Outrage over RNLI overseas spending

Caporegime
OP
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,655
Location
Surrey
That's incorrect. They've had funds provided for them by it. They don't state that they specifically fund raise through it.

Well ,what ever the terminology is. What i mean, is they received funds through that (which will be intrinsically linked to them doing the foreign aid).
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,655
Location
Surrey
And the good news is that after all this publicity the amount of donations to the RNLI has rocketed. There even may not be any deficit this year anymore.

So I say good on the British people for supporting them and I give a boo for anybody that has stopped donating for this silly reason (assuming they donated in the first place and not just getting on their high horse). You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Yay for decency.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
And the good news is that after all this publicity the amount of donations to the RNLI has rocketed. There even may not be any deficit this year anymore.

So I say good on the British people for supporting them and I give a boo for anybody that has stopped donating for this silly reason (assuming they donated in the first place and not just getting on their high horse). You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I'll be glad if they have enough to meet fully their UK operational funding requirement, esp in light of another poster's comments about volunteer equipment being sub-standard or lacking entirely. We will surely revisit this in a few years time, after the Facebook warriors cancel their donations and the increasing foreign project budget makes more UK staff cuts inevitable.

Also whenever a dedicated PC type says I should be ashamed, it makes me happy. Given that I genuinely view PC as a terrible disease of the mind, I'm simply glad to be disease free. Thanks again.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Posts
6,566
Location
Essex
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 think it's you that wants to be annoyed. It's entirely reasonable to think that when an organisation describes itself as 'national' that its remit is 'national'.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2004
Posts
10,582
Location
Kent
I think it's you that wants to be annoyed. It's entirely reasonable to think that when an organisation describes itself as 'national' that its remit is 'national'.

But is it really worth withdrawing donations over in protest?

I mean....yes, so it turns out that they are spending money internationally...but they're teaching kids to swim, not training Al Queada troops to storm beaches or running guns to terrorists....its money spent internationally, but still for a good cause.

Even if you do have reservations about how they allocate their funding, or concerns that their priorities are affecting UK operations, surely its throwing the baby out with the bathwater to withdraw your donations considering, on balance, the overwhelming good they do with that money?
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2006
Posts
5,169
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.

This question:

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.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,655
Location
Surrey
This question:

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.

I don't know. Costs presumably. Also, the fact that their whole ethos and the ethos of the founder, was to use their expertise to help internationally as well.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
But is it really worth withdrawing donations over in protest?

I mean....yes, so it turns out that they are spending money internationally...but they're teaching kids to swim, not training Al Queada troops to storm beaches or running guns to terrorists....its money spent internationally, but still for a good cause.

Even if you do have reservations about how they allocate their funding, or concerns that their priorities are affecting UK operations, surely its throwing the baby out with the bathwater to withdraw your donations considering, on balance, the overwhelming good they do with that money?
I'm not sure what other message would get a charity's attention.

The other extreme of donating to a charity regardless of what they do with your money isn't any better. I doubt the effectiveness of writing to a CEO such as the one currently employed.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Posts
5,996
Location
Essex
I think it's you that wants to be annoyed. It's entirely reasonable to think that when an organisation describes itself as 'national' that its remit is 'national'.

I am annoyed, annoyed at the free pass given to stupidity and lack of responsibility. Also, you may think it reasonable to think so, but clearly given the current evidence you’d be wrong. If you choose to carry on with your “reasonable” view, well, that’s your choice.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I am annoyed, annoyed at the free pass given to stupidity and lack of responsibility. Also, you may think it reasonable to think so, but clearly given the current evidence you’d be wrong. If you choose to carry on with your “reasonable” view, well, that’s your choice.
You've mentioned responsibility twice. For what?

Assuming you are going to say responsibility for reading the small print of where your money goes. OK. But we do have some laws in this country (and in the EU) for making false representation.

A "national" charity is reasonably expected to spend it's money in its home country. It's right there in the name.

Other international charities often have words such as "worldwide" or "international" or they simply make it well known in all their media and campaigns that they operate internationally. As mentioned previously there is unlikely to be any issue with something like Cancer Research UK funding international research because it's still research, and still of benefit to the UK (indeed it benefits everyone simultaneously because information is not a finite resource).

In this case UK operational funding was short by 6.3 million, and at the same time foreign aid projects totalled 3.3 million, over 50% of the shortfall.

Now lastly something we haven't touched on yet. Fund-raising requires time, effort, and resourcing. There is potentially an opportunity cost in directing efforts towards fundraising for international operations. Staff and other resources dedicated to international fundraising can't be working on UK fundraising efforts. Perhaps that's a drop in the ocean but it's either an extra cost or its a resource utilised away from the core mission.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Posts
6,566
Location
Essex
But is it really worth withdrawing donations over in protest?

I mean....yes, so it turns out that they are spending money internationally...but they're teaching kids to swim, not training Al Queada troops to storm beaches or running guns to terrorists....its money spent internationally, but still for a good cause.

Even if you do have reservations about how they allocate their funding, or concerns that their priorities are affecting UK operations, surely its throwing the baby out with the bathwater to withdraw your donations considering, on balance, the overwhelming good they do with that money?
For me? No. It's such a small amount. I can understand why some people would be annoyed though.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2004
Posts
10,582
Location
Kent
For me? No. It's such a small amount. I can understand why some people would be annoyed though.

Sorry, was referring to the royal you, not implying you personally. Just quoting you to make my point.

I'm not sure what other message would get a charity's attention.

The other extreme of donating to a charity regardless of what they do with your money isn't any better. I doubt the effectiveness of writing to a CEO such as the one currently employed.

Fair enough. Like I said, I could understand it if they were doing something illegal or reprehensible, but it seems like a bit of a petulant overreaction to me. Especially when, as Pudney pointed out, the money allocated doesn't come from the donations anyway, but from investment gains.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
Sorry, was referring to the royal you, not implying you personally. Just quoting you to make my point.



Fair enough. Like I said, I could understand it if they were doing something illegal or reprehensible, but it seems like a bit of a petulant overreaction to me. Especially when, as Pudney pointed out, the money allocated doesn't come from the donations anyway, but from investment gains.

In some ways it's irrelevant that it comes from investment gains as where did the money for those investments come from? Oh yeah, donations. Given that they're currently losing money hand over fist wouldn't it make sense to shore up their core market before spending money elsewhere?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
In some ways it's irrelevant that it comes from investment gains as where did the money for those investments come from? Oh yeah, donations. Given that they're currently losing money hand over fist wouldn't it make sense to shore up their core market before spending money elsewhere?

It might, but we have no-low information on why they're spending the way they do, maybe they'll explain it, but i'm not really going to care personally, i'd rather we just abolished it and brought it into the Coast Guard officially.

Such a pointless situation simply because it's a charity when it shouldn't be.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2004
Posts
10,582
Location
Kent
In some ways it's irrelevant that it comes from investment gains as where did the money for those investments come from? Oh yeah, donations. Given that they're currently losing money hand over fist wouldn't it make sense to shore up their core market before spending money elsewhere?

I don't know. I won't pretend I understand enough about their finances to suggest how they should allocate their spending.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
It might, but we have no-low information on why they're spending the way they do, maybe they'll explain it, but i'm not really going to care personally, i'd rather we just abolished it and brought it into the Coast Guard officially.

Such a pointless situation simply because it's a charity when it shouldn't be.

Fair points tbh
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
. . . I'd rather we just abolished [the RNLI] and brought it into the Coast Guard officially. . .
I believe that NHS Helicopters are now run by Bristow Helicopters Ltd as part of a "Privatisation" initiative. All of these essential services will soon be earning money for Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians, whoever.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I believe that NHS Helicopters are now run by Bristow Helicopters Ltd as part of a "Privatisation" initiative. All of these essential services will soon be earning money for Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians, whoever.
Follow the money. It's our "representative democracy" in action again. Representing the seriously minted and the mega-corps.

But then we shouldn't be surprised. This country is the father of ultra-capitalism that views people as expendable wealth generators for the elites and the ruling classes (via those juicy backhanders and the good old revolving door).
 
Back
Top Bottom