RNLI resues 'stranded yacht'

I do love our Sybarite
He is like one of those little electric dogs . You know the ones with the batteries with the copper coloured top.
Give them a little nudge & they go on & on for ever yapping at nothing
What would we do without him ?????

The best thing about it is how economical he is - Give him one little nudge & step aside & watch & the whole forum community comes out in arms .. how else could one wind the forum up so simply.
 
To be fair to Sybarite he did not start the thread but boldly took up arms to fight the good fight when called on to support his adopted country - I think he is misguided but I have to admire his persistence when under such concerted pressure :encouragement:
 
Last edited:
chanelyacht said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the capitalisation figure for new lifeboats as they appear in the 2015 accounts. If the RNLI in your opinion have got the accounts utterly wrong then you should let them know.
 
jordanbasset said:
To be fair to Sybarite he did not start the thread but boldly took up arms to fight the good fight when called on to support his adopted country - I think he is misguided but I have to admire his persistence when under such concerted pressure :encouragement:
Click to expand...

See post #16.
 
Sybarite said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't usually be bothered to contribute to the RNLI threads but I am amazed that there are any French public contributions to the RNLI, never mind 2%!

I assume from this that RNLI "charity chuggers" are stalking the Le Manche coastline? I'm a little surprised that they can obtain the necessary authorisation from the French Government.

Richard
 
RichardS said:
I can't usually be bothered to contribute to the RNLI threads but I am amazed that there are any French public contributions to the RNLI, never mind 2%!
Click to expand...

not-sure-if-trolling.jpg


Pete
 
Sybarite said:
I am talking about the capitalisation figure for new lifeboats as they appear in the 2015 accounts. If the RNLI in your opinion have got the accounts utterly wrong then you should let them know.
Click to expand...


The RNLI have it right, it's your statement that was wrong, as you meant to deliberately mislead again.

There is much more to spending on lifeboats than the capital cost of new build, as the RNLI accurately report. It's just that you select figures but remove the accurate description to suit your failed argument.
 
dogleg said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would normally rate the knowledge of a yacht skipper who calmly informed the CG of the fact that she had temporarily grounded, near LW, in calm conditions, against that of someone in CG ops room, who may or may not ever have been to sea. She only informed them, to save any doubt, in case someone else reported the situation.

I would imagine that the lady in question will think long and hard before volunteering similar information in the future.

After my own experience related here in #22 I will in future be very cautious in asking the CG for any information.

Is that what you want?
 
dogleg said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think would all prefer to rely on a human being making that judgement - that is what the coastguard is for. We are fortunate in that we also have rescue services that are sufficiently well funded to respond without consideration of cost - that is free at the point of delivery, just as (in theory) the health service is. It really does not matter who funds it or whether it is considered an "insurance" - there is little direct link between the user of the service and the funder. It is what economists call a public good and in general one person's use does not deprive another - that is there is no rationing.

Imagine a world like some advocate here where the rescue services are underfunded, as in France where the response is that you may get hit with a 700 euro bill if we decide your circumstances are not perilous enough, or sorry (as in Portugal) we only work 9-5 weekdays (because the state can't afford to pay the wages).

Or, as others have suggested calling for assistance is for wimps who need teaching a lesson. Perhaps a check list approach with categories of seriousness decided by a committee (or worse still an expert system!). So coastguard response is "sorry you don't meet the minimum requirement for assistance. Suggest you wait until you are actually foundering on that downtide and downwind sandbank before you call us". That should sort out the men from the boys.

Hope we never get to a situation where people are worried about calling for help in case they are thought of as wimps, or worse still unwilling to call in case you don't like the assistance offered. If you feel you need help, then ask, if you think you can cope then don't. But accept that if you do ask for help then you lose some control over what happens when the professionals get involved. Better to have the odd over reaction (with hindsight) than lives and property lost because you were ignored.
 
Last edited:
NormanS said:
I would normally rate the knowledge of a yacht skipper who calmly informed the CG of the fact that she had temporarily grounded, near LW, in calm conditions, against that of someone in CG ops room, who may or may not ever have been to sea. She only informed them, to save any doubt, in case someone else reported the situation.

I would imagine that the lady in question will think long and hard before volunteering similar information in the future.

After my own experience related here in #22 I will in future be very cautious in asking the CG for any information.

Is that what you want?
Click to expand...

We had a job a couple of years ago where a similar call was made, we took the casualty's word for it and didn't task any assets.

Three hours later, they refloated, the keel fell off and they capsized, requiring a helo response.

There are some days you can never get it right :rolleyes:
 
Tranona said:
I think would all prefer to rely on a human being making that judgement - that is what the coastguard is for. We are fortunate in that we also have rescue services that are sufficiently well funded to respond without consideration of cost - that is free at the point of delivery, just as (in theory) the health service is. It really does not matter who funds it or whether it is considered an "insurance" - there is little direct link between the user of the service and the funder. It is what economists call a public good and in general one person's use does not deprive another - that is there is no rationing.

Imagine a world like some advocate here where the rescue services are underfunded, as in France where the response is that you may get hit with a 700 euro bill if we decide your circumstances are not perilous enough, or sorry (as in Portugal) we only work 9-5 weekdays (because the state can't afford to pay the wages).

Or, as others have suggested calling for assistance is for wimps who need teaching a lesson. Perhaps a check list approach with categories of seriousness decided by a committee (or worse still an expert system!). So coastguard response is "sorry you don't meet the minimum requirement for assistance. Suggest you wait until you are actually foundering on that downtide and downwind sandbank before you call us". That should sort out the men from the boys.

Hope we never get to a situation where people are worried about calling for help in case they are thought of as wimps, or worse still unwilling to call in case you don't like the assistance offered. If you feel you need help, then ask, if you think you can cope then don't. But accept that if you do ask for help then you lose some control over what happens when the professionals get involved. Better to have the odd over reaction (with hindsight) than lives and property lost because you were ignored.
Click to expand...

There you go - off into your little make-believe world again. The French services save people the way the RNLI does. Statistics are similar. However there is a charge for saving the boat which is normally covered by insurance.

But then it is normal for the Brits to always believe that they have the best of everything. Some of us who have lived in both places may have a different viewpoint. I heard Michael Gove's speech a week or so ago saying how the UK had the best this and that - but what really made me laugh was when he said that the NHS was the best health care system in the world and the £350m a week which they would save by leaving the EU would further reinforce it, thus perpetuating what he knows to be a lie.

Perhaps a little less navel gazing and a more open mind might help.

Personally I had to work very hard for every penny I earned; it would really rankle with me if I then contributed to an extravaganza where money is spent - just because it's there. OTOH perhaps you don't mind others wasting the money you earned??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top