RNLI - Inaccurate Campaigning

[FishyInverness]

Ok, yes, knocking the RNLI gets done to death on here, and I am, for the record - broadly in support of what they are and what they do.

What really does "grind my gears" though, is that they are following the "media spin savvy" route of trying to bend statistics (lie, in other words) in order to use fear to make people dig into their pockets - a tactic which is surely must put more people off when they realise it, it does make me waver in support.

One of my friends recently attended a ROSPA seminar/meeting regarding water safety - he represents a small charity group promoting safety on one of the larger Scottish Lochs - they got sidelined while the RNLI representatives hogged the entire event. He got hold of one of the leaflets being distributed, and this, I think is a bit twisted:
The leaflets concern Child Drowning Fatalities, and yes, we are all concerned about that, an emotive subject likely to make us all want to put our hands in our pockets to help the RNLI prevent such a thing - but the statistics they use in the leaflet, if you read the fine print - includes INLAND DROWNING FATALITIES.
Now, I think it's bang out of order to that the RNLI charity, at any time they are consulted at FAI's about inland water incidents resulting in fatalities, distances themselves and make it very clear that is not in their remit and not cost-effective for them to attend or maintain crews for inland waterways, and then they go ahead and use the inland drowning fatality statistics as part of their charity fundraising.

Does anyone else feel this is particularly disingenuous?

 

[pvb]

Sure, they shouldn't use inland drowning cases in their figures. Equally, they shouldn't really refer to the frequent tow-in services as "rescues", or as "lives saved". But times are hard in the charity world, and it seems anything goes.

 

[Talulah]

Two weekends ago I sold my spare petrol to a Grandad on a very small motor boat which had run out fuel in the Solent. On board was Grandad, mother and two kids. The message about Lifejackets had got across but what about carrying sufficient fuel? I did think to myself that this would have gone down as "Four lives saved." but I also know from people on this forum that RNLI figures aren't quite so manipulated and this would have gone down in one of the other categories.

The problem is when stats start to be grouped together and misreported.

 

[awol]

I get the impression the RNLI are damned if they do and damned if they don't. This years statistics makes a distinction between rescues and lives saved - my preferred term would be "death delayed" - and a quick glance through them makes me very glad the RNLI is there.
As for fresh water - isn't there a station on Loch Ness just across from Urquart Castle, and not a million miles from Inverness?

 

[prv]

Equally, they shouldn't really refer to the frequent tow-in services as "rescues", or as "lives saved".

Be fair. They don't categorise a simple tow as "lives saved".

Pete

 

[bert49uk]

Be fair. They don't categorise a simple tow as "lives saved".

Pete

+1

 

[pvb]

Be fair. They don't categorise a simple tow as "lives saved".

I should hope they don't.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Be fair. They don't categorise a simple tow as "lives saved".

Is it a "rescue"?

 

[jon711]

They have a lifeboat on the Thames near Tower Bridge.... Is that not inland? and I also believe, that their main job is pulling suicides (attempted or successful) from the Thames....

So it seems fair enough to me..

Jon

 

[bert49uk]

The RNLI now also have flood rescue branch

 

[duncan99210]

They also have a presence on some of the inland Irish loughs. Storm in a teacup IMO.

 

[ghostlymoron]

I'm a great fan of RNLI having used their services 3 times. Their base at Poole is worth a visit too - good snacks and coffee, great views from restaurant a super fast WiFi. I don't care what tactics they use to raise money, I'm just glad they're there.

 

[bert49uk]

I'm a great fan of RNLI having used their services 3 times. Their base at Poole is worth a visit too - good snacks and coffee, great views from restaurant a super fast WiFi. I don't care what tactics they use to raise money, I'm just glad they're there.

And you can book in for B and B at weekends !

 

[25931]

Ok, yes, knocking the RNLI gets done to death on here, and I am, for the record - broadly in support of what they are and what they do.

What really does "grind my gears" though, is that they are following the "media spin savvy" route of trying to bend statistics (lie, in other words) in order to use fear to make people dig into their pockets - a tactic which is surely must put more people off when they realise it, it does make me waver in support.

One of my friends recently attended a ROSPA seminar/meeting regarding water safety - he represents a small charity group promoting safety on one of the larger Scottish Lochs - they got sidelined while the RNLI representatives hogged the entire event. He got hold of one of the leaflets being distributed, and this, I think is a bit twisted:
The leaflets concern Child Drowning Fatalities, and yes, we are all concerned about that, an emotive subject likely to make us all want to put our hands in our pockets to help the RNLI prevent such a thing - but the statistics they use in the leaflet, if you read the fine print - includes INLAND DROWNING FATALITIES.
Now, I think it's bang out of order to that the RNLI charity, at any time they are consulted at FAI's about inland water incidents resulting in fatalities, distances themselves and make it very clear that is not in their remit and not cost-effective for them to attend or maintain crews for inland waterways, and then they go ahead and use the inland drowning fatality statistics as part of their charity fundraising.

Does anyone else feel this is particularly disingenuous?

The RNLI does have a presence in various fresh water areas so they are justified in using those figures. There will always be people who like the overstated "lies, damned lies and statistics" quoted by Mark Twain.

 

[FishyInverness]

As for fresh water - isn't there a station on Loch Ness just across from Urquart Castle, and not a million miles from Inverness?

There is, there is also one in Ireland. The RNLI state these inshore stations are required due to transiting sea traffic through the Lochs, no issue with that, no issue with them not maintaining inland stations or presence to be honest, just that they shouldn't then use statistics from inland incidents to try and further their cause - my friend is concerned with a very large loch in Argyll, where, when there were fatalities, the RNLI sent representatives to the FAI specifically to say "none of our business guv'nor".

 

[JumbleDuck]

my friend is concerned with a very large loch in Argyll, where, when there were fatalities, the RNLI sent representatives to the FAI specifically to say "none of our business guv'nor".

It's actually a significant downside of the non-state nature of the RNLI - they have no obligation to provide coverage anywhere but their sheer size makes it very difficult for independent organisations to get the funding required to meet a need, as on Loch Awe.

 

[Sans Bateau]

Any chance to have a pop at the RNLI and someone on the forum will. One of the biggest complaints is that the RNLI is awash with funds, good I say! That means they can always have the best, latest rescue resources, I might need them one day. But if anyone thinks that the RNLI would be adequately funded just from boat/water users you'd be mistaken. Joe public probably contributes more than we do and theres the thing. Joe public is bombarded with cries for help from charities on a daily basis. So who can blame the RNLI if they 'big up' some of their stats, or if they use commercial truth in their claims. The RNLI need the drama in the headline to compete. Have a chuckle, but dont knock their marketing, its not aimed at you or me.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Any chance to have a pop at the RNLI and someone on the forum will. One of the biggest complaints is that the RNLI is awash with funds, good I say! That means they can always have the best, latest rescue resources, I might need them one day.

Tough luck if you're drowning in Loch Awe or Loch Lomond, though.

 

[Sans Bateau]

Tough luck if you're drowning in Loch Awe or Loch Lomond, though.

I do find it odd that there is no coverage by the RNLI or some other resource on these large expanses of water, you do of course have Nessy on Loch Ness though.

How is the Lake district covered?

 

[FishyInverness]

Any chance to have a pop at the RNLI and someone on the forum will. One of the biggest complaints is that the RNLI is awash with funds, good I say! That means they can always have the best, latest rescue resources, I might need them one day. But if anyone thinks that the RNLI would be adequately funded just from boat/water users you'd be mistaken. Joe public probably contributes more than we do and theres the thing. Joe public is bombarded with cries for help from charities on a daily basis. So who can blame the RNLI if they 'big up' some of their stats, or if they use commercial truth in their claims. The RNLI need the drama in the headline to compete. Have a chuckle, but dont knock their marketing, its not aimed at you or me.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, i'm not "having a pop at the RNLI" as in their core business - I am having a pop at them for misdirectional advertising and "hogging the limelight" at the detriment of other, very worthy, organisations.

Here is the scene : Safety presentation in Glasgow - RNLI are present, also present are a small charity who maintain watch on one of Scotland's largest (certainly longest) Lochs - The smaller, underfunded charity get sidelined because the RNLI want to dominate the proceedings. The RNLI are handing out leaflets regarding Child Drownings, using statistics including inland drownings.

How would you feel if you were part of the smaller charity? Sidelined by a larger charity who receive the lion's share of donations, and are incorrectly using statistics which would apply to your charity but not theirs, in their advertising?