RNLI vs Daily Mail

[Heckler]

I think trading activities is the profit generated by the RNLI shops around the country and online - all those bears in foulies and Giles cartoon Christmas cards.

2017
Income from trading activities = £10.7m
Expenditure on trading activities = £5.1m
Profit = £5.5m (some rounding error).

Which leads me to think that any receipts for providing lifeguard services is either in "charitable activities" (£3.7m) or "other income" (£1.1m). Neither comes close to the £20m cost of providing the service.

I too have a thing about shouty lifeguards. I can think of one particular beach near where I grew up that never had lifeguards when I was young. Frankly, it didn't really need them. No nasty undercurrents ready to sweep the unwary out to sea. I used to spend much of the summer holidays on that beach, swimming wherever I wanted. Never once felt in the least bit of danger. Now it is guarded and they get very grumpy if you won't swim in the tiny bit of the beach they have flagged off for that purpose, which therefore inevitably gets crowded. I'd still rather swim outside of the flags to get some clear water to myself.

Just for info, lifeguarding is not a council statutory responsibility. Denbighshire County Council used to provide some cover for its only beach at Rhyl. When the Socialist Republic of Wales govt started cutting its grant to councils then we had to find ways of saving money. One of them was to cut beach patrols, one of our members was a high up in the Rhyl RNLI and a way was found for the Rhyl RNLI to start patrols. I cant remember the details but IIRC they were provided free.

 

[dom]

Somewhat as an aside, UK workers benefit from one of the lowest state pensions in the OECD. They can look forward to 29% of average earnings compared to 74% in France. Offsetting this is a thriving voluntary/private pension system which boosts UK pensions back up to around French levels. UK private pension savings represent c. $2.5tn, approximately 100% of GDP. In France the comparable number is c.12%. France of course has higher social charges to pay for all this.

Different systems, both have advantages and disadvantages, but a good illustration of Tranona's point that the foundations for comparative analysis must be sound.

Re the 'shouty lifeguards'; I agree, there is a fine line between state and charitable funding here, but that is the nature of charities the world over: Medecins Sans Frontieres, Save The Children, Royal Commonwealth Society For The Bind, Macmillan Cancer Support, NSPCC and Age UK are all examples of charities parked right on this boundary.

The donors know this, are still very happy to give, so all is good.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I too have a thing about shouty lifeguards. I can think of one particular beach near where I grew up that never had lifeguards when I was young.

I was told at the time that the RNLI lifeguard services, having been sold hard to Cornwall Council, resulted in the displacement and closure of long-time beach lifesaving clubs, causing a considerable deal of ill-will.

Is there still an RNLI shouty lifejacket man at Salcombe?

I'd still rather swim outside of the flags to get some clear water to myself.

I'd do it just to be perverse, but then I cross against red lights in Germany just to see the looks of kleinbürgerlich horror on other pedestrians' faces.

 

[JumbleDuck]

... Macmillan Cancer Support ...

Macmillan is an interesting one, as I believe they only fund nursing posts for one year, but on condition that retain the brand name for ever. As a result, the overwhelming majority of "Macmillan nurses" are actually 100% NHS funded. It's a neat trick if you can get away with it.

 

[Sandy]

While I have Sybarite on ignore, as I have heard the same old, same old, year after year. It begs the question as he is an retired ACA or FCA why he is challenging the accounting standards that the RNLI accounts are been prepared against. Perhaps his questions should be addressed to the RNLI's auditor and the accounting standards body?

 

[Angele]

While I have Sybarite on ignore, as I have heard the same old, same old, year after year. It begs the question as he is an retired ACA or FCA why he is challenging the accounting standards that the RNLI accounts are been prepared against. Perhaps his questions should be addressed to the RNLI's auditor and the accounting standards body?

Whilst I haven't read all the way through each of his posts on the matter, I don't think he is challenging the Standards, but rather the numbers themselves and the way the RNLI senior management present them. No doubt he will be along later to confirm this.....

 

[Seajet]

Macmillan is an interesting one, as I believe they only fund nursing posts for one year, but on condition that retain the brand name for ever. As a result, the overwhelming majority of "Macmillan nurses" are actually 100% NHS funded. It's a neat trick if you can get away with it.

I don't care how they do it, they were an enormous help in saving the lives of my mum,, uncle and a good friend.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I don't care how they do it, they were an enormous help in saving the lives of my mum,, uncle and a good friend.

Statistically, it was probably the NHS which saved those lives. Hooray for the NHS!

 

[Sandy]

Whilst I haven't read all the way through each of his posts on the matter, I don't think he is challenging the Standards, but rather the numbers themselves and the way the RNLI senior management present them. No doubt he will be along later to confirm this.....

Let me know if he does. I'm the engineer in the family and my wife the accountant, from what she tells me the numbers are quite closely regulated.

 

[BelleSerene]

Statistically, it was probably the NHS which saved those lives. Hooray for the NHS!

Rationally, it was probably doctors who saved those lives and would have done so whoever their employer had been. Hooray for doctors!

More's the pity that neither they nor the patients they serve get a choice of treatment organisation in this country. But it's a bit perverse to give the credit to the monopoly organisation.

 

[Tranona]

I NEVER said that there was a connection. What I referred to is a question of perception. Ie Somebody thinks he is contributing towards the costs of a lifeboat whereas in fact a much larger sum may in fact be going into the pension scheme.



Shouts, fleet, lives saved are in the same ballpark. Only difference is that the SNSM operates at 1/10th of the RNLI's operating budget.

Back to the point “you’re wrong because I say so...?? Perhaps if you took the trouble to read what I actually say rather than jumping in to criticize what I don’t say.

It is you creating a perception by specifically trying to compare expenditure on boats with the liabilities of the closed pension scheme when there is no connection. The changes in valuations of the scheme have no impact on operational expenditure so why try to connect them? It may well be true that some will be surprised by the sight of large numbers changing, but you claim to be an expert so you should be able to work out what caused the change and any impact it might have. Instead you make a big issue of it where none exists. This suggests either you don't have a clue about pensions (the conclusion I draw because you have been advised by me in the past to read up on UK pensions) or you are being wilfully misleading because it suits your agenda.

Using simple measures as you are doing here only give a general picture of size of the two organisations. They ignore the environment in which they operate, the range of activities undertaken and the historical background of the two organisations.

It is these factors that create the differences and what you seem to ignore and, as I said earlier dismiss anything that does not fit your narrow view of the world. Imagine comparing the UK rail system with the French (or German, Italian, US for that matter). You would find some metrics comparable but most not for exactly the same reasons - the range of activities, the operating environment and more fundamentally the history of the two are completely different.

Metrics are useful in very narrow ways where the context is not relevant as in your simplistic measures quoted above. They are of little use though in measuring effectiveness in achieving organisational objectives.

I really object to you constantly telling me how clever you are when what I see is somebody who has very fixed views and is unable to see how anybody can have an alternative view. You remind me of the "consultants" I have come across in the past who come in to "sell" a preconceived solution rather than the more helpful type who first finds out about the the organisation and its objectives before working with the client to achieve those.

So, where I suggest that your statements are either incorrect or the "conclusions" you draw are false it is as a result of reading what you write.

 

[chanelyacht]

I am disappointed to find that my experience of shouty RNLI lifeguards (all testosterone and quad bikes on Porthgwidden Beach) was not unique. One could be a bad hiring decision or a good hiring decision having a bad day, but it's beginning to sound like policy.

It was not unusual for us (CG) to have to put as much resource into rescuing lifeguards trying to be heroes as it was to rescue the original casualty.

Quite what possesses someone in shorts and flip-flops to try and go 30 feet up a cliff to someone who was stuck but perfectly stable is beyond me.

I've also seen first hand how the RNLI created their own market for lifeguards, mainly by frightening landowners with stories of untold liability, and bullying life saving clubs out of existence. Much as they try to do with the 70 independent lifeboats, one of whom was threatened with legal action for having "lifeboat" in their name.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I really object to you constantly telling me how clever you are when what I see is somebody who has very fixed views and is unable to see how anybody can have an alternative view.

That really is a bit rich, you know.

Sybarite clearly has strong views but he puts them courteously and supports them with figures. It would help the debate if counter-arguments could maintain the courtesy and supply alternative figures. The constant refrain of "you're stupid ... you're ignorant ... you don't understand anything" is wearying and unproductive.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Rationally, it was probably doctors who saved those lives and would have done so whoever their employer had been. Hooray for doctors!

Doctors? Pah. WIthout the engineers and physicists they'd be helpless against cancer.

Anyway, whoever did it, Macmillan probably didn't pay!

 

[Blue Sunray]

Doctors? Pah. WIthout the engineers and physicists they'd be helpless against cancer.

:encouragement: It's a team game.

 

[Sybarite]

It is you creating a perception by specifically trying to compare expenditure on boats with the liabilities of the closed pension scheme when there is no connection.

No I am not. I dealt specifically with this point above. Reading?

The changes in valuations of the scheme have no impact on operational expenditure so why try to connect them?

It depends on your definition. You claim that a pension scheme is obligatory (no argument by the way) so one could argue that the RNLI could not operate without this charge. Whatever, it does enter into the annual results for the year. You might remember that the difference between two balance sheets represents the result plus or minus capital injections or distributions.

To simplify it for you, based on the 2016 accounts :

Total revenues ................................................................... £197.8 m

Less :

Fund raising costs...............................(£37.1 m)
Cost of charitable activities...............(£146.1 m)..................(£183.2 m)

Plus :

Gain on investments ............................................................ £20.6 m

Net income before pension costs ...........................................£35.2 m

Adjustment of pension liability : cost for the year............. (£67.9 m)
Or more than twice the SNSM’s annual operating budget)

Excess of costs over revenues for the year .......................... (£32.7 m)

It may well be true that some will be surprised by the sight of large numbers changing, but you claim to be an expert so you should be able to work out what caused the change and any impact it might have. Instead you make a big issue of it where none exists. This suggests either you don't have a clue about pensions (the conclusion I draw because you have been advised by me in the past to read up on UK pensions) or you are being wilfully misleading because it suits your agenda.

Whoosh – this is becoming tedious.

as I said earlier dismiss anything that does not fit your narrow view of the world.

I do not ignore things. I assess them for relevance which is why I know you have completely misunderstood the point I was making about the pension cost. As for a narrow view of the world I have worked and lived in many different countries.

Metrics are useful in very narrow ways where the context is not relevant as in your simplistic measures quoted above. They are of little use though in measuring effectiveness in achieving organisational objectives.

BS. This shows that you have no idea how a modern business works. If you cannot measure something you cannot know if you have achieved your targets. However I suppose you hold with the position that when you have so much money there is no need to fix targets. When you don’t know where you are going any road is good. I suggest you read up on Six Sigma.

I really object to you constantly telling me how clever you are

I have cited facts; you interpret that as me telling you how clever I am. I did however qualify as a chartered accountant. What are your qualifications for being able to tell me I know nothing about accounts?

when what I see is somebody who has very fixed views.....

"what I see" being the operative words. Limited of course when you have tunnel vision.

You remind me of the "consultants" I have come across in the past

Maybe but 25 years ago people were willing to pay £300/hr. So I must have been doing something useful.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

You view multiple RNLI station closures in peak season as insignificant local issues, how remarkable. The airline industry can be thankful you chose the IT industry otherwise I imagine that you would consider closing Gatwick airport on a Friday before a bank holiday as piffling local industrial turbulence.

The RNLI HQ elite have recreated a degree of industrial relations dysfunction not seen in this country since the 3 day week in the 1970's and dark days at British Leyland.

I think you're in danger of infringing Viago's copyright ...

 

[Seajet]

The NHS is magnificent,not 100% perfect but something the UK can be very proud of.

When a rather large Dunsfold colleague auxilliary coastguard announced he was going to be the demo' casualty at SIBS it turned out I was about the 50th person to say ' I didn't know they used Chinooks for SAR '

 

[Juan Twothree]

You view multiple RNLI station closures in peak season as insignificant local issues, how remarkable.......

The RNLI HQ elite have recreated a degree of industrial relations dysfunction not seen in this country since the 3 day week in the 1970's and dark days at British Leyland.

Could you please enlighten us as to which stations are currently closed?

 

[Heckler]

I was told at the time that the RNLI lifeguard services, having been sold hard to Cornwall Council, resulted in the displacement and closure of long-time beach lifesaving clubs, causing a considerable deal of ill-will.

Is there still an RNLI shouty lifejacket man at Salcombe?



I'd do it just to be perverse, but then I cross against red lights in Germany just to see the looks of kleinbürgerlich horror on other pedestrians' faces.

I used to do that in Germany too! The fraulein that I was seeing at the time, blue eyed blond haired gennydd mawr (Cymrogwyllt knows what that means!) used to look at me with horror! Is it a fineable offence?