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

[jonjo]

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.

No, the problem is that pursuit of financial/organizational growth and commercial beach guard operations might result in the RNLI loosing focus on its original mission. Given the very real possibility of severe financial turbulence ahead for the UK, the RNLI might wake up one day to an empty bank account and encumbered by a fatcat HQ ethos that is incapable of operating with the efficiency of the SNSM.

Many contributors to this thread seem unaware of general worrying trends in UK mega charities. Take SusTrans (sustainable transport), they effectively built the National Cycle Network based on what at the time was the largest single grant from the national lottery. Today that job is largely done and SusTrans should scale down to a maintenance org dedicated to promoting usage of the cycle network.

But no, they don't want that. Just imagine the number of high paid charity executives who would loose their jobs in Bristol if the citizens of the UK who paid for the network were actually encouraged to the network for free!

We have to pay to discover where the network is.

http://www.sustransshop.co.uk/by/category/82-cyclecity-guides

p.s. does anyone get an uneasy feeling how these mega charities seem to base themselves in highly desirable high cost property hot spots in the UK?

 

[ParaHandy]

In my OP I asked why one similarly sized boat should cost 3 times the amount of the other.

I happen to believe that you're not comparing like for like but more on that later.

This subject was done to death 6 or 7 years ago on here and casting back, these are the differences:
1) the sea temperatures around the UK are significantly lower (than eg France) to make survival in open water unlikely after a short immersion. The RNLI distribute their stations, set the speed of their boats and seaworthiness to at least have a reasonable chance of rescuing the casuality wherever they are within reason and fuel load. This is not cheap. Most of the all weather boats have Cat engines and are very expensive (and over-rated - HP/tonne), but, a lifeboat with unreliable equipment is worse than useless and one that's stationed in the Outer Hebrides could well be unfixable for months during winter.
2) the UK coastline by my reckoning was orders of magnitude greater than France and when I did this calculation, I forgot to include Ireland. The mistake many make is to apply line of sight whereas in Scotland particularly, actual distance travelled is many times that.
3) there are no all weather RNLI stations that I can think of which are not able to launch at all states of the tide. To achieve that requires a different approach to the construction of a boat and a significant difference, and vastly increased cost, for shore infrastructure. Again, once you hold 1) as your goal, the costs spiral upwards dramatically.
4) to mitigate all the above, the RNLI have many stations with a RIB. Traditionally, life saving has been at sea but as shore side leisure activities grow, the number of shore incidents has increased commensurately. The last and sorely missed Transport Committee Chairman, Gwyneth Dunwoody, chastised the MCA for failing to recognise the increasing death rate from such activities (the MCA tried to pass off on her that this might be suicides, Dunwoody just wiped the floor with Mr Storey) and for not getting a grip on it. The RNLI alongside the MCA actively did.
5) Then there's beach rescue or life guards. These came about when the EU granted beaches an award if it achieved a high standard of water purity. The local councils who owned the beaches enjoyed the kudos until they read the small print of the EU directive and read that beach lifeguards had to be in place. The RNLI were invited to provide the facility and did on the understanding that the council paid the running costs. After a few years, the Blair government squeezed the council and the payments to the RNLI just stopped. The RNLI faced the invidious position of withdrawing the service and having the opprobium of the public heaped upon them if a death occurred or carried on. No guessing what happened? but sense finally prevailed, I think. After the Marchioness disaster, the RNLI were selected to provide SAR for the Thames in the City of London; this time payment was secured.

4) & 5) show how the RNLI have become intertwined with public affairs. The organisation absolutely eschews any political influence; for a century it quietly got on with its business in Eire where no other British institution would dare. The Irish president gave one of the most moving speeches in thanks to the RNLI at the AGM in 2006 (? I think).

As for France, I was puzzled about the 10% running costs. A lot is due to French "accounting". A Harbour Master told me that the local department funded most of the running costs on the basis that the department had instigated the funding to get all these boats here in this brand new marina, so .. ? The SNSM website 6 years ago hadn't been updated for 5 years, so I'm a little reluctant to believe what I read here. That's being churlish perhaps; the key difference is 1). There are very few French lifeboats in an all tide mooring.

Regarding the type of lifeboat the French use; I thought the Cotentin lifeboats are modified pilot boats and quite obviously cheaper and looked flimsier than the boats at Alderney or Yarmouth for example (both Trent Class I think). The French are just much more pragmatic.

The liquid, available, assets of the RNLI were, in 2006/7, very close to one times average annual running costs at which point the RNLI have to take drastic action to preserve the "core". The running costs were then £100-120m pa so I don't know where the £550m figuare has come from or refers to. If it is assets, that has nothing to do with the ability of the RNLI to operate. The RNLI has two groups of donors; those who donate to a specific project, station etc and those who donate into the general fund. Possibly, the sum of both are being misinterpreted here - you can't join them.

 

[Sybarite]

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.

Actually it's nearer one tenth.

 

[jonjo]

2) the UK coastline by my reckoning was orders of magnitude greater than France and when I did this calculation, I forgot to include Ireland

"orderS" of magnitude implies the coastline of the UK is at-least 100 times longer than the French coast. Like many a talking-head on TV you have fallen for the linguistic hyperbole of contemporary sound byte politics. Next you will be telling us that water related deaths are gowning "exponentially".

The best source available tells us the UK coast line is 4.5 times greater than France. Anyhow an itsy bitsy coastline as measured by a seagull walking the high watermark does not translate proportionally into more life boast station coverage. It comes down to max journey time to reach a location in a designated area of responsibility i.e. a lifeboat doing 20 kts can scoot past a 20 mile of stretch of coast in an hour even if that deeply indented coastline has 60 miles of official seagull wading coastline.

The point about cold water and survival times will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that people are less inclined to engage in water based activities when it is cold. Fewer people equates to less trouble and call outs. How many will be out sailing today off the Northumberland coast compared to say the Vandee? The French fish more and have a shared responsibility for English Channel commercial traffic.

The Coriolis effect also introduces greater tidal range and currents with inherent dangers that the RNLI does not have to cope with on the opposide side of the Channel.

Regarding the type of lifeboat the French use; I thought the Cotentin lifeboats are modified pilot boats and quite obviously cheaper and looked flimsier than the boats at Alderney or Yarmouth for example (both Trent Class I think). The French are just much more pragmatic.

You just summed up the entire thread for me.

 

[jonjo]

Actually it's nearer one tenth.

I know, I was making a very large allowance to preempt the usual "its colder, our coast is longer" claims. Perhaps I am confusing the debate?

 

[Sybarite]

I happen to believe that you're not comparing like for like but more on that later.

This subject was done to death 6 or 7 years ago on here and casting back, these are the differences:
1) the sea temperatures around the UK are significantly lower (than eg France) to make survival in open water unlikely after a short immersion. The RNLI distribute their stations, set the speed of their boats and seaworthiness to at least have a reasonable chance of rescuing the casuality wherever they are within reason and fuel load. This is not cheap. Most of the all weather boats have Cat engines and are very expensive (and over-rated - HP/tonne), but, a lifeboat with unreliable equipment is worse than useless and one that's stationed in the Outer Hebrides could well be unfixable for months during winter.

The SNSM set roughly the same criteria for launch times : 10-15 mins. The speeds of boats are similar but the French achieve the speed with smaller engines. Consequently they normally have a greater range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIl0ElaI7vs&feature=related

Compare with the new Shannon class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIl0ElaI7vs&feature=related

Both are superb boats but have a look at 1m55s.

Some figures for AWBs :
RNLI
Tamar 16m30 2002 hp 25 knts cost K€3900
Severn 17m30 2500 hp 25 knts cost ??
Shannon 13m60 1300 hp 25 knts cost K€ 1900 + 1250 (launching)
Trent 14M30 1700 hp 25 knts cost ??
Tyne 14m30 1050 hp 18 knts cost ??
Mersey 11m60 560 hp 17 knts cost ??

SNSM
New CTT 17m80 1300 hp 25 knts cost K€ 1500
CTT 17m60 800 hp 22 knts cost K€ 850
CTT 15m50 800 hp 21 knts cost K€ 835
V VI 14m00 660 hp 25 knts cost K€ 670
V V2 10m50 500 hp 25 knts cost K€ 320
V V2 9m00 400 hp 28 knts cost K€ 210
V V2 NG 11m90 920 hp 25 knts cost K€ 530
V légère 9m00 230 hp 25 knts cost K€ 100


2) the UK coastline by my reckoning was orders of magnitude greater than France and when I did this calculation, I forgot to include Ireland. The mistake many make is to apply line of sight whereas in Scotland particularly, actual distance travelled is many times that.

Measuring coastlines is notoriously unreliable; it depends how many creeks you enter. Remem ber though that French figures for lifeboats include their overseas departments and territories and so their coastlines also need to be included.

3) there are no all weather RNLI stations that I can think of which are not able to launch at all states of the tide. To achieve that requires a different approach to the construction of a boat and a significant difference, and vastly increased cost, for shore infrastructure. Again, once you hold 1) as your goal, the costs spiral upwards dramatically.

The new Shannon boat is superb. The RNLI campaign at present is to raise K€ 6250 (£5m) to have two boats and their related launching carriages. However for the same price you could have 62 SNSM 30’ light AWBs. For shallow work the SNSM use 5m – 7m50 RIBS launched from a carriage pulled by a (farmyard) tractor. Remember that the Shannon excellent boat that it is, needs to be compared with other AWB’s once it is working in deep water – because the RNLI are also planning to keep some of these afloat in the future as replacement for existing boats.

I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that the SNSM adapt the size of their boats to expected local conditions whereas the RNLI approach is one size fits all.

4) to mitigate all the above, the RNLI have many stations with a RIB. Traditionally, life saving has been at sea but as shore side leisure activities grow, the number of shore incidents has increased commensurately. The last and sorely missed Transport Committee Chairman, Gwyneth Dunwoody, chastised the MCA for failing to recognise the increasing death rate from such activities (the MCA tried to pass off on her that this might be suicides, Dunwoody just wiped the floor with Mr Storey) and for not getting a grip on it. The RNLI alongside the MCA actively did.

As do the SNSM

5) Then there's beach rescue or life guards. These came about when the EU granted beaches an award if it achieved a high standard of water purity. The local councils who owned the beaches enjoyed the kudos until they read the small print of the EU directive and read that beach lifeguards had to be in place. The RNLI were invited to provide the facility and did on the understanding that the council paid the running costs. After a few years, the Blair government squeezed the council and the payments to the RNLI just stopped. The RNLI faced the invidious position of withdrawing the service and having the opprobium of the public heaped upon them if a death occurred or carried on. No guessing what happened? but sense finally prevailed, I think. After the Marchioness disaster, the RNLI were selected to provide SAR for the Thames in the City of London; this time payment was secured.

As do the SNSM. They have more in France, more lives rescued and a longer season.

4) & 5) show how the RNLI have become intertwined with public affairs. The organisation absolutely eschews any political influence; for a century it quietly got on with its business in Eire where no other British institution would dare. The Irish president gave one of the most moving speeches in thanks to the RNLI at the AGM in 2006 (? I think).

As for France, I was puzzled about the 10% running costs. A lot is due to French "accounting". A Harbour Master told me that the local department funded most of the running costs on the basis that the department had instigated the funding to get all these boats here in this brand new marina, so .. ? The SNSM website 6 years ago hadn't been updated for 5 years, so I'm a little reluctant to believe what I read here. That's being churlish perhaps; the key difference is 1). There are very few French lifeboats in an all tide mooring.

I gave earlier a reference to the SNSM audited accounts which supported the figures on the SNSM site. “French accounting” is to all material intents and purposes identical to UK accounting. On average the state supports 29% of the costs (but that’s 29% of €23m not of €186m). The funding is a mix of central and local government. The main source of funding comes from sponsorships by companies like Total and the insurance companies.

There are very few French lifeboats in an all tide mooring.

Perhaps in Normandy and N. Brittany. Most boats elsewhere are afloat or on ramps.


Regarding the type of lifeboat the French use; I thought the Cotentin lifeboats are modified pilot boats and quite obviously cheaper and looked flimsier than the boats at Alderney or Yarmouth for example (both Trent Class I think). The French are just much more pragmatic.

Having seen them up close, they are anything but flimsy. The French also care about looking after their volunteers. The new generation boats use the Pantocarene hulls which they share with pilot boats – and why not? Sharing like this leads to economies of scale without compromising quality and safety. If you read the comments of professional sailors and pilot boat skippers from around the world – after the clips – they are raving about the boat.
The liquid, available, assets of the RNLI were, in 2006/7, very close to one times average annual running costs at which point the RNLI have to take drastic action to preserve the "core". The running costs were then £100-120m pa so I don't know where the £550m figuare has come from or refers to. If it is assets, that has nothing to do with the ability of the RNLI to operate. The RNLI has two groups of donors; those who donate to a specific project, station etc and those who donate into the general fund. Possibly, the sum of both are being misinterpreted here - you can't join them.

The £550m should read £579m as the former referred to 2010. This is approximately 4 years operating costs. Certain donations may well be restricted eg towards the cost of a boat – well that’s what the RNLI should be spending money on.

The French have a saying " Le mieux, c'est l'ennemi du bien."

 

[Rigger Mortice]

i think you will find that its a charity for children suffering from the hiv virus!!!!!
i think you might want to rephrase that post as it reflects something quite unpleasant.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am fully aware that it is an aids charity, but that is irrelevant in the context we are discussing.

What is relevant is the the point was made that it has a tiny reserve when compared with RNLI. I was simply pointing out that a charity which has a small "turnover" will, of course, have small reserves when compared with a large organisation like the RNLI. The comparison was one of chalk and cheese.

If you want to read anything else into my comments then that is your problem.

 

[Sybarite]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am fully aware that it is an aids charity, but that is irrelevant in the context we are discussing.

What is relevant is the the point was made that it has a tiny reserve when compared with RNLI. I was simply pointing out that a charity which has a small "turnover" will, of course, have small reserves when compared with a large organisation like the RNLI. The comparison was one of chalk and cheese.

If you want to read anything else into my comments then that is your problem.

There is a potential pool for charitable donations. This pool seems to me skewed at present.

 

[jonjo]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You do.

Answer me this, when the RNLI recently bulk mailed its supporters advising them of increased monthly direct debits, was this reasonable? What a reasonable organization would have said is:

"Dear Contributor, we are writing to advise you of our intention to reduce monthly subs by 10%. The RNLI finds itself in the embarrassing situation of holding reserves of £570 million. If our sources of income dropped to zero tomorrow the RNLI could fund its own operations from reserves for many years. In severe economic conditions we could relocate to a region of the country with a much lower cost of living rather than basing our HQ within waving distance of the jetset multimillionaire pads of Sandbanks.

We appreciate that many of our private contributors are facing reduced household income in these stringent times and it is only fair the RNLI recognizes this and responds accordingly. Should our reduced monthly DD free up personals funds for other charitable purposes then we encourage you to contribute to the many smaller charities, both national and internations, where your contribution will have a direct beneficial effect in the mission of the charity".

 

[Rigger Mortice]

There is a potential pool for charitable donations. This pool seems to me skewed at present.

Most donations are made on a voluntary basis by members of the public. Are you suggesting that money should be directed in the way you want rather than how the donors choose?

One of the problems in the charity world is that there is a proliferation of charities, all set up by people with good intentions, but detracting from the overall purpose. In the case of the aids charity which you raised....why yet another charity? It may be that it would be better if there were just one Aids charity which could concentrate on fund raising and distributing the funds in the best possible way.

One reason that RNLI is so "successful" is that it is seen as being the National charity for saving life at sea. Whilst there are a few others, which all do good work, they are probably seen as being peripheral in the publics eye.

Too many tiny charities just end up with funds being spread too thinly.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Answer me this, when the RNLI recently bulk mailed its supporters advising them of increased monthly direct debits, was this reasonable? What a reasonable organization would have said is:

I disagree with what you are suggesting. I think that the "success" of the RNLI is to be applauded and I simply cannot understand why some boaters seem to be so keen to criticise it. Luckily the RNLI is more likely to continue with its good work than to bother with what a few detractors may have to say.

The Charity Commission seems to be content with what it is doing (despite some of the unsupported claims which have been made on this thread) and the public seems to be happy to continue donating. Long may that continue.

I'm happy to continue using my boat with the reassurance that, should it be necessary, the RNLI will be there for me.

 

[reginaldon]

Salaried personnel : SNSM 70 RNLI 1691 of whom 42 earn more than £60 000 pa

This is the most important statistic (to me). I know there is a disparity in the number of 'shouts' however, there are times when people are 'saved' that don't need or want 'saving' and of course many of these shouts are really lifeguard operations.

The amazing thing about this interminable thread, is the spleen displayed by the defence lobby. I think many of them belong to the Lounge.

 

[ParaHandy]

Like many a talking-head

Thank you for correctly understanding those words of mine came from my mouth .. and yours?

 

[ParaHandy]

The £550m should read £579m as the former referred to 2010. This is approximately 4 years operating costs. Certain donations may well be restricted eg towards the cost of a boat – well that’s what the RNLI should be spending money on.

This just isn't true and I think you know it. The free reserves are less than £100m. They bearly cover a years running. The figure you quote includes such items as the launch houses etc, none of which, whilst an asset, generates cash to cover the costs of a launch.

Just out of interest, the RNLI achieve a 10 minute launch on average and reach 93% of all casualties within 10miles. We will have to agree to differ over the flimsy French boats.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

This just isn't true and I think you know it. The free reserves are less than £100m. They bearly cover a years running. The figure you quote includes such items as the launch houses etc, none of which, whilst an asset, generates cash to cover the costs of a launch.

I don't think that is quite right.
You're correct about the "free" reserves but the balance of the reserves is still money, some of which is committed because of the way it was donated (legacies etc) and some being money which has been put to one side for future capital expenditure .....boats and launch houses. It's still money though, it's not yet assets in the form of buildings etc.
Or maybe I've missunderstood your comment?

 

[Searush]

This is the most important statistic (to me). I know there is a disparity in the number of 'shouts' however, there are times when people are 'saved' that don't need or want 'saving' and of course many of these shouts are really lifeguard operations.

The amazing thing about this interminable thread, is the spleen displayed by the defence lobby. I think many of them belong to the Lounge.

You must be reading a different thread. I have been astonished at how patient the "defenders" are in the face of deliberate and possibly mischievous disinformation from the antis. The persistent refusal of the critics to accept facts & keep repeating inaccurate & unsupported allegations is unbelievable.

No-one has yet produced any genuine "problems" that the RNLI needs to address, never mind suggesting any practical solutions to those perceived problems!

I suspect that the knockers are simply displaying their predjudices in order to annoy people. Oh, yeah, that's what trolls do isn't it?

 

[maxi77]

One of the original suggestions by the OP was that financial supporters of the RNLI may feel unhappy with the present staus of the RNLI. Now in general as far as I can see most peope who admit to support of the RNLI seem happy with their performance which would seem the blow apart the OPs assertion.

I also note he still does not comment on the reality that the SNSM does not provide carriage lauching for their tide restricted stations, a fundamental part of the original apples for apples comparison. How does the SNSM deal with tidal restrictions, I have seen their boats in no better than half tide locations

 

[Sybarite]

One of the original suggestions by the OP was that financial supporters of the RNLI may feel unhappy with the present staus of the RNLI. Now in general as far as I can see most peope who admit to support of the RNLI seem happy with their performance which would seem the blow apart the OPs assertion.

I also note he still does not comment on the reality that the SNSM does not provide carriage lauching for their tide restricted stations, a fundamental part of the original apples for apples comparison. How does the SNSM deal with tidal restrictions, I have seen their boats in no better than half tide locations

Apparently you are not reading my posts. #486

 

[[70521]]

I wonder how much it would cost to get rescued if neither organisation existed?

List of Charges

Towing
10 miles = 2,000
20 miles = 5,000

Extra charges
Call out in a Force 6 + 3,000
Call out in a Force 8 + 7,000

Recovery of people
Use of Lifeboat 5,000 per person rescued
Use of Helicopter 15,000 per hour

(insert £ or € depending what side of the Channel you are)

This all sounds a very academic exercise in navel gazing; as individuals, or even a tiny group, we will not be able to make a change in the management or financial structure of the RNLI.

 

[viago]

You must be reading a different thread. I have been astonished at how patient the "defenders" are in the face of deliberate and possibly mischievous disinformation from the antis. The persistent refusal of the critics to accept facts & keep repeating inaccurate & unsupported allegations is unbelievable.

thats rich coming from a "defender" to the exclusion of all reason. a man who, at the start of this dialogue, accused me of the same deliberate mis-information spreading:-

You just have no idea, do you?. It is not just a trailer, and I suspect you are entirely clear about that but choose to tell lies to discredit them. It actually discredits you.

And the salaries? Compare them with any equivalent large company & I think you will find they are below average for the responsibilities undertaken. So stop your petty mis-information & try doing something useful for a change.

Your childish rants appear to be far from that. What did the RNLI do to you to be dissed in this manner?

my crime???
to suggest that £1 000 000 is a tidy sum for a trailer and to quote rnli accounts.
i think you might want to think about your own responses here.

lets say that this new jet boat and its launching system is a resounding success and it is rolled out world wide, i can see that this may well be the case, then that would be fantastic and all the so called "anti" people here would also be very pleased.

even so, that would not negate some of the salient points made here regarding value for money raised by the op and the ethical aspects of charitable status and the incumbent responsibilities which they may or may not entail.