RNLI - commercialisation just around the corner?

[bedouin]

I don't think it is entirely fair to blame the management.

There has been a massive shift in the responsiblities of companies in the last couple of decades with much more emphasis / requirement in areas like safeguarding, HR policies etc. RNLI is not exempt from that.

In the incidents I am aware of the RNLI have been acting in a way that would not be considered unreasonable if they were a commercial organisation so why should we expect them to behave any differently?

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

I have been a trustee of a small charitable trust for 20 years or so. The Clerk has just forwarded new “Codes of Conduct” for trustees just promulgated by the Charity Commission. They appear (I have only scan read them so far) to be the latest incarnation of political correctness, measures to prevent the Commission from any remotely possible likley criticism from the media and a typical civil service type tick box approach. The RNLI will have received similar and will have to implement.
My immediate reaction is to resign from this voluntary, unpaid, without expenses, role. I won’t, however, because others more needy than I benefit from the generosity of the benefactor 70 years ago and he had faith that others would give up their time to administer his trust after he had passed away. I think he would be turning in his grave if he knew about the burdens an overbearing state is putting on the charity sector’s volunteers.
The RNLI has to struggle to implement this gobbledegook like everyone else. Sad.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I have been a trustee of a small charitable trust for 20 years or so. The Clerk has just forwarded new “Codes of Conduct” for trustees just promulgated by the Charity Commission. They appear (I have only scan read them so far) to be the latest incarnation of political correctness, measures to prevent the Commission from any remotely possible likley criticism from the media and a typical civil service type tick box approach. The RNLI will have received similar and will have to implement.
My immediate reaction is to resign from this voluntary, unpaid, without expenses, role.

Could you perhaps give a few examples of the intolerable burden placed on you by "political correctness"?

 

[Mark-1]

Could you perhaps give a few examples of the intolerable burden placed on you by "political correctness"?

Volunteers are hard enough to attract anyway. If they are burdened with extra training demands (even reasonable ones) then a percentage will just pack it in. So, I don't know if it's political correctness or not but, for instance:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...uit-compensation-harpenden-club-a8273906.html

This case adds a new requirement for Scout Leaders to be trained and talented enough to handle kids with very complex problems without a parent on hand to help. Are volunteers going to bust a gut to learn how to manage these issues or just not volunteer?

Maybe that's not political correctness but it is certainly one of the "burdens an overbearing state is putting on the charity sector’s volunteers".

Another example which certainly has nothing to do with political correctness is a friend who volunteered to help 2 hours a week at a local centre for disabled people. The Centre (quite reasonably) required her to undertake a weekend training course. She couldn't spare that time and (quite reasonably) walked away.

So "Intolerable" is a pretty low bar when it comes to volunteers.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Great to have someone with first hand knowledge on the forum.

Do stick around :encouragement:

+1

It makes a refreshing change from the armchair admirals' rants.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Volunteers are hard enough to attract anyway. If they are burdened with extra training demands (even reasonable ones) then a percentage will just pack it in. So, I don't know if it's political correctness or not but, for instance:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...uit-compensation-harpenden-club-a8273906.html

This case adds a new requirement for Scout Leaders to be trained and talented enough to handle kids with very complex problems without a parent on hand to help.

Does it? As far as I can see from that report, local volunteers grossly over-reacted to a single incident and the Scout Association apologised and settled out of court. I have worked with many children with similar difficulties and I have recruited, trained and managed volunteers doing so and it has never been much of an imposition.

Are volunteers going to bust a gut to learn how to manage these issues or just not volunteer?

And which is better for society as a whole? I was seconded to run an organisation providing residentials for children for a while, and at one of my first meetings with holiday directors I was told, in no uncertain terms, that they did not want to have children with any physical impairments on their holidays. No wheelchairs, no deaf kids, no blind kids. Is that really the way we want the world to go (back to)?

Maybe that's not political correctness but it is certainly one of the "burdens an overbearing state is putting on the charity sector’s volunteers".

I think it's society, rather than the state, which now expects greater inclusivity.

Another example which certainly has nothing to do with political correctness is a friend who volunteered to help 2 hours a week at a local centre for disabled people. The Centre (quite reasonably) required her to undertake a weekend training course. She couldn't spare that time and (quite reasonably) walked away.

Seems reasonable all round. The days when well-meaning but untrained people could expect gratitude for playing Lady Bountiful to "the handicapped" are long gone, I am glad to say. Well, at least in this country. The gap-yah brigade still like playing with dark-skinned orphans as if they were dolls.

So "Intolerable" is a pretty low bar when it comes to volunteers.

Perhaps, but that has not been my experience. Not with good volunteers, anyway.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Does it? As far as I can see from that report, local volunteers grossly over-reacted to a single incident and the Scout Association apologised and settled out of court. I have worked with many children with similar difficulties and I have recruited, trained and managed volunteers doing so and it has never been much of an imposition.



And which is better for society as a whole? I was seconded to run an organisation providing residentials for children for a while, and at one of my first meetings with holiday directors I was told, in no uncertain terms, that they did not want to have children with any physical impairments on their holidays. No wheelchairs, no deaf kids, no blind kids. Is that really the way we want the world to go (back to)?



I think it's society, rather than the state, which now expects greater inclusivity.



Seems reasonable all round. The days when well-meaning but untrained people could expect gratitude for playing Lady Bountiful to "the handicapped" are long gone, I am glad to say. Well, at least in this country. The gap-yah brigade still like playing with dark-skinned orphans as if they were dolls.



Perhaps, but that has not been my experience. Not with good volunteers, anyway.

Yep

BTW all I've seen shows that the RNLI has no difficulty attracting volunteers, including the stations which have had highly publicised issues, despite what some on here seem to wish for.

 

[Mark-1]

Perhaps, but that has not been my experience. Not with good volunteers, anyway.

I'm sure that's true, but by definition 50pc of volunteers aren't good - they're are average or below average. If 50pc of your volunteers give up because it's been made too much bother a lot of people miss out on terrific opportunities. Excluding everyone is a pretty unfortunate way to make things inclusive.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree though, unless one of us can find some stats for this it's just opinion based on what we see around us.

BTW all I've seen shows that the RNLI has no difficulty attracting volunteers, including the stations which have had highly publicised issues, despite what some on here seem to wish for.

It's not for the reasons we're discussing but the RNLI say 90 per cent of their crew volunteers don't come from a maritime background. That signals a desperate shortage of suitable volunteers. But, yes, in terms of quantity the RNLI have no volunteer problem whatsoever and the lack of large numbers of professional small boat seamen with spare time to man lifeboats is not the fault of the RNLI management or any additional pressure society puts on volunteers.

 

[dom]

It's not for the reasons we're discussing but the RNLI say 90 per cent of their crew volunteers don't come from a maritime background. That signals a desperate shortage of suitable volunteers.

More likely it signals the loss of small niche fishing ports and the trend to concentrate merchant shipping into bigger more mechanised ports.

 

[Mark-1]

It's not for the reasons we're discussing but the RNLI say 90 per cent of their crew volunteers don't come from a maritime background. That signals a desperate shortage of suitable volunteers. But, yes, in terms of quantity the RNLI have no volunteer problem whatsoever and the lack of large numbers of professional small boat seamen with spare time to man lifeboats is not the fault of the RNLI management or any additional pressure society puts on volunteers.

More likely it signals the loss of small niche fishing ports and the trend to concentrate merchant shipping into bigger more mechanised ports.

Yup. Mostly the former IMHO.

 

[dom]

Yup. Mostly the former IMHO.

OK, so you're shooting the breeze.

Which leaves me to reuse the eloquent line from your post above

I think we'll have to agree to disagree though, unless one of us can find some stats for this it's just opinion based on what we see around us.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I'm sure that's true, but by definition 50pc of volunteers aren't good - they're are average or below average.

While 50% of anything must, by definition, be below the median, that doesn't mean they aren't good. Which four Beethoven symphonies are bad?

If 50pc of your volunteers give up because it's been made too much bother a lot of people miss out on terrific opportunities. Excluding everyone is a pretty unfortunate way to make things inclusive.

It all depends on whether you think the RNLI (or children's holidays, or conservation groups) exist to give their volunteers a nice time, or whether they exist to run lifeboats (or look after children, or rebuild walls). If it's the former you might want to take anyone who comes along but if you have a task to do selection is almost certainly going to be necessary.

It's not for the reasons we're discussing but the RNLI say 90 per cent of their crew volunteers don't come from a maritime background. That signals a desperate shortage of suitable volunteers.

That doesn't follow. What evidence do you have that the RNLI is forced to use a large number of unsuitable volunteers? And anyway, weren't you arguing for inclusiveness in volunteering opportunities, in which case why exclude the vast majority of potential volunteers because of their background?

More likely it signals the loss of small niche fishing ports and the trend to concentrate merchant shipping into bigger more mechanised ports.

And that a lot of jobs on a lifeboat don't require a lifetime at sea to do effectively. I'd rather have a comms expert coordinating things than some old boy who is only there because he has spent fifty years working lobster pots.

 

[Daydream believer]

Has there
. The strike-busting scab-labour salaried crew dispatched from Poole HQ to Jersey last year

I find that phrase offensive & uncalled for. Perhaps the moderators may be called upon to ask you to edit that piece please

 

[Blue Sunray]

I find that phrase offensive & uncalled for. Perhaps the moderators may be called upon to ask you to edit that piece please

Why bother, all such comments do is show up his lack of brain cells and inability come up with a cogent argument, if they were to be deleted it might give a false impression of the bloke. Plus you quoting him only has the effect of presenting his nonsense to those of us who set his various identities on here to ignore.

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Could you perhaps give a few examples of the intolerable burden placed on you by "political correctness.

/ When I have found time to read them properly.

 

[Mark-1]

Which leaves me to reuse the eloquent line from your post above

Pretty sure you and I are in agreement on the topic we discussed.

While 50% of anything must, by definition, be below the median, that doesn't mean they aren't good. Which four Beethoven symphonies are bad?

Ok, so only non-good people get put off volunteering by extra overhead, but happily *everybody* is good. My view is at one end of the scale would be zero hassle which I think would enable more people to volunteer but quality would be lower. At the other end of the scale would be (say) a requirement for a 40 year full time training course before volunteering which would attract almost no volunteers. In between is a curve with a sweetspot of number of volunteers relative to suitability somewhere along that curve.

It all depends on whether you think the RNLI (or children's holidays, or conservation groups) exist to give their volunteers a nice time, or whether they exist to run lifeboats (or look after children, or rebuild walls). If it's the former you might want to take anyone who comes along but if you have a task to do selection is almost certainly going to be necessary.

We're diving down the rat hole of whether increased burden on volunteers reduces the number of volunteers. This is nothing to do with the RNLI which AFAIK doesn't have a 'burden' problem with it's volunteers.

That doesn't follow. What evidence do you have that the RNLI is forced to use a large number of unsuitable volunteers? And anyway, weren't you arguing for inclusiveness in volunteering opportunities, in which case why exclude the vast majority of potential volunteers because of their background? And that a lot of jobs on a lifeboat don't require a lifetime at sea to do effectively. I'd rather have a comms expert coordinating things than some old boy who is only there because he has spent fifty years working lobster pots.

The evidence the RNLI *think* they're not getting suitable volunteers is that they've implimented quite significant training starting from embarrassingly trival chartwork that wouldn't stetch a weekend sailor - and that they themselves thought it was worth pointing out how few seamen they get as volunteers.

Whether the RNLI *really* have a problem finding suitable volunteers is a different question and I suspect they don't. If your close handling skills aren't honed by a decade of picking up lobster pots in a swell that's ok - you won't lacerate anyone to death in a modern boat powered by a water jet. If you don't have intricate knowledge of all the local tidal oddities, that lack is more than offset by computer generated search patterns. If you haven't spent your working navigating in all weathers and visibility, finding your way home no matter how tired, then you can offset that lack of skill with a chart plotter, or even a Chart app on your phone. Modern comms means that real searches are probably rare - usually the casualty will have reported it's exact position. Usually the casualty will be a broken down mobo in daylight and good conditions anyway. So maybe the technological advances that made large numbers of first class seamen redundant from fishing also made first class seamen redundant on lifeboats. Tragic.

The only thing I can think of that you can't offset is sea sickness and when I asked our local Coxwain about that he fobbed me off. Next time I'll get to the bottom of it!

 

[Juan Twothree]

Modern comms means that real searches are probably rare - usually the casualty will have reported it's exact position. Usually the casualty will be a broken down mobo in daylight and good conditions anyway.

If only that were true :-(

The initial call may not come from the casualty itself - we very often search for people in the water, overdue boats/jet skis, a craft or person that a well-meaning member of the public ashore thought was in need of assistance, but has long since returned to shore.....the list goes on.

Several years ago we, and a couple of other lifeboats, spent many hours searching after a fishing boat was found drifting with no one aboard. Sadly, that one didn't have a good outcome.

 

[dom]

Pretty sure you and I are in agreement on the topic we discussed.

So maybe the technological advances that made large numbers of first class seamen redundant from fishing also made first class seamen redundant on lifeboats. Tragic.

The only thing I can think of that you can't offset is sea sickness and when I asked our local Coxwain about that he fobbed me off. Next time I'll get to the bottom of it!

Agree and agree; though good to discuss the edges while the fundamentalists are at bay

And as you say, multiple skills required, but good old fashioned seamanship is certainly one of them. As for seasickness; when it hits it hits, whoever you are :ambivalence:

 

[Mark-1]

If only that were true :-(

The initial call may not come from the casualty itself - we very often search for people in the water, overdue boats/jet skis, a craft or person that a well-meaning member of the public ashore thought was in need of assistance, but has long since returned to shore.....the list goes on.

Several years ago we, and a couple of other lifeboats, spent many hours searching after a fishing boat was found drifting with no one aboard. Sadly, that one didn't have a good outcome.

Firstly, thanks for your input on this and the other RNLI threads.

I think Jumbleduck's point is still true, and I'm not sure the fact that searches still occur really defeats the argument that the ratio of searches per shout can't be anywhere near the ratio in say, 1990.

 

[Mark-1]

Agree and agree; though good to discuss the edges while the fundamentalists are at bay

And as you say, multiple skills required, but good old fashioned seamanship is certainly one of them. As for seasickness; when it hits it hits, whoever you are :ambivalence:

On the subject of seamanship this popped up on my FB feed a couple of days ago:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/po...story_fbid=10156322167720890&id=118759930889&

Loading a battered climber in the swell at the foot of a cliff without jolting him too much can't have been easy.