So, what is wrong with the RNLI?

[oldfatgit]

It is apparent, from a number of threads, that there are some members who are not just sceptical about the Institution, but are cynical to the point of being disparaging about it. I for one am not and so, therefore, my views are of limited use, but given that we know that they monitor the bulletin board, here is your opportunity to state what makes you so uncomfortable. So, in as polite and articulate a manner as you can, please tell me what is wrong with the RNLI?

I will promise, as far as I am able, to answer your concerns in a polite and dispassionate way. Where I don't know the answer I will say so. I ask all other posters to adopt the same objective and dispassionate tone. If you find your ire is rising so high as to raise a hackle or two, then have a cup of tea and pause before posting.

 

[Evadne]

I don't like officious behaviour, in a charity or any other organisation. The RNLI are an immense power for good at sea, and the perception of this is that this good work on the ground is spoiled by some administrators who want to lecture us all. If the RNLI is guilty of this then it is:
(a) trying to force everyone to wear lifejackets, regardless of the conditions. Yes they save lives if (and it's a big if) you fall overboard, but prevention is better than cure, and a little risk makes life more enjoyable. We don't all go to sea in order to be perfectly safe all the time, or we'd be wearing goggles, crash helmets, steel toe caps and body armour as well.
(b) reportedly rescuing people who don't want to be rescued. I don't have any experience of this and it seems to be a very rare thing anyway. I'd like to hear how many have direct experience of it on this thread, as well as what the RNLI say about it.

 

[oldfatgit]

I don't like officious behaviour, in a charity or any other organisation. The RNLI are an immense power for good at sea, and the perception of this is that this good work on the ground is spoiled by some administrators who want to lecture us all. If the RNLI is guilty of this then it is:
(a) trying to force everyone to wear lifejackets, regardless of the conditions. Yes they save lives if (and it's a big if) you fall overboard, but prevention is better than cure, and a little risk makes life more enjoyable. We don't all go to sea in order to be perfectly safe all the time, or we'd be wearing goggles, crash helmets, steel toe caps and body armour as well.

I agree with the thrust of your comment here, however, are they actually applying force? Not really, yes it is a form of pressure, but easily ignored. I do wear mine more frequently as a result but don't feel forced.

(b) reportedly rescuing people who don't want to be rescued. I don't have any experience of this and it seems to be a very rare thing anyway. I'd like to hear how many have direct experience of it on this thread, as well as what the RNLI say about it.

Yes, we are dealing with a bit of hearsay here but, indeed, older incidents are likely to be irrelevant as training today may mean that it doesn't happen except where the facts are irrefutable. Nevertheless, I can envisage an incidence where they would wish to render assistance to me when it is not needed in which case I'd politely but emphatically thank them and carry on. I too would like to hear from any forumites who have had this happen to them.

 

[Ubergeekian]

It is apparent, from a number of threads, that there are some members who are not just sceptical about the Institution, but are cynical to the point of being disparaging about it. I for one am not and so, therefore, my views are of limited use, but given that we know that they monitor the bulletin board, here is your opportunity to state what makes you so uncomfortable. So, in as polite and articulate a manner as you can, please tell me what is wrong with the RNLI?

Like that donkey sanctuary in Cornwall they have vastly more money than they need, and instead of politely declining it or redirecting it to other good causes they are trying to expand the business into lifeguarding and telling the rest of us what to do. I like lifeboats. I don't like self-righteousness.

 

[sailorman]

Like that donkey sanctuary in Cornwall they have vastly more money than they need, and instead of politely declining it or redirecting it to other good causes they are trying to expand the business into lifeguarding and telling the rest of us what to do. I like lifeboats. I don't like self-righteousness.

My thoughts exactly & i have "Life Governor" Membership

 

[mikefleetwood]

But the lifeguards are done on a commercial basis, at the invitation of, and under contract to , the local authority or beach owner. As far as I know, it is done to make a profit, not as a loss-leader.

I know they do have a reputation for being officious, but people do get into diffuculties on the most benign looking beaches, and real rescues happen, often with the casualty admitting he's close to the last gasp!

 

[Ubergeekian]

But the lifeguards are done on a commercial basis, at the invitation of, and under contract to , the local authority or beach owner. As far as I know, it is done to make a profit, not as a loss-leader.

Do they need the money more than the local lifeguarding clubs they are displacing?

 

[Salty]

Lifeguarding

I don't have first hand experience of the lifeboats thankfully, but last summer was surprised to be told by RNLI life-guards shutting up shop at the end of the day that we couldn't swim from the beach as it would be un-guarded after they went home. The weather was benign and it was a beach I know well. We thanked them, waited for them to disappear and went in anyway - but in hindsight I was angry that I'd waited for them to go before swimming: it made me feel like a naughty schoolboy rather than adult with responsibility for my own safety.

 

[DogWatch]

Like that donkey sanctuary in Cornwall they have vastly more money than they need, and instead of politely declining it or redirecting it to other good causes they are trying to expand the business into lifeguarding and telling the rest of us what to do. I like lifeboats. I don't like self-righteousness.

Why are the donkey sanctuary expanding into lifeguarding?

 

[oldfatgit]

Like that donkey sanctuary in Cornwall they have vastly more money than they need, and instead of politely declining it or redirecting it to other good causes they are trying to expand the business into lifeguarding and telling the rest of us what to do. I like lifeboats. I don't like self-righteousness.

The purpose of the charity is to "Save lives at sea" and their concept of operations cites that they do this by providing lifeboats, lifeguards on a seasonal basis and education and accident prevention. Therefore, what you are objecting to is, in fact something very fundamental to the way they operate. They are not expanding, just doing what they have worked out to be the best to meet their purpose. As for the excessive levels of money, well their income last year was £167.9M and expenditure was £123.5M. The difference of £44.4M is not profit as they have no share holders to pay dividends to. In stead they are able to invest it to improve their service. So, your accusation that they have more money than they need is, at least superficially, true. Nevertheless, as a charity they will receive criticism from the Charity Commissioners if they over resource themselves and may be directed to curb their fund raising activities. Much more detail in their financial reports which are available on their website however, they invest their excess income in order to build up reserves which are intended to be between 6 – 18 months of income and are set aside to cater for the unexpected. Given this level of funding I suspect that they are in danger of trying to find ways of spending money rather than controlling income to match their outgoings but I would hope that this is something which the management team and the trustees keep a close eye on. Nevertheless at least it ensures a well found capability delivered by well trained volunteers using well found equipment.

 

[oldfatgit]

I don't have first hand experience of the lifeboats thankfully, but last summer was surprised to be told by RNLI life-guards shutting up shop at the end of the day that we couldn't swim from the beach as it would be un-guarded after they went home. The weather was benign and it was a beach I know well. We thanked them, waited for them to disappear and went in anyway - but in hindsight I was angry that I'd waited for them to go before swimming: it made me feel like a naughty schoolboy rather than adult with responsibility for my own safety.

This is a concern, as, quite frankly, you have the right to be the judge of what you can and can't do even if you were to get it wrong. Perhaps it is a matter of improving the training, I'd have thought that they should say "We adivse you not to swim from the beach when there is no lifeguard cover" or something like that. If they have a legal authority to prevent you then I'd be very surprised but perhaps somebody can enlighten us.

 

[sailorman]

The purpose of the charity is to "Save lives at sea" and their concept of operations cites that they do this by providing lifeboats, lifeguards on a seasonal basis and education and accident prevention. Therefore, what you are objecting to is, in fact something very fundamental to the way they operate. They are not expanding, just doing what they have worked out to be the best to meet their purpose. As for the excessive levels of money, well their income last year was £167.9M and expenditure was £123.5M. The difference of £44.4M is not profit as they have no share holders to pay dividends to. In stead they are able to invest it to improve their service. So, your accusation that they have more money than they need is, at least superficially, true. Nevertheless, as a charity they will receive criticism from the Charity Commissioners if they over resource themselves and may be directed to curb their fund raising activities. Much more detail in their financial reports which are available on their website however, they invest their excess income in order to build up reserves which are intended to be between 6 – 18 months of income and are set aside to cater for the unexpected. Given this level of funding I suspect that they are in danger of trying to find ways of spending money rather than controlling income to match their outgoings but I would hope that this is something which the management team and the trustees keep a close eye on. Nevertheless at least it ensures a well found capability delivered by well trained volunteers using well found equipment.

Thats just wot mutual building societies used to do,
cant make a profit so expand & or waste funds

 

[jonjo]

What's wrong with the RNLI?

As one who has accused them of being New Labour lap dogs, enthusiastic agents of Liberal Fascism and oppressors of the British People, you might expect I have a lot of criticisms to heap on them.

Well actually not a lot is wrong with them but since the sea is one of the few environments largely free of nanny State regulation I am extremely sensitive to regulatory encroachment and any role played by the RNLI in this process.

Not putting a tenner in an RNLI donation box is a statement of political protest from me. My view is that the RNLI has woven itself into the murky fabric of so much that is wrong with this country including obsessive H&S culture, State surveillance and the expansion of a State machine that seems to consider the general population as pre-criminals who need to be fined, admonished or educated.

Before I would consider an RNLI donation the organization would have to adhere to the following code of conduct for 5 years:

1. Stop playing with statistics and display a willingness to jump on those who misquote their stats when pursuing a special interest. Look at the RNLI Wiki, "returned to shore" is recast as "rescued". Next someone who wants extra Government regulation will reinterpret this as lives saved.
   
2. Stop these reprehensible forced rescues at the end of a megaphone.
   
3. Educate their coxswains properly on civil maritime law, so next time some Coast Guard prat misuses post Torrey Canyon enviro disaster law to force the rescue of a competent yachtsman, the lifeboat has the confidence to tell the CG to eff off.
   
4. Publish summary executive remuneration details for those whose salary and pension contribution breach £80 p/a. Back this up with a commitment to wind down executive pay to a £100k p/a ceiling. Surely there is no shortage of suitable superannuated RN officers prepared to top up their existing military pension with a £+60k salary?
   
5. Call a halt to the monopolistic corporate takeover of the beach lifeguard function. There are plenty of local outfits who have been doing this successfully for decades and it is outside the public's expected remit for the organization.
   
6. Muzzle the volunteer flotsam that use their tenuous RLNI association to jump on their own H&S soapbox and preach in the RNLI's name. Many here will remember the RNLI weekend junior RIB launcher who decided forum members needed to benefit from his H&S broadcast news channel. Cutting and pasting of RNLI public safety leaflets, intended for MR & Mrs Smith paddling on Torquay beach, into a forum like this does more harm than good.

 

[oldfatgit]

But the lifeguards are done on a commercial basis, at the invitation of, and under contract to , the local authority or beach owner. As far as I know, it is done to make a profit, not as a loss-leader.

Last year's financial report does say that they generated 2% income from "lifeguarding and other income". Not a huge percentage but it ensures that lifeguarding does not detract from their ability to procure and crew expensive lifeboats.

I know they do have a reputation for being officious, but people do get into diffuculties on the most benign looking beaches, and real rescues happen, often with the casualty admitting he's close to the last gasp!

The trouble with lifeguards is that they are likely to be young, I was once (and slim too) and it embarrasses me to remember how much of a egotistical git I was. The result was that if I could choose a poor way of expressing myself then I would. I suspect that these well meaning people are a bit the same and just need to be trained better on how to interact with the public or, more likely, need to gain a bit of experience by, well, getting older.

 

[oldfatgit]

What's wrong with the RNLI?

As one who has accused them of being New Labour lap dogs, enthusiastic agents of Liberal Fascism and oppressors of the British People, you might expect I have a lot of criticisms to heap on them.

Well actually not a lot is wrong with them but since the sea is one of the few environments largely free of nanny State regulation I am extremely sensitive to regulatory encroachment and any role played by the RNLI in this process.

Not putting a tenner in an RNLI donation box is a statement of political protest from me. My view is that the RNLI has woven itself into the murky fabric of so much that is wrong with this country including obsessive H&S culture, State surveillance and the expansion of a State machine that seems to consider the general population as pre-criminals who need to be fined, admonished or educated.

Before I would consider an RNLI donation the organization would have to adhere to the following code of conduct for 5 years:

1. Stop playing with statistics and display a willingness to jump on those who misquote their stats when pursuing a special interest. Look at the RNLI Wiki, "returned to shore" is recast as "rescued". Next someone who wants extra Government regulation will reinterpret this as lives saved.
   
2. Stop these reprehensible forced rescues at the end of a megaphone.
   
3. Educate their coxswains properly on civil maritime law, so next time some Coast Guard prat misuses post Torrey Canyon enviro disaster law to force the rescue of a competent yachtsman, the lifeboat has the confidence to tell the CG to eff off.
   
4. Publish summary executive remuneration details for those whose salary and pension contribution breach £80 p/a. Back this up with a commitment to wind down executive pay to a £100k p/a ceiling. Surely there is no shortage of suitable superannuated RN officers prepared to top up their existing military pension with a £+60k salary?
   
5. Call a halt to the monopolistic corporate takeover of the beach lifeguard function. There are plenty of local outfits who have been doing this successfully for decades and it is outside the public's expected remit for the organization.
   
6. Muzzle the volunteer flotsam that use their tenuous RLNI association to jump on their own H&S soapbox and preach in the RNLI's name. Many here will remember the RNLI weekend junior RIB launcher who decided forum members needed to benefit from his H&S broadcast news channel. Cutting and pasting of RNLI public safety leaflets, intended for MR & Mrs Smith paddling on Torquay beach, into a forum like this does more harm than good.

Too much to respond to on a case by case basis, however, though the RNLI is part of the establishment, it most emphatically is not part of the state. It is a charity which does well at fund raising and providing its services. It is able to do this because it keeps itself free of the bureaucracy that is Government. It is unfortunate that its aims dovetail with some of those of the patronising nanny state, but you can bet that without them there would be more legislation not less. The government cannot say that the provision of their services is a drain on the public purse. Perhaps they ought to take on the provison of Air-Sea Rescue helicopters so politicians can't accuse us boaters of being a drain on Coastguard helicopters.

 

[lw395]

Big Charities in general.

Too many salaried positions paid more than I am!

Have a look in the Grauniad jobs pages!

Inefficient
Wasteful
Self serving
Excluding and trashing smaller rivals
Empire building

There are other, smaller charities that are run by people who don't take a salary, do it in their spare time or retirement and deliver massive benefit.

It's kind of a fine line between a charity and a quango nowadays?

I don't think the RNLI is the worst, and I support the guys at the messy end, except when they blast around making a lot of wash displaying all the seamanship of your average GTi driver....(This isthe exception not the rule, but it does get noticed).

 

[Searush]

We're starting to get into the silly stuff now. There is nowt wrong with paying folk the going rate for the job. Running the RNLI is just like running any other business. OK a major part of the income stream is donations, but there are revenues & costs & investments required & staff to pay together with keeping volunteers happy.

A 25% surplus of income over costs is something many businesses would (and probably do) kill for, but there is a risk that the culture of "nothing but the best" leads to some excess spending and this seems to be evident in the building replacement policy - including their recent HQ & Training centre that also generates some income as a hotel. But their income depends on good will, they need to treat donors & rescued together as "customers" and keep them happy to maintain their current high respect levels.

 

[oldfatgit]

Too many salaried positions paid more than I am!

Have a look in the Grauniad jobs pages!

Inefficient
Wasteful
Self serving
Excluding and trashing smaller rivals
Empire building

There are other, smaller charities that are run by people who don't take a salary, do it in their spare time or retirement and deliver massive benefit.

It's kind of a fine line between a charity and a quango nowadays?

I don't think the RNLI is the worst, and I support the guys at the messy end, except when they blast around making a lot of wash displaying all the seamanship of your average GTi driver....(This isthe exception not the rule, but it does get noticed).

With respect to salaries, I think the RNLI is a victim of its own success. By having a small number of paid employees it does run a good operation which, given the nature of these posts, could benifit from some improvement when dealing with the public. However, it employs a total of 1,544 people of which 40 are paid over £60K. Total staff costs amounted to £53.3M of whcih £43M were on wages and salaries. That is an average of £27,849 which is not an excessive full time salary. As for the 40 rich earners, I wounder what they would be paid if they worked for an equivalent company. I expect that for the same responsibility they would be paid a great deal more. I also expect they are talented because, manifestly, the RNLI is a successful organisation.

 

[Skysail]

Overall I am an enthusiastic supporter but was surprised to read an RNLI advert that said 'only swim on a lifeguarded beach'.

If that had been the case in the past I would never have gone swimming in the sea......

I think that is a step too far.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Overall I am an enthusiastic supporter but was surprised to read an RNLI advert that said 'only swim on a lifeguarded beach'.

If that had been the case in the past I would never have gone swimming in the sea......

I think that is a step too far.

It's offensive, authoritarian and downright stupid. We've got some cracking beaches in south west Scotland, and not a single one has lifeguards.

What they really mean, I suspect, is "Parents, your children will DIE unless you persuade your local council to pay us for a lifeguarding service"

What's next - only sail when there's a safety boat at hand?

Stuff 'em.