RNLI resues 'stranded yacht'

Getting back on topic........
As the call to CG was made with a mobile perhaps there was a concern that further contact might not have been possible had the situation gone bad. Hence, task the LB
 
chanelyacht said:
No, it doesn't. The SNSM class jetskis as boats, the RNLI doesn't. The RNLI also has around 50 more stations, plus the relief fleet and the flood rescue teams.
Click to expand...

According to the respective sites the SNSM has 600 boats and the RNLI (including relief boats) has 403.

Of the "solid" boats, the SNSM has 216 and the RNLI has 201.

Apparently the RNLI does not have a great deal of confidence in its Shannons because at 6 of the sites where the Shannon has been introduced it is still accounting for 3 Tynes and 3 Merseys....:rolleyes:

The RNLI has 237 stations; the SNSM has 219 (= same ballpark, but longer season).

The SNSM has 4400 volunteer crew members (RNLI : 4600) and 1300 lifeguards at some 259 beach stations (RNLI : 1100).
 
Last edited:
:encouragement:

Sounds like a very reasonable explanation to me. Given that the RNLI hardly ever comment on the decisions they make, it amazes me how many people on here (who should know better) jump all over them, assuming they're wasting money left right and centre on purpose.

TangaraToo said:
Getting back on topic........
As the call to CG was made with a mobile perhaps there was a concern that further contact might not have been possible had the situation gone bad. Hence, task the LB
Click to expand...
 
Sybarite said:
According to the respective sites the SNSM has 600 boats and the RNLI (including relief boats) has 403.

Of the "solid" boats, the SNSM has 216 and the RNLI has 201.

Apparently the RNLI does not have a great deal of confidence in its Shannons because at 6 of the sites where the Shannon has been introduced it is still accounting for 3 Tynes and 3 Merseys....:rolleyes:

The RNLI has 237 stations; the SNSM has 219 (= same ballpark, but longer season).

The SNSM has 4400 volunteer crew members (RNLI : 4600) and 1300 lifeguards at some 259 beach stations (RNLI : 1100).
Click to expand...

Apparently the RNLI does not have a great deal of confidence in its Shannons because at 6 of the sites where the Shannon has been introduced it is still accounting for 3 Tynes and 3 Merseys

Can you explain what this means please?
 
Sybarite said:
According to the respective sites the SNSM has 600 boats and the RNLI (including relief boats) has 403.

Of the "solid" boats, the SNSM has 216 and the RNLI has 201.

Apparently the RNLI does not have a great deal of confidence in its Shannons because at 6 of the sites where the Shannon has been introduced it is still accounting for 3 Tynes and 3 Merseys....:rolleyes:

The RNLI has 237 stations; the SNSM has 219 (= same ballpark, but longer season).

The SNSM has 4400 volunteer crew members (RNLI : 4600) and 1300 lifeguards at some 259 beach stations (RNLI : 1100).
Click to expand...

having checked the RNLI website I now understand, 3 stations Lowestoft, Lough Swilly and Montrose are shown as still having Tynes as well as Shannons. All 3 Tynes have been withdrawn, 2 sold as LB's abroad the Lowestoft boat is a relief boat, the same will apply to the Mersey stations as well. The former Merseys have been with drawn from all stations which have received Shannons. You can of course criticise the RNLI for having inaccurate information.
 
Sybarite said:
According to the respective sites the SNSM has 600 boats and the RNLI (including relief boats) has 403.

Of the "solid" boats, the SNSM has 216 and the RNLI has 201.

Apparently the RNLI does not have a great deal of confidence in its Shannons because at 6 of the sites where the Shannon has been introduced it is still accounting for 3 Tynes and 3 Merseys....:rolleyes:

The RNLI has 237 stations; the SNSM has 219 (= same ballpark, but longer season).

The SNSM has 4400 volunteer crew members (RNLI : 4600) and 1300 lifeguards at some 259 beach stations (RNLI : 1100).
Click to expand...

How high up the wall can their respective head honchos pee?:p

I was aided by the SNSM and paid for it 750 euros some 13 years ago, no doubt much more now. I hadn't asked for them, the CG did that and whilst appreciated it was only a verysimple assist job because a French trawler ( who got nothing except ourprofuse thanks) had already towed us clear of the actual and imminent danger zone.

Just be thankful there are TWO very capable operations covering those waters and that the USCG are not sending a fully armed warship (not impressed by them at all).
 
Last edited:
dogleg said:
having checked the RNLI website I now understand, 3 stations Lowestoft, Lough Swilly and Montrose are shown as still having Tynes as well as Shannons. All 3 Tynes have been withdrawn, 2 sold as LB's abroad the Lowestoft boat is a relief boat, the same will apply to the Mersey stations as well. The former Merseys have been with drawn from all stations which have received Shannons. You can of course criticise the RNLI for having inaccurate information.
Click to expand...

It was of course a tongue in cheek comment.
 
Sybarite said:
Apparently the RNLI does not have a great deal of confidence in its Shannons because at 6 of the sites where the Shannon has been introduced it is still accounting for 3 Tynes and 3 Merseys....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Because the stations are still being built and they are not in areas where it is safe or practical to use a boarding boat to reach the moored Shannon (e.g. St. Davids). Where is is practical the new Shannon is lying afloat during construction (as at Swanage).
 
Quick comment on the comparison game.

The SNSM and RNLI enjoy an excellent working relationship, both perform an excellent job within their given constraints and attempts to compare the two, whilst certainly possible, are fraught with difficulties. Imagine you were looking at an industrial conglomerate such as Siemens (think of it as an apple) and made a specific observation about how its earnings related to global capital expenditure and emerging market debt. You might attach a high value to this relationship only to discover that the stock market has already discounted it into the stock price. In such circumstances it might be sensible to search for similar companies, such as perhaps Switzerland’s ABB (another engineering apple), to see if there was any potential upside there. You would hope that the insights gained into the apple you studied would enable logical inferences to be made about all of the other apples in Europe’s engineering box. That’s basically all comparative analysis is!

Now imagine that ABB was also fairly priced; you might turned your attention to Nestlé (an orange). However, few functionally useful inferences can ne made about Nestlé based upon what we knew about Siemens -- a bit me saying, “take a look in this envelope and tell me how much money is in it.” You might perhaps find £1,000, whereupon I might ask, “How much would you like to pay for this second envelope?!” We have now entered a world where only a deep bottom-up intrinsic analysis of each fruit will do.

Now let’s turn to something more akin to the RNLI, such as the Wellcome Trust which was gifted assets to the value of $3 million by Henry Wellcome in 1936. Today the trust is the UK’s largest charity with total assets of $26 billion and donating some £700m annually to its research efforts – previous discoveries include AZT (AIDS), major advances in leukaemia drugs, tropical health, etc. Now think of another equally impressive charity, Medecins Sans Frontieres, which provides relief and hope to some of the most godforsaken lands on earth. It has an annual income of around $1.1 billion (mainly private donations), spends around $650 million annually on its programmes with an additional 10% of total expenditure going on fundraising activities. MSF maintains reserves of only 3-9months of annual expenditure; a very different but equally valid model.

Comparing the SNSM to the RNLI is equally problematic: different operational models, history, funding profiles, wealth profiles, one has significant involvement from its sovereign and so on. To be of any value a comparative analysis must be unemotional, accurate and honest.

So what might the Charity Commission make of “you-know-who’s” criticisms?

My guess is something like this: “...they involve techniques with which the complainant appears to have no prior experience and for which no preliminary data is proposed.” The Charity Commission will of course put it in their own words if a complaint is made that is, which of course it won’t. For I suspect the man himself doesn’t want to see that kind of rejection in writing; perhaps it would bring back bad memories.
 
Last edited:
dom said:
Quick comment on the comparison game.

The SNSM and RNLI enjoy an excellent working relationship, both perform an excellent job within their given constraints and attempts to compare the two, whilst certainly possible, are fraught with difficulties. Imagine you were looking at an industrial conglomerate such as Siemens (think of it as an apple) and made a specific observation about how its earnings related to global capital expenditure and emerging market debt. You might attach a high value to this relationship only to discover that the stock market has already discounted it into the stock price. In such circumstances it might be sensible to search for similar companies, such as perhaps Switzerland’s ABB (another engineering apple), to see if there was any potential upside there. You would hope that the insights gained into the apple you studied would enable logical inferences to be made about all of the other apples in Europe’s engineering box. That’s basically all comparative analysis is!

Now imagine that ABB was also fairly priced; you might turned your attention to Nestlé (an orange). However, few functionally useful inferences can ne made about Nestlé based upon what we knew about Siemens -- a bit me saying, “take a look in this envelope and tell me how much money is in it.” You might perhaps find £1,000, whereupon I might ask, “How much would you like to pay for this second envelope?!” We have now entered a world where only a deep bottom-up intrinsic analysis of each fruit will do.

Now let’s turn to something more akin to the RNLI, such as the Wellcome Trust which was gifted assets to the value of $3 million by Henry Wellcome in 1936. Today the trust is the UK’s largest charity with total assets of $26 billion and donating some £700m annually to its research efforts – previous discoveries include AZT (AIDS), major advances in leukaemia drugs, tropical health, etc. Now think of another equally impressive charity, Medecins Sans Frontieres, which provides relief and hope to some of the most godforsaken lands on earth. It has an annual income of around $1.1 billion (mainly private donations), spends around $650 million annually on its programmes with an additional 10% of total expenditure going on fundraising activities. MSF maintains reserves of only 3-9months of annual expenditure; a very different but equally valid model.

Comparing the SNSM to the RNLI is equally problematic: different operational models, history, funding profiles, wealth profiles, one has significant involvement from its sovereign and so on. To be of any value a comparative analysis must be unemotional, accurate and honest.

So what might the Charity Commission make of “you-know-who’s” criticisms?

My guess is something like this: “...they involve techniques with which the complainant appears to have no prior experience and for which no preliminary data is proposed.” The Charity Commission will of course put it in their own words if a complaint is made that is, which of course it won’t. For I suspect the man himself doesn’t want to see that kind of rejection in writing; perhaps it would bring back bad memories.
Click to expand...

Are you prepared to apologise for the lies you told and which were pointed out to you on six separate occasions?
 
PotatoNavigator said:
:encouragement:

Sounds like a very reasonable explanation to me. Given that the RNLI hardly ever comment on the decisions they make, it amazes me how many people on here (who should know better) jump all over them, assuming they're wasting money left right and centre on purpose.
Click to expand...

+ 1 Endless, vacuous arguments about a vastly complex issue on the basis of little or partial information and differences in world view and values that are not grounded simply in facts. Anyone can cherry pick from a vast array of "facts" in any case, in order to rationalise their own viewpoint. The ground has been raked over countless times before. Nobody will persuade anybody else to change their minds and Sybarite seems determined never to let it go. Seems to me it stopped being about the RNLI and SNSM in any meaningful sense long ago (if it ever was). They just provide the battleground for the egos.

All I can say is - yawn -
 
Serin said:
+ 1 Endless, vacuous arguments about a vastly complex issue on the basis of little or partial information and differences in world view and values that are not grounded simply in facts. Anyone can cherry pick from a vast array of "facts" in any case, in order to rationalise their own viewpoint. The ground has been raked over countless times before. Nobody will persuade anybody else to change their minds and Sybarite seems determined never to let it go. Seems to me it stopped being about the RNLI and SNSM in any meaningful sense long ago (if it ever was). They just provide the battleground for the egos.

All I can say is - yawn -
Click to expand...


+1!

Life is too short for this wrangling over stuff that is not important.

If the RNLI do not act within the strict charity regulations they are bound by, they will be censured.

If, with all their recources, superb rescue craft and fantastic volunteers they fail in their task, they will deserve to be censured.

Until then, if it aint broke dont fix it!

IMHO, of course....................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top