RNLI resues 'stranded yacht'

[Daydream believer]

What does Sybarite have to hide from, Robin's French experience is the model we should aspire to in the UK.

.

Oh !!! not another one !!!

What have i done . ????????

 

[NormanS]

Also need to bear in mind that they might not have sent a distress call or asked for a lifeboat themselves. I've certainly heard calls from vessels calmly asking whether anyone nearby would be willing to give them a tow, answered by the Coastguard saying "we have dispatched XYZ Lifeboat to your assistance".

Pete

Quite. A few years ago, we were anchored off an island to the west of the Hebrides, in an absolute flat calm. When I went to start the engine, prior to raising the anchor, I discovered a major problem with the engine. I called the CG to ask if they could contact someone in the nearest village, who could come and give us a tow to there.

" Wait one", I was told. After a short time, they came back and said that they had called out the Lifeboat. ( from much further away). I said that it was completely unnecessary, and that I was in no danger, but they insisted that the Lifeboat would come.

A short time later, a breeze started to fill in, so we raised the anchor, and started sailing towards the village. I informed the CG, who still insisted that the Lifeboat would keep coming.

The Lifeboat eventually caught up with us when we were two or three miles away from the village, came close, and ascertained that we were OK, and returned to base.

This was a totally unnecessary Lifeboat call-out, initiated by the CG. It wasted RNLI funds, and crew's time.

There is no such thing as a "yacht calling out the Lifeboat". The decision is made by the CG, and frequently wrongly.

 

[Tranona]

There is no such thing as a "yacht calling out the Lifeboat". The decision is made by the CG, and frequently wrongly.

Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that the CG "frequently" act wrongly in tasking the lifeboat? Or is it just based on your one experience?

 

[chanelyacht]

What does Sybarite have to hide from, Robin's French experience is the model we should aspire to in the UK.

Their system results in a nation of more resourceful, self-sufficient and robust sailors who are better than their British counterparts. Meanwhile in France they focus their national resources where it counts such as as developing a national power system that will not have to have to black out cities in the next decade.

The number of city level blackouts we experience in the future depends on whether the French take pity on our situation and build us new nuclear power stations.

Except that the SNSM relies on state funding, where the RNLI does not.

So it doesn't matter what the RNLI do, you don't have to pay for any part of it if you don't want to.

 

[chanelyacht]

Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that the CG "frequently" act wrongly in tasking the lifeboat? Or is it just based on your one experience?

I'm looking forward to reading about his obviously long experience of coordinating SAR.

 

[chanelyacht]

but they nevertheless were able to spend £13.9m on lifeboats in 2015.

Pathetically misleading comment, but no doubt deliberately so.

 

[Tranona]

Pathetically misleading comment, but no doubt deliberately so.

Amazing how he thinks just throwing random figures out without any context - as if they had meaning!

Think he has been taking lessons from George Osborne.

 

[Tranona]

.

With the RNLI you pay in advance to such an extent that they build up to total funds of £745.3m but they nevertheless were able to spend £13.9m on lifeboats in 2015.

Since I started looking at their situation their reserves have increased by nearly 50%.

.

Not sure you realise how ridiculous this statement and the quote of two completely unrelated figures are.

Since when does the size of reserves has anything to do with how much is spent on one item from the capital expenditure budget? It seems clear you have not got a clue what the "reserves" figure represents. Ifyou knew anything about how the RNLI operates you would know that purchase of new boats in any one year is a very small (but important) part of the expenditure. Indeed less than capital expenditure on other fixed assets, and much smaller than the amount spent on operational activities.

Anyway, I could not reconcile your figures with the 2014 accounts, but in looking I happened to do a quick calculation showing the %age of fundraising costs compared with income from legacies and fundraising (something you are always banging on about without seemingly understanding the process). It is approx 15%. It might interest you to know that the ratios for two other charities with similar incomes from those sources are RSPCA 19% and Oxfam 23%. So would guess that the RNLI is a pretty cost effective fundraiser!

Although interesting this is of course nothing to do with the subject of this thread which is about the response of an individual coastguard to a request for assistance from a yachtsman.

Always amazes me how some people can be so critical of the actions of others, even though they don't know exactly what went on or have no evidence to support their assertions. But I guess that is just what happens on a forum.

 

[NormanS]

Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that the CG "frequently" act wrongly in tasking the lifeboat? Or is it just based on your one experience?

Obviously I don't have chapter and verse, but I do know of an Incident where a yacht landed on a rock near LW (not me), and the lady skipper informed the CG, just in case someone else reported it. She was very insistent that she was not in any trouble and needed no assistance, but the CG called out the Lifeboat to go and check. Again this was totally unnecessary, and a waste of resources. I think we've probably all heard occasions where a Lifeboat has been tasked, and have said, "Imagine calling out the Lifeboat for that".

 

[Sybarite]

Not sure you realise how ridiculous this statement and the quote of two completely unrelated figures are.

Since when does the size of reserves has anything to do with how much is spent on one item from the capital expenditure budget? It seems clear you have not got a clue what the "reserves" figure represents. Ifyou knew anything about how the RNLI operates you would know that purchase of new boats in any one year is a very small (but important) part of the expenditure. Indeed less than capital expenditure on other fixed assets, and much smaller than the amount spent on operational activities.

I think that I have a much clearer idea of the reserves figure than you do. Did you know for example that there was a change in accounting practice which added nearly £30m to the reserves figure?

If I had only taken one year in isolation then your remark "that purchase of new boats in any one year is a very small (but important) part of the expenditure" might have some relevance.

However it is not an isolated figure; it is part of a pattern that has gone on for at least the last 9 years where expenditure on boats has equalled 6.5% of the gross incoming ressources of the RNLI.

Anyway, I could not reconcile your figures with the 2014 accounts,

Normal; I was using the 2015 figures.

but in looking I happened to do a quick calculation showing the %age of fundraising costs compared with income from legacies and fundraising (something you are always banging on about without seemingly understanding the process). It is approx 15%.

Compared with 6.5% for boat spend....?

It might interest you to know that the ratios for two other charities with similar incomes from those sources are RSPCA 19% and Oxfam 23%. So would guess that the RNLI is a pretty cost effective fundraiser!

A meaningless comparison when you do not mention how much was spent on their core activities.

Always amazes me how some people can be so critical of the actions of others, even though they don't know exactly what went on or have no evidence to support their assertions. But I guess that is just what happens on a forum.

I hope you were looking in a mirror when you wrote this.

 

[Sybarite]

Amazing how he thinks just throwing random figures out without any context - .

Because you do not understand the context is not the same as saying "without any context".

 

[Sybarite]

Except that the SNSM relies on state funding, where the RNLI does not.

The SNSM is a private charity to which local communities and central government make contributions; last year these contributions totalled about €4m or 18% of the total. French public contributions amount to less than 2% of the RNLI's incoming resources - just to add a bit of context.

So it doesn't matter what the RNLI do, you don't have to pay for any part of it if you don't want to.

It's amazing how they got to total funds of £745.3m then isn't it? Nobody paid anything.....

 

[[3889]]

Is it time for the RNLI=Angels / Beelzebub debate to be placed alongside global warming as a sticky.:sleeping:

 

[Lucky Duck]

It's amazing how they got to total funds of £745.3m then isn't it? Nobody paid anything.....

Presumably because they wanted to, or do you believe otherwise?

 

[Sybarite]

Presumably because they wanted to, or do you believe otherwise?

Of course not; it's just to put into context the fact that the RNLI "doesn't charge for rescues". It's like insurance: the expense is collectivised and people pay in advance.

 

[jordanbasset]

Except that the SNSM relies on state funding, where the RNLI does not.

So it doesn't matter what the RNLI do, you don't have to pay for any part of it if you don't want to.

It's amazing how they got to total funds of £745.3m then isn't it? Nobody paid anything.....

Presumably because they wanted to, or do you believe otherwise?

Of course not; it's just to put into context the fact that the RNLI "doesn't charge for rescues". It's like insurance: the expense is collectivised and people pay in advance.

Chanel Yacht's post was very clear, you do not have to pay for the RNLI if you don't want to. On the other hand the SNSM relies on state subsidy. This I can only assume is collected by taxes in one form or another which tax payers cannot opt out of. So some one who has never owned a boat and never uses the seas is forced to pay for it.
Nothing wrong in itself with that, we are all forced to pay for lots of things via taxes that we do not use, but the RNLI is reliant entirely on voluntary donations, you can choose whether to pay or not. if you think the RNLI is a bloated organisation you can vote with your wallet and not donate.
Furthermore even if you do not donate you can still call on the RNLI services so it's nothing like insurance, collectivised or not.

 

[chanelyacht]

Because you do not understand the context is not the same as saying "without any context".

Ah, back to insulting anyone who disagrees with you then.

Your exact words were "were able to spend £13.9m on lifeboats in 2015."

That statement is utterly wrong, a lot more than that was spent on lifeboats, and you know it. If you meant "the purchase / build of new lifeboats" then say it.

 

[dogleg]

Obviously I don't have chapter and verse, but I do know of an Incident where a yacht landed on a rock near LW (not me), and the lady skipper informed the CG, just in case someone else reported it. She was very insistent that she was not in any trouble and needed no assistance, but the CG called out the Lifeboat to go and check. Again this was totally unnecessary, and a waste of resources. I think we've probably all heard occasions where a Lifeboat has been tasked, and have said, "Imagine calling out the Lifeboat for that".

I have experienced many launches where you could argue there was no danger, however in the incident you quote without knowing the true circumstances but based on experience it was almost certainly correct to launch a lifeboat to check out the casualty : weather deteriorates, strong tides, engine or other gear failure on refloating are all unknowns at the time of the original call. Unless the casualty is a short distance from LB station and/or is visual form the shore it is probably safer to err on the side of caution. There is another side to this which happens less frequently and that is the leisure sailor who does not call for assistance until it has become more serious turning a routine situation into a dangerous one. Round our way it is usual for the CG to ask if assistance is required, often the answer is NO, often later that becomes a YES. The RNLI attitude has always been to go and be better safe than sorry, you don't need to experience more than one incident where the opposite was the case.

With regard to the OP and his question only those directly involved know what happened. Everybody has different levels of ability, knowledge, experience, endurance and stamina and ultimately judgement as to the best course of action.

 

[Robin]

Is it time for the RNLI=Angels / Beelzebub debate to be placed alongside global warming as a sticky.:sleeping:

Hear Hear and I'm very much on the side of Angels.:encouragement:

 

[Tranona]

I think that I have a much clearer idea of the reserves figure than you do. Did you know for example that there was a change in accounting practice which added nearly £30m to the reserves figure?

If I had only taken one year in isolation then your remark "that purchase of new boats in any one year is a very small (but important) part of the expenditure" might have some relevance.

However it is not an isolated figure; it is part of a pattern that has gone on for at least the last 9 years where expenditure on boats has equalled 6.5% of the gross incoming ressources of the RNLI.



Normal; I was using the 2015 figures.



Compared with 6.5% for boat spend....?



A meaningless comparison when you do not mention how much was spent on their core activities.



I hope you were looking in a mirror when you wrote this.

Wriggling again.

Reserves represent the assets the organisation has. It is not a pot of money to be spent. In this case it is the culmination of 150+ years of investment in its activities. It includes real estate, boats, plant, machinery, investments etc. All it means in this context is that the organisation is well established, has no debt and can finance its activities out of its own resources. Surely something to be celebrated, not a cause of criticism? How can a change in accounting practices that results in a change of the calculated figure make any difference to the operation of the service. Reserves is a calculated figure, and can clearly change if you change the basis on which it is calculated. Lesson number 1 of a basic accounting course which you obviously missed out on.

You fail to recognise that this organisation does many more things than just buy and operate boats. Its expenditure on new boats is a function of its operational requirements - the %age of any other figure is irrelevant. Whether the expenditure is 5% or 50% is meaningless on its own. Adequacy is judged by whether it is appropriate to its declared aims. Read what the capital expenditure strategy is and then judge if the actual is satisfactory or not. Consistency over 9 years is surely to be applauded as it might show that the organisation is clear where it is going with capital expenditure and matching it to its requirements.

You really should look at the tosh you write about capital expenditure on boats. One the one hand you claim it spends too much when you want to compare it with another organisation that spends less buying cheaper lower standard boats that would not meet the required requirements and then on the other you claim it spends to little. Make up your mind - neither are of course correct. It spends what it plans to spend, irrespective of what other organisations do.

It is completely irrelevant to compare expenditure on fund raising with expenditure on boats. RSPCA spend more on fundraising than it does on vehicles for its inspectors. So what? The only thing that matters with fundraising expenditure is that it is less than the funds raised. Therefore the %age of income raised is a valid ratio - and the RNLI is far better than other fundraising charities on this measure. Every £ spent on fundraising raises £6.66, compared with £5.26 for the RSPCA and £4.16 for Oxfam. Far more meaningful than any of your so called analysis. I would think that your mythical donor widow would be pleased that she is giving her money to such an efficient charity. Incidentally if you knew anything about the charity scene in the UK you would know that this particular aspect is currently a major issue with many charities (not the RNLI) being heavily criticised for excessive fundraising expenditure.

The last comment I made was not specifically aimed at you as it followed observations about the subject of the thread, not this drift from the topic. Perhaps I should have made it clearer by not putting it in the same post.

BTW I do not make assertions without evidence as you can see from the above. All I am doing is showing how meaningless most of your statements are.