The RNLI, do you donate?

[Grumpybear]

,

I did not express myself very well and apologise. However, a political party affects all of us, as does, to a lesser extent, the Catholic Church. How the RNLI spend contributions has no impact on those that do not contribute. The actions of a lifeboat speeding however in confined waters, is another matter.

So, my point is, if you do not contribute, you have no right to knock the RNLI imho.

With the greatest respect, I disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to differ but not any right to prevent people from criticising any organisation or person - provided it is done in a moderate and courteous manner.

 

[Sybarite]

That depends what you mean by 'Contribute'. The RNLI, as a charity, is exempt from paying tax....which arguably effects everyone who does.

Also would I be right in thinking the Charity Commission has expressed concern about the ratio of Capital/Funds under management it has vs it's spending? - IIRC Sybarite mentioned this in a previous thread

No I didn't refer to the Charity Commission. I criticized many other things but not that.

NB I never criticize the brave volunteers.

 

[pvb]

The RNLI has historically been criticised for the high level of its reserves. They adopted a complex accounting regime of allocating reserves into different categories, so as to confuse the issue. Today, they only have reserves of about £600 million.

 

[Sybarite]

The RNLI has historically been criticised for the high level of its reserves. They adopted a complex accounting regime of allocating reserves into different categories, so as to confuse the issue. Today, they only have reserves of about £600 million.

Actually £661.7m at 31/12/13 and, I would guess, well over £700m now.

As a charity does not have share capital, the net assets are represented by reserves. Some reserves are ear-marked for specific purposes, some designated by donors and others are free. Planned investment for the next 3 years is some £144m.

When reserves do not cover specific net assets they are held in investments for future use. £278.7m at 31/12/13.

 

[chanelyacht]

That depends what you mean by 'Contribute'. The RNLI, as a charity, is exempt from paying tax....which arguably effects everyone who does.

No, they're not.

For a start, the RNLI pays huge sums in non reclaimable VAT. This issue is being addressed (applicable to all SAR organisations).

Tax is also payable on its many commercial activities.

 

[Sybarite]

No, they're not.

For a start, the RNLI pays huge sums in non reclaimable VAT. This issue is being addressed (applicable to all SAR organisations).

Tax is also payable on its many commercial activities.

It has been addressed. They are to get a tax rebate of £2.5m per annum.

 

[dogleg]

It has been addressed. They are to get a tax rebate of £2.5m per annum.

boat build and refit/repair, launching equipment and bh construction are VAT free as is fuel but many other items , office furniture springs to minds are not


that the RNLI gets much VAT refunded is correct but it is not correct to say that it pays no VAT

 

[E39mad]

Charities have become more like businesses with some paying stupid salaries to the top men to match - I stopped paying into the RNLI when I found out what the CEO was being paid. It was a small monthly sum but that was all I could afford.

I now do some voluntary work for a local charity Scout Group. It has funds less than five figures and struggles to raise money and everyone invloved is a volunteer.

 

[Bru]

My understanding that if you are a charitable organisation you have to meet the following criteria:

20 % Can only be spent on Marketing
20% Can only be invested
60 % Spent on operational needs.

Where on earth does guff like this, and a whole lot of other misinformation for that matter, come from?

As a registered charity you are obliged to spend 100% of your income on meeting the stated charitable aims of the organisation. That's it. Nowhere is is set out in what proportion you have to spend money where

And this brings us on to the next issue ...

The RNLI has historically been criticised for the high level of its reserves. They adopted a complex accounting regime of allocating reserves into different categories, so as to confuse the issue. Today, they only have reserves of about £600 million.

... which is that the RNLI were far, very far, from unique in having issues with the Charity Commissioners some years ago over their reserves. We had similar problems in the charity of which I was a trustee and so did many other charities which existed as ongoing operations rather than just fund raisers

In fact, the whole reserves muddle was caused by the Commissioners who forced the big operating charities (as in charities who actually do things rather than just raise and distribute funds) through hoops over the issue because the fundamental principal of charity according to them was that you spend the money that you raise. All of it. Quickly. And thus the Commissioners were telling charity trustees across the board to draw down their general reserves to what would have often been an operationally suicidal level. As a result, we ended up with these vastly complicated reserves structures to cope with things like ring fenced bequests, self insurance, long term investments, capital plans and so on

Ring fenced bequests are a good one. I don't know the figures (and I'm not sure they are specifically highlighted in the accounts, there is no particular reason that they ought to be) but I'll bet a significant sum of money is set aside in the RNLI finances against bequests that stipulated "for the new lifeboat at Dungeness" (or whereever) or "to pay for a new roof on the Cromer lifeboat house" (as another made up example) but there is no current requirement for either the new lifeboat or the new roof. All you can do with that cash is stuff it in the special reserves against the day when Dungeness does need a new lifeboat or Cromer does need a new roof (and before Sybarite jumps on me I am simplifying things more than a bit and there are ways around this but you get the general picture)

The RNLI operates a large fleet of lifeboats, a significant operational property portfolio and a big inventory of essential equipment none of which is going to last forever and all of which requires ongoing maintenance and replacement. Any good businessman will tell you that the cheapest and most secure way to ensure that such an operation does not run out of funds is to have a healthy reserve (indeed, a lack of healthy reserves is what has crippled company after company). If you rely on day to day income to meet that need, sooner or later you will end up compromising on something due to lack of funds. In an organisation such as the RNLI a healthy reserve is a very good thing and the Charity Commissioners eventually woke up to that fact (after a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on charity boards throughout the land!)

 

[emnick]

I'm on the Direct Debit as an Offshore member. Only compliant is they seem to blow most of my DD received sending me toot through the post.
+1
I am an off shore member, however I don't agree with the helmet cam practice. I have no doubt they sell these films to the highest bidder making money out of others mis-haps. OK for training if used just for that.

Further I really cant see that the RNLI should be providing additional cover on the upper parts of the Thames (they say that these are their busies stations!)
I worked on the river for a time while in the fire service. LFB had two boats the Police had many more. Anybody jumping off a bridge would have been lucky to hit the water! Both services provided more than adequate emergency cover on the Thames.

 

[FWB]

I would be embarrassed if I ever had to call them out and doubly so if I hadn't contributed. I appear to be a Govenor member for some reason. Should I ever need their services I don't think the salaries of their top brass or their plush premises would be uppermost in my mind.

 

[dogleg]

I'm on the Direct Debit as an Offshore member. Only compliant is they seem to blow most of my DD received sending me toot through the post.
+1
I am an off shore member, however I don't agree with the helmet cam practice. I have no doubt they sell these films to the highest bidder making money out of others mis-haps. OK for training if used just for that.

Further I really cant see that the RNLI should be providing additional cover on the upper parts of the Thames (they say that these are their busies stations!)
I worked on the river for a time while in the fire service. LFB had two boats the Police had many more. Anybody jumping off a bridge would have been lucky to hit the water! Both services provided more than adequate emergency cover on the Thames.

the Thames stations were opened at the request of the government after the Marchioness inquiry reported in about 2000

don't agree with the helmet cam practice. I have no doubt they sell these films to the highest bidder making money out of others mis-haps. OK for training if used just for that.

the helmet cam videos are used for publicity obviously films are made available to all news outlets and if any money is paid for their muse it will be at the usual rate p[aid by those organisations

 

[<152587>]

I used to, quite generously and as a past professional seaman donations from very healthy ships bar profits were donated. However, as an engineer, I do not see the point of repainting a replacement gearbox to a very exacting specification to match the colour of the engine. The colour cannot detract from the functionality of transmitting power from the engine to the props. Feel the Charity is suffering from the NHS Syndrome, too many managers!

 

[Tomaret]

Only compliant is they seem to blow most of my DD received sending me toot through the post.
+1

If you call them and explain that you are happy to contribute, but don't need all the communications, either setting out what they are doing or asking for more cash, they'll stop sending them. They then don't send the sticker for the boat, either, but as the service if free for all at the point of us, I'm sure that its of no practical benefit anyway.

 

[elioti]

Some interesting replies to my thread But I still won't donate due to so much money wasteage. The latest example I've notice is by a rnli beach lifeguard who lives a few doors up from me. He drives an unsign written brand new 4x4, uses everyday to and from work and for his leisure too. Why pay for him to do this, to use it for his shopping, day outings ect and likely you're paying for his fuel too. And if he's at it, how many other beach lifeguards are? They let him do this, yet only patrols beaches a few months of the year, yet still uses the vehicle when and as he wants. Is pure squandering donations. Sure there are many other similar examples. I had to call the French lifeboat out this summer, and you must pay if it helps you, that's a better idea.Saw a posting from rnli a while ago about an amount of rescues in a certain month, most were from commercial trawlers. Perhaps if we had to pay for rescues, we would maintain our vessels better, and be more responsible, instead of saying its OK the lifeboat will rescue us, for free! The French wouldn't have this money squandering , yet offer a top service. Think if not so much was donated to one if the richest charities, there would still be a good service.As with alot if things in this country, were too happy to pay without questioning what were paying for . I've alot of admiration for the lifeboat crews, , but where money is concerned think we'd be better donating to less fortunate private lifeboat setups.

 

[Bru]

Some interesting replies to my thread But I still won't donate due to so much money wasteage. The latest example I've notice is by a rnli beach lifeguard who lives a few doors up from me. He drives an unsign written brand new 4x4, uses everyday to and from work and for his leisure too. .....

And what makes you think this vehicle is supplied by the RNLI? If it's unmarked it probably isn't

And even if it is, there are hundreds of thousands of company vehicle users who legitimately use their company vehicles for their own use. They are taxed on the derived benefit by HMRC and have to account for their leisure mileage (although I grant the system is open to a degree of abuse, the odd trip to the shops that goes unrecorded is unlikely to be spotted for example)

And you're also overlooking the fact that the beach lifeguard service is not funded from donations but by local authorities. If there was indeed "squandering" it would be of taxpayers money not donations. Doesn't make it better, just different!

 

[dom]

Some interesting replies to my thread But I still won't....
.

And ten months later....

 

[Bru]

And ten months later....

we start all over again

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

The latest example I've notice is by a rnli beach lifeguard who lives a few doors up from me. He drives an unsign written brand new 4x4, uses everyday to and from work and for his leisure too. .

Sorry, I think you'll find he's added a red Ferrari to his garage this month!

S.

 

[longjohnsilver]

3 posts in 2 years, me thinks you're an RNLI troll!