLI have been 'looked at' by the Charities Commission several times. Charitable (hence tax-free) status is not really compatible with 550mil in the piggy bank.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons the Charities Commission might "look at" a charity, including in response to an ill-informed complaint. As the RNLI has retained it's charitable status, one must assume the CC found their charitable status to be appropriate.

I know the CC usually expects charities (and similar bodies) to keep reserves of around 1 year's operating costs, but it does allow reserved funds (without limit, as far as I know) to be set aside for all sorts of justifiable purposes - including building repairs, self-insurance (which I belive someone mentioned the RNLI does) and future projects.

No, but if the RNLI (excessive) surplus were to be taxed that money could be used to keep several Coast Guard stations open.
Click to expand...

Even if they were taxed, it would be on the basis of "profit" - which, as I pointed out is (only) about £8M, so the tax take would be roughly £2M - substantial, I grant you, but but not enough to run many CG stations (which, I presume would also be taxed, under your rules).

The bit you (conveniently?) missed was:
Click to expand...

So the reserves is the issue? I didn't so much miss it as didn't see it as the problem. Yes, it's a lot, but presumably covered by the suggestion I made above. In any case, provided the CC accepts it (I almost said "is happy"!) there's no mechanism for the government to get it's hands on it - any more than they can take away your savings or mine (if I had any).
 
Well guys, this does not make good reading... this country (UK) is rotten to the core... banking, tax evasion, charities (Air ambulances, RLNI, etc...) Police, corrupt politicians, speculation on world food prices, failling NHS, there is like a feel of Armageddon in the air... good if you ask me.
 
mikefleetwood said:
So the reserves is the issue? I didn't so much miss it as didn't see it as the problem. Yes, it's a lot, but presumably covered by the suggestion I made above. In any case, provided the CC accepts it (I almost said "is happy"!) there's no mechanism for the government to get it's hands on it - any more than they can take away your savings or mine (if I had any).
Click to expand...

I'm hoping you wrote this tongue in cheek, or you have a very short memory, in 1997 Gordon robbed millions of people of their chance at a comfortable retirement when he taxed pension funds because they had huge reserves.

And it might not be over yet,

http://www.moneyweek.com/investment...ategies/my-grave-concern-about-pensions-56311

Apologies for Fred drift.
 
Searush said:
Do your own research, if you care. You have consistently made claims that others have researched for you to prove you wrong. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You have said that the RNLI is the best in the world and therefore you should know how it compares with other services. If you don't, it's just flag flying again.

It may well be...


You have consistently made claims that others have researched for you to prove you wrong. Which?

In my OP I asked why one similarly sized boat should cost 3 times the amount of the other. Or 5 times if you take into account the means necessary to launch it. What claim did I make?
 
Last edited:
Chrusty 1 said:
As usual, I will treat most of what you say with utter contempt, there is no intellectual discussion required, the RNLI works, the RNLI does a good job for all sailors, the RNLI is the best in the world at what it does.

If you want to change it, join at governor level and go along to the meetings and shoot your gob off there, because shooting it off on here is totally ineffectual.
Click to expand...

As usual only a rant no facts.

Please give others on here credit for their intelligence.

Shooting my gob on here I hope encourages others to weigh up the facts of a number of posts that present opposing views without alienating anyone. I suspect the RNLI would get better support without your blinkered rants that support them.
 
Last edited:
pendlecats said:
As an RNLI offshore member I have read this long thread and I can categorically say I am still happy to continue contributing.

I will continue to do so as well.
Click to expand...

+1 but...

an example of wastage - when I was crew and exSWMBO honorary crew and I remained a Shoreline member we received 3 copies of the magazines. No amount of calls, emails (including internal) seemed to be able to stop this for 2 years!

OK so it might not be a huge dent but I am sure that I wasn't the only one - indeed why would 2 crew living at the same address need 2 copies.

W.
 
So the problem appears to be that the RNLI has been so effective in raising money and efficient in the management of it's assets that it has a surplus of 550m. (surprised me a little as another thought was that there were difficult times ahead and the RNLI would struggle, but heyho)
I have a solution that will solve this problem They could take on the French lifeboat service managers, am sure with their track record they will manage to get rid of the surplus and leave the RNLI managing on much less money with no surplus.
Seriously have the greatest respect for the French lifeboat crews, but their management is not a structure that we need to envy. If people think their money would be better spent elsewhere, than it is not compulsory to give to the RNLI. Subscribe to another charity or anything else you want to spend your money on.
 
Chrusty 1 said:
the RNLI is the best in the world at what it does.
Click to expand...
What evidence can you present to support that claim? And no I will not accept another quote of their bank balance as proof.

Unless someone can provide evidence that water users in France are in greater danger because of deficiencies in the SNSM, I can state categorically that the SNSM is far better than the RNLI because it achieves the same for a 1/4 of the annual budget.
 
"Saving lives at sea" is what they do. I am an offshore member and often read the reports of bravery and personal risk that the crews face whilst trying to save lives, mostly these crew members are unpaid and are at the sharp end should anything go wrong.
They should have the best and most appropriate equipment, this is not necessarily the most expensive equipment.
I believe that management at any level in a charity should be prepared to be paid less than they would be in a company, I know that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys but how do you reconcile that with the fact that most crews and tin shakers are unpaid volunteers?
I think Sybarite raises some valid points and thank him for bringing them to my attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top