It has over £ 1/2 billion to spend in the future on what it does. What exactly do you think these legacies are for, the purchase of a Type 45 destroyer?
If I were an RNLI donor I would not be happy.
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
Many an old retired vicar would say not, anyone remember the crash of the Church of England pension fund?
But I do not see why not, most private pension funds invest in equities. With such a humongous amount of lolly in the bank it would be remiss of the RNLI not to grab a small share of global commerce.
viago
Well-Known Member
submersible sea tractor trials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAyaxw2CIs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAyaxw2CIs&feature=related
mikefleetwood
Well-Known Member
Bit Fred Drift, really - but amazing vid - I'm surprised they operate in such conditions!
The same was true of the BBC 3 years ago. Even so it was generally recognized to be a spendthrift organization e.g. 300 staff on a jolly to cover Glastonbury, when those miners got trapped in Chili the BBC had more staff covering the event onsite than any other global news outfit. The BBC has 3 internal news organizations that fall over themselves to cover the same news. Unlike the RNLI which does not answer to anyone, the new Government voiced its disapproval of BBC spending habits and the frivolous spending started to fall away.
No one holds the RNLI to account, only general public critique can affect it. The dark old days of health & safety fascism seems to be passing at the RNLI, it has been sometime since we have heard about bully boy beach guards, fabricated rescue stats (reported here) or forced illegal rescues on the high seas that amounted to piracy.
Threads like this and adverse press coverage are the only mechanism for holding the RNLI to account. The Beeb has its board of governors and ultimately the Government, Chief Constables will soon to answering to democratically elected police commissioners, a patient can raise a complaint about a doctor but the RNLI which exercises powers of the State over us answers only to its bank balance.
C
Chrusty 1
Guest
ParaHandy
Well-Known Member
Your manipulation to suit your argument of a set of accounts merely demonstrates what i said about French accounting. What do you think £40m a year buys? In your myopic world, a rescue service without the cash to buy diesel might make sense to a bookkeeper.
Incidentally, how many beaches (excluding the med) do the SNSM guard and how many Atlantic coast and Channel stations have ribs?
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Because the RNLI has given a long term commitment to UKSAR, on which in turn the UK's commitment to IMO has been based. Fundraising is subject to economic circumstances - the RNLI has to ensure that it's long term SAR commitment can be properly funded. That would not be the case if if only held 6 months operating costs in reserve.
Well, the Charity Commissioners obviously think it is...
If boats were registered and licensed like cars, the same could happen. I have yet to hear a compelling argument why the only people paying their way at sea are the commercial ships.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Ooh, please name which power of the state they exercise....
Bru
Well-Known Member
That is actually completely wrong!
Clearly you have no idea of how charitable bodies function
In fact, a charity such as the RNLI is held far more accountable than any other organisation I can think of. It has to satisfy no less than FOUR seperate oversight bodies any of whom can force it to change its policy, direction, financial management etc.
Firstly, and never to be overlooked, is the membership (with voting rights in the case of RNLI which has voting and non-voting members)
Anybody can become a voting member (Governor) of the RNLI,. It isn't even ridiculously expensive. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, preventing anybody from gaining the right to vote at Annual General Meetings and table motions thereat etc. If sufficient members agree, an Extraordinary General Meeting can be forced. Trustees and managers can be held to account by the members and I know of several cases where they have been
Secondly, there are the trustees of the charity. Every charity has trustees although they may not always be called trustees. The trustees are so called because they hold the charity in trust. The legal duties and responsibilities of a trustee are many, varied and often onerous. Beyond reasonable expenses, trustees cannot be rewarded. The primary role of the trustees is to ensure that the charity operates within the stated aims and objectives.
The importance of aims and objectives should not be overlooked. These statements are the heart and soul of a charity, They define what the charity exists to do and also, both explicitly and implicitly what the charity CANNOT do - a charity cannot legally act otherwise than as set out in its aims and objectives. The RNLI could not, for example, become a mountain rescue organistion ... not without changing its aims and objectives anyway and such a change would have to be approved by the trustees, the members and ...
The Charity Commission is the third oversight body and they VERY strictly ensure that charities comply with charity law. Any changes to the consitution of a charity must be approved by the Commissioners, they audit charity acitivities and accounts and they must also approve the annual accounts.
The Commissioners can, and do, force charities to change they way they operate. They can, and do, disqualify inappropriate trustees (they take, for example, a lot of persuading before they'll approve a former employee of a charity becoming a trustee of that charity) and they can, and do, force charities to draw down excess financial reserves (its a basic principal that charities should spend the money received from donations on the primary aims of the charity)
And then, and to correct an earlier misapprehension in this thread, a charity is also a legal business entity. Most charities in the UK will be companies limited by guarantee in many cases with dispensation (which has to be applied for and is not automatically granted) to omit the "Ltd." after the company name. In more recent times, CIC's (Community Interest Companies) have begun to take over where traditional charities would previously have been created but whatever the framework the charity is a legal company which must operate within business and company law
A charity must, for example, submit audited accounts to Companies House. Its directors (usually the trustees) must be legally qualified to be company directors and so on. It is a business like any other business (at least as far as business and ciompany law is concerned)
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Well, for a start, it's outboard driven, so has none of the shallow water capability of the Shannon, it isn't self righting, it has nowhere near the bollard pull, it's a single skin hull not dual composite, it doesn't have the SIMS command/control/navigation systems, doesn't have the same level of crew protection, and isn't carriage or trailer launched anywhere.
Oh, and the Shannon complete system is £2.5m which at current exchange rates is 3m Euro, divided by 100,000 Euro is 30, not 62...
C
Chrusty 1
Guest
Thanks for that, I must admit that I never think of the RNLI as a Company, or business, can't seem to get my head around that somehow.
I truly am at a loss in understanding the critics on this thread. I have suggested a couple of times that if they want to change how the RNLI is run they should join as governor members and go and voice their criticisms at the AGM, but that idea has been studiously ignored by them.
I guess it's just easier for them to snipe at the RNLI on some tin pot wee forum like this, than to nail their colours to the mast at a RNLI AGM.
Searush
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that, I must admit that I never think of the RNLI as a Company, or business, can't seem to get my head around that somehow.
I truly am at a loss in understanding the critics on this thread. I have suggested a couple of times that if they want to change how the RNLI is run they should join as governor members and go and voice their criticisms at the AGM, but that idea has been studiously ignored by them.
I guess it's just easier for them to snipe at the RNLI on some tin pot wee forum like this, than to nail their colours to the mast at a RNLI AGM.
With so many inconsistencies, untruths & distortions in their "case" they may not get very far, and they know that. The comparison with the BBC was amusing, will the RNLI be accused of fondling casualties next?
The attacks are vitriolic but completely lacking credibility.
Bru
Well-Known Member
And while we are on, lets correct another fallacy expounded by the RNLI knockers on this thread
The RNLI does NOT have reserves of £579.0m!
£579.0m is the total net asset value of the RNLI at year end 2011
It is, in other words, what the RNLI is worth on paper
That is made up out of ...
Fixed assets £330.9m of which £249.4m being lifeboats, lifeboat stations, launching equipment etc. The remainder being offices, training facilities, depots and other fixed assets
Investments £250.9m comprising £9.6m endowment reserves, £75.3m restricted reserves, £75.9m of designated reserves for planned capital expenditure and free reserves of £93.6m less net working capital and long term creditors (£3.5m)
HEADLINE FACT: The free reserves at year end 2011 were £93.6m representing 9 months operational expenditure. Rather a different number, and rather a different impression, than shouting "The RNLI is sitting on £579million".
(The above information, and much more besides, is available to a very select and special band of people via a highly secret process. I'll let you in on the secret though, just google "RNLI accounts" and open the 2011 Annual Report PDF off the RNLI web site. Don't tell anybody I told you though, it's a secret)
The RNLI does NOT have reserves of £579.0m!
£579.0m is the total net asset value of the RNLI at year end 2011
It is, in other words, what the RNLI is worth on paper
That is made up out of ...
Fixed assets £330.9m of which £249.4m being lifeboats, lifeboat stations, launching equipment etc. The remainder being offices, training facilities, depots and other fixed assets
Investments £250.9m comprising £9.6m endowment reserves, £75.3m restricted reserves, £75.9m of designated reserves for planned capital expenditure and free reserves of £93.6m less net working capital and long term creditors (£3.5m)
HEADLINE FACT: The free reserves at year end 2011 were £93.6m representing 9 months operational expenditure. Rather a different number, and rather a different impression, than shouting "The RNLI is sitting on £579million".
(The above information, and much more besides, is available to a very select and special band of people via a highly secret process. I'll let you in on the secret though, just google "RNLI accounts" and open the 2011 Annual Report PDF off the RNLI web site. Don't tell anybody I told you though, it's a secret)
C
Chrusty 1
Guest
Nice one Briggsy!!!
That makes the detractors comments look exactly what they are..............Utter Bulwarks!!!
glashen
Well-Known Member
With so many inconsistencies, untruths & distortions in their "case" they may not get very far, and they know that. The comparison with the BBC was amusing, will the RNLI be accused of fondling casualties next?
The attacks are vitriolic but completely lacking credibility.
I think when in an argument over money wasting, managers pay and accountability the opposition quote the BBC as an example of good practice you can assume they have finally lost the plot.
and for their factual programmes, Radio 4 and much else you could not find a greater fan than me but even I wouldn't try too hard to defend those aspects of the BBC.
Litotes
Well-Known Member
I haven't checked with Companies House, but I would be very surprised in the RNLI is not a company. It is probably a company limited by guarantee, without share capital. Until the long promised Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) is available, registration as a company is the only way to gain the benefits of corporate status (for example, limited liability of Trustees)
The CIO is a structure that allows charities to register as incorporated bodies with the Charity Commission - thereby eliminating the burden of accountability both to the Commission and to Companies House. It has been in the pipeline since 2008, but never seems quite to pop out at the other end.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
For clarity, there are four RNLI companies - College, Enterprises, Heritage and Sales. Quite rightly so.
There are also the main registered charities themselves.
Litotes
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification. I note from the Companies House site that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a Company established by Royal Charter, no less. There's glory for you!
Bru
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the clarification. I note from the Companies House site that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a Company established by Royal Charter, no less. There's glory for you!
Yup, marvellous for them. Means they can be the ROYAL National Lifeboat Institutution
Also means that they've got a fifth oversight body since any changes to the consitution, aims, objectives etc. would also have to be approved by the Privy Council! I forgot that one!!