My dilemma

[escape]

Not as significant as Bob Newbury's but.......
I presently make significant financial contributions to an organisation whom I did respect.
Unfortunately their Chief exec has issued a statement which will potentially limit my FREEDOM of choice.
Ok truth is Andrew Freemantle CEO of the RNLI has voiced his opinion that wearing lifejackets in the UK becomes compulsory.
I will therfore find it difficult to continue my support of this CHARITY.
Whilst I accept it is his opinion, his position will be taken into account by HMG.
Does he speak for the RNLI on this and how can I continue to support them ?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[numenius]

They seem to be losing thier way just now. I've already posted about how they are withdrawing 2 AWLBs from here in the North East - don't bother checking their site - they seem to have "forgotten" to mention it (Blyth & Sunderland). It only made local TV because someone leaked the story! Still, they have that lovely shiny new building, so my subs are not spent in vain eh? Presumably this is why we will need to wear lifejackets at all times - no AWLB near enough! See, there IS logic in it.

<hr width=100% size=1>http://members.lycos.co.uk/boaty1965/index.htm

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

There is also question about their beach patrols. They are supposed to be for those in peril on the sea. Beach Patrol is for local councils to organise.

Seems to me they have the consultants in who are making them define their business and change practises, than to do what they do best.

I got shot for making opinions on the life jacket theme on another forum so I will not comment on that, too many sheep following the farmer and all that.....

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[escape]

But that's the problem Jools, we do need to stand up.
We must confirm it is the skippers decsion that counts regarding any matter on board.
We are ultimately responsible for our crew's safety so leave the descision to us as MASTER of the ship.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

if you were the CEO of an organisation which fished bods out of the sea for a living, you might well be inclined to his view, would you not? makes it easier and better chance of catching 'em alive?

trying to think of a decent analogy ..... if you were chairman of tesco nobody would think twice if you opined that ... sorry ... too late .... run out of ideas ... zonk ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Ok I will enter the debate. It is not the wearing of lifejackets that is the problem.

First off the new Irish Laws are full of holes, I made comments about that and was answered by someone suggesting that I thought it was ok for a vessel not to carry enough jackets for crew. This is typical of internet debates, if you say something someone will always jump in with a ludicrous statement picking on something that was not mentioned because it was thought to be common sense.

**disclaimer** I have enough lifejackets for everyone who comes aboard, or I expect guests to buy jackets, £35.00 for a weekend sailing is pretty cheap for them I think.

IMO the RNLI should encourage people to wear life jackets while boating, more-so while in their dinghies. They should not be calling for new laws, this is not their interest, they are a charity not a lobby. If this carries on we will end up with laws defining our cruising grounds according to length of vessel. We will have licensing, regulation, taxes, taxes and non sailing government departments telling us how we are allowed to behave. This is the start of it, it needs stopping before it goes out of control.

The skipper will no longer be a skipper.

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[numenius]

Lost the plot.

Here is why they think will need to always have a jacket on.....

http://www.blyth-wansbecktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1115&ArticleID=821811

and

http://www.blyth-wansbecktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1115&ArticleID=821810

and

http://www.blyth-wansbecktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1115&ArticleID=821809


<hr width=100% size=1>http://members.lycos.co.uk/boaty1965/index.htm

 

[ParaHandy]

i do agree with you ..

we, two, might be picking the bones of some disingenuity by escape because the context was not reported. it might be fisherman and not "us". nothing seems to reduce fatalities on fishing boats, thro' eg men being swept overboard and lost, because fishermen refuse to wear jackets. i can appreciate why they don't ...........


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Don\'t get me going

RNLI is rapidly becoming a branch of government. IMHO it all started when they provided rubadubs on the Thames, which I'm sure they were pressured to do to let the Home Sec (Blind Davy, the fascist) divert funding from the Met Police Thames Division to more 'security' based activities (but wait until a terrorist parks a boat full of explosives alongside the mother of all parliaments). At the time I predicted that the RNLI brass would get gongs for this - guess who has just got a CBE. Now they're saving local govt council tax by providing beachguards, and have even got facilities on places like inland lakes and the Broads, I believe.

It is such a rich organisation (reserves of over £halfa billion as at 2001 - the last published results I can find (Companies House would crucify any company that late in submitting returns) on it's website - and you have to look under 'press information' to find it) that the govt encourages it to spend money taking on govt responsibilities and then pats the brass on the back, all of which inflates already sky-hi brass egos and lets them pontificate about stuff like lifejackets for all sea-goers. Actually, very few people drown off of yachts, and of those that do, almost certainly lifelines would be more effective than lifejackets, but that's a complex argument and a bit much to explain in a sound bite.


PS - guess who just been appointed big white chief of RNLI - gosh, an ex-first sea lord.


Makes you spit, dunnit?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[Capt_Marlinspike]

While agreeing with all that has been said, I always remember that the guys who go out in the lifeboats are volunteers. They will always answer a call for help. I feel that I have to continue to support the RNLI for them.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Lost the plot.

I can see the logic behind the decision - the area appears to be well served with lifeboat stations

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[halcyon]

Beach patrol was one thing that upset me with the RNLI, they took over at Falmouth the other year.
Before we had half a dozen lads with some flags, and a reel of rope.
When RNLI took over we had, a 4 wheel drive pick-up, a quad bike to tow the RIB down the beach, serf boards of various types, plus a shed load of toys, the whole thing straight out of Bay Watch, even down to colour scheme.
Afraid it reminds me of a child in a toyshop with a blank cheque.
And yes I still pay my subs.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jamesjermain]

Nearly three years ago I interviewed Andrew Freemantle for the RYA Magazine, when he was fairly new to the job. I quote: 'We [the RNLI] support anything which will improve safety at sea. But...The RNLI does not want to be seen as demanding anything of yachtsmen. We are not actively promoting registration or legislation. I would not want anyone to feel the RNLI was being judgemental about yachtsmen's abilities. However, one needs to acknowledge that Britain is almost the only country whiich does not have legislation of sime sort.' He seems to have changed his mind in a fairly major way on the subject of lifejackets so we can only assume that statements on compulsory registration and training will be issued shortly

A man in Andrew Freemantle's position cannot make public statements and then try to divorce his personal views from his professional role. He says these were his personal views but no one will take that seriously. The RYA is, needless to say, in a tizzy about this and will be issuing statements like confetti very shortly. It had thought it had an understanding with the RNLI on this and other matters, but ranks seem to have been broken.

The real worry is that the RYA is becoming increasingly isolated. The government minister responsible has already gone on record as saying hs is 'actively looking' at introducing legislation for training and registration and now, no doubt, the wearing of livejackets. The MCA is also on record as wanting, though not yet demanding, legislation. The RNLI is clearly hardening its position which leaves the RYA (and the CA as well, though they have less direct influence) as the only recognised campaigner for the liberties of yachtsmen. This is not intended as a puff for the RYA, just a statement of fact. Whether the Association will be powerful enough to hold the lines remains to be seen.

These views are the personal views of James Jermain and do not reflect the official position of Yachting Monthly, The RYA Magazine or the RYA - seriously.

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[numenius]

Re: Logic

"I can see the logic behind the decision - the area appears to be well served with lifeboat stations" - I agree, I can see the logic too - we often see just this special sort of logic in the North. London and the South get new boats, beach guards etc, and clearly the extra money has to come from somewhere... look at the other posts here about the wonderful kit given out in the South to the beach patrols. After all, it's not like the North Sea up here gets rough or anything enough to NEED an AWLB is it? Its OK though, we are used to it, Government applies the same logic to the A1 - it's a single lane up here in parts of Northumberland/Borders would you believe, masses of RTCs and fatals and a refusal to even dual it ...............but hey, it's just Northerners after all... oh yes, we've got long experience of that special brand of logic.


<hr width=100% size=1>http://members.lycos.co.uk/boaty1965/index.htm

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Don\'t get me going

you seem to have swallowed one of your pie tins when it comes to the RNLI ...

a) whatever reason the 'gong' was given, it is more fitting than some and
b) beachguards are the only 'government' (local) funded service provided by the rnli which rather blows your nonsense about gov encouragement out of the water and
c) most sensible observers agree that it is far from a rich or well funded organisation and
d) it is complete and utter tosh about published results being late


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Logic

An emotive response. Understandable in some ways, but still emotive. The RNLI appear to have made the decision based on usage patterns and after looking at the coverage for that area. Quite rational.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[mirabriani]

Re: Don\'t get me going

Well said Ken, I agree with every word.
Briani

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mirabriani]

Continue your support capt. but give it to the local branch.
You can be sure they will not squander it.
Briani

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Don\'t get me going

whatever reason the 'gong' was given, it is more fitting than some
No doubt, but what's that got to do with the question?

beachguards are the only 'government' (local) funded service provided by the rnli which rather blows your nonsense about gov encouragement out of the water
Err, no, Thames rescue services used to be the responsibilty of the Met Police, but now it's RNLI. Incidentally they seem to 'save' many more people on the Thames than the Met ever did, so maybe they've changed the definition of saved. BTW, the Thames 'lifboatmen' aren't heroic volunteers, they're full time paid employees.

most sensible observers agree that it is far from a rich or well funded organisation
Well, I never claimed to be sensible, nor am I great at reading R&A's, but it seems to me that in 2001 it spent £95.5 million, had income of £127 million, and total reserves of £503.5 million. So it's not exactly up against its overdraft limit. I'd be happy to see an accountants translation of the figures though. They're <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again

 

[SL23]

Re: Don\'t get me going

Before long we'll all have to hang a photograph of Two-Jags in the saloon. Better still have it glazed in the bottom of the pan in the heads.

<hr width=100% size=1>