RNLI vs Daily Mail

[Babylon]

When I lived in North Devon twenty years ago, a regular in my local pub would hold forth loudly from one corner of the bar with all sorts of obnoxious opinions. When he'd left, I'd scan the various papers left lying on the tables - his topics and opinions were always, predictably lifted verbatim from the Daily Mail. The shocking thing however is that he was the head-teacher of a local primary school!

I was obliquely reminded of him yesterday. Whilst having lunch in a cafe in the Cotswolds, a primly-dressed but pinched-faced woman seated at an adjacent table kept looking around suspiciously then whispering to her elderly mute mother "Coming here, taking all our jobs!"

You couldn't really make it up... unless you were the Daily Mail of course!

 

[Uricanejack]

Well I haven't read the Daily Mail. or the E mail. I don't know any of the facts. In any of the recent tales of crew replacement at the RNLI.

I still hold the opinion the UK is lucky to have such an organisation. From all accounts they are among the best in the world at what they do. Its also one of the most successful charities in the world. I have no doubt if you want to look at any large organisation it will be possible to find and criticize many of their policies.

Safeguarding is not a term I have heard before. I think we use other terms, which change, about mutual respect, bulling harassment, diversity, and politically correct.

In my regular life. Nothing to do with sailing. I am part of a large corporate organisation. I am all to often involved in some of these issues representing the accused or accuser. guilty and not so guilty. Many of the people I assist, come from offshore, fishing, out of the woods, mining, engineering, ex military. Who now work alongside people who don't. Many of whom are women, and many other diverse groups.

The corporation spends tons of money on training, education, Even so it never ceases to amaze me what goes on.

I am not a lawyer I don't give legal advice. Just a rep.
My advice is always, OK doesn't matter how bad it is, If you tell the truth acknowledge what you did or didn't do, accept it was out of order, I may be able to help you. If you get caught lying or refuse to accept responsibly I almost certainly wont be able to help you.

OK what is this all about.

The vast majority of times. Dealing with corporate professionals, Due process is followed. They act fairly, They give people chances and opportunities to change. The vast majority of occasions, If someone is truthful, They get another chance. If not they end up in deeper shit. Occasionally something is so serious, There is only one inevitable outcome.

My experience, after having been involved in many of these types of investigations. 90% of the time the story I hear in the lunch room is BS. At best its a rosy picture of one side of the story.
I always hear one side of a story first. Then I hear the other. Often the truth is hard to determine. Its almost never one side or the other.

Like it or not. Respect in the work place is required. Maybe the story off the mugs is an over reaction. Maybe it is not.

 

[Mark-1]

90% of the time the story I hear in the lunch room is BS. At best its a rosy picture of one side of the story..

Agree, and that that's what several of us were saying in the last thread on this: there must be more to the story. Now we've heard the RNLI's side of the story and it turns out they agree the problem was the smuttyness of the mugs, not that there was more to the story.

 

[dom]

Agree, and that that's what several of us were saying in the last thread on this: there must be more to the story. Now we've heard the RNLI's side of the story and it turns out they agree the problem was the smuttyness of the mugs, not that there was more to the story.

That is not correct: the RNLI email simply clarifies the nature of the images printed on the mugs and explicitly desists from going into further details of the case:

They wrote: A dispute between the RNLI and two crew members in Whitby revolved around ‘jokey Christmas gifts…including a mug with a picture of a naked woman on it and one of the crew’s faces superimposed on the model’s head.’

We say: While we don’t want to go over individual issues, we think it’s important to dispel this particular myth. The images involved were hard core, graphic pornography that even tabloid newspapers would not print. The mock up images reported in the newspapers are nothing like those involved in this issue.​

 

[Mark-1]

That is not correct: the RNLI email simply clarifies the nature of the images printed on the mugs and explicitly desists from going into further details of the case:

They wrote: A dispute between the RNLI and two crew members in Whitby revolved around ‘jokey Christmas gifts…including a mug with a picture of a naked woman on it and one of the crew’s faces superimposed on the model’s head.’

We say: While we don’t want to go over individual issues, we think it’s important to dispel this particular myth. The images involved were hard core, graphic pornography that even tabloid newspapers would not print. The mock up images reported in the newspapers are nothing like those involved in this issue.​

They do go into detail of the case. They explain the mugs were *really* rude. They had no need to go into detail at all, if there was more to it they could have just said there was "more to it" than smutty mugs and left it at that. It's a stretch of credibility to think the RNLI are willing to give that detail but not say anything that would demonstrate their actions were reasonable.

I accept it's a bit of an argument from silence but enough to change my mind and I suspect a lot of others who thought, like me, there must have been more to this.

And yes they're right, it is important to dispel this particular myth. So why didn't they dispel it? As far as I can see the RNLI aren't even attempting to deny that "A dispute between the RNLI and two crew members in Whitby revolved around ‘jokey Christmas gifts…including a mug with a picture of a naked woman on it and one of the crew’s faces superimposed on the model’s head.’ ."

 

[dom]

They do go into detail of the case. They explain the mugs were *really* rude. They had no need to go into detail at all, if there was more to it they could have just said there was "more to it" than smutty mugs and left it at that. It's a stretch of credibility to think the RNLI are willing to give that detail but not say anything that would demonstrate their actions were reasonable.

I accept it's a bit of an argument from silence but enough to change my mind and I suspect a lot of others who thought, like me, there must have been more to this.

And yes they're right, it is important to dispel this particular myth. So why didn't they dispel it? As far as I can see the RNLI aren't even attempting to deny that "A dispute between the RNLI and two crew members in Whitby revolved around ‘jokey Christmas gifts…including a mug with a picture of a naked woman on it and one of the crew’s faces superimposed on the model’s head.’ ."

The RNLI is simply not commenting further: neither confirming nor denying anything.

It seems the Daily Mail had a pop at the RNLI, the RNLI has responded and, even for those who harbour suspicions, there really aren't sufficient facts to get worked up over here.

 

[Juan Twothree]

They do go into detail of the case. They explain the mugs were *really* rude. They had no need to go into detail at all, if there was more to it they could have just said there was "more to it" than smutty mugs and left it at that. It's a stretch of credibility to think the RNLI are willing to give that detail but not say anything that would demonstrate their actions were reasonable.

I accept it's a bit of an argument from silence but enough to change my mind and I suspect a lot of others who thought, like me, there must have been more to this.

And yes they're right, it is important to dispel this particular myth. So why didn't they dispel it? As far as I can see the RNLI aren't even attempting to deny that "A dispute between the RNLI and two crew members in Whitby revolved around ‘jokey Christmas gifts…including a mug with a picture of a naked woman on it and one of the crew’s faces superimposed on the model’s head.’ ."

The original reports stated that there was also a social media campaign of inappropriate material targeted at the RNLI staff member who had originally noticed the mugs.

She had asked the individuals concerned to remove the mugs from the station, which would have ended the matter there and then. However, they decided to make an issue of it, and it all snowballed from there.

 

[Mark-1]

The original reports stated that there was also a social media campaign of inappropriate material targeted at the RNLI staff member who had originally noticed the mugs.

Indeed, you're right, in fact it was me who posted this from LP in the other thread about mug-gate:

"there were “serious conduct issues” about social media activity which “targeted a member of the RNLI staff”."

I've changed my mind back about mug-gate. Must be more to it.

I haven't changed my mind about the document. It's mental. Utterly mental. Why omit the quotes above from your rebuttal?

 

[Mark-1]

The RNLI is simply not commenting further: neither confirming nor denying anything.

Indeed. Or to put it the way I put it, they said it needed dispelling and then didn't dispel it. Now JTT has reminded us they could easily have dispelled it, and had done previously. Instead they've just repeated it verbatim for all their members to see.

 

[maxi77]

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

Sorrybut as ever the Wail is the one in the wrong. Every organisation tgat deals in some way with vulnerable people and childrsn is required by law to co sider safeguarding and should an inciddnt occur the RNLI would be liable fir considerable damages so oerhaps the salary is a good investment.

To understand how the Wail operates see https://stopfundinghate.org.uk. Whilst perhaps not as bad as the Express the Wail used fake photos to pillory our troops and as some one else pointed out is nit worthy of being used as toilet paper.

 

[penberth3]

The original reports stated that there was also a social media campaign of inappropriate material targeted at the RNLI staff member who had originally noticed the mugs...

Isn't this a common factor in all the recent cases? The RNLI quite rightly treated internal disciplinary matters as confidential. The individuals involved chose to use "social media" to give one side of the story.

 

[Juan Twothree]

Isn't this a common factor in all the recent cases? The RNLI quite rightly treated internal disciplinary matters as confidential. The individuals involved chose to use "social media" to give one side of the story.

It is indeed. And at the risk of going off on a tangent, here is something else to consider.

All of the newspaper reports, and much of the discussion on here, has cited overbearing RNLI management, interfering in the day to day running of stations, as being behind the recent disputes. However, from my perspective, it has been a lack of managerial oversight, over many years, that has allowed the RNLI to get into this situation..

Stations used to have an annual inspection, lasting maybe a day or so, which for many was the only contact they had all year with anyone from the wider RNLI. Stations were almost automonous, and it's easy to see how bad practices and relationships could develop unchecked. All it takes is for one or two strong characters to decide that, for example, they aren't going to participate in the RNLI's crew training programme, or that they can ignore SOPs and come up with a quicker (but far more dangerous) way of using a particular piece of kit, or that they can appoint or sack crew members based solely on family connections or long-standing feuds. The list goes on.

By the time news of such things reached Poole, maybe because of a serious accident, or half the crew walking out, the damage was already done.

Part of the idea of the Area Managers is that they get to each station every few weeks, can talk to all of the crew and local fundraisers, and can nip any problems in the bud before they become more serious.

 

[Kukri]

That does make sense.

 

[laika]

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 revisited the daily mail article in question to check the above was fair. It turns out to be an understatement. The Mail is deliberately misleading regarding this job function and much as I hate using politico-speak...this is the most blatant illustration of the concept of "dog whistle" I've seen for a while.

Evidence of this apparent trend — typical of the way the Left has taken hold of so many public bodies — can perhaps be seen in the RNLI’s annual report.
[...]
It has a ‘new national team of health, safety and environment advisers’ winning ‘health and safety’ awards, speaks of creating a ‘diversity leadership group’ among staff and supporting the ‘International Day Against Homophobia.’
Posts currently advertised include a ‘safeguarding officer’ earning up to £41,926 — a job that generally involves responsibility for ‘health, safety and wellbeing’.

"health and safety" is MailReaderSpeak for "pointless bureaucracy". "wellbeing" is a fluffy phrase evocative of mindfulness and days of spa treatment. I contend that the role of the person responsible for the safety of children and vulnerable people and the reputation of RNLI staff in their interactions in this massive organisation and protection of the charity from issues arising therefrom is being ridiculously mis-represented to the "less critically thinking" readership for a cheap political point.

I'm not one to criticise the traditional whipping boys of one political faction just for the sake of it but that article is shameful.

 

[penberth3]

I revisited the daily mail article in question to check the above was fair. It turns out to be an understatement. The Mail is deliberately misleading regarding this job function and much as I hate using politico-speak...this is the most blatant illustration of the concept of "dog whistle" I've seen for a while.



"health and safety" is MailReaderSpeak for "pointless bureaucracy". "wellbeing" is a fluffy phrase evocative of mindfulness and days of spa treatment. I contend that the role of the person responsible for the safety of children and vulnerable people and the reputation of RNLI staff in their interactions in this massive organisation and protection of the charity from issues arising therefrom is being ridiculously mis-represented to the "less critically thinking" readership for a cheap political point.

I'm not one to criticise the traditional whipping boys of one political faction just for the sake of it but that article is shameful.

Another sensible explanation. Complying with the law isn't optional, there's a lot of it to deal with so organisations (including the DM, of course) employ specialists, what's the problem with that?

 

[Seajet]

I have often seen ' Health and Safety ' used as an excuse by clueless middle management, especially councils -

However when I was a technical photographer at BAe Dunsfold I often accompanied our H & S chap Neville to record anything he discovered; he was a seriously good engineer, and this was an active testing airfield dealing with Harriers ( a Harrier at full chat will suck a bloke off the floor and mince him, or the back end barbecue him ) and Hawks and people around people, plus going on the hangar roofs to check everything was OK.

He is a proper engineer - also very nice bloke to deal with - and would not use H & S as an excuse for ' I dunno / maybe we've left something like a big hole for public to fall into / it's not my problem / serving people properly cannot be done as it's an H&S issue ' ...

 

[RichardS]

Perhaps, but it made me smile.

Thank God that someone's spotted the smileys.

It must be the change in weather that's giving rise to a late burst of SAD on here.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

It was RichardS who said, "As usual, it seems to me another RNLI statement full of lies, half truths and exaggerations"

Except that that isn't what RichardS said.

What he said was "As usual, it seems to me another RNLI statement full of lies, half truths and exaggerations "

Editing a quote to suit one's own agenda ..... now that is a typical Daily Mail trick.

Richard

 

[Sybarite]

Can you be more explicit? Perhaps explain (with sources and/or citations) exactly where the RNLI has lied in its responses?

This is what the RNLI wrote :

"We say: Our assets, on the whole, are our 238 lifeboat stations, many of them in unique and challenging coastal locations; our lifeboats, which can cost more than £2M; launching equipment and our regional and HQ buildings and account for around 62% of our £712 million assets . It costs £180m a year to run the RNLI and we are advised by the Charity Commission that, to be a responsible charity, we have to have enough in the bank to ensure that if all fundraising stopped today we could keep running our crucial service for between 6-12 months. We provide an essential emergency service so it is imperative that we have enough reserves to continue our rescue service whatever happens. We also have to ensure we have enough surplus funds for planned capital expenditure over the next few years – the ongoing upgrade of our aging fleet and the provision of new lifeboat stations in some locations.

In 2016, our assets reduced by around £43M and investments reduced by around £3M, so the idea that it increases each year is simply not true."


Wrong.

Their assets in 2016 INCREASED by £16.1million .

OTOH their unfunded deferred pension liability (as calculated by their actuary) INCREASED by a whopping £57.7million in the year to £80.5 million. This meant that their net assets fell by approximately the amount they stated. In other words the fall in net assets was due to an increase in liabilities and not to a fall in assets as they stated.

As presented – IMHO - the explanation is either incompetent or blatently dishonest. (I don't think they would have released this to the press without first passing it to their finance people.)

It should be noted that the unfunded pension liability FELL by £30m in 2017. An increase of £57.7m one year and a fall of £30m the next would certainly excite my curiosity either as a member or as an auditor. Did the market value of investments increase so much in the year or did so many beneficiaries die off?

 

[john_morris_uk]

Except that that isn't what RichardS said.

What he said was "As usual, it seems to me another RNLI statement full of lies, half truths and exaggerations "

Editing a quote to suit one's own agenda ..... now that is a typical Daily Mail trick.

Richard

As I copy and pasted what you wrote, (without editing it in any way) I’d need to have a serious look into the forum archives to see why there is this claimed discrepancy.