St Helier

[lpdsn]

I'm bemused by the statement that "The coastguard ... was aggrieved as the AWB had been used for a purpose where there was no existing or imminent danger to life". As far as I can see from the published "shouts", the majority of RNLI launches seem to be to tow boats into port in circumstances where there's no real danger.

I was puzzled by that too as I've heard of quite a few instances of self-launching. I just checked my memory of the MAIB report into the loss of Last Call and spotted that the lifeboat got the OK from Humber Coastguard as they were self-launching. OK, that was a genuine grave and imminent danger but stories of lifeboats launching to tow boats in relatively benign conditions are numerous.

So if the facebook facts are at least moderately accurate (gawd knows if they are) what were the Coastguard doing trying to prevent the lifeboat towing a fishing vessel? Because that seems normally accepted elsewhere.

 

[lpdsn]

Utter balderdash.

I disagree with you there about Viago's post.

I think the RNLI are alienating people with their actions. They could have a position that they could win easily if it ever went to court yet still lose out big time in the court of public opinion.

It's an opportunity for the RNLI executives to earn their salaries.

 

[lpdsn]

The heritage railway world has recently had a string of accidents, some fatal, involving gung-ho volunteers treating safety standards as an inconvenience. The regulators are getting fed uo with that, and things are being rightly tightened up across the sector.

No argument there. But presumably the pay of the manager who mismanaged the implementation so badly he lost at least one volunteer is inline with the general charity industry approach of demanding salaries comparable to what competent managers could earn elsewhere.

 

[viago]

If a private vessel had turned up on the scene & offered the casualty a free tow just before jersey CG arrived on the scene what would the Jersey coastguard have said then?
They could hardly complain to the vessel giving the free tow - could they?
They could not object if the casualty were to accept a tow from someone else- could they
I am assuming that the CG had not, at that point, been legally contracted to give the tow; only notified of a distress situation.
So if the RNLI were the first on the scene , is there a difference?

a very good point. is it not every sailor's moral responsibility to lend a hand to any vessel he finds in distress?

is it only the rnli cox who is free from this moral obligation?

i dont buy into this "saving lives" argument at all. surely proactive action prevents such situations from arising.

 

[dogleg]

Facebook is useless for finding any specific information because of the stupid layout and the fact that all the posts are shown in extract form only.

If the posts you are referring to answer my questions about why the individual who originally enacted the Coxwain's dismissal acted in such an incompetent manner and whether they themselves have now been disciplined/dismissed or have resigned, please can you copy and paste the gist of it into here.

Many thanks

Richard

An allegation was made to the RNLI against coxswain for misconduct, what that misconduct was I still don’t know. The RNLI decided to investigate as any employer would. Mr Hibbs was more than a little angry at this and spouted off abusive emails to his managers at RNLI. They conducted their investigation anyway. They found Andy to not be at fault but due to his abusiveness over emails, previous behaviour towards the RNLI and at the station generally the manager decided to still sack him. Of course we all know what happened next, Andy asks the crew to walk out for him and strike. They crew walk and ‘discussions’ take place. The RNLI do not issue a full apology as is constantly being mid reported but issue an apology effectively saying “ sorry for the way that the investigation was handled, BUT your previous behaviour and misdemeanours was a contributing factor to how we handled it” the actual apology letter that was published seems to have been removed from most media pages for some reason. The RNLI told Andy he could come back but had to sign the Volunteer Code of Conduct again as a reminder as to how he is supposed to act. He signs it and then breaks it within a few hours. They bring him back in and make him sign it again. The RNLI then decide that to properly manage the situation at St Helier that they want to employ a station manager. Someone who is removed from the normal politic that go on within a station and has no real previous relationship with the crew. This would allow them to get an independent view on exactly what goes on there. This again makes Andy very angry as he would no longer be in control. He effectively becomes just an extremely experienced and capable boat driver. He fires off complaints to the RNLI about the manager that sacked him and believe the RNLI just dismissed his complaint. He then asks to work with a different manager and the RNLI say no, we can’t all just request a new boss if we don’t like them. Andy then probably after chatting to his ex politician friends decides that maybe he can go independent. He announces that St Helier wants to go independent, by the admission of one of his own crew, they have no idea of how to achieve it. Andy is hoping the RNLI will back back down and get rid of the station manager job and just leave them be. The RNLI don’t back down and we know how that ends. The RNLI will now be looking for new volunteers to be trained up and get back on the boats ASAP. Andy will try to source money for a new boat and crew, and need to find a new station and place to launch from. After all this they will then need to be inspected by Coastguard to prove they and all their equipment operate together perfectly only after all these inspections will they be deemed approved or declared status. This will all take many many months possibly a year, by which point the RNLI will have already crewed the existing station and boats and there won’t be any need for a second St Helier lifeboat.


this is the post to which I was referring it ties in very much with what we had heard on the coast many miles away, the issue between one complainant and the cox apparently goes back to the removal from the St Helier crew of the complainant and the refusal of the cox to have him b back after a medical which confirmed he was fit RNLI medicals are very strict if the cox sent inappropriate emails to his seniors that surely unwise

 

[viago]

Utter balderdash.

i have to admit, i had not considered that side of the debate. well argued sir, you should consider a position in the snp.

 

[mainsail1]

even if the rnli are 100% in the right, which is unlikely imho, i think the decision to snatch the lifeboat is perhaps the most self detrimental act anyone could conceive.

it will alienate both seafarers and the general public alike.

the rnli need to act and act fast in a damage limitation exercise.

i hope they are reading this.

In my view the RNLI had to remove the lifeboat as in heated situations such as this it may be deliberately damaged. In any event there is no responsible person to look after it on the Island as they have all walked out.
The RNLI have done what had to be done once the situation developed.

 

[viago]

In my view the RNLI had to remove the lifeboat as in heated situations such as this it may be deliberately damaged. In any event there is no responsible person to look after it on the Island as they have all walked out.
The RNLI have done what had to be done once the situation developed.

i see, so, by default, anyone who makes a stand against their employer is a potential vandal and irresponsible.
the property clearly needed to be protected even if lives at sea didn't.

thought about applying to acas? you could lead negotiations.

 

[Pye_End]

In my view the RNLI had to remove the lifeboat as in heated situations such as this it may be deliberately damaged. In any event there is no responsible person to look after it on the Island as they have all walked out.
The RNLI have done what had to be done once the situation developed.

I agree. And with no crew to run it, it is an ideal time for maintenance.

 

[RichardS]

this is the post to which I was referring it ties in very much with what we had heard on the coast many miles away, the issue between one complainant and the cox apparently goes back to the removal from the St Helier crew of the complainant and the refusal of the cox to have him b back after a medical which confirmed he was fit RNLI medicals are very strict if the cox sent inappropriate emails to his seniors that surely unwise

Yes, it is unwise ..... but depending upon what preceeded the emails, might well not be a reason for disciplinary action or dismissal. The full context is absolutely essential and the person responsible for dismissing must, by law, take all the circumstances into account which entails a full and fair investigation.

I'll give you an example which has some echoes: A systems analyst emailed the Financial Director (who had Board responsiblity for IT) and told the FD that his boss, the IT Manager, was fiddling his expenses. I met with the SA and he gave me examples of where the expenses had been fiddled. I then met with the IT Manager and he was extremely upset and angry that the Company had so little trust in him and immediately resigned. I said to him that if he was guilty then I accepted his resignation but if he was innocent then I would not "accept" his resignation and that he owed it to his family to defend himself. I promised him that he would get no favours from me but I would be absolutely straight with him.

We went through expenses going back several years and the only transgression I could find as reported by the SA was that he had phoned his wife long distance when he was away on a business trip and charged the call to the Company. In the circumstances, this was acceptable.

I told him he was in the clear and went back to the SA but he was still adamant that there was something somewhere and that his Manager was dishonest .... so I dismissed the SA. He took us to an Employment Tribunal and I represented the Company and the Tribunal found in my favour.

From the outside that sounds like an incredible turn of events but does show that you have to know every single detail to be able to take a judgement. All we know in the Jersey case is that the RNLI got it wrong but we don't yet know why.

Richard

 

[prv]

i see, so, by default, anyone who makes a stand against their employer is a potential vandal and irresponsible.

It's quite a common assumption, yes. Not at all unusual for dismissed employees to be constantly supervised until they can be escorted from the site, to ensure they don't steal or sabotage anything on their way out. If the terms of the dismissal are such that they're entitled to notice, they may still be removed immediately and paid to stay at home for the notice period.

Not very pleasant, but that doesn't mean it's not what happens.

Pete

 

[NorthUp]

An RNLI lifeboat can tow a casualty vessel if the Cox deems it to be the best way to save crew or prevent a situation escalating later- common sense rules.
But, once that casualty is on the end of a towrope, he has responsibility to them, what now skipper if a genuine lives at risk call comes in? Lifeboat tows should always be the last resort, and never if a suitable tug is willing and able.
This is the fundamental rule Andy Hibbs is ignoring.

 

[Mark-1]

I agree. And with no crew to run it, it is an ideal time for maintenance.

+1

Who knows the rights and wrongs of the whole fiasco but the RNLI were quite sensible to retrieve the boat once the crew chucked it in. It wasn't doing any good where it was.

 

[viago]

It's quite a common assumption, yes. Not at all unusual for dismissed employees to be constantly supervised until they can be escorted from the site, to ensure they don't steal or sabotage anything on their way out. If the terms of the dismissal are such that they're entitled to notice, they may still be removed immediately and paid to stay at home for the notice period.

Not very pleasant, but that doesn't mean it's not what happens.

Pete

i can tell you sir that i am somewhat an expert in these matters.

i have been sacked many times and never once been escorted from the premises. i have been paid to stay at home though which i thought was marvelous.

however, we are not talking about the likes of me, we are talking about dedicated and conscientious people who risk their lives for no reward, something i'd want significant rewards for.

for people here to suggest that they may be thieves, vandals, irresponsible saboteurs and all round vagabonds sickens me to my stomach and reflects very badly on themselves and this forum.

 

[prv]

An RNLI lifeboat can tow a casualty vessel if the Cox deems it to be the best way to save crew or prevent a situation escalating later- common sense rules.

I was under the impression that RNLI policy was generally to recover boats along with their occupants as long as it was safe to do so. Three possible reasons -

1. Historical background of service to fishermen in subsistence fishing villages - if you rescue the men but abandon their livelihood, the family would be cast into poverty
2. If people know they'll lose their boat, they might be reluctant to call for help until it's too late (the US Coastguard operates the opposite policy on purpose for the same reason!)
3. Common decency and helpfulness

But, once that casualty is on the end of a towrope, he has responsibility to them, what now skipper if a genuine lives at risk call comes in?

Drop the tow at that point - the vessel is unlikely to be in any worse situation than if it hadn't been taken in tow at all.

I believe one of the "Saving Lives At Sea" episodes recently showed exactly this situation happening.

Lifeboat tows should always be the last resort, and never if a suitable tug is willing and able.

That's not what I see in practice. Indeed in this part of the world at least, it's very common for a broken-down vessel to be safely under tow, with its crew safe and well either on board their own boat or the towing one, and for a lifeboat to come roaring out to take over the tow and carry the crew into harbour. Everyone involved is usually happy with this, as the rescuer gets to go on their way and doesn't have to worry about where to put the casualty or cope with the necessary close-quarter manoeuvering with an alongside tow, and the rescuees probably get home faster. But it's hard to argue that this is being done for safety.

Pete

 

[bitbaltic]

I was puzzled by that too as I've heard of quite a few instances of self-launching. I just checked my memory of the MAIB report into the loss of Last Call and spotted that the lifeboat got the OK from Humber Coastguard as they were self-launching. OK, that was a genuine grave and imminent danger but stories of lifeboats launching to tow boats in relatively benign conditions are numerous.

So if the facebook facts are at least moderately accurate (gawd knows if they are) what were the Coastguard doing trying to prevent the lifeboat towing a fishing vessel? Because that seems normally accepted elsewhere.

The Rock ILB also self-launched in response to the Milly incident a few years ago.

 

[dunedin]

In my view the RNLI had to remove the lifeboat as in heated situations such as this it may be deliberately damaged. In any event there is no responsible person to look after it on the Island as they have all walked out.
The RNLI have done what had to be done once the situation developed.

I think RNLI misjudged this. They are not a corporation, but a life saving charity funded by donations and largely run by volunteers.
By this action RNLI May make a small tactical gain, but a bigger strategic loss in terms of wider impact on their reputation. I have been an RNLI supporter for decades, but like others this may change as a result of the recent poor handling of volunteers, not just in Jersey.
Incidentally, if they are treating volunteers like paid employees, anybody know if they do a formal volunteer/staff opinion survey each year (which any similarly sized corporate would do)? Would be very interesting to know the results and trends.

 

[Sybarite]

If a private vessel had turned up on the scene & offered the casualty a free tow just before jersey CG arrived on the scene what would the Jersey coastguard have said then?
They could hardly complain to the vessel giving the free tow - could they?
They could not object if the casualty were to accept a tow from someone else- could they
I am assuming that the CG had not, at that point, been legally contracted to give the tow; only notified of a distress situation.
So if the RNLI were the first on the scene , is there a difference?

A slight deviation but I read on a French site that it is illegal to give a fellow yachtsman a tow in Italy. You are subject to fines if you do so.

 

[Daydream believer]

A slight deviation but I read on a French site that it is illegal to give a fellow yachtsman a tow in Italy. You are subject to fines if you do so.

So what happens if they need a tow then?

 

[mainsail1]

i can tell you sir that i am somewhat an expert in these matters.


for people here to suggest that they may be thieves, vandals, irresponsible saboteurs and all round vagabonds sickens me to my stomach and reflects very badly on themselves and this forum.[/QUOTE.

Nobody suggested that.
But, with all the ill feeling someone on the Island may have just take it upon themselves to 'teach the RNLI a lesson" and the boat may have been an easy target. It happens in life. Best to move it out of harms way.