St Helier

[RichardS]

No, Andy and the crew (rightly) took the side of the casualty vessel and therefore removed income from the State's vulture boat.

The problem with Jersey "Coastguard" is that it isn't really a coastguard, it's an operator who is part of the state's port control - the same port control who make money from sending their tug out to demand tows, at a cost.

It's a completely untenable situation, a long way from the days when there was a proper Coastguard at Corbiere.

That's interesting.

If you're saying that the Jersey coastguard is a commercial service which charges a boat for being towed in and there is some kind of "relationship" with the RNLI such the the RNLI will instruct the lifeboat not to go out to a stricken boat which might have casualties on board because the RNLI would rather give the business to their fee-earning buddies then it is not surprising that the RNLI will go to any and all lengths to bury this matter.

If that is what is happening and it gets sufficient publicity then the hit to the RNLI's pocket would be devastating, and possibly terminal.

I'm a regular RNLI contributor but will not be making any more contributions until the RNLI explain fully what is going on here.

Richard

 

[Capt Popeye]

That's interesting.

If you're saying that the Jersey coastguard is a commercial service which charges a boat for being towed in and there is some kind of "relationship" with the RNLI such the the RNLI will instruct the lifeboat not to go out to a stricken boat which might have casualties on board because the RNLI would rather give the business to their fee-earning buddies then it is not surprising that the RNLI will go to any and all lengths to bury this matter.

If that is what is happening and it gets sufficient publicity then the hit to the RNLI's pocket would be devastating, and possibly terminal.

I'm a regular RNLI contributor but will not be making any more contributions until the RNLI explain fully what is going on here.

Richard

That is my understanding of the situation, there are links and clues in the various documents, and if one looks at the apparent RNLI press releases and statements involving - the unofficial spreading of Ashes and an Unoficial Launch not authorised by Coastguard - then a situation emerges tht ai really do not like.

 

[chanelyacht]

That is my understanding of the situation, there are links and clues in the various documents, and if one looks at the apparent RNLI press releases and statements involving - the unofficial spreading of Ashes and an Unoficial Launch not authorised by Coastguard - then a situation emerges tht ai really do not like.

It might help to clarify a couple of things -

Firstly, lifeboat, RNLI or independent, is entitled in their declared facility agreement to self-launch to an incident (in fact, if afloat they are bound to respond to a broadcast in the same way as any other boat). There is no such thing as a coastguard "authorised" launch - all CG services (UK, Irish, island states) only ever "request" the launch of the boat to the station's launching authority (DLA). In most cases, the launching authority is the station operations manager, a number of deputies, and the coxswain - so a coxswain can authorise a launch on his own.

The lifeboat can accept, or decline, that launch request as they see fit - the only requirement is if declining, they give a reason (sea state, incident type, non emergency, etc). That is entirely within the lifeboat organisation's gift.

When at sea, they are coordinated - but not controlled - by the coastguard. For example, if I tasked Weymouth lifeboat to a missing fisherman off Portland, I would give a search area to cover. If the crew felt that was wrong, they are perfectly entitled to decline my search area and use their own plan, as long as I know what they're doing. That happens quite often, as SARIS search planning is not particularly good close inshore.

The only time that becomes different is if the CG use the powers of SOSREP to instruct any boat to take a certain course of action - but that requires external authorisation, and is very, very rare - and I can't ever see it being used to direct a SAR asset.

In Jersey's case, from what I know (and I have some close contacts over there) one incident was around a vessel which had been taken in tow by the lifeboat, the port requested them to drop the tow so the port's own fee-charging vessel could take it over, and the coxswain refused - in my view, rightly. There are two different versions of how the lifeboat got to that casualty, but it appears that one RNLI station member (not crew) tried to not launch the boat, simply so the state's boat could get there first. The crew, understandably, didn't agree with that.

The common factor here appears to be two ex navy buddies, one RNLI shore crew and one Jersey port, wanted to run things in a way the crew didn't feel comfortable with - and, as seems the case now (as in New Brighton), Poole automatically support their management layer (even voluntary) not the sea going layer.

 

[TSB240]

Its back......

http://www.itv.com/news/channel/201...y-they-are-ready-to-man-all-weather-lifeboat/

 

[Daydream believer]

& Hibbs???

 

[chanelyacht]

& Hibbs???

Andy Hibbs and the rest of the real lifeboat crew had another packed, and supportive, independent lifeboat meeting tonight.

The RNLI claim to have a crew in training, although oddly, few people on the island seem to know who they are...

When that headline says the former crew are ready to crew the boat, they have offered to the RNLI to crew under RNLI rules until they leave for the new boat. They have been turned down, with Poole yet again leaving no cover for the island.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Andy Hibbs and the rest of the real lifeboat crew had another packed, and supportive, independent lifeboat meeting tonight.

The RNLI claim to have a crew in training, although oddly, few people on the island seem to know who they are...

When that headline says the former crew are ready to crew the boat, they have offered to the RNLI to crew under RNLI rules until they leave for the new boat. They have been turned down, with Poole yet again leaving no cover for the island.

Getting a little bit touchy, old boy?

It is however sad that lifesaving at sea seems to have become a competitive event in that part of the world. It might well have been better if the RNLI had left the independents to get on with it. Hopefully when/if they get up and running they might yet.

 

[CLB]

Why would the crew want to buy the old boat which figures in the video?

You are John Tynan and I claim my £5

 

[chanelyacht]

Getting a little bit touchy, old boy?

It is however sad that lifesaving at sea seems to have become a competitive event in that part of the world. It might well have been better if the RNLI had left the independents to get on with it. Hopefully when/if they get up and running they might yet.

Not touchy at all, just common courtesy.

 

[Daydream believer]

Cannot help feeling that if Hibbs was out of the equation the crew would return to the RNLI. It is just that they are showing loyalty to him & to each other.( Understandable with a tight knit crew) Some probably feel it more & the rest follow out of loyalty to their mates. The fact that it was "reported" that they nearly did return in the short term seems to reinforce that

 

[Blue Sunray]

Not touchy at all, just common courtesy.

 

[chanelyacht]

Cannot help feeling that if Hibbs was out of the equation the crew would return to the RNLI. It is just that they are showing loyalty to him & to each other.( Understandable with a tight knit crew) Some probably feel it more & the rest follow out of loyalty to their mates. The fact that it was "reported" that they nearly did return in the short term seems to reinforce that

Knowing two of the crew, that is absolutely not the case.

All the crew offered to return until such time as they go independent, that was turned down by Poole, who preferred to leave no cover so they could remove the boat to Poole in a blaze of Pre-arranged media attention.

The qualified crew's offer is still there, but Poole are ignoring it.

 

[superheat6k]

That's interesting.

If you're saying that the Jersey coastguard is a commercial service which charges a boat for being towed in and there is some kind of "relationship" with the RNLI such the the RNLI will instruct the lifeboat not to go out to a stricken boat which might have casualties on board because the RNLI would rather give the business to their fee-earning buddies then it is not surprising that the RNLI will go to any and all lengths to bury this matter.

If that is what is happening and it gets sufficient publicity then the hit to the RNLI's pocket would be devastating, and possibly terminal.

I'm a regular RNLI contributor but will not be making any more contributions until the RNLI explain fully what is going on here.

Richard

I hope you are expecting a long wait for that !

All I got for my troubles was the corporate party line. So the boat is back but the RNLI management are refusing to accept the use of the crew due to their petulance.

This boat without a crew is about as much use as a chocolate teapot, which in my eyes is what the RNLI hierarchy is rapidly becoming.

What is the story of New Brighton ?

I don't see any bona fide RNLI crews on here or indeed anywhere defending Poole. I reckon the boot stand at Poole HQ simply requires larger sizes.

 

[Mark-1]

The qualified crew's offer is still there, but Poole are ignoring it.

the RNLI management are refusing to accept the use of the crew due to their petulance.

There's a dispute over ownership of the boat and the cash raised on the Island - the Jersey Independent Lifeboat Service Committee posted a letter on FB today, for instance.

There was always a risk the crew would keep the boat and run it as an independent leaving the RNLI with the publicity nightmare of using the law to retrieve it. Maybe the boat does rightfully belong to the crew, but this way it's the crew who have to do the legal chasing, not the RNLI.

If it were my decision I'd have done the same. Lesser of two evils.

 

[Sailingsaves]

There's a dispute over ownership of the boat and the cash raised on the Island. (JAG posted a letter today, for instance.)

There was always a risk the crew would keep the boat, change the paintwork and just run it as an independent leaving the RNLI with the publicity nightmare of using the law to retrieve it.

(Maybe the boat does rightfully belong to the crew, but this way it's the crew who have to do the legal chasing, not the RNLI.)

If it were my decision I'd have done the same. Lesser of two evils.

"If it were my decision I'd have done the same. Lesser of two evils."

I would disagree with that.

As a sailor, I would rather there was a boat unlawfully 'owned' by a crew ready and willing to risk their lives to come to my rescue than a boat that the RNLI had padlocked up that the crew could not use.

So I would not agree that: " leaving the RNLI with the publicity nightmare of using the law to retrieve it. "
is the lesser of two evils.

A publicity nightmare vs a potential death(s) of people at sea is the lesser of two evils? Not in my book.

I would go as far as to say the RNLI management is being quite evil in not allowing a resource to be used in an emergency (as appears to be the case). If your presumption that the crew would steal it is correct, I would not mind either. The RNLI appears to have enough funds to write it off. (They wouldn't need to buy a new one to replace it anyway because the crew would be manning it and there would be a life saving presence at St Helier).

As for bad publicity... don't they already have it? As all charities have to make their books visible to the public I wonder how many people are looking up the salaries of managers etc. And what is this talk of company cars? Is that true? Do the crew get paid for petrol money or wear and tear on their cars?

 

[Mark-1]

As a sailor, I would rather there was a boat unlawfully 'owned' by a crew ready and willing to risk their lives to come to my rescue than a boat that the RNLI had padlocked up that the crew could not use.

"As a sailor" I'm sure you would, so would I. "As the RNLI" I'd be wanting to hang onto all the assets because if you start handing over boats to any crew who wants to go it alone you'll end up with no boats. Hence I said "If it were my decision". Maybe it would be better if there were fewer RNLI boats and more independents created by handing over RNLI assets to locals, but if you were running the RNLI you wouldn't take that view.

A publicity nightmare vs a potential death(s) of people at sea is the lesser of two evils? Not in my book.

Not sure how many lives this boat typically saves in the period it's out of action, or what alternative cover there is, but yup, that pretty much is the risk they're taking. Also there's the issue of the new crew. I very much doubt they've been recruited from the local fishing fleet, so how good are they likely to be? The RNLI volunteers I know who aren't professional seamen are pretty average and that's after a lot of experience and training. Maybe the RNLI will have thought of that and will put a few pros on board for the first few years, but it's a serious risk, and impossible to totally mitigate.

If your presumption that the crew would steal it is correct, I would not mind either.

If your primary responsibility was was to hold the RNLI together you would.

The RNLI appears to have enough funds to write it off. (They wouldn't need to buy a new one to replace it anyway because the crew would be manning it and there would be a life saving presence at St Helier).

That would be a great solution, but you can bet there would be other crews following suit. So again, if it was your job to run the RNLI, would you encourage, or resist that?

As all charities have to make their books visible to the public I wonder how many people are looking up the salaries of managers etc. And what is this talk of company cars? Is that true? Do the crew get paid for petrol money or wear and tear on their cars?

As luck would have it, people will do the crew member or fund raiser jobs unpaid. I'd guess finding volunteers to work full time doing paperwork/management is impossible. (Are you offering to go and work 9-5 manning the phones in Poole unpaid, I'm sure they wouldn't force you to take a salary?)


In short, if the RNLI had the policy of handing over their assets to any crew who wanted to go independent there would be no RNLI. Maybe that's better but it's not a policy you would advocate if it was your job to run the RNLI.

 

[Sailingsaves]

"As a sailor" I'm sure you would, so would I. "As the RNLI" I'd be wanting to hang onto all the assets because if you start handing over boats to any crew who wants to go it alone you'll end up with no boats. Hence I said "If it were my decision". Maybe it would be better if there were fewer RNLI boats and more independents created by handing over RNLI assets to locals, but if you were running the RNLI you wouldn't take that view.



Not sure how many lives this boat typically saves in the period it's out of action, or what alternative cover there is, but yup, that pretty much is the risk they're taking. Also there's the issue of the new crew. I very much doubt they've been recruited from the local fishing fleet, so how good are they likely to be? The RNLI volunteers I know who aren't professional seamen are pretty average and that's after a lot of experience and training. Maybe the RNLI will have thought of that and will put a few pros on board for the first few years, but it's a serious risk, and impossible to totally mitigate.



If your primary responsibility was was to hold the RNLI together you would.



That would be a great solution, but you can bet there would be other crews following suit. So again, if it was your job to run the RNLI, would you encourage, or resist that?



Being a crewmember is part time and highly desirable so, as luck would have it, people will do it unpaid. I'd guess finding volunteers to work full time doing paperwork/management is probably a bit harder, or impossible. (Are you offering to go and work 9-5 manning the phones in Poole unpaid?)

Good points and well made in a polite manner.

I had not thought of the long term and wider significance of this affair with regard to the RNLI continuing to offer great service.

Thank you for opening my eyes to a facet I had completely missed.

And I mean all of that in sincerity; not in sarcasm. I had not considered the other point of view.

Hope it all gets sorted.

 

[Mark-1]

Good points and well made in a polite manner.

I had not thought of the long term and wider significance of this affair with regard to the RNLI continuing to offer great service.

Thank you for opening my eyes to a facet I had completely missed.

And I mean all of that in sincerity; not in sarcasm. I had not considered the other point of view.

Hope it all gets sorted.

Wow, a first for the internet! Thankyou very much.

Agree, let's hope it all gets worked out for the best for all concerned.

 

[chanelyacht]

Arbroath as well, now.

To suspend one lifeboat station may be seen as unfortunate (to paraphrase), but we're now on the third in 18 months...

 

[Bru]

Arbroath as well, now.

To suspend one lifeboat station may be seen as unfortunate (to paraphrase), but we're now on the third in 18 months...

It appears from the news reporting that there has been an allegation of a "serious incident" involving several members of the crew and a member of the public. The details of the alleged incident are not, as yet, in the public domain

As would be normal and expected procedure in any organisation, the crew members alleged to be involved have been suspended (stood down in RNLI volunteer parlance) pending the outcome of an investigation into the allegations.

That has left the station with insufficient trained crew to man the AWB which is therefore out of service. The inshore boat is still available

So far, so good ... or bad perhaps

On the face of it, this would appear to be an isolated incident not connected with the other problems the RNLI have been having elsewhere. However, reading between the lines (and in the light of my own experiences as part of the head office management of a national charity heavily dependent on volunteers at the local level) my suspicion is that there has been a lack of central control over the activities at a local level in the past which the current management is attempting (arguably badly) to address. This is no easy matter when local volunteer groups within the organisation have grown used to being quasi-independent of the national organisation. However, modern company, health and safety and charity law requires such control to be exercised or the trustees (who are also the de-facto directors of the company under company law) could find themselves in all sorts of legal bother