Outrage over RNLI overseas spending

[FoxEye]

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.

This continues to be untrue. The outrage in this case was that UK staff were being let go whilst foreign spending was being ramped up. The implication being that the UK operation could not be funded fully.

It does you no credit to keep twisting the views of those you disagree with.

 

[Pudney]

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.

in fairness I haven't seen your posts in this thread, it's more of a general rant about today's culture of celebrating ignorance and trying to avoid taking responsibility.

I asked earlier if that was the case, why the CEO didn't come out and say as much.

I don't know, why would I know? Ask him if you really need to continue to be outraged over this.

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

I don't recall where I said it was one side or the other. Not sure what the point of your post is?

 

[plasmahal]

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.

While I somewhat agree, I see the left mostly being offended and then resort to name calling when they are called out on it. Like I said, it works both ways though.

 

[FoxEye]

I don't know, why would I know? Ask him if you really need to continue to be outraged over this.

With all due respect, I don't know you from Adam. An on-the-record statement from the CEO, to the effect that donations were not being diverted to foreign projects, but rather (fully,wholly) funded using separate funding sources specifically for those projects - this would bring more closure than an anonymous internet poster Whose word I have no way of verifying.

 

[Pudney]

While I somewhat agree, I see the left mostly being offended and then resort to name calling when they are called out on it. Like I said, it works both ways though.

Most people do it today regardless of whether they're right or left, because this is somehow the culture that has been fostered.

This whole left/right dichotomy that is currently another fad is irritating as well. Crazily enough people on the left/right do equal amounts of stupid.

 

[Pudney]

With all due respect, I don't know you from Adam. An on-the-record statement from the CEO, to the effect that donations were not being diverted to foreign projects, but rather (fully,wholly) funded using separate funding sources specifically for those projects - this would bring more closure than an anonymous internet poster Whose word I have no way of verifying.

Then why bring it up? Who knows why the CEO hasn't mentioned it! Maybe they don't know? Maybe their media training is rubbish? Maybe they think it wasn't actually a big issue?

What was your point? The audited accounts are misleading? If so go to the Charity Commission as the independent regulator of the charity sector and make a complaint.

 

[Jono8]

It's not clear that those two listed fully fund the 2% or that the 2% is funded by specific donations at all. Just that two international funds contribute.

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).

You both don't seem to be following. I have never stated that the 2% is definitely 100% funded by their international fundraising/specific donors.

I have simply said that it is quite possible, based on the evidence they have given. At the very least it is likely that a decent amount of the 2% figure is consisting of funds raised in this way.

As I have explained, you are under the misguided notion that this 2% would still be there to spend on the UK, if they gave up fundraising internationally (in the ways they have explained in that link to their website). It most likely would not be, or at least it would not be as much.

My position has evidence to back it up - ie that they have donors who donate to specific projects (ie the burkini one) and that they raise money through international development funds etc.

Your position has no evidence and is simply reactionary. You just assume that this money is there regardless and should all be funnelled into their UK work.

You both therefore seem to be angry, about potentially a miniscule percentage (possibly fractions of a percent) of donations/revenue going into international aid. Furthermore international aid is something they readily advertise on their website and on their annual funding reports, and their own founder encouraged such endeavours. None of this is hidden or a secret. Having an international presence will no doubt help donations and revenue as well.

Therefore your whole position on this is laughable and based on nothing but misconceptions and your anger on this is entirely misplaced.

 

[Em3bbs]

Who knows why the CEO hasn't mentioned it! Maybe they don't know? Maybe their media training is rubbish? Maybe they think it wasn't actually a big issue?

That doesn't really sound like someone worthy of a nearly 200k per annum pay packet paid for by donations?

 

[Greebo]

This continues to be untrue. The outrage in this case was that UK staff were being let go whilst foreign spending was being ramped up. The implication being that the UK operation could not be funded fully.

It does you no credit to keep twisting the views of those you disagree with.

No most of the vitriol outrage on twitter and FB hasn't even mentioned the UK staff, its mainly just been that they never realised the money they donated was going abroad and it should be spent on UK only.

And then we get posters, like on here, saying RNLI shouldn't rescue immigrants and let them drown and if they do they should be prosecuted. Again no mention of the UK hob losses.

So it does you no credit to try and excuse the vast majority of the comments against which has nothing to do with the UK job losses in order to excuse their comments.

 

[Greebo]

Oops, the moral facade is slipping, he's mentioned the 'T' word with some undertones of hate and self-loathing.

"The gutter press"?

 

[plasmahal]

I have never stated that the 2% is definitely 100% funded by their international fundraising/specific donors.

You heavily implied it though.

You made assumptions to fit your outlook.

What I think @FoxEye is getting at is, why would a predominantly UK charity who is struggling to get donations , then pledge to increase spending on there international work?

That is then made to look worse when they cut jobs in the UK.

You just assume that this money is there regardless and should all be funnelled into their UK work.

Well, if specific non-UK donors are donating to a very specific UK charity, surely the money is there regardless?

Why not just start a separate international charity which is associated to the RNLI? They may get more donations from non-UK donors that want to see there money go to 100% international causes.

 

[FoxEye]

@Jono8 I read what you wrote the first time. You brought no evidence as to what part of the foreign projects fund was funded (by doners) with the sole intent of funding foreign projects. Here is your oppotutnity, on the record, to tell us what % of the foreign projects budget is funded in this way.

You used phrases such as "common sense" and "I think" and "quite possible" and expected us to buy into your hypothesis with no supporting evidence, other than the material we've all read.

I don't know why you expect to be treated as an authority when you have nothing but "reading between the lines" as evidence.

Now here's a little maths you, since you brought "miniscule percentages" (unproven) into the debate.

Shortfall = 6.3 million.
Foreign projects budget = 3.3 million.

What % of the shortfall is the foreign projects budget?

Answer: it's just over 50%.

You talk of minuscule percentages and laughable arguments... but you never provided any data which makes your position anything other than faith based.

I'm seriously not impressed Even if you somehow manage to be correct at the end of the day, without hard data it's guesswork. We can all guess the right answer some of the time. By your own admission you didn't have the data.

Which is fine, btw. I just don't think you have grounds for mockery on the basis of guesswork.

 

[Jono8]

You heavily implied it though.

You made assumptions to fit your outlook.

No, i made assumptions based on evidence . It is Foxeye's position that is making assumptions on nothing.

What I think @FoxEye is getting at is, why would a predominantly UK charity who is struggling to get donations , then pledge to increase spending on there international work?

That is then made to look worse when they cut jobs in the UK.



Well, if specific non-UK donors are donating to a very specific UK charity, surely the money is there regardless?

Have you completely failed to read anything that has been written (ie with the burkini project being funded in the majority by one Donor who wanted the money put towards that)?

 

[Jono8]

@Jono8 I read what you wrote the first time. You brought no evidence as to what part of the foreign projects fund was funded (by doners) with the sole intent of funding foreign projects. Here is your oppotutnity, on the record, to tell us what % of the foreign projects budget is funded in this way.

You used phrases such as "common sense" and "I think" and "quite possible" and expected us to buy into your hypothesis with no supporting evidence, other than the material we've all read.

I don't know why you expect to be treated as an authority when you have nothing but "reading between the lines" as evidence.

Now here's a little maths you, since you brought "miniscule percentages" (unproven) into the debate.

Shortfall = 6.3 million.
Foreign projects budget = 3.3 million.

What % of the shortfall is the foreign projects budget?

Answer: it's just over 50%.

You talk of minuscule percentages and laughable arguments... but you never provided any data which makes your position anything other than faith based.

I'm seriously not impressed

Again, you either can't understand a simple concept or are intentionally trying to deflect. You have no evidence that the 3.3m would still be there if they did no foreign aid work and did not specifically fund raise for it and have private donors funding the foreign projects.Your comparison to the shortfall is therefore irrelevant and no conclusion can be drawn from it.

What evidence do you have to the contrary to support your argument?

My position - the 2% is definitely somewhat made up of fundraising specifically for said projects and from international development funds (ie funds they would not have otherwise). I don't know know the exact amount, but if one such project is funded in the majority by one rich donor, it is probably significant.

Your position - feelings? I don't know.

You are the only one with the faith based argument here.

 

[plasmahal]

Have you completely failed to read anything that has been written (ie with the burkini project being funded in the majority by one Donor who wanted the money put towards that)?

Read it all fine thanks.

Feel free to answer the question though, you probably won't.

 

[plasmahal]

You used phrases such as "common sense" and "I think" and "quite possible" and expected us to buy into your hypothesis with no supporting evidence, other than the material we've all read.

I don't know why you expect to be treated as an authority when you have nothing but "reading between the lines" as evidence.

@Jono8 - THIS!!!

 

[StriderX]

Such compassion, charity is much too good for some apparently, i wonder why.

 

[Jono8]

Read it all fine thanks.

Feel free to answer the question though, you probably won't.

I did. On the link sent earlier (if you had been following the thread) one Donor specifically majority funded the burkini initiative and wanted the money to go towards that.

So in answer to your question

"Well, if specific non-UK donors are donating to a very specific UK charity, surely the money is there regardless?"

So no, quite clearly the money wouldn't be there regardless. Also, as explained they raise funds through the International Development Fund which is something specifically for foreign aid. So again, no that money would not be there regardless.

 

[FoxEye]

Again, you either can't understand a simple concept or are intentionally trying to deflect. You have no evidence that the 3.3m would still be there if they did no foreign aid work and did not specifically fund raise for it and have private donors funding the foreign projects.Your comparison to the shortfall is therefore irrelevant and no conclusion can be drawn from it.

What evidence do you have to the contrary to support your argument?

My position - the 2% is definitely somewhat made up of fundraising specifically for said projects and from international development funds (ie funds they would not have otherwise). I don't know know the exact amount, but if one such project is funded in the majority by one rich donor, it is probably significant.

Your position - feelings? I don't know.

You are the only one with the faith based argument here.

Let's be generous and say that 2.3 million would be lost (since you're providing no data to back your own argument I'll inject some fantasy numbers).

That's still 1 million towards the shortfall in their UK operations.

So unless your position is that virtually all of the donations would be lost (in which case you could use some supporting data yourself) then I'm still not sure what your point it.

Here's a number that's less than 3.3 million: 3.29 million.
Here's a number that's great than 0: 0.00000000000000001.

See what I'm getting at? With no data yourself you are speculating. You're assuming numbers which meat your viewpoint/argument, when you clearly have no actual data.

Ergo, guesswork.

 

[FoxEye]

Such compassion, charity is much too good for some apparently, i wonder why.

To you I refer my previous point.

If it is acceptable for foreign donors to stipulate that their money only be used in foreign operations, then where is the difference to UK donors wanting their donations to be used in UK operations.

Answer that somehow or fall into the double standards trap.