The MCA is planning on scaling back the number of marine offices.

[duncan99210]

The situation is evolving each year. For example when I first started talking about the exaggerated (IMO) cost of the Shannon about 4 years ago the price was £1.5m and the launching trolley was £800k. Now the respective prices are £2.1m and £1.5m. There must be gallopping inflation in the UK....

Funny nobody seems concerned.

There's two possible reasons no ones terribly concerned.

First, we're bored rigid with your obbession.

Secondly, we don't share your conclusions. We, strangely, think the RNLI do a good job, in raising, managing and spending their funds.

Please, could you find another subject to start in on?

 

[Birdseye]

They do, as they manage coding for charter vessels.

I love the fact the union is opposing online booking and digital certification, do they think it's still 1953?

More like 1917 and the Revolution brother!

 

[Sybarite]

There's two possible reasons no ones terribly concerned.

First, we're bored rigid with your obbession.

Secondly, we don't share your conclusions. We, strangely, think the RNLI do a good job, in raising, managing and spending their funds.

Please, could you find another subject to start in on?

I'm not obliging you to read my posts. I, strangely, think the RNLI do a good job, in raising, but not managing and spending their funds.

 

[prv]

I'm not obliging you to read my posts.

I generally don't. But if nobody reads them, it's hardly surprising that "nobody seems concerned", is it?

Pete

 

[Sybarite]

I generally don't. But if nobody reads them, it's hardly surprising that "nobody seems concerned", is it?

Pete

But if people are complaining, that would imply that they are reading them and hence my comment.

 

[Tranona]

But if people are complaining, that would imply that they are reading them and hence my comment.

Always read to see if you have anything new to say - or committing a faux pas by completely failing to understand an issue as in the case of your original post on this thread.

Usually disappointed on the first count and somehow predictable on the second.

 

[Sybarite]

Always read to see if you have anything new to say - or committing a faux pas by completely failing to understand an issue as in the case of your original post on this thread.

Usually disappointed on the first count and somehow predictable on the second.

I suggest then that you have a wee word with the general secretary of the RMT because he thinks that it does in fact concern marine safety.

The RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash said, “The MCA’s Marine Office closure plans are on a par with the Coalition’s dangerous cuts to coastguards and local tax offices. These plans would jeopardise the UK’s ability to operate a safe and secure ports network, as well as the future provision of seafarer services.

As the RNLI works hand in hand with the MCA on marine safety it would be no skin off their nose to come up with such a paltry sum (£400k) for them.

As far as the increasing cost of the RNLI boats is concerned - the issue that PRV referred to - please show me where I was "somehow predictably", " committing a faux pas by completely failing to understand an issue."

 

[Tranona]

I suggest then that you have a wee word with the general secretary of the RMT because he thinks that it does in fact concern marine safety.

The RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash said, “The MCA’s Marine Office closure plans are on a par with the Coalition’s dangerous cuts to coastguards and local tax offices. These plans would jeopardise the UK’s ability to operate a safe and secure ports network, as well as the future provision of seafarer services.

As the RNLI works hand in hand with the MCA on marine safety it would be no skin off their nose to come up with such a paltry sum (£400k) for them.

As far as the increasing cost of the RNLI boats is concerned - the issue that PRV referred to - please show me where I was "somehow predictably", " committing a faux pas by completely failing to understand an issue."

You really are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and making connections that do not exist. RMT are in Mandy Rice Davis mode. They know that just bleating about loss of income and a few redundancies (probably early retirement with a big pay of) does not cut ice so they play the "safety" card - just like the BMA. Standard response to modernisation and changes to improve services at lower cost. Perhaps you need to be more critical about how you view things, particularly as your whole life seems to be devoted to cutting costs.

There is absolutely no connection financially or operationally between the branch of the MCA in question and the RNLI. The connection between the MCA coastguard and the RNLI is exactly the same as the connection with the air rescue service, ambulance, fire, private lifeboat services and indeed any other provider of emergency services that the coastguard can call on.

So why on earth are you trying to suggest that the savings from a government agency are transferred to a private charity?

Bonkers.

 

[Sybarite]

You really are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and making connections that do not exist. RMT are in Mandy Rice Davis mode. They know that just bleating about loss of income and a few redundancies (probably early retirement with a big pay of) does not cut ice so they play the "safety" card - just like the BMA. Standard response to modernisation and changes to improve services at lower cost. Perhaps you need to be more critical about how you view things, particularly as your whole life seems to be devoted to cutting costs.

There is absolutely no connection financially or operationally between the branch of the MCA in question and the RNLI. The connection between the MCA coastguard and the RNLI is exactly the same as the connection with the air rescue service, ambulance, fire, private lifeboat services and indeed any other provider of emergency services that the coastguard can call on.

So why on earth are you trying to suggest that the savings from a government agency are transferred to a private charity?

Bonkers.

I admit there was an element of tongue in cheek in my OP.

However I would say that, rather than spending my life devoted to cutting costs, I am more interested in seeing that large sums of money are not wasted on extravagant projects or projects which are not properly managed.

I notice you didn't follow up on the cost figures I mentionned. Do you think a project is well managed when :

- in matter of a few years costs passed from £2.3m to £3.6m
- it takes 13 years to design, build and deliver a life boat when the world's largest ship took 6 years.
- they got the hull wrong and gave themselves 3 years just to redesign it.
- the French designed, built and delivered a much bigger boat in 3 years at about half the cost?

That's what is bonkers. What was it that I didn't undertand?

 

[duncan99210]

I admit there was an element of tongue in cheek in my OP.

However I would say that, rather than spending my life devoted to cutting costs, I am more interested in seeing that large sums of money are not wasted on extravagant projects or projects which are not properly managed.

I notice you didn't follow up on the cost figures I mentionned. Do you think a project is well managed when :

- in matter of a few years costs passed from £2.3m to £3.6m
- it takes 13 years to design, build and deliver a life boat when the world's largest ship took 6 years.
- they got the hull wrong and gave themselves 3 years just to redesign it.
- the French designed, built and delivered a much bigger boat in 3 years at about half the cost?

That's what is bonkers. What was it that I didn't undertand?

I would refer you to my earlier post.

 

[dom]

I notice you didn't follow up on the cost figures I mentionned. Do you think a project is well managed when :

- in matter of a few years costs passed from £2.3m to £3.6m
- it takes 13 years to design, build and deliver a life boat when the world's largest ship took 6 years.
- they got the hull wrong and gave themselves 3 years just to redesign it.
- the French designed, built and delivered a much bigger boat in 3 years at about half the cost?

That's bonkers.

Last year I furnished you with the contact details of the relevant RNLI official, in the event that you wished to levy a complaint relating to poor governance. As I understand you never did, you simply asked a random question about launching the Shannon AWB.

Then in a recent Lounge thread you alluded to criticisms that the French SNSM were levying against the RNLI. I asked an SNSM official if this was true; he categorically denied it, something which I duly pointed that out on here. As it happens the SNSM and RNLI have a very good working relationship with SNSM staff regularly visit the UK and vice versa.

I'm sorry Sybarite, you are just making yourself look silly and obsessed by endlessly windmilling around on here like this.

It is high time for you to either put-up or shut-up. If you have a complaint make it; if you don't then drop it.

 

[Tranona]

I admit there was an element of tongue in cheek in my OP.

However I would say that, rather than spending my life devoted to cutting costs, I am more interested in seeing that large sums of money are not wasted on extravagant projects or projects which are not properly managed.

I notice you didn't follow up on the cost figures I mentionned. Do you think a project is well managed when :

- in matter of a few years costs passed from £2.3m to £3.6m
- it takes 13 years to design, build and deliver a life boat when the world's largest ship took 6 years.
- they got the hull wrong and gave themselves 3 years just to redesign it.
- the French designed, built and delivered a much bigger boat in 3 years at about half the cost?

That's what is bonkers. What was it that I didn't undertand?

What is bonkers is your obsession with things you know little about and your reluctance to take advice from those that do. Plus in this case totally misreading what a news item was about in your rush to make a meaningless point.

As it happens in respect of the RNLI Shannon project I do not get involved because I do not have access to all the information that would enable me to comment on it meaningfully. However, I support the principles under which the RNLI operates and have confidence in the governance mechanisms that monitor its activities.

You are right - the large sums involved beg questions about whether the project has been managed effectively - but this is not the place to speculate. Others have provided you with contacts at the RNLI and you would do yourself a service by directing your questions to them - if you really want answers.

 

[Sybarite]

Last year I furnished you with the contact details of the relevant RNLI official, in the event that you wished to levy a complaint relating to poor governance. As I understand you never did, you simply asked a random question about launching the Shannon AWB.

Then in a recent Lounge thread you alluded to criticisms that the French SNSM were levying against the RNLI. I asked an SNSM official if this was true; he categorically denied it, something which I duly pointed that out on here. As it happens the SNSM and RNLI have a very good working relationship with SNSM staff regularly visit the UK and vice versa.

I'm sorry Sybarite, you are just making yourself look silly and obsessed by endlessly windmilling around on here like this.

It is high time for you to either put-up or shut-up. If you have a complaint make it; if you don't then drop it.

As you have obviously been researching the subject could you please indicate the thread where I said that the French SNSM were criticizing the RNLI. I don't remember so doing, but if I did I would like to see the context.

 

[duncan99210]

As you have obviously been researching the subject could you please indicate the thread where I said that the French SNSM were criticizing the RNLI. I don't remember so doing, but if I did I would like to see the context.

I refer you to my earlier answer.

 

[chanelyacht]

I suggest then that you have a wee word with the general secretary of the RMT because he thinks that it does in fact concern marine safety.

The RMT General Secretary, Mick Cash said, “The MCA’s Marine Office closure plans are on a par with the Coalition’s dangerous cuts to coastguards and local tax offices. These plans would jeopardise the UK’s ability to operate a safe and secure ports network, as well as the future provision of seafarer services.

Then he's a posturing idiot.

Don't forget, I know inside out what the MOs do. There is nothing whatsoever to do with port security, and as the local offices don't do port safety inspections, there's no safety element either.

The idea to accept surveys from accredited organisations (people like DNV) is not new, and is something the MCA have done for a long time anyway.

The RMT didn't give a flying f*** when actual SAR coordination was being removed, but now a couple of receptionists (who will be PCS members, not RMT) face change they suddenly jump up and down?

 

[Sybarite]

Then he's a posturing idiot.

Maybe he is but that was what prompted my post.

 

[Sybarite]

I refer you to my earlier answer.

This was neither addressed to you nor does it address the question I asked.

 

[Sybarite]

What is bonkers is your obsession with things you know little about and your reluctance to take advice from those that do. Plus in this case totally misreading what a news item was about in your rush to make a meaningless point.

I have tested the information given by some of the so-called experts and on occasion have found it wanting.

For example it was held that the Shannon, because it cost three times as much as the nearest French equivalent was obviously 3 times better. Well when you look a little bit more closely you learn that is was 13 years in development. That's a lot of cost to capitalize but it doesn't mean the boat is necessarily that much better. In fact, when they started back in the early 2000's they didn't even begin with an in-house design. They used a Carmac design which apparently then had shortcomings in heavy weather. From the outside the Shannon has a hull that looks similar to the original Carmac hull but has obviously been tweaked. Then I was told that the Shannon could maintain 25knots in very bad weather. Well it took a video clip to show that when the Shannon hit a large wave it stopped dead.

I have also received contacts from 2 different sources which suggest that there is a serious design fault with the Shannon. I have no way of knowing what that is and I am not competent to judge the potential impact it might have.

As it happens in respect of the RNLI Shannon project I do not get involved because I do not have access to all the information that would enable me to comment on it meaningfully. However, I support the principles under which the RNLI operates and have confidence in the governance mechanisms that monitor its activities.

You do not need all the information in order to ask a question. When I see a project that goes from £2.3m (2011) to £3.6m (2015)in a time when inflation is almost zero then I know there is a serious problem somewhere.

More generally I think a lot of people are lacking a reality check when you see the astronomical sums involved.

 

[Tranona]

I have tested the information given by some of the so-called experts and on occasion have found it wanting.

For example it was held that the Shannon, because it cost three times as much as the nearest French equivalent was obviously 3 times better. Well when you look a little bit more closely you learn that is was 13 years in development. That's a lot of cost to capitalize but it doesn't mean the boat is necessarily that much better. In fact, when they started back in the early 2000's they didn't even begin with an in-house design. They used a Carmac design which apparently then had shortcomings in heavy weather. From the outside the Shannon has a hull that looks similar to the original Carmac hull but has obviously been tweaked. Then I was told that the Shannon could maintain 25knots in very bad weather. Well it took a video clip to show that when the Shannon hit a large wave it stopped dead.

I have also received contacts from 2 different sources which suggest that there is a serious design fault with the Shannon. I have no way of knowing what that is and I am not competent to judge the potential impact it might have.



You do not need all the information in order to ask a question. When I see a project that goes from £2.3m (2011) to £3.6m (2015)in a time when inflation is almost zero then I know there is a serious problem somewhere.

More generally I think a lot of people are lacking a reality check when you see the astronomical sums involved.

These are all legitimate questions. However if I understand correctly all your ramblings on this in the past you claim to draw firm conclusions to the effect that the RNLI waste money, are inefficient, pay their staff too much money, have too many staff etc - and of course the French do everything perfectly.

As you have found out, this view does not meet with much approval from people on this forum who live in the UK, many of whom know far more about the subject than you (or I).

 

[dogleg]

Well it took a video clip to show that when the Shannon hit a large wave it stopped dead.


I have mentioned before that the clip you refer to was of the first Shannon going through the Portland Race under trials, not even fully fitted out as a operational lifeboat, indeed I think if you view the clip it does not have an operational number ( in this case 13-01 ) on the bow. The stopping dead as you put it was part of the trials to test angle of inclination of bow etc in rough weather, it had various instruments on board as part of the trials. We have a Shannon near us which certainly does do 25 knots + in bad weather. On its delivery voyage to station it visited two French ports where the French LB crews were very impressed. I think I can safely say that the coxswain of that boat initially somewhat wary of it would not go back to his previous boat.

I remember you said in a previous discussion in reply to my question that you have not been on board a Tamar, Shannon or Severn class RNLI lifeboat. I have as well as French boats, the level of equipment on RNLI boats is possibly superior. Until you have been on both RNLI and French LBs and seen for yourself you are possibly not best qualified to judge.

However you probably know more about accounts than I do, since you seem so convinced that you are right I suggest you write to the Chairman of the RNLI Trustees, a former boss of an international company ( who probably also understands accounts) who I am sure will be happy to answer any valid complaints you have. If you have such confidence in your case I am surprised you have not already done this.