RNLI funds towns lifeboat stations but not beach lifeguards? true or false ?

[Capt Popeye]

Humm well, following that sad public RNLI debacle in the Channel Isles I have looked at the public RNLI donations claims and requests a bit more, and have asked why it appears that the RNLI provides / funds a Towns lifeboat station but not its Lifeguards ?

Does seem a bit of an anomaly somehow to me, so asked a few questions and monitoring the RNLI answers on the matter, then re asking another question, deeper and deeper, perhaps, we will see !

I have received what would appear at first read to be a request for Donations to fund Towns lifeguards, but I understood that Towns lifeguards are paid for by funding from Town Councils, oh er , puzzled ?

 

[footsoldier]

Not quite clear what you are asking, but..
The RNLI has traditionally been responsible for provision of lifeboats - the clue is in the name.
A few years ago, following a few tragedies and in the absence of any organised alternatives, it began to train and provide life-guards on various beaches, a service for which it is re-imbursed by the relevant local authorities. It's a different form of service requiring paid staff permanently in place rather than volunteers for occasional shouts. It was a controversial decision for many members since in some ways it contradicts the original charter, but the system appears to have settled down and since it is paid for by the councils who benefit from the tourism spend, it no longer causes much controversy.

 

[mainsail1]

Not quite clear what you are asking, but..
The RNLI has traditionally been responsible for provision of lifeboats - the clue is in the name.
A few years ago, following a few tragedies and in the absence of any organised alternatives, it began to train and provide life-guards on various beaches, a service for which it is re-imbursed by the relevant local authorities. It's a different form of service requiring paid staff permanently in place rather than volunteers for occasional shouts. It was a controversial decision for many members since in some ways it contradicts the original charter, but the system appears to have settled down and since it is paid for by the councils who benefit from the tourism spend, it no longer causes much controversy.

+1. spot on.

 

[TheEcho]

Ok, so if the cost of training and deploying lifeguards is re-imbursed by the local authority, why is the public being asked to donate to help train them?

 

[dogleg]

Ok, so if the cost of training and deploying lifeguards is re-imbursed by the local authority, why is the public being asked to donate to help train them?

RNLI provide all gear, facilities , base etc LG's employed as such by RNLI, council reimburse wages, many LG's go down under in our winter

 

[dogleg]

[
RNLI lifeguards are qualified in lifesaving and casualty care, highly trained, strong and fit. They must be able to swim 200m in under 3½ minutes, and run 200m on sand in under 40 seconds. However, a good lifeguard rarely gets wet - 95% of a lifeguard's work is preventative.

RNLI lifeguards monitor sea conditions and set up the appropriate flags, watch the people on the beach and offer safety advice both on the beach and in classrooms through our education programmes.

All of our lifeguards are equipped not only with the best training but the best equipment, so that they are able to deal with any situation. This includes:
inshore rescue boat (IRB)
rescue watercraft (RWC)
This is a modified personal watercraft, like a jetski, with a rescue sled, used for shallow waters and for getting to those in trouble close to shore quickly.
patrol vehicle
all-terrain vehicle (quadbike)
rescue board
rescue tube
VHF radio
binoculars
first aid responder bag
defibrillator.[/I]


from RNLI website, I very much doubt any local authority would or could provide such equipment and service in the current economic climate

 

[Tranona]

Ok, so if the cost of training and deploying lifeguards is re-imbursed by the local authority, why is the public being asked to donate to help train them?

Because beach safety is a statutory duty of local authorities, but many choose to sub contract it to the RNLI on a commercial basis rather than run it themselves. Pretty common practice in local authorities and there is no reason why they should not raise funds direct from the public to help support the service.

 

[Tomaret]

According to this article

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/26/lack-of-uk-law-requiring-lifeguards-on-all-beaches-means-varied-presence

there is no statutory obligation imposed on all (coastal) local authorities to provide publicly funded lifeguards. If that is the case, perhaps the RNLI is stepping in at its own cost where there is a clear need but no other provision or possibly the local authority contribution doesn't cover the full cost of the RNLI service. Bridlington and Cromer are the subject of special appeals on the RNLI website at the minute.

I wonder why the OP doesn't ask a direct question of the RNLI about the need for fundraising in the specific instance about which he has been approached. If they want his money presumably they will explain why.

 

[Boathook]

According to this article

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...feguards-on-all-beaches-means-varied-presence

there is no statutory obligation imposed on all (coastal) local authorities to provide publicly funded lifeguards. If that is the case, perhaps the RNLI is stepping in at its own cost where there is a clear need but no other provision or possibly the local authority contribution doesn't cover the full cost of the RNLI service. Bridlington and Cromer are the subject of special appeals on the RNLI website at the minute.

I wonder why the OP doesn't ask a direct question of the RNLI about the need for fundraising in the specific instance about which he has been approached. If they want his money presumably they will explain why.

I suspect that it is also cheaper to help subsidising the life guards rather than constantly launch an inshore lifeboat to rescue people a couple of hundred yards from the beach.

 

[Capt Popeye]

I suspect that it is also cheaper to help subsidising the life guards rather than constantly launch an inshore lifeboat to rescue people a couple of hundred yards from the beach.

Humm well similar thought had struck my mind, 'many ways to skin a cat' as the saying goes.

I was at Rye / Camber Sands the day and time that 4/5 young men lost their lives, all in all, a glorious warm sunny day, little wind at all, you could hear birds calling from a long way off. But somehow these fellas, only about 400 yds away a river and sea wall from us lost their lives, it appears that there were no Lifeguards or Beach Patrols on that day, twas a very very busy day on the sands. The people looked a total mass on the beach that day, the jollity, laughing, cries of those splashed by the sea water, buckets and spades abounded, I read that the Council stretched budget was the reason that the RNLI were not paid to be on patrol.
Just maybe Councils have to think outside the'box' and seek out the volunteer beach patrols and lifeguards in future, there are some already formed, I know that our Dawlish Warren do have such a volunteer patrol self financed plus voluntary public donations, I am sure that these voluntary organisations are up to the job.

The Camber Sands tragedy really did not require lifeguards, just a Beach Patrol, monitoring the public on the beaches when the tide turns,. A person on a quad or similar with a loud hailer, plus tide tables, and a keen alert eye.

Strangely enough, the Rye RNLI Inshore Lifeboat was seen leaving the River, in no great haste I observed, as it passed me, the Helicopter had been circling for a while by then, but by then any emergency twas long over, they had drowned, the Council had not spent out, the RNLI were not paid, it all in all seems like somehow, despite the various reasons, (not us, not my job mate, we require payments) the public had been let down, badly.

Might I recall just how much the RNLI is worth, just how much in cash reserves, it collects how much in public donations PA?

Humm, do I donate ?

 

[pvb]

The beach lifeguards are just another way of spending the enormous cash pile the RNLI is burdened with. The presence of beach lifeguards also greatly increases the success rate of the beach fundraisers who are deployed at the same time.

 

[ShinyShoe]

Capt Popeye - have you been on the Sherry/ Your posts don't seem at all clear!?

I was at Rye / Camber Sands the day ...
... there were no Lifeguards or Beach Patrols on that day, twas a very very busy day on the sands...
... I read that the Council stretched budget was the reason that the RNLI were not paid to be on patrol.

I don't think there is any dispute of the major facts -
The beach was not patrolled at the time of the incidents.
Was that purely financial? Probably not. There was pribably an expectation that if it wasn't patrolled people would not expose themselves to major risks. That may have been misjudged. That is the decision councils have to make. They have finite resources. You make the same judgement when you start thinking - those tyres on my car will need replaced soon. At some point you decide the risk of failure or a fine or whatever other risks you perceive outweigh the benefit of avoiding buying new tyres...

Just maybe Councils have to think outside the'box' and seek out the volunteer beach patrols and lifeguards in future,

Do they? I'm pretty sure the business case already exists for beach = tourism = money = jobs = prosperity.
I'm not opposed to volunteer patrols. But where are you realistically expecting to find fit & healthy volunteers who can enter the water and rescue someone and are happy to park up all summer? Why do they not need a job like the rest of us? Yes you'll get some volunteers for Saturday & Sundays. But will you get cover from 9am to 6pm 7 days a week? Will they be able to give up the time to train etc.

I am sure that these voluntary organisations are up to the job.

And in some places that will work, and in some it won't. What's your point?

The Camber Sands tragedy really did not require lifeguards, just a Beach Patrol, monitoring the public on the beaches when the tide turns,. A person on a quad or similar with a loud hailer, plus tide tables, and a keen alert eye.

Because if they got shouted to keep breathing they'd have been fine?
A single person? Or a team?
If said single person has to deal with an on-shore "emergency" AKA - Jelly Fish Sting on a child...?
If it did happen - is that person going to be shot down on internet forums for not entering the water?

Strangely enough, the Rye RNLI Inshore Lifeboat was seen leaving the River, in no great haste I observed, as it passed me, the Helicopter had been circling for a while by then, but by then any emergency twas long over, they had drowned, the Council had not spent out, the RNLI were not paid, it all in all seems like somehow, despite the various reasons, (not us, not my job mate, we require payments) the public had been let down, badly.

Hang on. Lets not say the public was let down? Thats utter tosh. The coroner says it was misadventure. That means the people who drowned failed to adequately assess the risks and mitigate them. That isn't the council's fault. That isn't the RNLI's fault.
The RNLI advised the council 3 years early to put in lifeguards. But the risk was calculated as 1 in a million. The RNLI offer training and education on water safety. IIRC They council did have signage up saying it wasn't a patrolled beach.

The coroner isn't even certain that if lifeguards were present the deaths would be avoided.

I was at Ullswater the day 3 people drowned - I didn't see anyone shouting about lifeguards.

As for the apparent lack of urgency in the RNLI launch... ...bear in mind they operate an Atlantic 85 and a D Class. I very much doubt there was a significant lack of response. There may have been a crew change but by that stage they may well have known they were doing body recovery work. In which case dignity rather than speed is the name of the game

Might I recall just how much the RNLI is worth, just how much in cash reserves, it collects how much in public donations PA?

Its the council's beach...
They only are paying £51k for cover this year... that is a drop in the ocean (Jeremy Hunt spent almost all of that on a shower). Actually I don't know how that is possible with the numbers of staff, level of kit etc unless it is supported from the reserves.

I'd expect if I was establishing a volunteer team to be asking for £50k to buy a vehicle, radios, defib, oxygen, uniforms, rescue boat etc.

 

[Mister E]

Due to the way the Charity Commission rules and the way the RNLI was originally set up (rescue for sailors), they are not allowed to divert money to beach life guards.

 

[SimonFa]

I'm pretty sure the business case already exists for beach = tourism = money = jobs = prosperity.

Do people really think about whether or not a beach has lifeguards or not when making holiday decisions? Perhaps some do but I suspect the majority don't give it a moments thought.

I suspect the real motivation behind a councils decisions is the risk of being sued if there is an incident without lifeguard cover and their insurance companies have demanded extra premiums if they don't provide cover.

Once you decide you need cover it seems sensible to go to an organisation that provides it and has got a strong reputation in the public's mind rater than take on all the training and set up costs.

 

[pvb]

Due to the way the Charity Commission rules and the way the RNLI was originally set up (rescue for sailors), they are not allowed to divert money to beach life guards.

Not true - their charitable activities are sufficiently broadly stated to allow them to spend money on almost anything.

 

[Bru]

Not true - their charitable activities are sufficiently broadly stated to allow them to spend money on almost anything.

Not true

Per the Royal Charter granted be Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II ....

"3 The object of the Institution (“the Object”) shall be to save lives at sea and on inland and flood waters. In order to achieve the Object, the powers of the Institution shall without limitation include the following:-

3.1 to promote safety and provide relief from disaster at sea and on inland and flood waters;
3.2 to advance the education of the public in matters relating to safety at sea and on inland and flood waters and in the history and heritage of the Institution;
3.3 to promote the efficiency of rescue services at sea and on inland and flood waters; and
3.4 to relieve and assist those who have been involved in saving lives at sea and on inland and flood waters in any capacity, and who are in need of such relief or assistance by reason of poverty, disability, infirmity or otherwise, and their dependants."

"6 The income and property of the Institution shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the Object and no portion thereof shall be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend or bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit to the Governors or the members of the Board of Trustees: provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the holding and investment of income which may be surplus to immediate requirements, or the payment in good faith of:" - list of permitted expenses

Don't be fooled by the "without limitation" in the objects. That's standard wording for charity articles and charters and it's legal meaning is to infer a degree of flexibility in the interpretation of the Objects. It does not allow a charity to pursue objects that are completely unrelated to it's stated purpose (I can't recall chapter and verse but this has been well established by legal precedent). It allows charities to pursue laudable aims that are within the spirit of the stated Objects without hindrance due to an overly pedantic interpretation thereof (and believe me, you get some first class pedants on your case as a charity trustee!!! Often they're some of your fellow trustees :ambivalence

So whilst the Objects clearly cover the provision of beach lifeguards, the RNLI could not, for example, fund mountain rescue teams or clean water projects in Africa etc. etc.

As for appeals for funding for lifeguards, why not appeal? The RNLI may be a well set up charity financially but that is precisely because it is such an effective organisation at raising funds. It would be, in fact, mismanagement to draw down on reserves without first attempting to directly raise funds through fresh donations

 

[Capt Popeye]

Humm not impressed with your info plus logic and reasoning therefore deductions there Mr Bru

Expending the funds to staff a Beach will attract donations in the course of the actual beach staffing during the course of events so your ref to how to spend or not spend funds already raised and collected I find rather bizarre, if not callous remember people died whist the beach funding finances were being thought about. That does not seem to fit in with the readiness to Save lives at all costs philosophy of a life saving institution, does it ?
Might say, that as I understand it the funding was in place by the RNLI the training was in place, but the beach was unmanned whilst contra funding decisions were being made, right or wrong ?

 

[Heckler]

Because beach safety is a statutory duty of local authorities, but many choose to sub contract it to the RNLI on a commercial basis rather than run it themselves. Pretty common practice in local authorities and there is no reason why they should not raise funds direct from the public to help support the service.

Sorry, it is not a statutory duty for local authorities in Wales. Denbighshire County Council used to provide guards for Rhyl, the only one in North Wales to do so for its beaches. The WG cut our funding across the board, we had to find savings, we did a deal with the RNLI to provide some cover. So, as pedantic as ypu can be, sorry, wrong on this one!
Stu

 

[Heckler]

Humm well similar thought had struck my mind, 'many ways to skin a cat' as the saying goes.

I was at Rye / Camber Sands the day and time that 4/5 young men lost their lives, all in all, a glorious warm sunny day, little wind at all, you could hear birds calling from a long way off. But somehow these fellas, only about 400 yds away a river and sea wall from us lost their lives, it appears that there were no Lifeguards or Beach Patrols on that day, twas a very very busy day on the sands. The people looked a total mass on the beach that day, the jollity, laughing, cries of those splashed by the sea water, buckets and spades abounded, I read that the Council stretched budget was the reason that the RNLI were not paid to be on patrol.
Just maybe Councils have to think outside the'box' and seek out the volunteer beach patrols and lifeguards in future, there are some already formed, I know that our Dawlish Warren do have such a volunteer patrol self financed plus voluntary public donations, I am sure that these voluntary organisations are up to the job.

The Camber Sands tragedy really did not require lifeguards, just a Beach Patrol, monitoring the public on the beaches when the tide turns,. A person on a quad or similar with a loud hailer, plus tide tables, and a keen alert eye.

Strangely enough, the Rye RNLI Inshore Lifeboat was seen leaving the River, in no great haste I observed, as it passed me, the Helicopter had been circling for a while by then, but by then any emergency twas long over, they had drowned, the Council had not spent out, the RNLI were not paid, it all in all seems like somehow, despite the various reasons, (not us, not my job mate, we require payments) the public had been let down, badly.

Might I recall just how much the RNLI is worth, just how much in cash reserves, it collects how much in public donations PA?

Humm, do I donate ?

Its always the councils fault! Why? Not a statutory duty, see above. Why do they always get the blame?
Stu

 

[pvb]

Not true

Per the Royal Charter granted be Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II ....

"3 The object of the Institution (“the Object”) shall be to save lives at sea and on inland and flood waters. In order to achieve the Object, the powers of the Institution shall without limitation include the following:-

3.1 to promote safety and provide relief from disaster at sea and on inland and flood waters;
3.2 to advance the education of the public in matters relating to safety at sea and on inland and flood waters and in the history and heritage of the Institution;
3.3 to promote the efficiency of rescue services at sea and on inland and flood waters; and
3.4 to relieve and assist those who have been involved in saving lives at sea and on inland and flood waters in any capacity, and who are in need of such relief or assistance by reason of poverty, disability, infirmity or otherwise, and their dependants."

"6 The income and property of the Institution shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the Object and no portion thereof shall be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend or bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit to the Governors or the members of the Board of Trustees: provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the holding and investment of income which may be surplus to immediate requirements, or the payment in good faith of:" - list of permitted expenses

Don't be fooled by the "without limitation" in the objects. That's standard wording for charity articles and charters and it's legal meaning is to infer a degree of flexibility in the interpretation of the Objects. It does not allow a charity to pursue objects that are completely unrelated to it's stated purpose (I can't recall chapter and verse but this has been well established by legal precedent). It allows charities to pursue laudable aims that are within the spirit of the stated Objects without hindrance due to an overly pedantic interpretation thereof (and believe me, you get some first class pedants on your case as a charity trustee!!! Often they're some of your fellow trustees :ambivalence

So whilst the Objects clearly cover the provision of beach lifeguards, the RNLI could not, for example, fund mountain rescue teams or clean water projects in Africa etc. etc.

As for appeals for funding for lifeguards, why not appeal? The RNLI may be a well set up charity financially but that is precisely because it is such an effective organisation at raising funds. It would be, in fact, mismanagement to draw down on reserves without first attempting to directly raise funds through fresh donations

I was responding to Mister E's claim that the RNLI can't fund lifeguards, which you and I both agree is permissible.