It's that time....

[BelleSerene]

Alternatively, her article is of course available at the Times. You can try Googling 'Libby Purves RNLI' or here it is:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rnli-sacking-has-whiff-of-new-puritanism-dk0nxvthm

 

[JumbleDuck]

Libby Purves is, as most will know, an accomplished and widely respected broadcaster and journalist ...

... who, like the rest of us, hasn't a clue what actually went on at Whitby.

 

[BelleSerene]

Let's remember we are talking about two quite different cases. Libby Purves' article was about the sacking of two lifeboatmen for having saucy Secret Santa mugs made. The mugs 'could have been seen by visiting schoolchildren'. Ooh-err.

The skipper who took a lifeboat out without permission, without qualified crew and without even telling the CoastGuard the boat was off duty (except that he seems to have considered his own permission was sufficient, which probably says all we need to know about both his attitude and the laxity of management process) was a different lifeboatman on a different event occasion.

One case is about lifeboat stations being 'a safe and inclusive environment where people can expect to be treated with dignity and respect'. The other is about guarding the safety of the public at sea. I feel sure the RNLI was established for one of those causes and not for the other.

The cases may well have had the same regional manager. But morally they are totally distinct.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Let's remember we are talking about two quite different cases. Libby Purves' article was about the sacking of two lifeboatmen for having saucy Secret Santa mugs made. The mugs 'could have been seen by visiting schoolchildren'.

It appears, from what relatively little has been published, that they were simply asked to get rid of the mugs. The refused, started a social media campaign of abuse against their management and got sacked for that.

One case is about lifeboat stations being 'a safe and inclusive environment where people can expect to be treated with dignity and respect'. The other is about guarding the safety of the public at sea. I feel sure the RNLI was established for one of those causes and not for the other.

But why shouldn't lifeboat stations be a safe and inclusive environment where people can expect to be treated with dignity and respect? Sure the RNLI has a duty to provide the best and most effective teams possible to crew their boats, and that is less likely to happen in a station where some team members are not treated with dignity and respect.

The cases may well have had the same regional manager. But morally they are totally distinct.

Both seem to involve people who think that they can show contempt for their management, that they can treat the RNLI as their own fiefdom and that they are far less dispensable than they will inevitably turn out to be.

 

[BelleSerene]

... It appears, from what relatively little has been published, that they were simply asked to get rid of the mugs. The refused, started a social media campaign of abuse against their management and got sacked for that.

... But why shouldn't lifeboat stations be a safe and inclusive environment where people can expect to be treated with dignity and respect? Sure the RNLI has a duty to provide the best and most effective teams possible to crew their boats, and that is less likely to happen in a station where some team members are not treated with dignity and respect.

... Both seem to involve people who think that they can show contempt for their management, that they can treat the RNLI as their own fiefdom and that they are far less dispensable than they will inevitably turn out to be.

I agree with you, JumbleDuck. As for your middle comment, of course everywhere should be; I think the comment was being made as a criticism of the mug-makers and justification for sacking them. The justification you suggest would indeed be a fair one - and somehow smacks of being more likely too. Not that we have the full facts.

 

[Mark-1]

sacking of two lifeboatmen for having saucy Secret Santa mugs made. .

We don't know that was the reason for the sacking, it's certainly been implied by the media who can generate more clicks if they suggest that a big organization behaved strangely, but we haven't heard the specific reason for the sacking.

Sacking volunteers over a first offence of 'smutty mugs' doesn't sound likely.

 

[Poecheng]

But why shouldn't lifeboat stations be a safe and inclusive environment where people can expect to be treated with dignity and respect?
Sure the RNLI has a duty to provide the best and most effective teams possible to crew their boats, and that is less likely to happen in a station where some team members are not treated with dignity and respect.

The words 'safe' and 'inclusive' (certainly the former) are being misused in this sort of debate; they are weasel words that are merely a vehicle for trying to make people conform to a particular view of how everyone should behave. This is particularly so to suppress male behaviour. So they are deliberately used because who can argue for 'unsafe'; who wants a lack of inclusivity?

But what is being discussed has nothing to do with safety at all. It is a perversion of the language and an adoption of the language of modern 'snowflakes' or professional offence-takers to suggest that a couple of saucy mugs makes a place unsafe.

As for inclusion, of course people are welcome of all types. But surely so are working class blokes. I find the niqab offensive as do lots of others but does that mean a niqab wearer should not be allowed to visit RNLI premises because she is not 'inclusive'. The word inclusive is being used to mean 'certain types/groups of persons shall behave in a way that all other groups (who may not themselves behave remotely inclusively) cannot remotely even complain about.
I am not advocating the deliberate giving of offence or being offensive but for the natural give and take in life - which is being sanctimoniously being removed in relation to certain groups by those who have an exaggerated and unjustified belief in their occupation of the moral high ground or as saviours of our young. If they want to protect our young from bad influences I would not start my search in an RNLI station; there are other more obvious places to go but they are frightened to do so.

In an activity that requires the type of men and women previously described in this thread, I am not sure that making the workplace 'safe' for snowflakes makes any contribution at all to providing the best and most effective teams. It may achieve entirely the opposite. It has demonstrably removed highly qualified persons and there is no evidence it has brought about better candidates. Of course, if you don't want tough men and women - well used to the sea and its ways - to be there to pluck you out then the RNLI should carry on as it is.
Love to see the risk assessment matrix for going out in heavy weather . Won't be long before they refuse to go out on grounds of health and safety.

None of this is a dig at JD who is repeating the RNLI's justification.

 

[Mark-1]

The words 'safe' and 'inclusive' (certainly the former) are being misused in this sort of debate

Ok, let's ignore them as being irrelevant. How about some words from the first half of the sentence you took them from: bullying & harassment.

Is bullying and harassment within RNLI crews a good idea? Might it not put off recruits and lead to an inefficient crew?

We don't know what happened in this case, but it seems highly unlikely it was purely about smutty mugs.

 

[JumbleDuck]

In an activity that requires the type of men and women previously described in this thread, I am not sure that making the workplace 'safe' for snowflakes makes any contribution at all to providing the best and most effective teams.

In general you get good teams by making everyone who can contribute feel welcome and valued and by not discriminating against them on irrelevancies like their sex, their skin colour, their sexual orientation or the extent to which they choose to cover their faces in public.

 

[Poecheng]

In general you get good teams by making everyone who can contribute feel welcome and valued and by not discriminating against them on irrelevancies like their sex, their skin colour, their sexual orientation or the extent to which they choose to cover their faces in public.

Good teams of what?
This is a modern PC nirvana for 'the workplace; but is not specific.
There is no evidence that the teams of anything are better - it may well be better for society (a quite different argument) but not necessarily for the teams. It is a modern but baseless assumption.

What about in a factory with a lot of machinery - are you going to ever going to make it safe for those wearing a face covering. My H&S experience tells me 'no'; just a matter of time before it gets caught up in machinery.
What about teaching? it is not acceptable to teach children with your face covered; essential communication is denied.

What if I don't feel 'welcomed and valued' because a work colleague wears a full veil because of a cultural assumption I am not safe to be with.
Rugby teams?
RNLI teams?

The very way adult responsible humans behave differs amongst groups and they should be free to find their own way as independent humans and not controlled as long as it is not (genuinely) offensive.

Really these things used to be dealt with by the term 'common sense'. However, it is either not so common or is under attack for political reasons by the cultural Marxists. Another way to look at it is reasonableness and proportionality. Unless they are factored in, control becomes complete.

There will be many people who would be willing to argue the sea-shanties sung by the RNLI crew in the pub after a 'shout' to be non-inclusive and therefore the RNLI is institutionally racist. That is why this silly things cannot be allowed to pass without comment and fight back.

Bullying and harassment are crimes and should not be tolerated anywhere; however 'bullying' is also now being wrongly used and claims to bullying need to be approached with care to see it really is that.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Good teams of what?

Of anything, obviously. teams don't work well when some members are bullied or harassed, and harumphing about your rights to bully and harass does not improve that.

What about in a factory with a lot of machinery - are you going to ever going to make it safe for those wearing a face covering.

Just like ties, you mean? Do you find their potential for workplace accidents equally offensive?

There will be many people who would be willing to argue the sea-shanties sung by the RNLI crew in the pub after a 'shout' to be non-inclusive and therefore the RNLI is institutionally racist.

That's not what institutional racism is. That aside, do you really think it would be acceptable nowadays for a team from any workplace to sing racist sea-shanties (I take your word for it that they exist - you seem likely to know) in public? What's next, ten verses of The Ball of Kirriemuir and any woman who finds celebration of rape offensive should just lighten up?

The real world is not The Lounge. In the real world racism and sexism are not acceptable any more.

 

[Biggles Wader]

Of anything, obviously. teams don't work well when some members are bullied or harassed, and harumphing about your rights to bully and harass does not improve that.



Just like ties, you mean? Do you find their potential for workplace accidents equally offensive?



That's not what institutional racism is. That aside, do you really think it would be acceptable nowadays for a team from any workplace to sing racist sea-shanties (I take your word for it that they exist - you seem likely to know) in public? What's next, ten verses of The Ball of Kirriemuir and any woman who finds celebration of rape offensive should just lighten up?

The real world is not The Lounge. In the real world racism and sexism are not acceptable any more.

Having said that , my experience at a large organisation suggests something similar. Over the last thirty years the workplace has changed enormously and the old shop floor culture has been largely stamped out by the all pervasive office culture. Sometimes that was resisted and things could escalate stupidly over very trivial events. People got sacked not for the minor infringements of the new order but for their "attitude problems" which could be worked into a future disciplinary case over something else. This policy worked in the short term and the culture did change but there were unintended consequences. A nasty atmosphere of subtle intimidation caused the loss of about a quarter of the staff over a few years and nearly destroyed the organisation which is still in recovery. With several RNLI stories recently I do wonder if they are going through a similar process.

We did this to death on the other thread and the more I read about it the more convinced I am that my bit of speculation then was about right. The RNLI is imposing culture change and whatever your views on that there will be consequences. My note of caution would be that volunteers may become scarce if the management becomes too overbearing. That happens in well paid workplaces where you would think staff put up with the crap because of the salary but unpaid staff?

 

[Juan Twothree]

We did this to death on the other thread and the more I read about it the more convinced I am that my bit of speculation then was about right. The RNLI is imposing culture change and whatever your views on that there will be consequences. My note of caution would be that volunteers may become scarce if the management becomes too overbearing. That happens in well paid workplaces where you would think staff put up with the crap because of the salary but unpaid staff?

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.

In an activity that requires the type of men and women previously described in this thread, I am not sure that making the workplace 'safe' for snowflakes makes any contribution at all to providing the best and most effective teams. It may achieve entirely the opposite. It has demonstrably removed highly qualified persons and there is no evidence it has brought about better candidates. Of course, if you don't want tough men and women - well used to the sea and its ways - to be there to pluck you out then the RNLI should carry on as it is.
Love to see the risk assessment matrix for going out in heavy weather . Won't be long before they refuse to go out on grounds of health and safety.

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.

 

[JumbleDuck]

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.

The dinosaurs tends to have a view that only those who are directly effected by harassment or intimidation have any right to challenge it. Of course this doesn't stop them personally from getting all wound up over cases which don't affect them ...

There was in interesting article on this sort of thing in the i recently, and readable at https://inews.co.uk/opinion/free-speech-edl-tommy-robinson/. It's written by a Muslim women, which will doubtless go down well with the Loungeites.

 

[Biggles Wader]

I wasn't trying to express an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of it, just to say bit about the potential ongoing effects of this kind of change. Many organisations have been through it and they tend to survive but it needs to be managed very astutely or damage can result. I have direct experience of an organisation that got some of this wrong and is still trying to recover after many years. Perhaps the RNLI is getting it right and all is well.

 

[Poecheng]

Of anything, obviously. teams don't work well when some members are bullied or harassed, and harumphing about your rights to bully and harass does not improve that.


Just like ties, you mean? Do you find their potential for workplace accidents equally offensive?


That's not what institutional racism is. That aside, do you really think it would be acceptable nowadays for a team from any workplace to sing racist sea-shanties (I take your word for it that they exist - you seem likely to know) in public? What's next, ten verses of The Ball of Kirriemuir and any woman who finds celebration of rape offensive should just lighten up?

The real world is not The Lounge. In the real world racism and sexism are not acceptable any more.

Oh dear,
We have gone into full cultural marxist mode.
In both your quotes you falsely attribute words and meanings that were not said. You are an intelligent man but you have used that to falsely attribute words to me that were not said and then to argue against it. As you are more than capable of comprehension, this can only be deliberate. Not impressive.

I condemned bullying and harassment as criminal and yet you have identified that as if it was something I support - fake news.

You have inserted the word 'racist' in front of the word 'sea-shanties' and then argued against it. I never said anything about racist sea-shanties - not least because I do not know of any such thing. Having then falsely attributed something to me, you then imply I am a racist for knowing of such things. This is just a frankly shameful false argument and you should hang your head in shame about how low you have stooped both in argument and to call me a racist when you know nothing of me.

As for ties in the factory workplace - yes they should not be allowed in some situations. Those situations would be the very same situations where a face covering or similar should not be permitted. The banning of loose clothing is a reasonably practicable control measure to eliminate or reduce some risks.

 

[Poecheng]

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.

As this was put under a quote from me and therefore implicitly responding to it, I will answer. I said nothing in support of any of the matters you raise (racist, misogynistic language). I condemn such things and challenge it when I hear it.
So whilst I appreciate you were giving an example, it is a new example and not what I was talking about. It is not snowflake-like to object to such matters and the fact that the other crew challenged it is encouraging.
As I said, it is a matter of reasonableness and proportion; there is nothing reasonable or proportionate about condoning that sort of behaviour.
It is a quite different matter, however, to object to the point where you lose experienced crew, because of a 'saucy' mug. No reasonable person is harmed, intimidated, bullied or harassed or similar by such a thing. They are entitled to not like it. They are entitled to ask it be removed. But that person's rights do not, in my consideration, trump the chap's rights to have it. Whilst none of us have seen it, if the height of the description is 'saucy' it is not so offensive to a reasonable person that there is only one answer.

As to your last point, well I will be grateful if you turn up - very grateful. You occupy the only available boat so there isn't an alternative to wait for, as you know. That really is the point; if this purge is getting rid of really good people there is no alternative for them and their skills are lost to us all. We lose, they lose. All to keep some fun sponge satisfied.

If you read my post I didn't ask for 'Men's men' and I specifically included women. I just want the best and I hope that those who the RNLI are putting in boats are the best and not just the best out of a cohort that are willing to conform to some centrally-imposed diktat of acceptable behaviour designed by a committee of Guardian columnists. To get the best people skilled in the sea and the saving of life (which is what the RNLI is all about) might just require the overlooking of matters that would not be permitted in your local council office workplace. Some might think it was about priorities.
Others will disagree and only want to be fished out by a vegetarian, sandal-wearing therapist. Fine, I think it is for them not to reduce my and others' chances and for them to say "I will wait for the next lifeboat please'

 

[JumbleDuck]

We have gone into full cultural marxist mode.

If there is any phrase more meaningless than "cultural marxist" I have yet to come across it.

In both your quotes you falsely attribute words and meanings that were not said.

If that is the case then I apologise without reservation.

You have inserted the word 'racist' in front of the word 'sea-shanties' and then argued against it. I never said anything about racist sea-shanties - not least because I do not know of any such thing.

You wrote "There will be many people who would be willing to argue the sea-shanties sung by the RNLI crew in the pub after a 'shout' to be non-inclusive and therefore the RNLI is institutionally racist." so I assumed - fairly naturally I think - that you were referring to sea shanties which could be interpreted as racist. I hope you'd agree that it would not be good for a group clearly identified with the RNLI (or any other organisation) to sing the traditional first verse of Johnnie Come Down to Hilo in public.

 

[JumbleDuck]

If you read my post I didn't ask for 'Men's men' and I specifically included women. I just want the best and I hope that those who the RNLI are putting in boats are the best and not just the best out of a cohort that are willing to conform to some centrally-imposed diktat of acceptable behaviour designed by a committee of Guardian columnists.

You constantly make the assumption that unreconstructed racist, misogynist xenophobes are likely to make better lifeboat crew members than people who treat other people with courtesy and respect. I see no reason to assume that Guardian readers are incapable of working on lifeboats.

 

[Sybarite]

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