RNLI resues 'stranded yacht'

[Sybarite]

Those of us not prone to ignorant indignation know that what he meant was that if the chartity giving public were fully appraised of the overflowing ££ coffers at the RNLI, their high budget spending habits and the low grade nature of much of their "rescues" which are little more than a marine equivalent of an RAC callout for rich boaters who skipped paying for a commercial service insurance, then if even if the public sent their donations to another cause the RNLI could live for a few years off financial reserves.

But thank you for giving me an opportunity to set the record straight in a Google indexed public forum.

Thank you.

 

[Sybarite]

Which is, of course, complete and utter nonsense because as you've repeatedly been told (and with your claimed background ought to know) funds given to a specific charitable cause cannot legally by diverted to other charitable purposes. The best the RNLI could do (and it could be argued should do) is to provide grants to the independent lifeboats

The RNLI would be breaking the law, and the trustees liable to prosecution and potentially imprisonment, if they gave money to, say, Save the Children etc

Nor is there likely to be a detectable increase in money given to other unrelated charities should the RNLI commit long term financial suicide by ceasing fund raising for a period

People who give to a specific charity do so, for the most part, for a specific reason and are unlikely to give as much, if at all, to other unrelated charities if their chosen charity shuts up shop

See post #120. Also, I had already replied to you on this point.

 

[Sybarite]

I do wish you'd stop making comments like this. They do your argument no favours.

Have you visited a modern RNLI station? They are a lot more than a "shed and a ramp"

Crew facilities, kitchen area, training room, kit store, maintenance facilities and in many cases a visitor area etc

Like the lifeboats, the RNLI is in the envious position of being able to build the shore facilities it wants rather than having to compromise because it can't afford it

See : http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?455899-New-boathouse (especially post #4)

Like the lifeboats, the RNLI is in the envious position of being able to build the shore facilities it wants rather than having to compromise because it can't afford it

Otherwise said it spends money because it has it.

 

[Bru]

See : http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?455899-New-boathouse (especially post #4).

That'll be a no then

(I asked if you'd actuality visited a modern RNLI boathouse. That's the best answer you can come up with?)

 

[Bru]

Those of us not prone to ignorant indignation know that what he meant was that if the chartity giving public were fully appraised of the overflowing ££ coffers at the RNLI, their high budget spending habits and the low grade nature of much of their "rescues" which are little more than a marine equivalent of an RAC callout for rich boaters who skipped paying for a commercial service insurance, then if even if the public sent their donations to another cause the RNLI could live for a few years off financial reserves.

But thank you for giving me an opportunity to set the record straight in a Google indexed public forum.

Those of us who can debate this issue without being insulting have been doing so for some considerable time

And before you dish out insults like calling me ignorant, just bear in mind that I am a former trustee of a major charity and better informed on the subject of charity law and fundraising than most

Sybarite, with whom I have agreed privately to debate this subject in a gentlemanly manner has his viewpoint, I have mine. We'll never agree but it's mildly amusing to bandy the arguments back and forth

Your interpretation of Sybarite's post is one viewpoint, however to me "Even if a significant portion of the giving were diverted for a year or two," appears to be a suggestion, and not for the first time, that RNLI funds should be used for other purposes

Moving on, you may have a point that some people would stop giving to the RNLI if the organisation was presented to them in the way you view it. But I think you'd be surprised how few people would give a hoot.

Most benefactors of the RNLI would, I venture to suggest, consider it unimportant that the majority of RNLI shouts are to numpty leisure boat owners caring only that the lifeboats are there when there is a major incident

 

[Lucky Duck]

+ 1

Nothing on any of the numerous threads have led me to reconsider my membership of the RNLI

Having been told earlier on in this thread that the French were self sufficient and wouldn't dream of contacting the coastguard such trivia as engine failure on a sailing yacht I was rather surprised to hear a French boat do just that yesterday morning.

 

[Sybarite]

That'll be a no then

(I asked if you'd actuality visited a modern RNLI boathouse. That's the best answer you can come up with?)

Have you visited a modern RNLI station? They are a lot more than a "shed and a ramp"

Do they have to be more than a shed and a ramp - especially as you already have a boathouse - just one that is not big enough for the Tamar?

(My French builder friend and his Polish mates would have raised the roof and widened the entrance in a month.)

It's because the RNLI have got into the habit of doing everything gold-plated.

£11,000,000 .... !!!

If I showed the French châteaux it's because I believe you lot have difficulty in conceptualising what £11M means...!!

 

[ShinyShoe]

I don't think that you got the fact that I used words like "potentially" and theoretically".

Nope. I saw the words but it seems your calculator doesn't know what they mean since you dived 170m by 15 and got 11million lives being saved...

However my major point remains: I believe that a better use could be made of charitable giving than is made at present. Even if a significant portion of the giving were diverted for a year or two, that would have no impact on the RNLI's operations, given their reserves.

I may be wrong but I thought the charity commission told them off for building up huge reserves. So they've basically been told by charity commission to either stop raising funds (I bet thats not that easy (legacies already committed etc) and very difficult to restart later) or start spending.

You may or may not need a boatshed for your boat but, £11m for a shed and a ramp - come on...!!!

Most of the sheds I've seen replaced have been c100 year old. so that's 110k per anum. If that station saves 10 lives a year that means the cost of the shed per life saved is £11k. In the UK our health service will pay up to £30k for one year of perfect life. So £11k for a life that I'd guess on the whole will be decent quality and last several years... No doubt you have the figures for RNLI costs and number of lives saved... ...I'd guess you'll find its less than £30k per life year gained... ...so move your efforts to health services and get them to stop wasting money on cancer drugs and start sending the money overseas to buy those vaccines that may save a life.

 

[Sybarite]

....since you dived 170m

Headfirst too!

I may be wrong but I thought the charity commission told them off for building up huge reserves. So they've basically been told by charity commission to either stop raising funds (I bet thats not that easy (legacies already committed etc) and very difficult to restart later) or start spending.

That could very well be the case. In which case it's immoral as well.

Most of the sheds I've seen replaced have been c100 year old. so that's 110k per anum. If that station saves 10 lives a year that means the cost of the shed per life saved is £11k.

And if the boat simply sat on a ramp outside? You wouldn't knock any years off its life because they have been soooo well built....!!

No doubt you have the figures for RNLI costs and number of lives saved... ...I'd guess you'll find its less than £30k per life year gained... ...so move your efforts to health services and get them to stop wasting money on cancer drugs and start sending the money overseas to buy those vaccines that may save a life.

£170m ; 460 lives saved. Work it out for yourself.

 

[dogleg]

Do they have to be more than a shed and a ramp - especially as you already have a boathouse - just one that is not big enough for the Tamar?

(My French builder friend and his Polish mates would have raised the roof and widened the entrance in a month.)

It's because the RNLI have got into the habit of doing everything gold-plated.

£11,000,000 .... !!!

If I showed the French châteaux it's because I believe you lot have difficulty in conceptualising what £11M means...!!

St Davids LB lies within the Pembrokeshire National Park, therefore planning permission and building regulations are very strict, with regard to building materials, environmental considerations etc. How strict are building regulations in France???

I doubt if the NP would have given permission for a breakwater and footpath you suggested as an alternative. Also the station also has an ILB, that could not lie afloat so a bh would be required for that.

My French builder friend and his Polish mates would have raised the roof and widened the entrance in a month.) They would also have to build a new slipway since the Tamar has a different hull profile to the Tyne.
I doubt the existing structure would support a Tamar.
https://www.facebook.com/St-Davids-Lifeboat-RNLI-202721266432833/

 

[Sybarite]

My French builder friend and his Polish mates would have raised the roof and widened the entrance in a month.

They would also have to build a new slipway since the Tamar has a different hull profile to the Tyne.

I doubt the existing structure would support a Tamar.

OK; give them another month to understay it and get a carriage which fits the old rails.

You have a lot of scope within £11,000,000.


Tamars, they are heavy things though aren't they?. Needs 2000 hp to shift it @ 25knts; the new CTT only requires 1300hp - which gives it a longer range: 400nm at 20 knts.

Obviously a better hull form.

 

[Sybarite]

But I think you'd be surprised how few people would give a hoot.

But I think you'd be surprised how few people know enough about the facts to give a hoot - there corrected that for you.

 

[Bru]

But I think you'd be surprised how few people know enough about the facts to give a hoot - there corrected that for you.

The facts are hardly a secret.

All of the facts and figures you've posted come from publicly available sources, mostly from the RNLI's own press releases and publications.

Every member gets the annual report and summarised accounts on their doormat

The cost of boats and stations are openly stated in fund raising appeals and press releases

And so on

People either know the facts and don't share your opinion or they are not interested in the facts

Sure, if you ran a major glossy press campaign presenting your opinion that the RNLI has too much money and is profligate with it there would be some impact on the level of donations, inevitably but that's a different ball game

 

[Sybarite]

The facts are hardly a secret.

All of the facts and figures you've posted come from publicly available sources, mostly from the RNLI's own press releases and publications.

Every member gets the annual report and summarised accounts on their doormat

The cost of boats and stations are openly stated in fund raising appeals and press releases

And so on

People either know the facts and don't share your opinion or they are not interested in the facts

Sure, if you ran a major glossy press campaign presenting your opinion that the RNLI has too much money and is profligate with it there would be some impact on the level of donations, inevitably but that's a different ball game

Define member.

How many members?

How many donors?

 

[jonjo]

Your interpretation of Sybarite's post is one viewpoint, however to me "Even if a significant portion of the giving were diverted for a year or two," appears to be a suggestion, and not for the first time, that RNLI funds should be used for other purposes

You propensity to gasp at misinterpretation to sustain your argument is an indication of the shallow depth of your position.

just bear in mind that I am a former trustee of a major charity and better informed on the subject of charity law and fundraising than most

A British charity sector insider... I view that more as a confession than a claim.

But answer this, are you concerned about mega charities that include commercial work in their activties? It is often stated here that the RNLI recieves no money from the State. How does this claim square up against the RNLI commercial beach watch division which is typically funded via contracts with local councils. Are the accounts completely separate? Is there any cross funding?

 

[chanelyacht]

But answer this, are you concerned about mega charities that include commercial work in their activties? It is often stated here that the RNLI recieves no money from the State. How does this claim square up against the RNLI commercial beach watch division which is typically funded via contracts with local councils. Are the accounts completely separate? Is there any cross funding?

Any charity's trading operation(s) are, by law, companies limited bu guarantee - i.e. they operate as seperately accounted businesses, but any surplus must either be invested in future operations or passed to the owning charity.

Exactly the same way as companies owned by NHS trusts operate, for example.

It's the same for RNLI Trading (the gifts business), or NT Trading (the gifts business of the National Trust).

 

[jonjo]

And before you dish out insults like calling me ignorant, just bear in mind that I am a former trustee of a major charity and better informed on the subject of charity law and fundraising than most

You and all your fellow RNLI lapdogs are exhibiting gross ignorance here and damage the RNLI with your crass attempt at a defence. These RNLI threads frequently get personal as Sybarite keeps to a factual argument while ignoring all sorts of personal flak. Putting aside the merits of the debate, Sybarite is a clear winner from the perspective of an impartial observer because of the dignified way he presents his case. There is an analogy in the House of Commons where this weekend the Times published a sympathetic editorial defence of the socialist Leader of the Opposition pointing out that for the first time in living memory the yobbo baying antics of the Prime Minister had to be recorded in Hansard with exclamation marks. Londoners made a protested vote last week against the nasty politics of an incumbent elite by voting a Muslim into office as mayor of a major western city. A pack of yapping hounds can think they have won the day after creating a lot of noise and later get blindsided by the delayed response.

The Top Brass at the RNLI must get frustrated by the clumsy defence posted by so-called supporters here. Everytime you attempt to shout down Sybarite he builds a bigger platform for his views based on a solid foundation of facts. The smart response is to say is "yes it is remarkable how the French deliver a highly credible lifeboat service for a fraction of the RNLI budget and then add I wonder what lessons could be applied to the respective services".

Then leave it at that. Remember Google is indexing you and the world is watching.

 

[chanelyacht]

The smart response is to say is "yes it is remarkable how the French deliver a highly credible lifeboat service for a fraction of the RNLI budget

which isn't financially supported by enough of the French population to be viable on it's own...

Neither service is perfect, neither does everything right, both have their flaws. They work in different ways - but only one needs taxpayers' aid.

 

[Serin]

A British charity sector insider... I view that more as a confession than a claim.

Meaningless comment. The charity sector is very large indeed and it would be odd if there was not the occasional problematical one. These are the ones that get the publicity, of course. But you seem to condemn the entire sector, from, I suspect, a basis of no evidence and very little knowledge. Sadly, too much of our public life is based on this kind of vacuous judgment.

 

[Sybarite]

which isn't financially supported by enough of the French population to be viable on it's own...

Neither service is perfect, neither does everything right, both have their flaws. They work in different ways - but only one needs taxpayers' aid.

If the RNLI received the same amount as the French do from the authorities it would represent about 2% of its income.

OTOH the SNSM have a sound fleet strategy : they are revising the need for large AWBs because of the change in the profile of the fishing fleets and in the future will limit their fleet to 3 models to achieve economies of scale. They are working on a new AWB that will be slightly smaller but more adapted to local circumstances. They have also proposed a 5 year stretch budget which becomes their target for fund raising.

FWIW the cost of the new boat shed at St David's represents in itself about half of the total annual SNSM operating costs...