Tows, and legal/financial matters

[Bru]

Agree, logically the opposite is true, the beaches where people drown now generally have lifeguards

And therefore fewer people will drown ...

 

[Bru]

That's not what was said at the time.

By whom?

Did the RNLI ever say they intended to run the lifeguard service on a for profit basis?

That's what "making money" means, making a profit

Running it at cost (which they now don't but did initially) is a different thing entirely

And yes, it's tough on small voluntary groups when they get overtaken by larger organisations but it's tough luck. Happens all the time. Fact of life - a small local group of volunteers cannot match a large national organisation on training, equipment, service availability etc.

(I would however myself be critical of a tendency with the RNLI to be somewhat isolationist - if it's not RNLI it doesn't really exist seems to sometimes be the attitude or at least the impression one gets. Perhaps more could have been done to work with existing clubs. Then again, were the local lifeguarding clubs actually delivering a viable service? I've dealt, in a different field, with issues arising out of well intentioned small groups who hadn't actually got the resources to deliver what was needed)

 

[Mister E]

I think that I remember a thread about the RNLI wanting to avoid all the tows when there were other services that could do the job.
Is it Seastart or something similar.

 

[lustyd]

And therefore fewer people will drown ...

Nope, it's still the beach without the lifeguard. If 100% of the 1 people a year drown on the beach without the lifeguard, and the lifeguard saves 80% of the 10 people who drown a year on the popular beach, then fewer people drown on beaches without lifeguards. Not only that, but lifeguards are present on probably 1% of beaches nationwide because nobody visits 90% of beaches nationwide, and therefore zero people a year drown on "most" beaches. Therefore, we can assume that on average zero people drown on beaches which do not have lifeguards.

 

[lustyd]

That's what "making money" means, making a profit

Incorrect. The RNLI are a not for profit ofganisation which makes an enormous amount of money. Look at their annual report, they have 700 million or so in the bank, that's a heck of a lot of money that has been made, and they are making more all the time despite their best efforts to spend it like it's going out of fashion. Not for profit means that the RNLI charity does not make profit, please don't forget the ecosystem they feed and the staff they employ. There is a considerable amount of profit around them!

 

[Bru]

Nope, it's still the beach without the lifeguard. If 100% of the 1 people a year drown on the beach without the lifeguard, and the lifeguard saves 80% of the 10 people who drown a year on the popular beach, then fewer people drown on beaches without lifeguards. Not only that, but lifeguards are present on probably 1% of beaches nationwide because nobody visits 90% of beaches nationwide, and therefore zero people a year drown on "most" beaches. Therefore, we can assume that on average zero people drown on beaches which do not have lifeguards.

Eh?

If lifeguards save 8 out of 10 on a lifeguarded beach it follows that if the lifeguards weren't there 10 people would drown instead of 3

By your logic!

 

[lustyd]

Eh?

If lifeguards save 8 out of 10 on a lifeguarded beach it follows that if the lifeguards weren't there 10 people would drown instead of 3

By your logic!

Yes, more people are saved by lifeguards on beaches with lifeguards. Obviously. You were saying that fewer people drown on those beaches though, which is not correct.

 

[Bru]

Incorrect. The RNLI are a not for profit ofganisation which makes an enormous amount of money. Look at their annual report, they have 700 million or so in the bank, that's a heck of a lot of money that has been made, and they are making more all the time despite their best efforts to spend it like it's going out of fashion. Not for profit means that the RNLI charity does not make profit, please don't forget the ecosystem they feed and the staff they employ. There is a considerable amount of profit around them!

The RNLI does not make money!

Not by any ordinary understanding of "making money" which logical contortions aside is taken by any normal measure to mean making a profit

The RNLI generates a significant income and expends a great deal on providing a life saving service. And being a (largely) well run organisation it maintains healthy reserves plus funds allocated for future projects

But it does NOT "make money"

 

[lustyd]

I think that I remember a thread about the RNLI wanting to avoid all the tows when there were other services that could do the job.
Is it Seastart or something similar.

In my experience the RNLI go out of their way to "rescue" people whether in trouble or not. Seastart is absolutely the correct organisation to respond to a breakdown in the narrow part of the coast where they operate, but that's only in cases where the RNLI don't beat them to it in an effort to bolster their stats. Post 1 details a rescue of an anchored vessel in no danger, for instance.

 

[Bru]

Yes, more people are saved by lifeguards on beaches with lifeguards. Obviously. You were saying that fewer people drown on those beaches though, which is not correct.

How can it not be correct?

Your logic - lifeguards save 8 out of 10 on a guarded beach. It follows therefore that without lifeguards 10 people would drown not two.

Therefore fewer people drown on beaches with lifeguards

 

[lustyd]

The RNLI does not make money!

Not by any ordinary understanding of "making money" which logical contortions aside is taken by any normal measure to mean making a profit

The RNLI generates a significant income and expends a great deal on providing a life saving service. And being a (largely) well run organisation it maintains healthy reserves plus funds allocated for future projects

But it does NOT "make money"

Lol OK if you don't like the term making money, then how about generating a massive and sustained surplus of money that is so huge they can't hand it to suppliers fast enough to break even? Either way you look at it, they consistently have more money than ever before. The business doesn't declare it as profit because they are not allowed to and there is nobody to give that profit to, so they incrementally increase their costs and bonuses, and replace equipment more often, occasionally embarking on "hero" projects to design their own craft. Sound like a poor business to you?

 

[lustyd]

How can it not be correct?

Your logic - lifeguards save 8 out of 10 on a guarded beach. It follows therefore that without lifeguards 10 people would drown not two.

Therefore fewer people drown on beaches with lifeguards

Edited - you know what? You've convinced me, 2 is less than 1.

 

[Refueler]

I had a similar situation myself - forestay parted .. engine swamped .. boat bouncing on Bembridge sands being blown towards the rocks at base of the Fort ...

I called direct to Solent CG on their Ch - did not use 16 and did not use Pan Pan ... Solent CG detailed Lifeboat to my aid. Note the weather was now becoming near gale and extremely dangerous. We'd been making a run from Bembridge to Langstone Hbr - if stay hadn't parted we'd have made it ..

By time LB got to us - he could not approach .. not enough water for him. I had dropped my 'upgraded' CQR and was holding but it was extremely worrying ...

LB fired Rocket Line and we hauled in the rocket line .. then messenger ... then tow line. I was struggling to lift the anchor while LB was making every attempt to drag me and anchor back into Bembridge !

On making fast in Bembridge - one LB crew came on board to complete a 'report' and we chatted. I have no idea what situation is now - but this was about 25yrs ago ... He advised that similar to Ambulance Service - if the 'boss' decided it was not a serious event - a cost could be levied. For me - I was agreeable having been 'saved'. I did put hand in pocket anyway for the LB fund. I was never charged for the 'tow'.

Why would I recite such tale ?

1. I do not regard the OP related story as a Pan Pan call and should have been made as a call similar to mine - on the CG Ch as a request for assistance / advice.
2. There was no imminent or direct danger to life - even in my gale force conditions .. mine was very unsafe - yes but not life threatening when I made the call.

Maybe some may think I am wrong ... but the LB even when on training - is ready to take call to action. if the LB had taken that boat in tow ... then he would not be available for real emergency. I accept that even my situation was possibly questionable - that is why I called the CG and accepted their determination of action .. they deemed the situation I had as serious enough for LB to be detailed. In all fairness - I do not think OP's tale was in same league.

Just for the record : Since first getting a boat - I subscribed to the RNLI. Even after leaving UK and living in Latvia - because I kept a boat at Hayling Island - I continued subscribing. In fact continued for about 2 years after I stopped keeping a boat in UK. It was my way of thanking them.

 

[Bru]

Lol OK if you don't like the term making money, then how about generating a massive and sustained surplus of money that is so huge they can't hand it to suppliers fast enough to break even? Either way you look at it, they consistently have more money than ever before. The business doesn't declare it as profit because they are not allowed to and there is nobody to give that profit to, so they incrementally increase their costs and bonuses, and replace equipment more often, occasionally embarking on "hero" projects to design their own craft. Sound like a poor business to you?

What bonuses?

Pay rates at the RNLI are well within the mid- range for the third sector

You seriously want RNLI crews to have older kit?

We've done the argument about designing and building their own boats to death over several years

Personally, I'm absolutely delighted that the UK and Eire have a lifeboat service that doesn't have to cut corners, that doesn't have to operate with old tired kit etc

When you make a Mayday call next year, do you want the lads and lasses of the RNLI to head out to your rescue on a Watson lifeboat wearing cork lifejackets etc?

Or would you, as i would, prefer them to have the very best and latest equipment in tip top condition

(I don't, by the way, recognise or accept your take on RNLI finances but i can't be arsed to rehash old arguments all over again! )

 

[lustyd]

It's not "my take" it's their annual report, produced annually. And I've certainly never said they should have older kit, but they don't need new kit as often as they get it. Either way I'll donate to them, but as many around here have said before, questioning the status quo is not the same as attacking the RNLI, and change would not necessarily be worse.

 

[Bru]

Your interpretation of their annual report is obviously different to mine

I see a third sector organisation which maintains an extremely strong financial position and delivers its' mission extremely well

There's a contradiction between "i don't want them to have older kit" and "they don't need to replace their kit so often"

What kit do you think they replace too often?

Oh and there's always room for improvement but it's generally a good idea not to throw the baby out with the bathwater

 

[dgadee]

The statute is quoted above, work it out for yourself.

That was in the 1949 Act. I think it relates more to early hacking than reporting what was said on an open and public channel 16. I suspect it's not as simple as you are suggesting.

 

[Jamie Dundee]

It's not "my take" it's their annual report, produced annually.

Love it

 

[requiem]

I've never heard an explanation as to what is the purpose/rationale of the prohibition of "disclosure of information as to contents of radio telephony".

The technical but unhelpful reason is that it's in the ITU radio regulations, and thus the contracting countries are bound to implement rules to protect that secrecy.

This has been an interesting detour for me. The 1865 International Telegraph Convention contains the earliest sign of this, Articles 4 and 5, which to me suggests the requirement precedes telephony and was likely originally intended to provide confidence in the telegraph system. These provisions have been carried over in subsequent conventions. Thinking back to the early days of radio and its similar use in facilitating trade, I think the telephone link calls did not drive the requirement, but were merely the latest incarnation of communication technologies for which secrecy was required.

Bear in mind the attitudes of the era would have been those of the pre-war monarchies and thus a bit more... controlling. Article 4 below is thus rather progressive for its time.

Art. 4.
Les Hautes Parties contractantes reconnaissent à toutes personnes le droit de correspondre au moyen des télégraphes internationaux.
Art. 5.
Elles s’engagent à prendre toutes les dispositions nécessaires pour assurer le secret des correspondances et leur bonne expédition.

Also of note is Article 19:

Les Hautes Parties contractantes se réservent la faculte d’arrêter la transmission de toute dépêche privée qui paraîtrait dangereuse pour la sécurité de l’État, ou qui serait contraire aux lois du pays, à l’ordre public ou aux bonnes mœurs, à charge d’en avertir immédiatement l’expéditeur. Ce contrôle est exercé par les bureaux télégraphiques extrêmes ou intermédiaires, sauf recours à l’Administration centrale, qui prononce sans appel.

 

[Refueler]

Maybe the secrecy part .. actually its not secrecy - but the act of information disclosure .. as the communication is deemed Private and Confidential... comes from early days when it was not speech transmission but early form of Morse style code. Only a few knew the code and therefore was regarded as relatively secure for P&C communications.

Later with Speech - that rule then became rather futile but remains.