Outrage over RNLI overseas spending

Caporegime
OP
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,655
Location
Surrey
Your entire post boils down to, "Prove my theory is not true." Think I'll pass. It's just a bunch of assumption at best.

No, it is based on the fact that they clearly raise money through channels dedicated to international aid and from donors who want to help them use their expertise for specific projects abroad. It isn't an assumption, it is just common sense.

If you want to act all reactionary and just assume that all of the 2% they spend on foreign aid would still exist and could be spent on the UK if they weren't doing international projects than that is up to you. It would be clear from everything you can read and all the evidence we have, that you would be wrong though.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
No, it is based on the fact that they clearly raise money through channels dedicated to international aid and from donors who want to help them use their expertise for specific projects abroad. It isn't an assumption, it is just common sense.

Back it up with evidence or it is literally an assumption and not a fact.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
You can always tell who the PC activists are.

They always resort to name calling.

They also pervert the word "liberal" to include zero-tolerance of any dissenting opinion.

They hold to the idea that dissenting opinion stems from some kind of fault or flaw with their opponent. They must be (thick) (bigoted) (racist) (alt-right) (etc).

No opinion that is not in line with their own thinking could arise from a normal person. So instead they look to paint the opponent as broken in some way.

We are increasingly bored and hostile to this PC mindset, which damages debate and intentionally destroys dissent. Stalin would be proud, you guys.


You are the one who posted the racist trope in your very first post in this thread. Don't be surprised when someone then calls you a bigot.


e: Who of us doesn't know that £millions is wasted in corruption in Africa every year? The african governments are more than able to fund their own programmes to teach mulslim girls to swim in Burkinis.

There is zero shame in being called a liberal. Liberals can claim things like the end of slavery, universal suffrage, social security, the list goes on and on. How have bigots moved society on? As you are now in the minority perhaps you should be the ones to move to another planet ;)
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
You are the one who posted the racist trope in your very first post in this thread. Don't be surprised when someone then calls you a bigot.

There is zero shame in being called a liberal. Liberals can claim things like the end of slavery, universal suffrage, social security, the list goes on and on. How have bigots moved society on? As you are now in the minority perhaps you should be the ones to move to another planet ;)
Oh come on. Really?

Saying there's corruption in African governments is "a racist trope"?

M'lud, I rest my case.

Also see "liberal" vs liberal. People who push their opinions as righteous and true, whilst aiming to shut down dissenting opinions, via no-platforming, bullying, violence, abusing legislation...

...those are not liberal values or actions.
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
10,695
Location
Shropshire
I have to wonder just how many donators to the RNLI realized, despite claims by the RNLI that it was well publicized, that their money was in part paying for child minders in Bangladesh, and what their longer term reaction to this might be. I spoke earlier to a relative on another matter, and who has bequeathed a substantial amount to the RNLI in her will, and her reaction on learning of this was one of shock and an affirmation that her will be changed to remove them as a beneficiary as soon as possible. I doubt she's alone. Knowing one local landlord well I strongly suspect the RNLI collection box may now be in the back room awaiting collection by them. I'll take a look and ask tonight.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I don't know what you think you've proved.

The linked page says they "seek donations for overseas work" and have received "large donations from international development funds".

It says nothing about how much of the 2% spend (pledged to increase year on year) was covered by such donations.

I don't have any beef with overseas work being FULLY funded by donations specifically for overseas work. Because I believe people can support whatever they want with their money, and if (anyone) didn't want to support the RNLI's UK operations, but wanted to fund a programme in Africa, I wouldn't condemn the for it. Their money, their choice.

Whereas people who want to donate specifically to support the UK operations are called "xenophobes" and "racists". Good, isn't it.

If that 2% overseas spend is not fully funded by people who wish to contribute to a global charity/overseas projects, then it it diverting money from the UK operations funding to overseas projects, by definition. Cold, hard, uncaring logic.

The linked article does NOT state that the 2% is fully funded by such donors (aka IDF).
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Posts
5,996
Location
Essex
I don't know what you think you've proved.

The linked page says they "seek donations for overseas work" and have received "large donations from international development funds".

It says nothing about how much of the 2% spend (pledged to increase year on year) was covered by such donations.

I don't have any beef with overseas work being FULLY funded by donations specifically for overseas work. Because I believe people can support whatever they want with their money, and if (anyone) didn't want to support the RNLI's UK operations, but wanted to fund a programme in Africa, I wouldn't condemn the for it. Their money, their choice.

Whereas people who want to donate specifically to support the UK operations are called "xenophobes" and "racists". Good, isn't it.

If that 2% overseas spend is not fully funded by people who wish to contribute to a global charity/overseas projects, then it it diverting money from the UK operations funding to overseas projects, by definition. Cold, hard, uncaring logic.

The linked article does NOT state that the 2% is fully funded by such donors (aka IDF).

If it helps per the 2017 accounts international expenditure all comes from restricted funds (i.e. income that is specifically designated for international work) or from the gains made on investments. So technically no persons donations are spent overseas (as the original donation still sits in the investment capital).

There we go, everyone can be happy.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
I wouldn't be outraged about it personally as 2% is a small amount of their budget and probably raises some good PR for the UK as a whole as well as the RNLI. The only problem is that they obviously weren't transparent enough that they were doing this, and clearly people have a problem with charity money being spend abroad when they thought it was being spent within the UK.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Posts
5,996
Location
Essex
I wouldn't be outraged about it personally as 2% is a small amount of their budget and probably raises some good PR for the UK as a whole as well as the RNLI. The only problem is that they obviously weren't transparent enough that they were doing this, and clearly people have a problem with charity money being spend abroad when they thought it was being spent within the UK.

The international work isn't hidden anywhere. There's a section on the website, there's talk about it in the accounts. What the bigger issue is that people, especially nowadays, assume far too much and don't actually bother to look at the detail.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
The international work isn't hidden anywhere. There's a section on the website, there's talk about it in the accounts. What the bigger issue is that people, especially nowadays, assume far too much and don't actually bother to look at the detail.

It seems reasonable to assume that an organisation with national in it's name would operate within the UK only, if they had advertised more broadly that they did work outside of the UK then there would've been no news story because it would be common knowledge already. Clearly that wasn't the case.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,616
Location
Co Durham
The international work isn't hidden anywhere. There's a section on the website, there's talk about it in the accounts. What the bigger issue is that people, especially nowadays, assume far too much and don't actually bother to look at the detail.

This. RNLI haven't hidden the fact they do this for decades. Its only now its a problem in the current and continuing baying by the gutter press in this country about any money going to foreigners ever now we seem to be moving ever and ever more insular copying Trump.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Posts
5,996
Location
Essex
It seems reasonable to assume that an organisation with national in it's name would operate within the UK only, if they had advertised more broadly that they did work outside of the UK then there would've been no news story because it would be common knowledge already. Clearly that wasn't the case.

Of course you think it's reasonable. You're looking to be annoyed by this. You WANT to be annoyed. Today's media is all about being offended by the most trivial of things and people too often lap it up when it suits their agenda.

Ultimately, ignorance isn't a virtue, if you want to be ignorant go for it. But if you're willing to champion ignorance, more fool you and anyone else who wants to spend their lives assuming things.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2006
Posts
5,169
This. RNLI haven't hidden the fact they do this for decades. Its only now its a problem in the current and continuing baying by the gutter press in this country about any money going to foreigners ever now we seem to be moving ever and ever more insular copying Trump.


Oops, the moral facade is slipping, he's mentioned the 'T' word with some undertones of hate and self-loathing. :)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
Of course you think it's reasonable. You're looking to be annoyed by this. You WANT to be annoyed. Today's media is all about being offended by the most trivial of things and people too often lap it up when it suits their agenda.

Ultimately, ignorance isn't a virtue, if you want to be ignorant go for it. But if you're willing to champion ignorance, more fool you and anyone else who wants to spend their lives assuming things.

I'm not annoyed by it at all, I think it reflects well on the UK to do that sort of work. It just needs to be clear that some of the money donated is being spent on that, I would imagine that a lot of people who donate are older people and wouldn't visit their website funnily enough. It's not hard to understand that fact.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
If it helps per the 2017 accounts international expenditure all comes from restricted funds (i.e. income that is specifically designated for international work) or from the gains made on investments. So technically no persons donations are spent overseas (as the original donation still sits in the investment capital).

There we go, everyone can be happy.
I asked earlier if that was the case, why the CEO didn't come out and say as much.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2006
Posts
5,169
Of course you think it's reasonable. You're looking to be annoyed by this. You WANT to be annoyed. Today's media is all about being offended by the most trivial of things and people too often lap it up when it suits their agenda.

Ultimately, ignorance isn't a virtue, if you want to be ignorant go for it. But if you're willing to champion ignorance, more fool you and anyone else who wants to spend their lives assuming things.

It work's both ways though, it's not exclusive to one side or the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom