It's that time....

[BelleSerene]

I am glad that everybody has appreciated the financial position of the RNLI.... :nonchalance:

Mercifully, Fred Drift unwinds himself. Thank you, OP!

May I repeat my unanswered question: what is the financial position of the RNLI? Lots of fact stated, I know, but we were left to guess the conclusion you were drawing. Income up from both profits and capital gains; pension fund prospects oscillating wildly; most of a billion of assets; big increase in salaries; perhaps that’s why there are a few percent more ‘directors’ paid >£60k; spent 18 million pounds on lifeboats.

What is your point? That their capital spend (on lifeboats) is more than their capital gain (from investments)?

 

[Dutch01527]

My version of “Men’s Men” might be different to others. In my version a Man’s Man ( whether male or female) would not tolerate racism, homophobia or misongyist attitudes. They would, however, reisist petty interference, silly rules and overbearing management.

People who choose to spend their life are sea tend to be independent, self reliant and a bit bloody minded. The heart of many RNLI stations are the fishing community who by nature reflect these attitudes in my experience. Management who understand this and keep it in check are fine. Management who adopt an approach common in a council office or the NHS misunderstand the nature of people who will sail out into a gale with the real chance or not returning.

 

[Tomahawk]

I wrote to them we removed the RNLI from our wills to explain our reasoning. In return I got a copy of the press release. So I asked the dear snowflake if she has ever set to sea when everyone else is running for safety?

Oddly enough, no reply so far.

As Dutch says, those who put to sea with a real chance of not returning are from a different mould to the rest of us. That they can lead a crew to follow is something quite special. Yes they will be larger than life.

I expect this is what the middle management aspire to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Park-pond-emergency-workers-stand-watch.html

 

[Dutch01527]

I expect this is what the middle management aspire to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Park-pond-emergency-workers-stand-watch.html[/QUOTE]

Interesting but not surprising. My brother has just retired as a fireman after a 30 year career. He has shared with me the changes in the service over that time:

- reduction in strength and fitness testing standards on entry to drive diversity. Aimed at recruiting more women and males from ethnic backgrounds that tend, on average, to be physically smaller.
- firefighters will no longer risk entering buildings in certain circumstances because they can not have confidence that their colleague can rescue them physically if they get into trouble
- management alienating the firefighters by removing beds, comfortable chairs and pool tables ect from fire stations. They can often have an overnight shift with no call outs. Previously they could sleep fully clothed and ready to go. Now the have to sit on kitchen chairs and do nothing for 10 hours straight except attend a schedule of mandated training lectures. A 30 year veteran has to sit and listen to a lecture at midnight on how to coil a hose properly.
- moral is rock bottom and just about every experienced firefighter would leave if it was a voluntary service. They love their colleagues and the camaraderie but hate management and the organisation.

 

[Sybarite]

I expect this is what the middle management aspire to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Park-pond-emergency-workers-stand-watch.html

Interesting but not surprising. My brother has just retired as a fireman after a 30 year career. He has shared with me the changes in the service over that time:

- reduction in strength and fitness testing standards on entry to drive diversity. Aimed at recruiting more women and males from ethnic backgrounds that tend, on average, to be physically smaller.
- firefighters will no longer risk entering buildings in certain circumstances because they can not have confidence that their colleague can rescue them physically if they get into trouble
- management alienating the firefighters by removing beds, comfortable chairs and pool tables ect from fire stations. They can often have an overnight shift with no call outs. Previously they could sleep fully clothed and ready to go. Now the have to sit on kitchen chairs and do nothing for 10 hours straight except attend a schedule of mandated training lectures. A 30 year veteran has to sit and listen to a lecture at midnight on how to coil a hose properly.
- moral is rock bottom and just about every experienced firefighter would leave if it was a voluntary service. They love their colleagues and the camaraderie but hate management and the organisation.

The motto of the Parisian firefighters is "Sauver ou périr". [save or die trying]

 

[Sybarite]

Mercifully, Fred Drift unwinds himself. Thank you, OP!

May I repeat my unanswered question: what is the financial position of the RNLI? Lots of fact stated, I know, but we were left to guess the conclusion you were drawing. Income up from both profits and capital gains; pension fund prospects oscillating wildly; most of a billion of assets; big increase in salaries; perhaps that’s why there are a few percent more ‘directors’ paid >£60k; spent 18 million pounds on lifeboats.

What is your point? That their capital spend (on lifeboats) is more than their capital gain (from investments)?

I deliberately didn't comment this year as I have been dubbed an RNLI hater - which is not the case. I had pointed out many instances of what I considered a waste of money and that I am sure that the people who donate to the RNLi do not realize that what goes into the pension fund is more than is spent on boats : average 7%-10% of annual income.

 

[Tranona]

I am sure that the people who donate to the RNLi do not realize that what goes into the pension fund is more than is spent on boats : average 7%-10% of annual income.

As ever that is a really meaningless statement. The organisation, however funded has a legal obligation to fund its pension scheme as part of its contract with employees.

Why is a comparison with expenditure on an unrelated item of any interest?

Once again displaying your ignorance of how to conduct comparative analysis. Your first lecture on the subject would have told you that such comparisons have no validity. You were obviously not listening.

 

[Motor_Sailor]

The motto of the Parisian firefighters is "Sauver ou périr". [save or die trying]

That's because they're members of the armed forces.

It's much harder trying to run a civilian fire service with their very different requirements and expectations.

 

[JumbleDuck]

As Dutch says, those who put to sea with a real chance of not returning are from a different mould to the rest of us. That they can lead a crew to follow is something quite special. Yes they will be larger than life.

Larger than life is fine. Bigotry, bullying, racism and sexism ain't fine.

 

[Sybarite]

As ever that is a really meaningless statement. The organisation, however funded has a legal obligation to fund its pension scheme as part of its contract with employees.

Why is a comparison with expenditure on an unrelated item of any interest?

Once again displaying your ignorance of how to conduct comparative analysis. Your first lecture on the subject would have told you that such comparisons have no validity. You were obviously not listening.

Your vitriolic remarks are indicative of somebody who cannot think outside the box and realizing that there may be alternative ways of doing things.

How complicated is running a lifeboat service? Why do they need 54 people earning over £60K (how many in the £40k-£50k bracket I wonder) unless it’s because they have created what the French would call an “usine à gaz”.

Do people really consider it reasonable to only spend between 5-10% of their annual budget to build boats - which probably cost twice as much as they should if they had had a more reasonable approach ? I wonder do people who create a legacy for the RNLI know that? Donations are down this year but the revenue line is rescued by legacies.

IMHO they have created a millstone around their necks for the sort of economy which is on the horizon. In difficult times successful organizations do everything they can to reduce fixed costs and they outsource everything that has a doubtful future. The RNLI have just done the opposite in bringing lifeboat production in-house.

And remember that the £23m investment in the lifeboat production facility at Poole needs to be amortized over a very limited production run.

I get the impression that the RNLI directors are sitting around saying “We have all this money, how can we spend it?”

Then they invest £10-11m on a boathouse (St David’s). I wonder whether anybody thought of saying to the local authorities “We’ll provide the service if you provide the facilities”? Or does that smack too much of state aid?

I think it is very pertinent to compare different types of expenditure especially when there are other ways of doing things. But, if you are not prepared from time to time to think outside the box you will always be the prisoner of your prejudices.

And just to remind you : my interest in this was sparked when I saw that the RNLI had at the time more people earning over £50k per year than the total number of employees in the SNSM.

PS. It had not been my intention to comment this year but if I am personally attacked I will defend myself.
PPS I set up a consulting company called AUDIA (diagnostic analyses of businesses based on reviews of their financial statements) and so when it comes to comparative analyses I think I may have a head start. I don't need your endorsement; those that I have are quite satisfactory.

 

[dom]

PS. It had not been my intention to comment this year but if I am personally attacked I will defend myself.
PPS I set up a consulting company called AUDIA (diagnostic analyses of businesses based on reviews of their financial statements) and so when it comes to comparative analyses I think I may have a head start. I don't need your endorsement; those that I have are quite satisfactory.

Lol! Two institutions, two countries, both amazing, both providing everything us yotties could ever hope for on a stormy night. Both work with awsome air support and I for one was on the edge of my seat reading the January story in Voile recounting a CROSS Cherbourg diver’s tale of rescuing a panicked Channel sailor in midst of Storm Eleanor.

So, why start the same faux accounting conversation again and again

 

[Sybarite]

Lol! Two institutions, two countries, both amazing, both providing everything us yotties could ever hope for on a stormy night. Both work with awsome air support and I for one was on the edge of my seat reading the January story in Voile recounting a CROSS Cherbourg diver’s tale of rescuing a panicked Channel sailor in midst of Storm Eleanor.

So, why start the same faux accounting conversation again and again

You know me; I am the soul of diplomacy.

But I was provoked....

 

[Tranona]

Your vitriolic remarks are indicative of somebody who cannot think outside the box and realizing that there may be alternative ways of doing things.

How complicated is running a lifeboat service? Why do they need 54 people earning over £60K (how many in the £40k-£50k bracket I wonder) unless it’s because they have created what the French would call an “usine à gaz”.

Do people really consider it reasonable to only spend between 5-10% of their annual budget to build boats - which probably cost twice as much as they should if they had had a more reasonable approach ? I wonder do people who create a legacy for the RNLI know that? Donations are down this year but the revenue line is rescued by legacies.

IMHO they have created a millstone around their necks for the sort of economy which is on the horizon. In difficult times successful organizations do everything they can to reduce fixed costs and they outsource everything that has a doubtful future. The RNLI have just done the opposite in bringing lifeboat production in-house.

And remember that the £23m investment in the lifeboat production facility at Poole needs to be amortized over a very limited production run.

I get the impression that the RNLI directors are sitting around saying “We have all this money, how can we spend it?”

Then they invest £10-11m on a boathouse (St David’s). I wonder whether anybody thought of saying to the local authorities “We’ll provide the service if you provide the facilities”? Or does that smack too much of state aid?

I think it is very pertinent to compare different types of expenditure especially when there are other ways of doing things. But, if you are not prepared from time to time to think outside the box you will always be the prisoner of your prejudices.

And just to remind you : my interest in this was sparked when I saw that the RNLI had at the time more people earning over £50k per year than the total number of employees in the SNSM.

PS. It had not been my intention to comment this year but if I am personally attacked I will defend myself.
PPS I set up a consulting company called AUDIA (diagnostic analyses of businesses based on reviews of their financial statements) and so when it comes to comparative analyses I think I may have a head start. I don't need your endorsement; those that I have are quite satisfactory.

I am sorry it is not vitriol, and I am capable of thinking out of the box, although you do not seem to have the same facility as you are constantly trying to apply inappropriate techniques and invalid comparisons.

It is irrelevant what %age of revenue is spent on boats as expenditure is determined by need, not be a specific %age. Is there any evidence that expenditure is too little? or not appropriate to need? There is also no connection between funding the pension fund and buying or building new boats. So why on earth are you comparing those amounts?

Your questions are all legitimate and I am sure they are all posed in some way by management when making their decisions. You have no way of knowing what lies behind the decisions they do make simply because you do not have the information available to you. That is what makes your constant carping and criticism so wearing. I am afraid it is you that are the prisoner of your own prejudices. You are quite open in believing that they are doing it all wrong so constantly try to cast everything in a negative light. You do this by misusing financial information using your so-called expertise. It is that "expertise" that I challenge - as I have in the past by demonstrating how far out of touch you are with the subject.

Where is the basis for your opinion that they are facing a different environment and they need to adopt your "cost cutting" policies. What do you know that they don't know? You have been saying this for years and they are still there - providing the service, maintaining their financial health, leading the world in lifeboat design etc. Of course their sources of income change over time. Nothing wrong in that. What is important is that they recognise it and change with it. As to your repeated nonsense about what the donors think about the way their donations are used. Well, not only are the accounts completely transparent and in the public domain, but many of the donors are public corporations or successful private businesses. Do you seriously think that firstly they don't know how the money is spent and secondly that they would donate if they thought the money was not being used wisely?

So, I am sorry, but I am afraid it is you that needs to get out of your box and recognise that the RNLI does not fit your pre-conceived model of an organisation. If you want to do something useful then recognise its context and how it fits within it rather than saying "this is what it should do" while ignoring the context. You have been told many times by people that know far more about the organisation that your assumptions about the way the organisation operates are either misplaced or in some cases totally wrong. You unwillingness to recognise this is why you are largely ignored.

 

[Mark-1]

Apologies for the source, but it does appear there was more to at least one of the recent cases than was stated at the time:

In Clark’s case, one element that led to his sacking were claims that he swore at a colleague — an apparent breach of the RNLI’s code of conduct (‘Yes, I swore. It’s a rufty-tufty place at sea and people do swear,’ he admits).

Quite a busy article, some fair points about the recent history of the RNLI, some less fair IMHO.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5719757/Britains-heroic-lifeboat-volunteers-drowning-sea-political-correctness.html

 

[JumbleDuck]

Quite a busy article, some fair points about the recent history of the RNLI, some less fair IMHO.

The trouble with the article is that it's so riddled with Daily Mail scaremongering and hatemongering that it's impossible to tell whether any of the points they raise are fair or even whether they bear any relation to reality. Women managers! Helping refugees! It's political correctness gone mad!

Comments on just two points:

Drowning sailors are, of course, unlikely to care whether their rescuer owns an inappropriate item of crockery, or once set sail with unauthorised passengers.

If I were a drowning sailor I'd probably feel mildly disappointed if the lifeboat which could have rescued me was away somewhere giving a couple of pals of the coxswain's a jolly

In 1999, it had 750 employees, but within five years it had 1,000. By 2016 there were 2,366

Since that time period covers the bringing of lifeboat building in-house and the creation and expansion of the lifeguard programme, which uses paid lifeguards, it's hardly surprising that the number of employees has gone up substantially.

 

[dom]

The trouble with the article is that it's so riddled with Daily Mail scaremongering and hatemongering that it's impossible to tell whether any of the points they raise are fair or even whether they bear any relation to reality. Women managers! Helping refugees! It's political correctness gone mad!

Well I never, so the RNLI is:

" winning ‘health and safety’ awards, speaks of creating a ‘diversity leadership group’ among staff and supporting the ‘International Day Against Homophobia.’ "
​

I mean what's wrong with a bit of good old-fashioned racism and homophobia? It's all gone too far is wot I say, too far !!

What a hopeless, pathetic rag the Daily Mail is.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I mean what's wrong with a bit of good old-fashioned racism and homophobia? It's all gone too far is wot I say, too far !!

What a hopeless, pathetic rag the Daily Mail is.

 

[Mark-1]

Since that time period covers the bringing of lifeboat building in-house and the creation and expansion of the lifeguard programme, which uses paid lifeguards, it's hardly surprising that the number of employees has gone up substantially.

Funnily enough that aspect of the article was the bit I thought was factually accurate and matched my recollection of what happened at the time. Basically the RNLI is so popular it's, quite rightly, able to collect vast amounts of cash and, quite rightly, because it's a charity, the charities commission expect it to spend what it collects. So the RNLI has been forced by circumstance to spend gazzlions on over engineered kit* and to burn cash by diversifying into areas that contributors mainly wouldn't want to support. No wrongdoing there on either side, but it's not ideal.

So it's a shame it wasn't possible for the RNLI to have been allowed to keep 'over-collecting' without spending, save/invest the cash and move to an endowment model in the not-too-distant future so they could give up fundraising all together.

If you're going to look at change as fundamental as going to an endowment method of funding then maybe we also need to ask ourselves why rescue boats are being run by a charity at all? Maybe I'm a closet Socialist, but lifesaving boats seems to me something the state should be running. The argument that the state is rubbish at running things is never applied to ambulances, why apply it to lifeboats?

Another point I thought was fair was that 90pc of todays RNLI Crews aren't seamen. This certainly matches my experience of local crews, and I think the RNLI have handled that well. In the days when competence at sea was a given you probably didn't need to have structured/patronizing training. I suspect that now they do have to have it, and it sounds like they are well on top of it.

...but yes, it's a newspaper - and the Daily Mail at that - so the truth has to be very deeply veiled behind a load of utter lies and nonsense.

The RNLI is a massive and interesting topic and, sadly, I doubt any of us have the time to sensibly discuss it in the detail required.

* Not even sure the over engineered kit is a bad thing. The Shannon and its launch tractor give me even more of a stiffy than a pornographic mug does, and means one solution works pretty much everywhere without need for large infrastructure on shore!

 

[JumbleDuck]

Basically the RNLI is so popular it's, quite rightly, able to collect vast amounts of cash and, quite rightly, because it's a charity, the charities commission expect it to spend what it collects. So the RNLI has been forced by circumstance to spend gazzlions on over engineered kit* and to burn cash by diversifying into areas that contributors mainly wouldn't want to support. No wrongdoing there on either side, but it's not ideal.

I agree completely.

If you're going to look at change as fundamental as going to an endowment method of funding then maybe we also need to ask ourselves why rescue boats are being run by a charity at all? Maybe I'm a closet Socialist, but lifesaving boats seems to me something the state should be running. The argument that the state is rubbish at running things is never applied to ambulances, why apply it to lifeboats?

I agree there too, in principle. However since the RNLI is there, and does a good job, there probably isn't much need for the state to step in.

Another point I thought was fair was that 90pc of todays RNLI Crews aren't seamen. This certainly matches my experience of local crews, and I think the RNLI have handled that well. In the days when competence at sea was a given you probably didn't need to have structured/patronizing training. I suspect that now they do have to have it, and it sounds like they are well on top of it.

Yes, good point. It may well also be that the ability to manoeuvre a fishing boat is horrible conditions is not a sufficient or even, for many crew members, a necessary condition for being a lifeboat crew member. I was shown round the Campbeltown AWB last year, and the amount of technology aboard clearly requires more than remarkable seamanship skills - though of course somebody has to have those.

...but yes, it's a newspaper - and the Daily Mail at that - so the truth has to be very deeply veiled behind a load of utter lies and nonsense.

What I really, really hate about the Daily Mail is its cosy assumption that anyone reading it will share its loathsome views. Just reading the damn thing makes me feel soiled by association.

* Not even sure the over engineered kit is a bad thing. The Shannon and its launch tractor give me even more of a stiffy than a pornographic mug does, and means one solution works pretty much everywhere without need for large infrastructure on shore!

Oo-er. Is ships' machinery still put together in erecting sheds?

 

[Blue Sunray]

I don't think you're correct at all. The RNLI isn't imposing cultural change on its volunteers, it is more a case of its policies reflecting the changing attitudes of modern society. Like it or not, the world is changing. Crew joining the station these days don't expect to be bullied, threatened, harassed, sexually assaulted, or undergo any unpleasant "initiation ceremonies". They expect to be treated with respect. Oh, and, certainly at my station, there is no shortage of volunteers, quite the opposite in fact.




A year or two back, a couple of crew from my station attended a course at Poole. One of the other attendees was an old-school coxswain from some distant outpost of the realm, whose views and behaviour would no doubt delight some members of this forum, but appalled the others on the course. He was arrogant, loud, misogynistic, and wasn't afraid to voice his dislike of anyone unfortunate enough not to have been born white. In fact, one of my colleagues commented afterwards that he hadn't heard such terms used for black or Asian people since the 1970s.

Several people tried to have a quiet word with him during breaks, but he wouldn't listen. In the end, the instructor had to tell him to wind his neck in, or go home.

So who were these "snowflakes" who took offence at the behaviour of this lifeboating legend? Office staff? Mavis from the stores? An interfering female manager? No, they were all serving crew, mainly coxswains and helms in fact. Exactly the sort of people who will risk their lives to launch in a gale to rescue yotties.

I'd like to apologise to those on this forum who feel that I (and my colleagues) don't fit their image of what lifeboat crew should be like. But if ever you need rescuing on our bit of coast, and we turn up in our lifeboat, feel free to send us back and wait for a proper crew of "Men's Men" to turn up.

But you might be waiting a while.

Quoted as it bears repeating, not least as it appears to be a rare post on this thread (and the other near identical ones) from someone who is more than a no-mark armchair admiral sounding off their prejudices.