RNLI vs Daily Mail

[lpdsn]

I didn't. I just said that it was suggestive that the real mugs have not been offered as evidence.

So you'll agree that the fact photos of the mugs weren't published by the Daily Mail is not evidence either way.

I hope they are published as I doubt any meaningful conclusions can be drawn otherwise. If they are indeed too hard-core to publish, on for example Sailing Anarchy, then that supports the RNLI. But so far they are the only ones using the term.

 

[john_morris_uk]

So you'll agree that the fact photos of the mugs weren't published by the Daily Mail is not evidence either way.

I hope they are published as I doubt any meaningful conclusions can be drawn otherwise. If they are indeed too hard-core to publish, on for example Sailing Anarchy, then that supports the RNLI. But so far they are the only ones using the term.

All the information points to it being more than about the mugs. Even if you saw the actual mugs in question and declared them to be soft core harmless fun, and even if everyone agreed with you, it appears that there was much more to this story than this. The mugs might only have been the catalyst for action that needed to be taken. From the self confessed reaction of the protagonist at his appeal hearing, it appears he wasn’t being very cooperative either...

 

[Blue Sunray]

Obviously I can't go into details,

Obviously, so the reader has to rate the usefulness of your second hand account against the postings of a current RNLI crewman.

 

[Mark-1]

All the information points to it being more than about the mugs. Even if you saw the actual mugs in question and declared them to be soft core harmless fun, and even if everyone agreed with you, it appears that there was much more to this story than this. The mugs might only have been the catalyst for action that needed to be taken. From the self confessed reaction of the protagonist at his appeal hearing, it appears he wasn’t being very cooperative either...

Agree.* Whether this was a cheeky boobie shot or hardcore bestiality, it doesn't matter - the images had no place on the Station and the RNLI were quite right to ask for them to be removed. The actual dismissals seem to be due to events that happened later both online and face to face. Certainly one of them was.

If the RNLI had really made harmless banter a summary dismissal offence there would be no crews left!

* Except the RNLI specifically say one of the two dismissals *was* about the mug. Personally, I think the RNLI PR guy got his words mixed up when he wrote that in a rather clumsy sentence, but who knows.

 

[JumbleDuck]

So you'll agree that the fact photos of the mugs weren't published by the Daily Mail is not evidence either way.

I still think it is suggestive that the real mugs have not been offered as evidence.

 

[dom]

I hope they are published as I doubt any meaningful conclusions can be drawn otherwise. If they are indeed too hard-core to publish, on for example Sailing Anarchy, then that supports the RNLI. But so far they are the only ones using the term.

Agreed, although depending on the images publication may not be possible. The RNLI will also be bound by confidentiality restrictions wrt to the dismissed crew member.

The problem for many is that the RNLI has conducted the hearings itself, as indeed most companies do. The natural next step would involve an independent judicial hearing, which takes us to the question of who pays for it..

Few RNLI donors will wish to see their money frittered away this way, and there is certainly no public interest in satisfying the prurient interest of a few hardened RNLI bashers.

Which leaves us with a good ol' social media bust-up where one is free to support either side -- fact-free support that is.

 

[Mark-1]

I still think it is suggestive that the real mugs have not been offered as evidence.

I don't think the mug images are useful but assuming they are, the crew may not have kept the mugs. I think a complete transcript of all of the social media output could clear the Crew and it's odd they haven't produced that, but again, if it was a whatsapp group or snapchat maybe it was all deleted long ago.

Be nice to ask the crew some direct questions about the detail of what happened. Anyone want to message Joe Winsper on FB?

Bens Laws, the other dismissed guy is quoted saying this: “I hope the RNLI do their job properly now and get rid of all the true problems at Whitby RNLI now, from management down to the snakes on the crew.” “Hopefully, they will see sense and wake up and see the real problems at Whitby"

"Snakes on the crew"? "real problems"? Seems there really is a great deal more to this than mugs.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/973571/whitby-rnli-lifeboat-sacked-protest-Facebook-twitter-post

 

[Mark-1]

RNLI quote from the same article:

"We recognise the years of dedication it takes to become a crew member and do not stand volunteers down lightly.

"One volunteer was stood down for social media activity which targeted a member of RNLI staff without their knowledge and produced graphic sexual images which went far beyond banter."

"The other volunteer produced a hardcore pornographic image of a fellow crew member on a mug."


I really don't get this. There's seems plenty of evidence of a massive back story here, yet the RNLI are again insisting that one of the dismissals *was* about the smutty mug which is exactly that the negative media is claiming and indicates that they do stand volunteers down lightly.

 

[Biggles Wader]

RNLI quote from the same article:

"We recognise the years of dedication it takes to become a crew member and do not stand volunteers down lightly.

"One volunteer was stood down for social media activity which targeted a member of RNLI staff without their knowledge and produced graphic sexual images which went far beyond banter."

"The other volunteer produced a hardcore pornographic image of a fellow crew member on a mug."


I really don't get this. There's seems plenty of evidence of a massive back story here, yet the RNLI are again insisting that one of the dismissals *was* about the smutty mug which is exactly that the negative media is claiming and indicates that they do stand volunteers down lightly.

Add to that the narrative that said the manager initially just required the mugs to be removed,which they apparently were, then disciplinary action was taken some considerable time later. Ive seen that scenario too many times in a big organisation and it has usually been more about personalities and targeting of individuals rather than any original misconduct.
Also.Im still not sure about what rights a volunteer might have under employment law as I never had any experience of volunteer "employees". It could be that if someone was refused representation at a hearing the process was unlawful. Perhaps our HR experts can comment on that?

 

[dom]

RNLI quote from the same article:

"We recognise the years of dedication it takes to become a crew member and do not stand volunteers down lightly.

"One volunteer was stood down for social media activity which targeted a member of RNLI staff without their knowledge and produced graphic sexual images which went far beyond banter."

"The other volunteer produced a hardcore pornographic image of a fellow crew member on a mug."


I really don't get this. There's seems plenty of evidence of a massive back story here, yet the RNLI are again insisting that one of the dismissals *was* about the smutty mug which is exactly that the negative media is claiming and indicates that they do stand volunteers down lightly.

Of course there's a back story, but that doesn't follow. You are assuming that the 'smutty' mug was risque Pirelli Calendar style humour. Perhaps it was, or perhaps as the RNLI has suggested it was a nasty mock-up designed to offend and hurt another individual. Perhaps the victim complained and was subsequently branded a "snake"? Perhaps those instagrams were thoroughly vile?

We simply don't know and the so-called 'evidence' here is only in the colloquial sense: social media chat and some RNLI PR statements. Neither is intended or required to conform with formal evidence standards.

Judicial channels are of course open to both the RNLI and the dismissed crew members, should anyone be bothered to pay for it. If nobody does, it is simply a question of, who are we going to believe?

 

[Mark-1]

perhaps as the RNLI has suggested it was a nasty mock-up designed to offend and hurt another individual. Perhaps the victim complained and was subsequently branded a "snake"? Perhaps those instagrams were thoroughly vile?

I can't find the source right now but I thought the individual's face in the mock-up was one of the dismissed guys? If not then yes, that would make it all make sense.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Add to that the narrative that said the manager initially just required the mugs to be removed,which they apparently were, then disciplinary action was taken some considerable time later. Ive seen that scenario too many times in a big organisation and it has usually been more about personalities and targeting of individuals rather than any original misconduct.
Also.Im still not sure about what rights a volunteer might have under employment law as I never had any experience of volunteer "employees". It could be that if someone was refused representation at a hearing the process was unlawful. Perhaps our HR experts can comment on that?

May I suggest that your connecting things together without being very thoughtful.

Middle management might have been aware of HR and E&D issues but are not experts per se. It's quite possible that the manager saw the offending mugs and said, "Sorry lads, but that's beyond a joke. I'm back in two days time and I don't expect to see them on station again." Hence the 48 hours.

All well and good - and what one might expect from someone trying to manage workers or volunteers...

However the junior/middle manager thens log the incident and mentions it at their regional meeting a week or two later. (As most people probably already know, best practice is that all informal or formal breaches of E&D are supposed to be logged - to check that there's no pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed.) The senior management say 'Whoa! that's not just a minor incident, we need to investigate." The volunteers take umbrage and are uncooperative and react (in the way that some of the people on these forums react to E&D) and the social media starts and the rest is history.

I'm not keen on second guessing what has gone on, but I simply don't believe that senior management at the RNLI are as incompetent as some people on here suggest. (I will declare an interest as I've worked for two of them at various times and they're as switched on and down to earth people as you can find on this planet.)

 

[Seajet]

I thought the RNLI was about saving lives, not a ' PC business.'

A huge shame other ' charities ' like the RSPB have gone the same way with highly paid executives, and wildly wrong political suggestions IMO.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I thought the RNLI was about saving lives, not a ' PC business.'

A huge shame other ' charities ' like the RSPB have gone the same way with highly paid executives, and wildly wrong political suggestions IMO.

They are about saving lives and they don't have any choice about having suitably qualified senior management. It's a multi million pound business that can't be managed by volunteers.

Pay peanuts; get monkeys.

E&D is a fact of modern life (and quite right too) Some of the outrageous things that went on years ago are now history because of E&D. Get over it.

 

[Blue Sunray]

They are about saving lives and they don't have any choice about having suitably qualified senior management. It's a multi million pound business that can't be managed by volunteers.

Pay peanuts; get monkeys.

E&D is a fact of modern life (and quite right too) Some of the outrageous things that went on years ago are now history because of E&D. Get over it.

+ lots

 

[Mark-1]

It's quite possible that the manager saw the offending mugs and said, "Sorry lads, but that's beyond a joke. I'm back in two days time and I don't expect to see them on station again." Hence the 48 hours.

FWIW my guess on the 48 hours thing is that it's evidence that the people involved were deeply uncooperative. 48 hours? Should have been 48 seconds. Take them out of the station. Into a car, into the bin. 48 hours smacks to me of a lot of debate/cajoling. That's just a guess, of course.

 

[Mark-1]

Add to that the narrative that said the manager initially just required the mugs to be removed,which they apparently were, then disciplinary action was taken some considerable time later. Ive seen that scenario too many times in a big organisation and it has usually been more about personalities and targeting of individuals rather than any original misconduct.

Maybe, or maybe Dom's theory is correct and the superimposed face image on the mug was an image of one of the "snakes" on the crew who got fed up with being bullied after a couple of months and offered the historic Mug incident as tangible evidence of what was going on.

 

[Biggles Wader]

May I suggest that your connecting things together without being very thoughtful.

Middle management might have been aware of HR and E&D issues but are not experts per se. It's quite possible that the manager saw the offending mugs and said, "Sorry lads, but that's beyond a joke. I'm back in two days time and I don't expect to see them on station again." Hence the 48 hours.

All well and good - and what one might expect from someone trying to manage workers or volunteers...

However the junior/middle manager thens log the incident and mentions it at their regional meeting a week or two later. (As most people probably already know, best practice is that all informal or formal breaches of E&D are supposed to be logged - to check that there's no pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed.) The senior management say 'Whoa! that's not just a minor incident, we need to investigate." The volunteers take umbrage and are uncooperative and react (in the way that some of the people on these forums react to E&D) and the social media starts and the rest is history.

I'm not keen on second guessing what has gone on, but I simply don't believe that senior management at the RNLI are as incompetent as some people on here suggest. (I will declare an interest as I've worked for two of them at various times and they're as switched on and down to earth people as you can find on this planet.)

I dont think there is much disagreement there apart from your belief in the abilities of management(RNLI or any other for that matter)
My experience of management over many years is that they are human beings,just as shallow and pig headed as any other human beings and just as subject to the usual human weaknesses. They just tend to be better organised than the rank and file so are potentially more dangerous.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I dont think there is much disagreement there apart from your belief in the abilities of management(RNLI or any other for that matter)
My experience of management over many years is that they are human beings,just as shallow and pig headed as any other human beings and just as subject to the usual human weaknesses. They just tend to be better organised than the rank and file so are potentially more dangerous.

I've certainly met my fair share of incompetent management as well, so you might be right.

Its the automatic knee-jerk criticism of the RNLI management that grates on me slightly. The chances are that they are no better or worse overall than lots of other organisations. That still seems to give some people on here license or excuse to pile in and make assumptions about something that may have been deeply unpleasant for those being targeted.

 

[Uricanejack]

This is all very unfortunate both for the RNLI and the Individuals involved.
The only fact is we don't know any of the facts. Who was right who was wrong. As a disciplinary process it should have remained confidential. Now the individuals are named publicly and their reputations tarnished. This will follow them and possibly affect future opportunities.

The RNLI reputation may have been damaged slightly but the RNLI will get over it. It hasn't changed my overall opinion of the service. Or the people who provide the service. It shouldn't its only about the isolated incident involved.

Where I perceive a problem. Is the lack of a dispute resolution process. It does seem rather one sided. When an employee is hauled up on the carpet there should be representation. If they are not happy with the outcome there should be means to revue the process internally.
Followed if necessary by an external process to resolve the dispute the employee or volunteer and the RNLI think is fair.

Possible an Arbitrator.
Ultimately some one who is not just another higher up RNLI manager. And definitely not a Newspaper