RNLI - Overseas Expenditure. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

CatsEyes

War Hero
Will give to individual RNLI Stations in future & not to central allocation funds overseas.
I give to help UK RNLI Stations not to overseas/Zimbabwe Sea Rescue Force.
I had the same thought about St. John Ambulance some years ago, when I was an active member. We raised funds locally over quite a time and bought an ambulance. On the side, the wording read that it had been bought with locally raised funds. One day, a missive came down from on high to say that "our" ambulance was to be re-allocated to another division in another area. The fact that it was bought by local donations counted for nothing.

If you donate to individual RNLI stations, how can you be sure that they don't have to pass this on to the RNLI central account? Even if a collecting volunteer says it won't be put into central funds, I doubt whether they have the power to make that statement with any authority. I'll stay with my original decision and simply won't donate any more.
 
I snipped this bit for the people saying that this is not the RNLI's remit:

"The RNLI’s priority is to provide the very best search and rescue service in the UK and Ireland, but we are also proud to use our expertise, knowledge and influence to help others save lives across the world, particularly in countries where drowning rates are high. Our founder, Sir William Hillary, had the vision that we ‘should extend our views [of drowning prevention] from our own immediate coasts, to the most remote quarters of the globe, and to every neighbouring state’. This remains relevant today."

One last thing to say, to all the daily mail and red top readers who keep going on about the cup sackings, stop believing every headline. No-one was sacked because they had a slightly jokey mug, use your brains.
They can do whatever they like with their own money.

Begging others to pay for their world concerns should be so simple you'd think it would be a headline in their PR.
 
I snipped this bit for the people saying that this is not the RNLI's remit:

"The RNLI’s priority is to provide the very best search and rescue service in the UK and Ireland, but we are also proud to use our expertise, knowledge and influence to help others save lives across the world, particularly in countries where drowning rates are high. Our founder, Sir William Hillary, had the vision that we ‘should extend our views [of drowning prevention] from our own immediate coasts, to the most remote quarters of the globe, and to every neighbouring state’. This remains relevant today."

One last thing to say, to all the daily mail and red top readers who keep going on about the cup sackings, stop believing every headline. No-one was sacked because they had a slightly jokey mug, use your brains.
It is not their place to spend money raised by voluntary donation on overseas projects, which is why I and many others have ceased to support them through their HQ.

Two wolunteers were sacked over the mugs episode:

I have doubts about the 'surge' in donations; whenever there's publicity of any sort some people will register their feelings by firing out some money. I very much doubt that the leadership will last very long, and there will be a reorganisation soon.
 
The RNLI responds. Apparently there's been a surge in donations...



Hmm.. I note the first article is in the Guardian and of course couldn't possibly be biased.
I stopped giving after this pc farce hit the headlines, where uber pc management took offence at some allegedly pornographic mugs in the station. RNLI probe into 'sexual material' sees five volunteers leave
snip "Two RNLI volunteers have been “stood down” and three others have resigned following an investigation into “inappropriate sexual material”.
The charity says it’s restricted in what it says, but confirmed “the investigation focused on the production of inappropriate material of a sexual nature and associated social media activity directed at an RNLI staff member”
.
Speculation on social media suggestion the row stemmed from a lewd picture on a mug."
“The lifeboat station should be an environment where people can expect to be treated with dignity and respect.
“We cannot allow bullying, harassment or discrimination in what should be a safe and inclusive environment and there will be serious consequences for anybody who demonstrates this behaviour within the RNLI."

from another source
"Whitby crewman Ben Laws and his junior colleague Joe Winspear were reportedly fired over the phone on Tuesday.
The pair had swapped “banter" tea mugs as a Secret Santa present – one of which had Mr Winspear’s face superimposed on a naked woman.
RNLI bosses let them go after a female manager discovered the mugs at their HQ in north Yorkshire.
The mugs were branded a “safeguarding breach” because they might have been seen by visiting school pupils.
Lifeboat chiefs have defended the sacking, saying “this was not a trivial matter


edit bugger beaten to it by "whiskybreath"
 

endure

GCM
Act like spoilt children by withdrawing your donations if you wish. I shall continue to contribute even though 2% (shock horror) of my donations helps foreigners...
 
Act like spoilt children by withdrawing your donations if you wish. I shall continue to contribute even though 2% (shock horror) of my donations helps foreigners...
Carry on. I shan't, but shall contribute to the welfare of my local service. I've given enough to Africa.
 

armchair_ninja

Old-Salt
As an RNLI volunteer I've had some insight into this since the story broke over the weekend.

The funding for the burkini project was largely funded by a single donor who wished for the funding to be specifically used for that project. As has been mentioned earlier enabling young women to learn to swim by providing them with the clothing that allows them to take part in the activity saves lives. Likewise by providing a creche in a country where 40 kids drown every day and teaching them water safety will also save lives.

As it's only 1.5% of the annual RNLI budget and the majority has been donated with these projects in mind is not the original intention of the RNLI's founder to increase water safety worldwide being achieved.

As for the stories of stations being closed and crew dismissed whilst I agree that any large organisation can sometimes come across as heavy handed especially in dealing with such an emotive subject and with local groups of committed volunteers we are generally only hearing one side of the story - that of the aggrieved who are always in the right.

By stopping donating you are hurting the very thing that you claim to admire, the crews that go out in all conditions to rescue anyone that is in difficulties at sea and that might be someone of a different religion, race, gender, sexual persuasion or any other category that the Daily Mail get's into a twist about.
 
As an RNLI volunteer I've had some insight into this since the story broke over the weekend.

The funding for the burkini project was largely funded by a single donor who wished for the funding to be specifically used for that project. As has been mentioned earlier enabling young women to learn to swim by providing them with the clothing that allows them to take part in the activity saves lives. Likewise by providing a creche in a country where 40 kids drown every day and teaching them water safety will also save lives.

As it's only 1.5% of the annual RNLI budget and the majority has been donated with these projects in mind is not the original intention of the RNLI's founder to increase water safety worldwide being achieved.

As for the stories of stations being closed and crew dismissed whilst I agree that any large organisation can sometimes come across as heavy handed especially in dealing with such an emotive subject and with local groups of committed volunteers we are generally only hearing one side of the story - that of the aggrieved who are always in the right.

By stopping donating you are hurting the very thing that you claim to admire, the crews that go out in all conditions to rescue anyone that is in difficulties at sea and that might be someone of a different religion, race, gender, sexual persuasion or any other category that the Daily Mail get's into a twist about.
£3.3m is a substantial amount of money, enough to buy a few inshore lifeboats or keep a Station from closing, thereby saving a few more lives , in this country.

If the RNLI want to spend collection tin money on overseas work, fine.
Just put another box on the pub bar with RNLI International Donations written on it.
 
Last edited:
The RNLI responds. Apparently there's been a surge in donations...


The headline doesn't match exactly what the RNLI says:
An RNLI spokesperson said: “In response to the recent media pieces about the lifesaving work we are doing overseas, we have been very encouraged to see a sharp increase in online donations, coupled with some very positive messages of support. But this is such a polarising issue, and we have also received some very negative responses, including people contacting our supporter care team requesting to withdraw or reduce their support for the charity.

“The volume of responses we have received on this matter is vast and ongoing – the overall picture is changing constantly at the moment, so it may be several weeks before we have a full understanding of its impact on donations to the RNLI.”
 
Last edited:

armchair_ninja

Old-Salt
If you're donating to the RNLI to save lives at sea then does it matter what sea/river those lives are in and or what colour their skin is.

Obviously it does to some people.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
£3.3m is a substantial amount of money, enough to buy a few inshore lifeboats or keep a Station from closing, thereby saving a few more lives , in this country.

If the RNLI want to spend collection tin money on overseas work, fine.
Just put another box on the pub bar with RNLI International Donations written on it.
If the money was given only on the proviso that it was used for these functions, it would never have existed for those stations you wish to save.
 
If the money was given only on the proviso that it was used for these functions, it would never have existed for those stations you wise to save.
I doubt very much whether collection boxes EVER stated that some of your contribution would be used outside UK waters.
 
As an RNLI volunteer I've had some insight into this since the story broke over the weekend.

The funding for the burkini project was largely funded by a single donor who wished for the funding to be specifically used for that project. As has been mentioned earlier enabling young women to learn to swim by providing them with the clothing that allows them to take part in the activity saves lives. Likewise by providing a creche in a country where 40 kids drown every day and teaching them water safety will also save lives.

As it's only 1.5% of the annual RNLI budget and the majority has been donated with these projects in mind is not the original intention of the RNLI's founder to increase water safety worldwide being achieved.

As for the stories of stations being closed and crew dismissed whilst I agree that any large organisation can sometimes come across as heavy handed especially in dealing with such an emotive subject and with local groups of committed volunteers we are generally only hearing one side of the story - that of the aggrieved who are always in the right.

By stopping donating you are hurting the very thing that you claim to admire, the crews that go out in all conditions to rescue anyone that is in difficulties at sea and that might be someone of a different religion, race, gender, sexual persuasion or any other category that the Daily Mail get's into a twist about.
I hear you, but I donate; how should I then register my disapproval of their strategy, given that very large sums of donated cash is being spent on virtuous projects which I would consider to be far outside the core mission of the RNLI? Just yesterday I was involved (in communicating only) with a distress call from a chap whose engine had packed in and he was dangerously close to rock. The lifeboat (RIB) was too far away on another task to help, so we had to rope in a local with his own RIB; my boat's draught was too deep to be any help. A small and not too perilous job, but I would rather my donation went toward the maintenance and expansion of such services, not saving the rest of the world's paddling population.

Writing to them would elicit only a proforma response which is likely to only salve the sender's (rather patronising) feelings toward the bathers in Tanzania. I had no idea that any of my donations over the years went in that direction, and even if the amounts involved are small (in percentage terms), I resent them being used in that way. I'm sure that many people consider it worthy and virtuous, but if so, the charity should expend only those funds specifically directed at those areas in that way. I happen to believe that the RNLIs function is a Governmental responsibility in any case, which should be wholly taken over by them, possibly with industry and association (RYA) oversight.
 

Awol

LE
Read the post up thread. The donor stated they wanted their donations used for the burkini project.
That sounds a bit too convenient to me. I suspect that RNLI PR have been scrabbling around for a way to defuse the controversy, and that is what they've come up with, especially as no one is going to ask them to name the donor.
 
Read the post up thread. The donor stated they wanted their donations used for the burkini project.
I read the post up thread, in fact all of them, as I have a particular interest in the RNLI, and its continued good Governance.

If someone wants to donate most, not ALL, note, MOST of the money to buy some Burkinis, ( whatever the hell they actually are) that is their business.

Up thread, as you refer to, I mentioned the sending of RNLI boats, and other equipment, to the Greece - Turkey border in 2016.

Bet the bloke in the pub who always chucks his change from a round into ' the Lifeboat', didn't know that.
 
Read the post up thread. The donor stated they wanted their donations used for the burkini project.
Strange how the donor didn't just give directly to the country involved rather than give to a British Charity that would have to go to a bit of trouble to set up in a foreign country.
 

armchair_ninja

Old-Salt
Up thread, as you refer to, I mentioned the sending of RNLI boats, and other equipment, to the Greece - Turkey border in 2016.

Bet the bloke in the pub who always chucks his change from a round into ' the Lifeboat', didn't know that.
The RNLI maintain a reserve fleet as well as the 350 boats at stations around the coast of the UK and Ireland. I believe it was some of these boats sent out to the med.
 
I hear you, but I donate; how should I then register my disapproval of their strategy, given that very large sums of donated cash is being spent on virtuous projects which I would consider to be far outside the core mission of the RNLI? Just yesterday I was involved (in communicating only) with a distress call from a chap whose engine had packed in and he was dangerously close to rock. The lifeboat (RIB) was too far away on another task to help, so we had to rope in a local with his own RIB; my boat's draught was too deep to be any help. A small and not too perilous job, but I would rather my donation went toward the maintenance and expansion of such services, not saving the rest of the world's paddling population.

Writing to them would elicit only a proforma response which is likely to only salve the sender's (rather patronising) feelings toward the bathers in Tanzania. I had no idea that any of my donations over the years went in that direction, and even if the amounts involved are small (in percentage terms), I resent them being used in that way. I'm sure that many people consider it worthy and virtuous, but if so, the charity should expend only those funds specifically directed at those areas in that way. I happen to believe that the RNLIs function is a Governmental responsibility in any case, which should be wholly taken over by them, possibly with industry and association (RYA) oversight.
Agree with everything apart from the last sentence.
It has been a time-proven , World class life saving at sea Service. All that without government intervention.

A caring, community people power has fueled it and manned it for 7 or 8 generations.

Why would that benefit from the scum that inhabits the HoC ?
 

Latest Threads

Top