St Helier

Daydream believer said:
Cannot help feeling that throughout this thread there is the assumption that the RNLI is the party that is at fault.
Whilst i admit that I rarely see any criticism of the volunteers at the "working end" of the organisation throughout this PBO forum I see a lot of RNLI bashing for the management.
I sometimes wonder if that is fair

In this particular situation -Having not heard their side of the argument- I cannot help wondering if they really are the aggressors that they are made out to be.
Click to expand...

That's a valid point ..... but the problem is that the RNLI have painted themselves into this particular corner.

1) Investigate an allegation than apologise and say that it should never have been investigated

2) Dismiss the Cox and then re-instate with another public apology

3) Apparently withdraw the second apology from the public domain

Millions must be asking why the RNLI do not just release these "vile" emails from the Cox, redacted if necessary. The only reason I can think of must be that they contain allegations about individuals in the local community/authority being in some kind of collusion/conspriracy with the RNLI and the RNLI do not want these collusion allegations to be made public.

You might therefore ask why the Cox does not release the emails? The problem with that is that he may well have named a number of individuals in a libellous or defamatory manner and he might well end up being sued by a number of individuals and will be unable to prove any of his allegations. This does not apply to the RNLI, of course, because they know the truth and know what can be legally published and what cannot. We can therefore surmise that what is truthful and can be published appears to be extremely damaging to certain individuals and/or the RNLI.

Richard
 
Last edited:
RichardS said:
That's a valid point ..... but the problem is that the RNLI have painted themselves into this particular corner.

1) Investigate an allegation than apologise and say that it should never have been investigated

2) Dismiss the Cox and then re-instate with another public apology

3) Apparently withdraw the second apology from the public domain

Millions must be asking why the RNLI do not just release these "vile" emails from the Cox, redacted if necessary. The only reason I can think of must be that they contain allegations about individuals in the local community/authority being in some kind of collusion/conspriracy with the RNLI and the RNLI do not want these collusion allegations to be made public.

You might therefore ask why the Cox does not release the emails? The problem with that is that he may well have named a number of individuals in a libellous or defamatory manner and he might well end up being sued by a number of individuals and will be unable to prove any of his allegations. This does not apply to the RNLI, of course, because they know the truth and know what can be legally published and what cannot. We can therefore surmise that what is truthful and can be published appears to be extremely damaging to certain individuals and/or the RNLI.

Richard
Click to expand...

1) So the RNLiI would appear to have done the right thing in the circumstances--did it not
2) You do not know what reaction 1) bought or whether further allegations were made which needed deeper investigation. Nor do you know what the cox's reactions where in the interim. So perhaps the RNLI had no option but to re suspend ( was it a dismissal, or suspension which is different - we do not know) then issued an apology & re instated.
Perhaps that was just a deliberate climb down just to resolve the matter even if they thought they were right.
3) Decided that this was really a matter between cox & RNLI & ( like on this forum) was possibly being miss-quoted etc & could lead to miss-representation & legal issues.

I think that the RNLI have made the correct decision not to be drawn further into the debate. The matter is between them & the cox with reference to any accusers & of course , where relevant, the crew.. The general public really should not be further involved. They just want to know where their life boat is & when it will be back in service.
Once the RNLI can resolve that, then they will, presumably, advise the public.
I think that once they have the cox issue out of the way they can move forward & management are right to just stay quiet & work behind the scenes.
Further open debate will just ignite further slanging matches
 
Daydream believer said:
Perhaps that was just a deliberate climb down just to resolve the matter even if they thought they were right.
Click to expand...

That is the most damning hypothesis in this entire thread.

If you are correct then, unfortunately, the RNLI management deserve everything which is coming their way, or not coming their way, if we are talking about public donations. Such a management "technique" would be simply creating a hostage to fortune and no sensible professional management team would countenance it.

For this reason, I think it is highly unlikely.

With regard to the rest of my post, you're missing the point I'm afraid. It's not about whether the RNLI team did "the right thing in the circumstances" .... it's about how did they get into those circumstances, multiple times, in the first place. It must surely either be incompetence or collusion or both?

Richard
 
RichardS said:
1) Investigate an allegation than apologise and say that it should never have been investigated

2) Dismiss the Cox and then re-instate with another public apology
Click to expand...

Richard

Are you absolutely sure that your 2) followed an earlier public apology.

I haven't gone back to check, but I thought the sequence was:

1. RNLI suspend the cox because of alleged wrong doings.
2. Crew walk out in sympathy and reserve crews sent over from Poole.
3. Internal RNLI investigation reveals that allegations were completely unfounded, so cox is reinstated and apology issued.
4. Cox now wants to know who made these allegations and why the RNLI was so hasty to act as they did. (This may have resulted in another apology from the RNLI, but not sure this was done publicly, and it doesn't seem to have satisfied him, because it ultimately leads to the crew announcing they will go it alone).
 
Angele said:
Richard

Are you absolutely sure that your 2) followed an earlier public apology.

I haven't gone back to check, but I thought the sequence was:

1. RNLI suspend the cox because of alleged wrong doings.
2. Crew walk out in sympathy and reserve crews sent over from Poole.
3. Internal RNLI investigation reveals that allegations were completely unfounded, so cox is reinstated and apology issued.
4. Cox now wants to know who made these allegations and why the RNLI was so hasty to act as they did. (This may have resulted in another apology from the RNLI, but not sure this was done publicly, and it doesn't seem to have satisfied him, because it ultimately leads to the crew announcing they will go it alone).
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure 'cos it's such a convoluted tale that I've lost the thread somewhat. I'm sure there was a statement by the RNLI that they should not have made such a big deal about the first false allegation and then an apology, now removed from the RNLI website, after he was dismissed and re-instated but talking about the history of the Cox and his ill-advised emails.

Were they ill-advised because of the immoderate language therein or ill-advised because they asked questions about the relationship between the RNLI and some Jersey authorities/VIPs that the RNLI would rather not answer? I'm sure more will come out in due course.

Richard
 
RichardS said:
I'm sure more will come out in due course.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it will run and run.

The breakaway crew are going to have to convince some of the well-off people who go to Jersey to die to fund their new lifeboat and facilities. The RNLI are going to have to fight off the threat to their legacies.

And if the RNLI is to re-establish a lifeboat in St Helier they're going to have to convince a new pool of volunteers that they won't be treated as badly as their predecessors appears to have been. As things stand, if I were to imagine myself in a position of being able to volunteer to crew on an RNLI lifeboat in St Helier I wouldn't.
 
RichardS said:
I'm not 100% sure 'cos it's such a convoluted tale that I've lost the thread somewhat. I'm sure there was a statement by the RNLI that they should not have made such a big deal about the first false allegation and then an apology, now removed from the RNLI website, after he was dismissed and re-instated but talking about the history of the Cox and his ill-advised emails.

Were they ill-advised because of the immoderate language therein or ill-advised because they asked questions about the relationship between the RNLI and some Jersey authorities/VIPs that the RNLI would rather not answer? I'm sure more will come out in due course.

Richard
Click to expand...

This is the problem I think, trial by media generally results in incorrect or misleading information so it is almost impossible to say who made what mistake or what lead to what.

fwiw, and perhaps just to add more confusion, my take based on the various comments was more like:
1. RNLI receive allegation of alleged wrong doings.
2. Cox responds to allegations in a "robust" way that upsets RNLI
3. RNLI suspend cox while they investigate
4. Crew walk out and reserve crew sent
5. RNLI investigation finds original allegation unfounded but are still not happy about how Cox is acting so reinstate Cox on condition he signs something to say he will be a good boy again.
6. Cox now wants to know who made these allegations and communication becomes strained. Manager parachuted in isn't able to fix the problem.
7. RNLI refuse to do as Cox wants (eg give him people concerned etc) so Cox and crew decide they have had enough and want to go their own way.

It is all speculation but my experience in this sort of problem is there is generally "fault" on both sides. How much fault on which side is impossible to judge.
 
lpdsn said:
And if the RNLI is to re-establish a lifeboat in St Helier they're going to have to convince a new pool of volunteers that they won't be treated as badly as their predecessors appears to have been. As things stand, if I were to imagine myself in a position of being able to volunteer to crew on an RNLI lifeboat in St Helier I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Personally I rather hope they don't, lifesaving at sea should be seen as some sort of competition and if the local crew really do want to go independent then good luck to them. Though from what I've seen there is nothing other than rather one sided spin to indicate the current crew have been treated particularly badly but they are volunteers and if the want to volunteer independently that's their prerogative.
 
Last edited:
The most shocking thing about the whole sorry affair is Jersey Coastguard having been turned into a money making organisation by the States. To ask any lifeboat to drop a tow, so that a commercial vessel can take it up to collect a fee for the state, is utterly wrong.
 
brman said:
This is the problem I think, trial by media generally results in incorrect or misleading information so it is almost impossible to say who made what mistake or what lead to what.

fwiw, and perhaps just to add more confusion, my take based on the various comments was more like:
1. RNLI receive allegation of alleged wrong doings.
2. Cox responds to allegations in a "robust" way that upsets RNLI
3. RNLI suspend cox while they investigate
4. Crew walk out and reserve crew sent
5. RNLI investigation finds original allegation unfounded but are still not happy about how Cox is acting so reinstate Cox on condition he signs something to say he will be a good boy again.
Click to expand...
I believe that he was sacked after the original investigation, and then reinstated.

I think the RNLI ascertained that he was not guilty of what he was accused of (scattering ashes with the RNLI boat?), but was sacked for the emails he sent.

Then after the crew went on strike, the RNLI took him back on, the RNLI issuing a statement that Hibbs' behaviour "has not always been in keeping with the RNLI’s expectations" and that he "recognises" this and he has now committed to adhering to the charity’s code of conduct. (dogleg says he started up again with the emails very shortly after, I think)

The RNLI also admitted that they had not met "the high standards of support and fairness that we expect" themselves, which "contributed to the subsequent breakdown in relationships". This being the reason ascribed for taking him back on, I think.

Newspaper articles from earlier this year:

 
Strolls said:
I believe that he was sacked after the original investigation, and then reinstated.

I think the RNLI ascertained that he was not guilty of what he was accused of (scattering ashes with the RNLI boat?), but was sacked for the emails he sent.

Then after the crew went on strike, the RNLI took him back on, the RNLI issuing a statement that Hibbs' behaviour "has not always been in keeping with the RNLI’s expectations" and that he "recognises" this and he has now committed to adhering to the charity’s code of conduct. (dogleg says he started up again with the emails very shortly after, I think)

The RNLI also admitted that they had not met "the high standards of support and fairness that we expect" themselves, which "contributed to the subsequent breakdown in relationships". This being the reason ascribed for taking him back on, I think.

Newspaper articles from earlier this year:

Click to expand...

Right, so the RNLI use the words "stood down" rather than sacked or suspended but I guess we are talking about the same thing? He was stood down only once and that was because the way he responded to the allegations was "against the RNLI code of practice". He was never sacked or suspended because of the allegations themselves?
Have got that bit right?
 
</script>="8" cols="60" tabindex="1">
brman said:
Right, so the RNLI use the words "stood down" rather than sacked or suspended but I guess we are talking about the same thing? He was stood down only once and that was because the way he responded to the allegations was "against the RNLI code of practice". He was never sacked or suspended because of the allegations themselves?
Have got that bit right?
Click to expand...

https://rnli.org/news-and-media/2017/november/23/rnli-update-on-st-helier-lifeboat-station

latest RNLI statement
 
chanelyacht said:
The most shocking thing about the whole sorry affair is Jersey Coastguard having been turned into a money making organisation by the States. To ask any lifeboat to drop a tow, so that a commercial vessel can take it up to collect a fee for the state, is utterly wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% that is what we are hearing through the bush telegraph
 
I read it alright. Talking to the local RNLI people here, they agree that in the old days they were more or less given a boat and allowed to get on with the job. Now it's all micro management. Has to be said it would be difficult to provide a high quality up to date rescue service under the old system.
 
fisherman said:
I read it alright. Talking to the local RNLI people here, they agree that in the old days they were more or less given a boat and allowed to get on with the job. Now it's all micro management. Has to be said it would be difficult to provide a high quality up to date rescue service under the old system.
Click to expand...


That's pretty much my take. I can imagine volunteering for the RNLI would be infuriating, but if you don't like it quit.

Two specific issues from the article:

1) Being a doctor doesn't reasonably excuse you from doing a first aid course. It's perfectly reasonable of the RNLI to want everyone to meet a basic standard and the logistics of making exceptions based on background would be onerous.

2) I find it implausible that the CG would somehow order them to land in a dangerous port. I doubt the CG have any kind of authority to do so and I find it very hard to believe that the RNLI would fail to support a crew who had gone to the nearest safe landing point.

Apart from that it all seemed fairly plausible to me, the RNLI is clearly not right for him. Maybe it should be, but it isn't.

Personally, I wish everyone involved well.
 
fisherman said:
I read it alright. Talking to the local RNLI people here, they agree that in the old days they were more or less given a boat and allowed to get on with the job. Now it's all micro management. Has to be said it would be difficult to provide a high quality up to date rescue service under the old system.
Click to expand...

Clearly this is just one side of the story, the ex-coxswain’s. But as an RNLI member governor it raises quite a few concerns about the way RNLI has managed things, particularly in terms of process for what are effectively “disciplinary hearings”. Sounded very poor process.
And if RNLI tried to appoint a station manager role without complying with Jersey’s (very restrictive) employment rules that would also be a significant failure.
Finally the way the boat was removed rather than maintain an interim service does seem somewhat reckless for a life saving organisation.

Only one side, but onus on RNLI to sort a lot of things out in terms of clarification of the story and/or remedying their people processes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top