RNLI vs Daily Mail

[Thistle]

Can we take a short break there? I need to nip out for some more popcorn.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Stop trolling then and admit when you’re in the wrong regarding the post. No ones perfect not even you John.

I'm the first to admit I'm not perfect but you'll have to explain your reasoning to me or share some of what you're smoking.

I don't think you've actually read the thread and the bizarre accusation that was made. Bizarre is the only word for it. I called someone out for saying that the RNLI rebuttal was full of lies (it isn't) and they tried to divert attention by accusing me of altering what they'd said when I quoted them. The really funny thing is that they gave the example to demonstrate the point (and I assume it was a joke) as the quotes were identical. (They should have been as I copy and pasted.) Its not me that's trolling here and as soon as I realised that the person was using the thread as a little playground I stopped replying.

And now you accuse me of trolling! Where's my roll on the floor laughing emoticon?

 

[Heckler]

It was an example relevant to the issue in question. It would be equally wrong to put pornographic pictures of men up and superimpose images of fellow employees onto it. This is not a left or right issue so not sure why you brought that up, I would hope whether people are Conservative, Labour or Liberal they would see this was wrong. Are you really saying you find it acceptable in a workplace to put naked pictures of people up and superimpose the heads of fellow workers. This is not life on Mars, we are no longer in the 1970's, such action is considered sexual harassment in law and as such would leave nay employer opening to a large discrimination claim.
You may not like this and some others may not but any employer has to take action to deal with it. I may have got it wrong, but thought you were a councillor at one point, so am surprised you did not know this very basic point of law.

You are ignoring the point I made, there was a stand out sexist comment made in your quote yet you choose to ignore that and bang on about everything but that!

 

[RichardS]

It's not clear what you are drinking and/or smoking tonight but is it legal?

Whether it's legal or not, it clearly hasn't affected Robert's eyesight.

Richard

 

[Heckler]

Well obviously John Morris thinks it’s him

Indeed.

 

[RichardS]

The really funny thing is that they gave the example to demonstrate the point (and I assume it was a joke) as the quotes were identical. (They should have been as I copy and pasted.)

If we're supposed to take this literally, you really should have gone to Specsavers, John.

Richard

 

[john_morris_uk]

If we're supposed to take this literally, you really should have gone to Specsavers, John.

Richard

Perhaps you are in a different time space continuum to me and the pixels on your screen form different words or punctuation?

Here's my post:

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

And here's what you said originally and what you quoted yourself saying in the same post.

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

If you can point out the difference between these two quotes, please elucidate.
However as there is no difference, please don't bother and might I humbly suggest you've been called out on your claim that the RNLI statement was full of lies etc and that defending the indefensible might amuse you but its wasting my time.

 

[Heckler]

Perhaps you are in a different time space continuum to me and the pixels on your screen form different words or punctuation?

Here's my post:

And here's what you said originally and what you quoted yourself saying in the same post.
If you can point out the difference between these two quotes, please elucidate.
However as there is no difference, please don't bother and might I humbly suggest you've been called out on your claim that the RNLI statement was full of lies etc and that defending the indefensible might amuse you but its wasting my time.

Emoji?

 

[john_morris_uk]

Emoji?

And your point is?

 

[Sybarite]

Perhaps you are in a different time space continuum to me and the pixels on your screen form different words or punctuation?

Here's my post:

And here's what you said originally and what you quoted yourself saying in the same post.
If you can point out the difference between these two quotes, please elucidate.
However as there is no difference, please don't bother and might I humbly suggest you've been called out on your claim that the RNLI statement was full of lies etc and that defending the indefensible might amuse you but its wasting my time.

However I did point out factual errors in their rebuttal statement.

You may consider these honest mistakes (but if so, why are these guys earning the big bucks for what is a critical statement ?) or alternatively that this was a rebuttal destined to channel attention away from an inconvenient reality.

???

If the RNLI chooses to point out any factual errors I have made I will gladly retract and apologise.

 

[RichardS]

Perhaps you are in a different time space continuum to me and the pixels on your screen form different words or punctuation?

Here's my post:

And here's what you said originally and what you quoted yourself saying in the same post.
If you can point out the difference between these two quotes, please elucidate.
However as there is no difference, please don't bother and might I humbly suggest you've been called out on your claim that the RNLI statement was full of lies etc and that defending the indefensible might amuse you but its wasting my time.

Are you being deliberately abstruse?

What do you think might be the difference between:

"I firmly believe that the Daily Mail always prints the absolute truth", and

"I firmly believe that the Daily Mail always prints the absolute truth. "

Perhaps I might be expressing one of these opinions with a tinge of embarrassment? Now, why would that be?

Richard

 

[jonjo10]

What's the problem exactly?

Given the large amount of evidence generated by RNLI HQ in the past 4 years I assume that is a rhetorical question. For those who spend most of their time on Planet Zog or the YBW/Lounge I shall explain.

The RNLI styles itself as "the charity that saves lives at sea". This stated objective contrasts strongly with the principal competence demonstrated by RNLI HQ which is to alienate front-line lifeboat crews leading to station closures and/or the sudden departure of a vast amount of accumulated expertise.

 

[Heckler]

Given the large amount of evidence generated by RNLI HQ in the past 4 years I assume that is a rhetorical question. For those who spend most of their time on Planet Zog or the YBW/Lounge I shall explain.

The RNLI styles itself as "the charity that saves lives at sea". This stated objective contrasts strongly with the principal competence demonstrated by RNLI HQ which is to alienate front-line lifeboat crews leading to station closures and/or the sudden departure of a vast amount of accumulated expertise.

Exactly! Nail on head and all the spin etc wont change that fact! The biggest contributor base can see that and will be alienated by it!
PS JMU, I dont know whether it was "late at night" when you did your "and your point is" but I could see, and so could others what Richard had to spell out for the second time! You missed out the emoji, which in online "debates" is a cardinal sin because they are used because body language doesnt "work" on inet forums! (see what I did there?) Didnt they teach you that?

 

[laika]

For those who spend most of their time on Planet Zog or the YBW/Lounge I shall explain.

I'm sure that the authority with which you present this argument will cause the editor of the Zog Daily Gleaner to overlook posts like this contrasting one in future.

Congratulations on reaching double figures btw.

 

[jonjo10]

What do we know about this local staff manager?

I get the impression she is part of a new of salaried professional tier of regional management dispatched from RNLI HQ to institute direct party control in the RNLI provinces. Such a desperate tactic has been employed by other dictatorships in history.

Stalin feared that the Red Army might host an alternative powerbase and so created a new tier of commissars who exercised draconian political thought control over frontline troops. They followed the Red Army into battle with a pistol and shot their own soldiers in the back when they suspected political incorrectness.

Frontline RNLI crew must look forward to a long shout because unlike Stalin's commissars who actually walked into battle, these 21st century RNLI commissars will be left at the top of the launch ramp having a hissie fit waving their grievance procedures. The respite is brief, the RNLI will shoot them in the back after they have saved lives.

 

[jonjo10]

Congratulations on reaching double figures btw.

Thank you. I am not sure there was a Jonjo9 but heyho quantitative easing is fashionable these days within the Elite, I am sure Commissar Morris is fastpath me back into the Lounge.

 

[maxi77]

Given the large amount of evidence generated by RNLI HQ in the past 4 years I assume that is a rhetorical question. For those who spend most of their time on Planet Zog or the YBW/Lounge I shall explain.

The RNLI styles itself as "the charity that saves lives at sea". This stated objective contrasts strongly with the principal competence demonstrated by RNLI HQ which is to alienate front-line lifeboat crews leading to station closures and/or the sudden departure of a vast amount of accumulated expertise.

How exactly then do you suggest the 'management; deal with staff or volunteers who fail to comply with the law? Losing experience is always to be avoided if possible but if they bring the organisation into disrepute and their actions are likely to result in legal action and the discouragement of new volunteers joining there may be some justification.

 

[Heckler]

How exactly then do you suggest the 'management; deal with staff or volunteers who fail to comply with the law? Losing experience is always to be avoided if possible but if they bring the organisation into disrepute and their actions are likely to result in legal action and the discouragement of new volunteers joining there may be some justification.

"bring the organisation in to disrepute" And who is the judge of that? On the evidence so far it is the jobsworths from RNLI towers!
So your argument falls at the first hurdle!
Typical modern pc justification!

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Given the large amount of evidence generated by RNLI HQ in the past 4 years I assume that is a rhetorical question. For those who spend most of their time on Planet Zog or the YBW/Lounge I shall explain.

The RNLI styles itself as "the charity that saves lives at sea". This stated objective contrasts strongly with the principal competence demonstrated by RNLI HQ which is to alienate front-line lifeboat crews leading to station closures and/or the sudden departure of a vast amount of accumulated expertise.

The last time I checked they were still a charity and still saving lives at sea. Further a quick sample poll of the three lifeboat crewmen that I know also suggested that, whilst things weren't perfect, they certainly weren't especially unhappy with the way things are being run - in other words pretty much the same as anyone in a large organisation. I don't know how many stations there in the UK but I've only heard of a few issues out of them all, which doesn't exactly equate to a vast amount. I would expect higher standards of discipline from a lifeboat crew, not lower, and the little information available doesn't suggest that that's the case, resulting in management dealing with it. Good on them - I'd have a problem if they didn't.

I do have issues with some of their fundraising practices but that's a very separate issue.

 

[penberth3]

"bring the organisation in to disrepute" And who is the judge of that? On the evidence so far it is the jobsworths from RNLI towers!...

You've got that the wrong way round. If anything, it's the small number of disaffected individuals who have taken to social media who are bringing the organisation into disrepute.