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

[Brightwork]

I have great respect for lifeboat crews and their support workers (paid or unpaid). Two good friends are ex lifeboat coxwains. The RNLI provides a great service.

But none of the above is sufficient reason to just let them 'get on with it' as far as fund-raising and expenditure is concerned. The RNLI relies not only charitable donations, but also very significant tax-reliefs as granted to all registered charities.

That makes the financial activities of rightful interest to all UK taxpayers whether they be RNLI donors or not.

The running of an open, scrutinised, financially efficient service is in my view fully deserving of tax-relief, whilst the operation of a financially secretive, inefficient organisation (often as a cover for largesse on expenses with tax relief) would not be.

I therefore believe the OP to be fully justified in his asking of the original question, that all bodies claiming tax relief should be open to question and scutiny, and that, providing they can demonstrate reasonable efficiency in the control of finances, they should continue to enjoy our moral, financial, and tax relieved support.

 

[chanelyacht]

Equally formal procedure is for guidance not slavish obedience when properly trained staff execute those procedures.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[jordanbasset]

I have great respect for lifeboat crews and their support workers (paid or unpaid). Two good friends are ex lifeboat coxwains. The RNLI provides a great service.

But none of the above is sufficient reason to just let them 'get on with it' as far as fund-raising and expenditure is concerned. The RNLI relies not only charitable donations, but also very significant tax-reliefs as granted to all registered charities.

That makes the financial activities of rightful interest to all UK taxpayers whether they be RNLI donors or not.

The running of an open, scrutinised, financially efficient service is in my view fully desrving of tax-relief, whilst the operation of a financially secretive, inefficient organisation (often as a cover for largesse on expenses with tax relief) would not be.

I therefore believe the OP to be fully justified in his asking of the original question, that all bodies claiming tax relief should be open to question and scutiny, and that, providing they can demonstrate reasonable efficiency in the control of finances, they should continue to enjoy our moral, financial, and tax relieved support.

Quite agree, nothing on this thread had made me think that the RNLI is inefficient in the control of it's finances. Still waiting to find what the issue is.

 

[maxi77]

I have great respect for lifeboat crews and their support workers (paid or unpaid). Two good friends are ex lifeboat coxwains. The RNLI provides a great service.

But none of the above is sufficient reason to just let them 'get on with it' as far as fund-raising and expenditure is concerned. The RNLI relies not only charitable donations, but also very significant tax-reliefs as granted to all registered charities.

That makes the financial activities of rightful interest to all UK taxpayers whether they be RNLI donors or not.

The running of an open, scrutinised, financially efficient service is in my view fully desrving of tax-relief, whilst the operation of a financially secretive, inefficient organisation (often as a cover for largesse on expenses with tax relief) would not be.

I therefore believe the OP to be fully justified in his asking of the original question, that all bodies claiming tax relief should be open to question and scutiny, and that, providing they can demonstrate reasonable efficiency in the control of finances, they should continue to enjoy our moral, financial, and tax relieved support.

That as I understand it is why the Charity Commisioner has a stutuary duty to monitor the activities of charities, what they do with their money and how they raise it. Ther are also several organisations that publish ratings on charities but have lost the details of the one I used to use

 

[Brightwork]

That as I understand it is why the Charity Commisioner has a stutuary duty to monitor the activities of charities, what they do with their money and how they raise it. Ther are also several organisations that publish ratings on charities but have lost the details of the one I used to use

Correct. The Commision also has a reporting system and asks the public to report financial (or other) irregularities. Therefore, by definition, the Charity Commision supports public scrutiny of all charities.

 

[Talulah]

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.....

The problem with things like this is it comes across as though the CG operator is asking the Lat/Lon because that's one of the boxes on their computer screen and they haven't been able to think outside the box. I'm sure lots on here have heard similar situations. The operators motives could be for a completely different and legitimate reason but the perception doesn't come across too well.
If on the other hand the perception matches the reality is there any follow up/training at the CG end or is it covered by routine training?

 

[chanelyacht]

The problem with things like this is it comes across as though the CG operator is asking the Lat/Lon because that's one of the boxes on their computer screen and they haven't been able to think outside the box. I'm sure lots on here have heard similar situations. The operators motives could be for a completely different and legitimate reason but the perception doesn't come across too well.
If on the other hand the perception matches the reality is there any follow up/training at the CG end or is it covered by routine training?

The "box" concerned has two position fields, one for description (i.e. entrance to Poole Harbour) and lat/long. One of the issues is the system calculates nearest SAR assets - e.g. lifeboat - and it can't position the incident with either the lat/long being entered, or the operator manually scrolling the map to position the incident, which takes longer.

Yes, we might know the nearest lifeboat, but the system won't always allow us to assign that resource without an incident position.

Another reason is we always ask for two means of position - e.g. bearing/distance, or lat/long. We don't take the first given position for granted - I took a 999 call a while back from a boat adamant they were aground on the xxx bank - they weren't, they were almost 10 miles away. Same reason as we might ask if someone has GPS on their mobile phone on a land based incident - the first information is not always reliable.

I don't know of any of my colleagues who would simply ask a question because it is on the screen - there are lots of questions for different incident types, and new entrants are taught the technique is to pick the best to ask, not go for the lot.

 

[Talulah]

The "box" concerned has two position fields, one for description (i.e. entrance to Poole Harbour) and lat/long. One of the issues is the system calculates nearest SAR assets - e.g. lifeboat - and it can't position the incident with either the lat/long being entered, or the operator manually scrolling the map to position the incident, which takes longer.

Yes, we might know the nearest lifeboat, but the system won't always allow us to assign that resource without an incident position.

Another reason is we always ask for two means of position - e.g. bearing/distance, or lat/long. We don't take the first given position for granted - I took a 999 call a while back from a boat adamant they were aground on the xxx bank - they weren't, they were almost 10 miles away. Same reason as we might ask if someone has GPS on their mobile phone on a land based incident - the first information is not always reliable.

I don't know of any of my colleagues who would simply ask a question because it is on the screen - there are lots of questions for different incident types, and new entrants are taught the technique is to pick the best to ask, not go for the lot.

Understood. Thanks for the response.

 

[mikefleetwood]

Quite agree, nothing on this thread had made me think that the RNLI is inefficient in the control of it's finances. Still waiting to find what the issue is.

Not wishing to labour the point, I think the main issue was - the RNLI has lots of money, and, the SNSM doesn't. Everything else was just fluff.

Nobody has managed to demonstrate that the RNLI is significantly more wasteful than any other comparable sized organisation, nor that it pays significantly over the odds for it's boats when all factors are taken into consideration. Nor, for that matter has anyone suggested that the SNSM cuts corners, although they are "cost constrained" by their own admission.

Everybody likes to have a pop at big organisations - there is plenty of evidence of this in this thread.

The accusation that the RNLI is just a marine AA for rich yotty types does not bear any examination of the published lists of "shouts" for each lifeboat. And anyway, why should that matter? Surely it's a rescue service for all at sea? If casualties were means tested before they were attended to, the organisation would loose all credibility.

 

[Litotes]

We don't take the first given position for granted - I took a 999 call a while back from a boat adamant they were aground on the xxx bank - they weren't, they were almost 10 miles away.

I recently heard the VHF interchange relating to a mayday call from a boat off the Essex coast in an area I know well. The person calling sounded quite panic stricken and I could hear the screams of his wife and children in the background. I don't think they were actually in imminent danger, but I suspect he was inexperienced, the boat was out of control and, of course, strong winds and wild seas can be very frightening.

The problem was that the man kept giving different GPS positions and none of them tallied with what he said he could see around him. The (wonderfully patient and reassuring) coastguard (Thames) eventually pinpointed him by talking him through everything he could see. Listening to the process, I was pretty much able to get his position as well. I was on the mooring, but was getting ready to set out to help if necessary.

The West Mersea inshore boat was out to him within ten minutes of the initial call. I think they launched even before they had an exact position. The coastguard concerned sails in this area (I know him) but I do wonder what would have happened if he hadn't known the area so well. I suppose the lifeboat crew would have been able to locate him, though, as they know those waters like the back of their hands.

I shall be sorry when Thames closes. They are like old friends.

 

[maxi77]

The "box" concerned has two position fields, one for description (i.e. entrance to Poole Harbour) and lat/long. One of the issues is the system calculates nearest SAR assets - e.g. lifeboat - and it can't position the incident with either the lat/long being entered, or the operator manually scrolling the map to position the incident, which takes longer.

Yes, we might know the nearest lifeboat, but the system won't always allow us to assign that resource without an incident position.

Another reason is we always ask for two means of position - e.g. bearing/distance, or lat/long. We don't take the first given position for granted - I took a 999 call a while back from a boat adamant they were aground on the xxx bank - they weren't, they were almost 10 miles away. Same reason as we might ask if someone has GPS on their mobile phone on a land based incident - the first information is not always reliable.

I don't know of any of my colleagues who would simply ask a question because it is on the screen - there are lots of questions for different incident types, and new entrants are taught the technique is to pick the best to ask, not go for the lot.

Perhaps there are some 'improvements' that could be made to the data input system

 

[rotrax]

Perhaps there are some 'improvements' that could be made to the data input system

Such as?

 

[chanelyacht]

Perhaps there are some 'improvements' that could be made to the data input system

I'm sure there are, but to what aim?

As I've said, I'd still ask for two methods of positioning - for the reasons given.

I'm not sure spending 000s on a software rewrite (our system is not unique to us, other emergency services us it too) is the best way to use our tight budget.

Funny thing is, we get a lot of feedback from casualties, and from the public at boat shows, etc. The issue of asking position doesn't come up to my knowledge.

 

[rhinorhino]

In economics there is a thing called the opportunity cost, ie. what else you could be doing with the money. To take this to an absurd degree, we could close down the whole NHS and spend the money on SAR, we would no doubt have (marginally) safer sea and lots of dead and dying people in the streets, the death and the pain would be the opportunity cost of our spending on the SAR.
The RNLI is a charity, money given to them cannot be spent elsewhere. They also attract massive government funding in tax-relief (think gift-aid), money which again cannot be spent elsewhere by government. Thus, it is in the wider public interest to ensure that money given by both the donors and the taxpayer is spent well.

Every pound spent by the RNLI is a pound that cannot be used for (being deliberately emotive here) saving children with cancer or keeping our streets safe from terrorists, there should be no sacred cows.

 

[Searush]

In economics there is a thing called the opportunity cost, ie. what else you could be doing with the money. To take this to an absurd degree, we could close down the whole NHS and spend the money on SAR, we would no doubt have (marginally) safer sea and lots of dead and dying people in the streets, the death and the pain would be the opportunity cost of our spending on the SAR.
The RNLI is a charity, money given to them cannot be spent elsewhere. They also attract massive government funding in tax-relief (think gift-aid), money which again cannot be spent elsewhere by government. Thus, it is in the wider public interest to ensure that money given by both the donors and the taxpayer is spent well.

Every pound spent by the RNLI is a pound that cannot be used for (being deliberately emotive here) saving children with cancer or keeping our streets safe from terrorists, there should be no scared cows.

Who's been scaring the cows then? Their milk yeilds will fall.

 

[epervier]

Back To The Beginning...

They must be getting short of dosh again, this arrived today as a post drop by the Royal Mail,(not addressed personally to me) so I'm guessing it's all over Hampshire.

What makes my piss boil, is in the print on the back it says,if you give more than £28 you'll become a member, for years I used to DD them £64, ok it was only once a year, but they wrote to inform me they wanted to increase my DD by some 8% I refused and was told ok stop your DD. So I did.

From where I'm sat, it doesn't look as if these people are reading the same book never mind being on the same page.

 

[ditchcrawler]

Perhaps you are unaware of the membership categories.
Shoreline Membership £28 pa
Offshore Membership £66 pa
Governor £86 pa
Looks like you were an Offshore Member which went up from £64 to £66.

The rational is that boat owners would be Offshore members and pay accordingly if they wish.

 

[duncan99210]

They must be getting short of dosh again, this arrived today as a post drop by the Royal Mail,(not addressed personally to me) so I'm guessing it's all over Hampshire.

What makes my piss boil, is in the print on the back it says,if you give more than £28 you'll become a member, for years I used to DD them £64, ok it was only once a year, but they wrote to inform me they wanted to increase my DD by some 8% I refused and was told ok stop your DD. So I did.

From where I'm sat, it doesn't look as if these people are reading the same book never mind being on the same page.

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......

 

[caiman]

Sybarite-thank you for starting this thread.I feel that you are concerned for the future of the RNLI in the forthcoming years which may/will be harder than what we are experiancing at presant.
The 'Sacred Cow' mentality of some of the 'Old Corinthians' on this forum is quite predictable,and should not stop anyone giving their opinion.
If anyone wants to make a difference to the RNLI,at the moment,the RNLI is paying £2m/annum to our government in unrecoverable VAT.Please lobby your local MP to get this changed so that your donations get turned into boats,not government 'pocket money'.
Cheers

 

[rhinorhino]

Sybarite-thank you for starting this thread.I feel that you are concerned for the future of the RNLI in the forthcoming years which may/will be harder than what we are experiancing at presant.
The 'Sacred Cow' mentality of some of the 'Old Corinthians' on this forum is quite predictable,and should not stop anyone giving their opinion.
If anyone wants to make a difference to the RNLI,at the moment,the RNLI is paying £2m/annum to our government in unrecoverable VAT.Please lobby your local MP to get this changed so that your donations get turned into boats,not government 'pocket money'.
Cheers

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.