AngusMcDoon
Well-known member
If funds are plentiful but volunteers are scarce perhaps a solution could be 2 identical lifeboats in Tarbert Harris, one on either side, but with a single crew.
Leverburgh Lifeboat Station.
- Thread starter NormanS
- Start date
If funds are plentiful but volunteers are scarce perhaps a solution could be 2 identical lifeboats in Tarbert Harris, one on either side, but with a single crew.
jamie N
Well-known member
There isn't a suitable slipway at either end, and as you say the tides aren't exceptional which compounds the problem by making it a much, much further trek into each loch.
The weight and size of the Lifeboat, on the road adjoining the 2 'sites', manoeuvring up/downhill past the distillery or school, make it realistically impossible, which would mean that the cheap option would be (as suggested) to have 2 ALB's permanently moored, which then means a breeding program to provide for future crew!
As a responsible yottie, I volunteer my services towards this end.
Oh, as a further thing in my recruitment drive, my house is shown in the attached 'Google Earth' picture........!
Last edited:
AngusMcDoon
Well-known member
There isn't a suitable slipway at either end, and as you say the tides aren't exceptional which compounds the problem by making it a much, much further trek into each loch.
The weight and size of the Lifeboat, on the road adjoining the 2 'sites', manoeuvring up/downhill past the distillery or school, make it realistically impossible, which would mean that the cheap option would be (as suggested) to have 2 ALB's permanently moored, which then means a breeding program to provide for future crew!
As a responsible yottie, I volunteer my services towards this end.
Oh, as a further thing in my recruitment drive, my house is shown in the attached 'Google Earth' picture........!
Another thought on the 2 lifeboats with a single crew, an identical boat to Stornoway could be at Carloway, and the RNLI could keep a minibus ready to go in Stornoway in their carpark by the lifeboat building next to the harbour, ready to transport the crew to the alternative boat. It's 30 minutes by road which might be quicker than trundling a boat down the road in Tarbert. The cost of keeping a minibus on station would be small beer compared to the RNLI's other expenses. Carloway looks a good location too to my non expert eyes as it's well sheltered, got a harbour already, and is not a long way up a loch giving quick access to open sea. At Stornoway they have a crew already.
I don't know if a lifeboat service uses the idea of 2 boats/single crew anywhere, but it may be an idea where crew is hard to find and the geography makes a short land distance a long sea distance.
Last edited:
jamie N
Well-known member
Yup, that's a good point. I think that if one generally risk assesses the 2 boats; 1 crew idea, it'd fail, but is possibly viable given the location.
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
Isn't the following scenario an issue? Say one is out on a call, and another call comes in. There's a boat available, but no crew! What is to happen? Get a scratch crew together and go anyway? Tell the CG that they are unable to respond? But you have a boat available! Now imagine that there's a family with young children involved... It would make headlines, and not good ones! No matter what the practical issues, the public (i.e. journalists) would simply see a vastly expensive resource that COULD have saved the day sitting idle while people drown. I suspect it's that kind of nightmare scenario that stops the "two boats, one crew" situation from being considered, no matter how sensible a solution it is in general. Further, in the "two boats, one crew" situation, I think that spare crew would feel pressure to launch anyway. Remember, a lifeboat has to have more than one full crew available to be viable.
AngusMcDoon
Well-known member
It would not be an ideal situation, but a lot better than 'no boat no crew' for the west of the Outers. The media and public would have to be persuaded that the valuable limited resource is the volunteer crew, not the boat; that is just a tool. Then the situation of 2 calls for help on 2 sides would be no different to a second call for help on a single boat/single crew when it's already busy.
Or another idea - 2 boats/2 crews, but both crews based at Stornoway where the population centre is. Muster point at the RNLI building in Stornoway for a callout for the Carloway boat, and then minibus to Carloway. 30 minutes by road would be a lot quicker than the sea trip from Stornoway.
Bru
Well-known member
From local and national press reports and RNLI press releases ...
It's maybe pertinent that Leverburgh only opened in 2012 following a local campaign and fund raising effort
In the following eight years the station responded to less than one shout a month on average. Local fund raising (it is reported) raises around £25k a year. (No figures for Leverburgh to be found but for example Peterhead, equipped with the larger Tamar, spends around £35k per annum on training alone.
Clearly, maintaining an AWB at Leverburgh is going to be a significant draw on central funding (acceptable if an AWB at that location is essential, maybe an issue if the need for an AWB there is not so clear cut - or to put it another way, if most or all of the cost of maintaining the station and boat is raised locally and there's no issues with manning, Head Office are likely to let it continue but if it's costing big money from central funds to run it *and* there's manning problems ....)
The RNLI say they're struggling to maintain enough volunteer crew (especially in the coxswain and mechanic roles from reports), locals claim, in the press, that this is because they're not training and assessing people available to fulfil those roles
For what it's worth, my suspicion is that the suits at RNLI head office were never wild about basing an AWB at Leverburgh and now aren't prepared to throw huge amounts of money and / or significant resources at maintaining it after the coxswain and mechanic* quit (apparently because of excessive pressure and time demands ... make of that what you will) especially given the relatively light demand on the boat's services and the significant shortfall (apparently) in local fundraising to cover the station costs
One has to question whether, in truth, this was actually a viable AWB station from the word go. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I don't actually know - I'm just flying that particular kite for people to take aim at
I don't envy the RNLI top brass having to make decisions on issues like this. They have a legal and moral duty to spend the institutions' money wisely and to good effect. They also have to be mindful of the adverse publicity this sort of situation engenders. The two things might not always be reconcilable
It's maybe pertinent that Leverburgh only opened in 2012 following a local campaign and fund raising effort
In the following eight years the station responded to less than one shout a month on average. Local fund raising (it is reported) raises around £25k a year. (No figures for Leverburgh to be found but for example Peterhead, equipped with the larger Tamar, spends around £35k per annum on training alone.
Clearly, maintaining an AWB at Leverburgh is going to be a significant draw on central funding (acceptable if an AWB at that location is essential, maybe an issue if the need for an AWB there is not so clear cut - or to put it another way, if most or all of the cost of maintaining the station and boat is raised locally and there's no issues with manning, Head Office are likely to let it continue but if it's costing big money from central funds to run it *and* there's manning problems ....)
The RNLI say they're struggling to maintain enough volunteer crew (especially in the coxswain and mechanic roles from reports), locals claim, in the press, that this is because they're not training and assessing people available to fulfil those roles
For what it's worth, my suspicion is that the suits at RNLI head office were never wild about basing an AWB at Leverburgh and now aren't prepared to throw huge amounts of money and / or significant resources at maintaining it after the coxswain and mechanic* quit (apparently because of excessive pressure and time demands ... make of that what you will) especially given the relatively light demand on the boat's services and the significant shortfall (apparently) in local fundraising to cover the station costs
One has to question whether, in truth, this was actually a viable AWB station from the word go. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I don't actually know - I'm just flying that particular kite for people to take aim at
I don't envy the RNLI top brass having to make decisions on issues like this. They have a legal and moral duty to spend the institutions' money wisely and to good effect. They also have to be mindful of the adverse publicity this sort of situation engenders. The two things might not always be reconcilable
PilotWolf
Well-known member
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
Part of the problem is ear-marked donations. If people give money to support a lifeboat at a particular location, it's very difficult to redirect that money to another location, unless you can show that the other location provides the same cover as the location with ear-marked funds. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the RNLI are sitting on considerable funds that simply can't be touched because they are earmarked for a lifeboat at Much-Wittering-in-the-Marsh (or wherever) and Much-Wittering-on-the-Marsh sank into the mud 100 years ago! And even if the RNLI ask people not to earmark funds, people making wills may do so without the RNLI being able to do much about it.
The CofE has suffered from this for very many centuries - funds earmarked for a cause that was eminently sensible in an earlier age but can no longer be used for the original purpose either because the target of the donations no longer exists, because other bodies (mainly the State) have taken over responsibility for it, or simply because society has changed in ways that remove the need. The Charities Commissioners will allow retargeting of such funds, but the retargeting has to be "ln accordance with the original donor's intentions" - in other words, if the original donation was to (say) provide education for a particular group of children, the Charities Commission will allow it to be used for children's work in general - but not for wider purposes. Given the decline in Sunday School attendance, this can mean that church councils find themselves jumping through hoops to justify using a fund earmarked for children's work! But if you misuse such a fund, the members of the decision-making body (PCC in the case of the CofE) can be held personally responsible for the funds.
The child of a friend benefitted from such a donation - she was the daughter of a qualified (Kew) gardener, and there was an ancient fund for the support of the orphaned children of gardeners! Obviously a Good Thing and useful when every professional or aristocratic household would have employed a gardener, but of course, she was the first applicant for support in years! I think they provided support throughout her schooling and tertiary education.
Bru
Well-known member
Do you work for them?
Have you been a trustee of a large national charity?
Have you, moreover, been a trustee of a large national charity with thousands of volunteers actively undertaking it's activities?
Have you, furthermore, had specific involvement in a large national charity with the high level management of the charity finances, funding, legacies, investments etc?
If the answer to all of the above is no, kindly refrain from telling me I don't understand matters relating to charity management!
PilotWolf
Well-known member
Yes I did. Do you?
You agree volunteers pay for their safety things? Suffer bullying? I guess that’s good with you.
Being told when at the golden palace that the public has priority over crew on a course is a priority for lunch?
PW
Last edited:
Bru
Well-known member
Do tell
In what way were donations wasted and/or abused?
Please excuse my scepticism but honestly, I have heard it all before many times over and when such things were said about the charity for whom I was a trustee, the grass roots complaints invariably failed to take into account and/or understand the realities and constraints that we were dealing with at board level
PilotWolf
Well-known member
See my reply.
Many no longer trust the rnli. they themselves have to screw things to stay as a charity.
PW.
PilotWolf
Well-known member
Bru
Well-known member
No, as I think you well know I have not worked for the RNLI. I have, however, worked at every level of another large charity including board of trustees and therefore have significant knowledge and insight into all sides of the argument from a broader perspective
Do volunteers pay for their safety "things"? I admit I find that incredibly hard to believe
Bullying I will have no truck with. And I do not doubt for one moment that the RNLI has an anti-bullying policy (every large corporation, charitable or otherwise, has these days).
Unfortunately, bullying happens and without going into details (because obviously I cannot discuss individuals in a public forum) I have been involved in dealing with a bullying situation between two volunteers (one, of considerable seniority and standing in the organisation concerned, who unfortunately was a bit of a dinosaur and the other, a youngster recently joined, who frankly was a bit wet. Not easily resolved and I doubt anybody was entirely happy with the compromise reached (I certainly wasn't - if I'd had been able to have my way the dinosaur would have been shown the door but then I've never been big on compromise! Reality is that if he'd been "sacked" a lot of other people would have followed him out the door and it would have caused huge problems)
Presumably the public were paying for their lunch? Not ideal obviously (and perhaps could be better managed?) but this is a classic example of "the big picture".
I'm a volunteer, I give up my time for no financial reward to come on this course, I shouldn't have to wait for my lunch. Not unreasonable eh?
I'm a paying customer. I paid for my lunch. I shouldn't have to go to the back of the queue behind all these RNLI people. Also not unreasonable.
Senior RNLI bod ... "shit, I don't need this! But making the facilities available to the public raises £x,000 a year and helps pay for this place"
Oh and the accusation that the RNLI wastes and abuses donations is still unsubstantiated. If true, it is an extremely serious accusation ... so serious that it could put the trustees in prison. Respectfully, I urge caution before making such statements on a public forum unless you can substantiate them to the satisfaction of the courts (and if you can do so, report the matter to the Charity Commissioners. Seriously). Please note that THIS paragraph is not germane to the discussion / argument. It's advice I would give anybody whether I was in agreement with them or otherwise. You really could find yourself in a lot of legal bother
I don't want to sound dismissive and clearly you had a considerably less than satisfactory experience with the RNLI. It happens in any large organisation as any senior manager will ruefully acknowledge (at least privately). And I'd hazard, based on events of recent years, that internally the RNLI has been undergoing a bit of a rough time transitioning from old attitudes to a more modern outlook (e.g. it's patently obvious that some stations were being run as virtual private fiefdoms by one person or a clique and bringing them into line has been painful for all involved. Again, I've been involved with similar problems where it became necessary to lay down the law from on high much to the disgust and disgruntlement of local groups). Equally, I have seen situations where a senior officer become a little too fond of their perceived power over lesser beings. Neither is good, both are inevitable, all such things cause bad feelings which can't always be entirely resolved
PilotWolf
Well-known member
penfold
Well-known member
Construction plant with similar drive systems generally have maximum speed of 10-12mph, so a transit of a mile is no real barrier; the supercat is designed to run on shingle so there's no need for slipways per se and the ramps can be fairly rudimentary. The biggest problem is the east loch; it looks doable but quite congested.
jamie N
Well-known member
About the East loch, the road to it has very restricted access, and is quite twisty going around the distillery, and then the turn onto the slipway to launch, as there's no shingle or gentle 'beach ramp'. Of course, everything's doable given a bunch of money thrown at it, but it'd be something of a 'moon-launch' each time that it occurred, which raises the point, 'How many shouts have there been where this would've been the preferred option?', over the existing ones available.