St Helier
- Thread starter Ehecatl
- Start date
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
They have to contact the Coast Guard or the life boat service.
viago
Well-Known Member
who coin it in, no doubt.
Daydream believer
Well-Known Member
So if you are a yacht without an engine (there area few about) you cannot just get a tow into a marina now & then without incurring a massive bill.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I don't know the answer. I am only relaying what I read on a French thread.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
However as SNSM volunteers not only do not get paid but also have to make up the time which was lost to their employers, I would imagine that they would not be too pleased at having to compensate for the result of an internal RNLI squabble.
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
Thanks
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
That I can belive!
Poecheng
Well-Known Member
Spelling aside, I am not sure Viago deserves that (in fact, I am sure he doesn't).
I have gone back and read his original post at page 10 (#96) and it is perfectly straightforward and reasonable - as was his humorous riposte to your reply.
Last edited:
Kurrawong_Kid
Well-Known Member
Quite true, but not the basis of my point. Departments of government, primarily ours, not the E.U., make statutory orders, which are delegated legislation, which is automatically passed unless M.P's object. They normally do not have the time, interest or opportunity to stop this micromanagement of industries and activities.
But the civil servants who make up this legislation normally do not have a clue how the voluntary section works. The RNLI proudly boasts it is "independent of government" so it should have developed personnel strategies to carry the volunteers with it in following relevant legislation. At most stations this appears to have been satisfactory but at two there appear to have been difficulties. Similarly the S.V.R. upset some of their volunteers by overenthusiastic implementation of the legal requirements without giving the long standing volunteers to "come round".
Sailingsaves
Well-Known Member
Conclusions accurate?
After reading most of this thread am I right in these conclusions?
(1) The RNLI took action against the coxswain about an alleged incident and then found out that they (the RNLI) were wrong.
(2) So they took action without verifying the coxswain was guilty.
(3) They (RNLI) found the coxswain innocent and apologised but would not divulge the name(s) of business or persons that notified RNLI of alleged incident.
(4) Eventually, crew told RNLI that they wish to become independent.
(5) Rather suddenly, the RNLI closed station (giving some explanation along lines of the crew may not be able to do its duty whilst seeking new independent equipment).
(6) So now there is no cover.
End of 'conclusions'.
Could the RNLI not have graciously kept the station open and allowed the brave crew to carry on until the crew had their own resources? It may have meant the RNLI swallow a bit of pride, but at least lives could still have been saved potentially.
Is the boat now sitting idle in Poole?
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/...feboat-crews-rnli-split-8-questions-answered/
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/...rforms-sea-rescue-as-lifeboat-is-taken-to-uk/
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/11/17/st-helier-lifeboat-crew-stood-down-and-station-closed/
https://rnli.org/news-and-media/2017/november/17/st-helier-lifeboat-station-statement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-42019308
"The crew have asked the charity if they can run an independent lifeboat service.
Leesa Harwood, the RNLI's director of community lifesaving and fundraising, said: "We're going to go away and think about that and look for a way forward." 13th Nov.
4 days later the "way forward" was to close the station, shop and take boat away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-40560387
After reading most of this thread am I right in these conclusions?
(1) The RNLI took action against the coxswain about an alleged incident and then found out that they (the RNLI) were wrong.
(2) So they took action without verifying the coxswain was guilty.
(3) They (RNLI) found the coxswain innocent and apologised but would not divulge the name(s) of business or persons that notified RNLI of alleged incident.
(4) Eventually, crew told RNLI that they wish to become independent.
(5) Rather suddenly, the RNLI closed station (giving some explanation along lines of the crew may not be able to do its duty whilst seeking new independent equipment).
(6) So now there is no cover.
End of 'conclusions'.
Could the RNLI not have graciously kept the station open and allowed the brave crew to carry on until the crew had their own resources? It may have meant the RNLI swallow a bit of pride, but at least lives could still have been saved potentially.
Is the boat now sitting idle in Poole?
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/...feboat-crews-rnli-split-8-questions-answered/
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/...rforms-sea-rescue-as-lifeboat-is-taken-to-uk/
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/11/17/st-helier-lifeboat-crew-stood-down-and-station-closed/
https://rnli.org/news-and-media/2017/november/17/st-helier-lifeboat-station-statement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-42019308
"The crew have asked the charity if they can run an independent lifeboat service.
Leesa Harwood, the RNLI's director of community lifesaving and fundraising, said: "We're going to go away and think about that and look for a way forward." 13th Nov.
4 days later the "way forward" was to close the station, shop and take boat away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-40560387
Last edited:
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
Humm re the above and other issues involving the Management of the RNLI, like non Life Guard cover without receiving payments requested, although the RNLI do indeed have the funding / reserves in place to so do the cover ? I have become increasingly concerned about the current management and in particular its relationship with 'others' (coastguard, Port Authorities etc) and do indeed hope that this apparent situation becomes clear and resolved ? for all our sake.
Just perhaps the moto of Saving Lives has been replaced ?
Humm re the above and other issues involving the Management of the RNLI, like non Life Guard cover without receiving payments requested, although the RNLI do indeed have the funding / reserves in place to so do the cover ? I have become increasingly concerned about the current management and in particular its relationship with 'others' (coastguard, Port Authorities etc) and do indeed hope that this apparent situation becomes clear and resolved ? for all our sake.
Just perhaps the moto of Saving Lives has been replaced ?
viago
Well-Known Member
thank you poecheng.
it's great to know that someone here has bothered to read what i posted. i was being uncharacteristically diplomatic but enough of that.
i suspect that egoglitch misinterpreted what i said to be anti-rnli.
it was not.
i was looking at the bigger picture and i was right in doing so as a number of contributors have already voiced intentions of cancelling their subscriptions.
all other matters aside the rnli were wrong, stupid and hot headed to snatch the boat.
the chairman needs to resign forthwith and the boat needs to be returned with an unreserved apology regardless of who is right or wrong.
it is important to me that the rnli survive and the actions i suggest are the best way to achieve this.
we need a new broom who supports seafarers rather than government institutions and their profit motives.
failure to do so will eventually lead to the collapse of the rnli.
the coastguard cannot call the shots.
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
Are you sure that is correct? If I break down in my 16' fishing boat I would be most surprised to be towed back in by a commercial tug! Is that what happens in real life?
Fortunately I've never required the services of the RNLI but as others have rightly said already on this thread many or maybe most of their shouts involve towing a broken down vessel to safety.
NorthUp
Well-Known Member
I was writing in the context of towing in 60' fishing boats. As always in real life though " common sense rules". Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
Thanks for this link SailingSaves, about the most reliable info I've seen so far.
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/...feboat-crews-rnli-split-8-questions-answered/
Whatever the rights and wrongs I suspect the RNLI will find it easier to source a new crew than the Crew will find it to source a new Building/Boat and running costs.
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/...feboat-crews-rnli-split-8-questions-answered/
Whatever the rights and wrongs I suspect the RNLI will find it easier to source a new crew than the Crew will find it to source a new Building/Boat and running costs.
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
My understanding - based on theory only - is that if all you need is a tow, and you're not in any imminent danger, the coastguard will try to find a nearby vessel to help before asking the lifeboat. However, I don't know if they ever call on towing companies (or vessels which could tow) which would have to put to sea specially.
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
Humm just might depend upon where the ongoing support by way of funding/ moral / local interest is coming from ?
Just might be that there are enough persons with a conscious in the Islands to deflect their support away from the current RNLI management into a local service ?
After all we just might be experiencing a breakdown in the trend to have only one Charity doing a service to us, the population, might be time to support Lifeboat and Lifesaving locally and not Nationally ?
Might suggest that when there is only One charity there is NO competition in service, to both Humanity and Volunteer Personnel, which cannot be good, eh ?
Strolls
Well-Known Member
"Angry, Mr Hibbs, a volunteer of 25 years, wanted to know who had made the accusations, what information had been given and why. He sent emails to RNLI headquarters staff which the charity deemed inappropriate and in April he was sacked" is consistent with the claims posted on Facebook, reported by dogleg in post #105 of this thread, that he "spouted off abusive emails to his managers at RNLI."
There's something very credible about "bloke loses his rag, gets sacked for it".
Post #105: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?490167-St-Helier&p=6252311#post6252311
RichardS
N/A
Re: Conclusions accurate?
A very good link which says:
"Last year allegations were made against Coxswain Andy Hibbs by members of the RNLI and another business in Jersey, that he had launched the lifeboat without authorisation. The JEP understands the accusations related to the lifeboat being used to go out to sea to spread someone’s ashes. It later transpired Mr Hibbs was actually out on his own personal boat at the time of the alleged illegal launch and was cleared of any alleged wrong-doing.
In a statement, the RNLI crew say the investigation into Mr Hibbs was launched on ‘false information’ and that it should ‘not have taken place in the first place.’
Angry, Mr Hibbs, a volunteer of 25 years, wanted to know who had made the accusations, what information had been given and why. He sent emails to RNLI headquarters staff which the charity deemed inappropriate and in April he was sacked after an RNLI employee travelled to the Island. Months later Mr Hibbs was re-instated following an apology by the RNLI."
It's difficult to draw a definitive conclusion from this without seeing the emails that the Coxswain sent to the RNLI HQ.
Although some RNLI management are clearly incompetent as evidenced by their own statement concerning the abortive initial investigation, the decision to dismiss Andy Hibbs on the basis of some angry emails was clearly bordering on the ludicrous. It is not surprising that Andy Hibbs was angry or upset by the abortive investigation and for the RNLI to respond in such a ludicrous way to the Coxswain's valid reaction, such that they then had to issue a second apology and then re-instate him is beyond parody.
Unless the unpublished emails contain something so extreme that dismissal was the only reasonable response, such as threats to blackmail, injure or kill members of RNLI management or other individuals, then the member/s of RNLI management responsible for this fiasco should be demoted or dismissed.
Richard
A very good link which says:
"Last year allegations were made against Coxswain Andy Hibbs by members of the RNLI and another business in Jersey, that he had launched the lifeboat without authorisation. The JEP understands the accusations related to the lifeboat being used to go out to sea to spread someone’s ashes. It later transpired Mr Hibbs was actually out on his own personal boat at the time of the alleged illegal launch and was cleared of any alleged wrong-doing.
In a statement, the RNLI crew say the investigation into Mr Hibbs was launched on ‘false information’ and that it should ‘not have taken place in the first place.’
Angry, Mr Hibbs, a volunteer of 25 years, wanted to know who had made the accusations, what information had been given and why. He sent emails to RNLI headquarters staff which the charity deemed inappropriate and in April he was sacked after an RNLI employee travelled to the Island. Months later Mr Hibbs was re-instated following an apology by the RNLI."
It's difficult to draw a definitive conclusion from this without seeing the emails that the Coxswain sent to the RNLI HQ.
Although some RNLI management are clearly incompetent as evidenced by their own statement concerning the abortive initial investigation, the decision to dismiss Andy Hibbs on the basis of some angry emails was clearly bordering on the ludicrous. It is not surprising that Andy Hibbs was angry or upset by the abortive investigation and for the RNLI to respond in such a ludicrous way to the Coxswain's valid reaction, such that they then had to issue a second apology and then re-instate him is beyond parody.
Unless the unpublished emails contain something so extreme that dismissal was the only reasonable response, such as threats to blackmail, injure or kill members of RNLI management or other individuals, then the member/s of RNLI management responsible for this fiasco should be demoted or dismissed.
Richard