RNLI vs Daily Mail
- Thread starter Thistle
- Start date
prv
Well-known member
jordanbasset
Well-known member
As usual it seems to me another Daily Mail story full of lies, half truths and exaggerations
robertj
Active member
I feel the crews across the country are all the same, dedicated, who enjoy the job helping others and excitement thrown in the mix too. Good people who will go out in any weather to rescue or help us boaters. A credit!
The RNLI on the other hand is the corporate entity, where managers salaries and pensions a so high on the list by those who control (who are high level managers and managers themselves) the RNLI, that they forget what they are there for in the first place.
The RNLI on the other hand is the corporate entity, where managers salaries and pensions a so high on the list by those who control (who are high level managers and managers themselves) the RNLI, that they forget what they are there for in the first place.
Iain C
Active member
I think the Mail is the most vile, spiteful, hate ridden piece of bile widely available today that makes it's money by preying on the minds of the old and the weak. If I'd ran out of toilet paper I wouldn't stoop so low as to wipe my own arse with it. I often wonder if they deliberately get their facts wrong just for fun and to see how far they can push it. My mum once saved an article for me where they'd done a test on mountain bikes. The bikes were pictured with the forks on back to front...
If you don't like the RNLI, don't contribute. If you're then happy for some guy or girl to prevent you and your pride and joy from ending up on the bricks at 0300 for "free", make sure you tell them, eh? Yes, it's probably got a bit top heavy. Yes, it's probably not like the old days. Yes the "lives saved" numbers are a bit dubious. But when I hear the calls on an average weekend in the Solent, the majority of which tend to be wealthy yacht/mobo owners who have broken down/ran out of fuel/broken their steering/hurt themselves whilst engaging in a spot of yacht racing etc, I actually cringe that this is a charity...a very very first world one at that.
I thought the RNLI response was very well written indeed. I guess we'll never know what was on pornomug but I guess it was pretty serious. The RNLI is a soft target for them...and besides, you can pretty much guarantee that their average customer, Rupert Digby-Carruthers (who works in the city earning £350k, pictured here with his daughters, 16 & 17, frolicking in bikinis near Cows, Isle of White, on the deck of their wooden SunSurfer 45 which boats two 1500hp steam engines and costs 2.5m) voted for Brexit anyway so who cares if the donations dry up a bit anyway.
As you were RNLI, you'll keep receiving my "subscriptions" anyway..
If you don't like the RNLI, don't contribute. If you're then happy for some guy or girl to prevent you and your pride and joy from ending up on the bricks at 0300 for "free", make sure you tell them, eh? Yes, it's probably got a bit top heavy. Yes, it's probably not like the old days. Yes the "lives saved" numbers are a bit dubious. But when I hear the calls on an average weekend in the Solent, the majority of which tend to be wealthy yacht/mobo owners who have broken down/ran out of fuel/broken their steering/hurt themselves whilst engaging in a spot of yacht racing etc, I actually cringe that this is a charity...a very very first world one at that.
I thought the RNLI response was very well written indeed. I guess we'll never know what was on pornomug but I guess it was pretty serious. The RNLI is a soft target for them...and besides, you can pretty much guarantee that their average customer, Rupert Digby-Carruthers (who works in the city earning £350k, pictured here with his daughters, 16 & 17, frolicking in bikinis near Cows, Isle of White, on the deck of their wooden SunSurfer 45 which boats two 1500hp steam engines and costs 2.5m) voted for Brexit anyway so who cares if the donations dry up a bit anyway.
As you were RNLI, you'll keep receiving my "subscriptions" anyway..
Lon nan Gruagach
Active member
A job that is bigger and more serious than being on call all the time to face the serious risk of injury and death to directly save lives. I find your post rather distasteful.
oldgit
Well-known member
Daily Mail
Is there any truth in the allegation, that unless the writer has the reader hating and despising the subject of the article by the second paragraph. they get the sack ?
Is there any truth in the allegation, that unless the writer has the reader hating and despising the subject of the article by the second paragraph. they get the sack ?
RichardS
N/A
As usual, it seems to me another RNLI statement full of lies, half truths and exaggerations.
Richard
sailorman
Well-known member
You missed out the RSPB
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
As usual, it seems to me another RNLI statement full of lies, half truths and exaggerations.
Richard
Can you be more explicit? Perhaps explain (with sources and/or citations) exactly where the RNLI has lied in its responses?
In my experience articles full of lies, half truths and allegations come from some tabloid newspapers. My favourite fact about the Mail is that not even Wikipedia will accept citations from the Daily Mail nowadays as they’ve proved to be too unreliable.
Mark-1
Well-known member
Yes, unfortunately much of it has turned out to be true, and the only reason we know that is because the RNLI have published a massive 'rebuttal' which confirms much of it. (And gives the DM a terrific excuse to run a rebuttal of the rebuttal story keeping the whole thing in the public eye for longer.)
He's not drawing any value comparison. He's just making the point that people are willing to man lifeboats unpaid. People are not willing to do full time office jobs unpaid. Anyone can apply for a desk job at the RNLI and do it unpaid, or donate the bulk of their salary back to the RNLI. If nobody chooses to do that it's not the RNLI's fault.
If you want unpaid management in a lifeboat service you need to look to the large number of smaller organisations - the independents - who are often small enough for everyone to work unpaid. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_lifeboats_in_Britain_and_Ireland)
Last edited:
RichardS
N/A
The Daily Mail wrote: Posts currently advertised include a safeguarding officer earning up to £41,926.
The RNLI rebuttal: We’d much prefer to operate in a world where we didn’t need to consider safeguarding. But the RNLI has a moral and legal imperative to create a safe and inclusive environment where all our people, as well as the thousands we rescue and interact with, are protected from harm, abuse and neglect. For instance, our education team spoke to more than half a million children last year and our lifeguards helped more than 20,000 people on beaches. We have to make sure all those interactions are safe, positive and meet required standards.
OK, that's clear, the Daily Mail is bang on the money but the RNLI won't admit it. Is that a lie, a half-truth or an exaggeration ..... your call.
Richard
Giblets
Well-known member
A friend of ours has recently been involved with a national charity chasing a fixed sum bequest that was included in her late mother's will. First contact from them was three weeks after the death with a letter advising that they required the monies to be paid as soon as possible. When they were advised that probate had not yet been granted it was suggested that the beneficiaries take out a loan to enable them to settle the bequest immediately in order to avoid the possibility of legal action to recover the monies These charities employ VERY aggressive departments whose sole purpose is to recover bequests by any means.
laika
Well-known member
The Daily Mail wrote: Posts currently advertised include a safeguarding officer earning up to £41,926.
[...]
OK, that's clear, the Daily Mail is bang on the money but the RNLI won't admit it. Is that a lie, a half-truth or an exaggeration ..... your call.
Possibly "giving appropriate context"? They're making it clear that the organisation interacts with 10s of thousands of people every year including children. In a country obsessed by paedophiles you presumably want to ensure that people who interact with the public are suitably vetted and follow appropriate guidelines for interaction with the public. You want the person drawing up those guidelines, responsible for monitoring their application, and responsible for handling any issues arrising to be familiar with all appropriate legislation and best practices. A muppet in charge of this means increased risk to the public and potentially millions in legal costs to the charity. The "up to" salary there is still in the basic rate tax bracket.
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
The Daily Mail wrote: Posts currently advertised include a safeguarding officer earning up to £41,926.
The RNLI rebuttal: We’d much prefer to operate in a world where we didn’t need to consider safeguarding. But the RNLI has a moral and legal imperative to create a safe and inclusive environment where all our people, as well as the thousands we rescue and interact with, are protected from harm, abuse and neglect. For instance, our education team spoke to more than half a million children last year and our lifeguards helped more than 20,000 people on beaches. We have to make sure all those interactions are safe, positive and meet required standards.
OK, that's clear, the Daily Mail is bang on the money but the RNLI won't admit it. Is that a lie, a half-truth or an exaggeration ..... your call.
Richard
Its none of the above. The Daily Mail are trying to make something out of a headline for a salary that their journalists wouldn't get out of bed for. The RNLI is pointing out that everyone has to take safeguarding seriously. The RNLI don't deny the salary or the job advert and instead point out why its necessary.
Safeguarding is something that's a part of my everyday life (and Mrs M's) and we take the protection and care of young and vulnerable people very seriously and she and I have to receive training regularly about all aspects including the law. It reminds us that Jimmy Saville and others got away with things for years because people were too afraid or didn't know how to report their concerns.
Would you like one of our major institutions with thousands of volunteers (who last year spoke to over 1/2 million children etc etc) not receive adequate training because 'they are volunteers doing a good job'?
The salary is not excessive for such a responsible job. In fact some might argue that its on the mean side. Hopefully a suitable qualified and trained person will do the job and not worry about reaching their maximum earning potential, because they see the job as worthwhile and in a good cause.
You mentioned multiple lies and half truths in the RNLI rebuttals. You haven't found one yet.
RichardS
N/A
Excellent ..... so we're all agreed that the Daily Mail were bang-on correct so no lie, half-truth or exaggeration from them. Now let's all have a little think about why the RNLI didn't just say "This is correct and the reasons for employing this person are ......" :encouragement:
Richard
prv
Well-known member
laika
Well-known member
I think that taking a fact out of context and presenting it in a way deliberately designed to elicit a reaction which would not have been elicited had it been placed in full context counts as "half truth". I suspect you can surmise the reaction Mail readers would have to the term "safeguarding officer" without understanding the responsibilities it entails. I'm not entirely sure that considering the syntax used is a great use of our time but I would imagine that the phrase "This is correct and the reasons for employing this person are" is redundant if you are not refuting a claim but simply providing the missing context.
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
+1
The DM knew exactly what they were doing when they phrased their report in the way that they did.
It was RichardS who said,
He can't substantiate his comment on the RNLI email and is trying to wriggle out of his statement by obfuscation about safeguarding and salaries.
