Outrage over RNLI overseas spending

[BowdonUK]

Of course a very small amount of all donations goes to the work abroad. To be able to split it up and notify where your donations are being spent would be an administrative nightmare. I’m sure if someone was donating to OXFAM or UNICEF or Cancer Research and was told a month later ‘oh by the way your donation was part of our CEO’s £120k package, thanks for donating!’ The frothing at the mouth of some would mean localised flooding.

I think it depends on the charity. If you donate to a charity that says its helping clean the streets of Britain then you wouldn't expect it to be carrying out work in other countries.

I think we have to take the view of common law justice here and say what is to be expected by the average reasonable person. Most people think the RNLI use their life boats around the British coast. They are giving money to the RNLI for that reason. So when they find out some of the money is going to other countries that have nothing to do with life boats around the British coast then its obvious the donator is going to be annoyed, shocked or surprised. To act like there should be no reaction at all when you've been deceived is I'm sorry to say kinda odd. Also its being assumed these people are only donating to the RNLI. We don't know that. They might be donating to other charities that do work in other countries.

It is interesting how some people turn a good intention of donating in to a malicious act i.e. "you donate to this charity but not to that one? you hate those kids?"

I think there is a website that tracks how much of your money goes to the CEO and other expenses, as I remember a few years ago there was a scandal of how little money per pound was actually spent on what you was donating too. These charities are sadly being used more as a tax deductable route rather than the actual charity work they was setup to do.

 

[randomshenans]

Jesus, another thread where FoxEye makes himself out to be a picture of awful.

 

[Greebo]

Yet they say they can't keep their UK staff due to lack of funding and have let >100 go.

Yet they say they will increase funding to foreign projects year-on-year, including an extra 400k this year.

The two positions only make sense if the RNLI has decided it is now a global life-saving mission, rather than a national one.

That's their prerogative, but they should make it well known (perhaps a name change) that the UK mission is not their core mission, they now have a global mission, and reducing their UK presence is to be expected in the re-balancing.

I say again: they are committed to increasing their foreign project spending year-on-year. I doubt this is the last time they will let UK staff go.

I think you will find it was yourself and others who started the name calling first but don't let the truth get in the way of your outrage,.

 

[FoxEye]

I think you will find it was yourself and others who started the name calling first but don't let the truth get in the way of your outrage,.

I'm not really concerned with what you think. Or what you assume. You won't find any evidence to support your position tho.

I attack positions and agendas such as political correctness. If people want to wear the badge of political correctness then they might be offended that I rail against it.

If you want to consider that name calling then go ahead, but it doesn't make much sense.

Vs your side which routinely calls people bigots, racists, xenophobes, idiots, thickos, Nazis, alt-right, extremists, hate mongers.

I think the name calling is pretty one-sided.

e: And here come the memes. Very convincing.

 

[Greebo]

Except that the RNLI themselves said they made a loss of ~7 million and needed more funding.

And also that they're proud of spending 3.3 million on foreign projects like teaching poor African kids to swim in muslim faith-specific clothing. Right on.

e: 3.3 million which the RNLI says it intends to increase year on year.

So unless donations increase year on year, they are admitting that they will spend less year on year on UK operations.

e2: Oh dear.



"Diversity leadership group"
"Lobbying the UN"
"Resignations among volutneers"
"Fighting homophobia"

This is what happens when the CEO is one of these new left-wing PC types.

I mean, why is the RNLI getting involved in fighting homophobia?

This is what happens when these PC types take over. The core mission takes a back seat to pushing a social agenda.

And people here will lap that up.

Apparently having a "good social justice vibe" trumps everything now.

You know what? I'm glad I have *nothing* in common with posters like @Greebo and @TJM Political correctness is veritable insanity.

Well this was the first post that resorted to name calling and guess what, that was made by you. Shrugs. I don't care what you think or not as the facts don;t lie, your blood pressure is just so high, you just can;t see for the moment.

And nobody has called you "bigots, racists, xenophobes, idiots, thickos, Nazis, alt-right, extremists, hate mongers.". You appear to be getting touchy on this and perhaps you have to think why you are reading into these posts that they are insults aimed at you?

 

[Yaayuh!]

I think it depends on the charity. If you donate to a charity that says its helping clean the streets of Britain then you wouldn't expect it to be carrying out work in other countries.

That's not what's happening here though. If you actually look into the charity that you're supporting, which I don't understand why you wouldn't, you'd see the international work is listed.

The equivalent for your example cleaning the streets of Britain would be:

Clean Britain

Where do your donations go?

• Property and equipment 53%
• Cleaning vehicle service 27%
• Event services 12%
• Education and awareness 6%
• International 2%

The problem seems to be that these people care enough to give to a charity because "lifeboats are important, I'm helping!" but don't care enough to actually see what the charity does, where their money goes or keep track of it. Then they see a very small percentage is spent on international causes only because of some sensationalist tabloid rag piece and tweets that have gained traction. Then cue "I'm donating for us, not them! something something brown people something something I'm being mislead!"

 

[wolfie138]

you love doing that reverse psychology thing don't you?

 

[FoxEye]

Well this was the first post that resorted to name calling and guess what, that was made by you. Shrugs. I don't care what you think or not as the facts don;t lie, your blood pressure is just so high, you just can;t see for the moment.

And nobody has called you "bigots, racists, xenophobes, idiots, thickos, Nazis, alt-right, extremists, hate mongers.". You appear to be getting touchy on this and perhaps you have to think why you are reading into these posts that they are insults aimed at you?

Struggling to see the name calling in my post...

Can I take it that you are offended by the term "politically correct types". Does that not describe well your position?

 

[FoxEye]

The problem seems to be that these people care enough to give to a charity because "lifeboats are important, I'm helping!" but don't care enough to actually see what the charity does, where their money goes or keep track of it. Then they see a very small percentage is spent on international causes only because of some sensationalist tabloid rag piece and tweets that have gained traction. Then cue "I'm donating for us, not them! something something brown people something something I'm being mislead!"

I notice that your side deliberately refuses to address the point that >100 UK staff were let go.

You claim that we oppose international spending. You ignore that the 2% figure will likely increase due to the CEO's promise to increase foreign project spending, and you ignore...

...that the UK workforce was cut due to a supposed shortfall in funding.

Could you please address this point?

 

[Greebo]

Struggling to see the name calling in my post...

Can I take it that you are offended by the term "politically correct types". Does that not describe well your position?

No it was naming me and then saying its "insanity".

Still waiting for you to list all these posts name calling you though...

 

[FoxEye]

No it was naming me and then saying its "insanity".

Still waiting for you to list all these posts name calling you though...

I said political correctness was insanity.

Also read the thread, man. We've done this before in other threads and I'm still not playing this game of yours. You delight in wasting my time.

 

[Greebo]

I notice that your side deliberately refuses to address the point that >100 UK staff were let go.

You claim that we oppose international spending. You ignore that the 2% figure will likely increase due to the CEO's promise to increase foreign project spending, and you ignore...

...that the UK workforce was cut due to a supposed shortfall in funding.

Could you please address this point?

Yes its a shame that 100 staff were let go.
Yes its a shame the RNLI dont get donated enough money (they should be 100% state funded IMO anyway)
Yes, they should perhaps look at cutting back their international efforts especially with the optics of how it looks.

Who knows, perhaps somebody did the maths and thought their international help saves x amounts of lives and them cutting some head office admin wont cost the UK any lives and somebody decided that saving x number of foreign kids was more important. Clearly that would not a decision you would make.

Plus clearly a substantial part of the 2% is raised specially for foreign aid so you would expect the people donating specifically to those bits would expect that foreign aid to go there?

 

[Greebo]

I said political correctness was insanity.

Also read the thread, man. We've done this before in other threads and I'm still not playing this game of yours. You delight in wasting my time.

No I don't but you tagged me in that post. Feel free to post PC was insanity but not straight after naming me and implying its referring to me. Still waiting for all these posts calling you names...

 

[FoxEye]

Plus clearly a substantial part of the 2% is raised specially for foreign aid so you would expect the people donating specifically to those bits would expect that foreign aid to go there?

Gotcha.

Foreign donors can righteously expect their donations to be spend in their country, but a UK donor doing the same is "selfish, racist, xenophobe".

Double standard plain for the whole world to see.

Thank you Greebo.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Are the RNLI definitely involved in bringing illegal immigrants ashore to the UK, or is that solely the prerogative of our Border Control ships? If they are bringing illegals ashore I foresee their funding dropping even further, and justifiably so. Quite why NGO ships are applauded by some for taxiing illegals into Europe, yet if someone smuggled contraband into an airport they'd be locked up I cannot quite fathom. Aiding and abetting illegal immigration should be made an indictable offense throughout the EU not applauded.

 

[Greebo]

Gotcha.

Foreign donors can righteously expect their donations to be spend in their country, but a UK donor doing the same is "selfish, racist, xenophobe".

Double standard plain for the whole world to see.

Thank you Greebo.

Not at all and you are deliberately twisting facts to suit your agenda,.

So you have

1. RNLI to public - please donate. Our website and brochures all state we donate 2% to international programs and we have done for decades and we make big PR noises about it.
2 RNLI to some specific organisations - We are doing some life saving work with foreign children and would like some money specifically for this, please donate.

No where does it state option 2 have to be foreign companies, I am sure some UK companies will have donated for this purpose.
No where was it stated or implied that a donation to option 1 will solely be used for UK purposes only.

Now if they had kept this hidden and sought donations on the basis of it being UK only and then it wasnt then I would agree with you, you would have every right to be angry.

I think the biggest issue here is that people assumed that it all got spent in the UK. I have seen many tweets from supposedly RNLI donators claiming they never read the brochures and reports and had just assumed it all went on UK lifeboats.

 

[Greebo]

Are the RNLI definitely involved in bringing illegal immigrants ashore to the UK, or is that solely the prerogative of our Border Control ships? If they are bringing illegals ashore I foresee their funding dropping even further, and justifiably so. Quite why NGO ships are applauded by some for taxiing illegals into Europe, yet if someone smuggled contraband into an airport they'd be locked up I cannot quite fathom. Aiding and abetting illegal immigration should be made an indictable offense throughout the EU not applauded.

So a sinking ship full of illegal immigrants has to be ignored by the RNLI lifeboats then? How do they tell? Do they go out to rescue them and as soon as they see they are "brownies" they let them drown? You sir, have really hit a new low even for you!

 

[Jono8]

Oh so now you're claiming that the international donors now not only 100% fund the foreign projects, but that they donate more than required and therefore subsidise the UK operations.

And you've pulled literally *all* of this from thin air, because there is no supporting evidence.

Incorrect. I have never once stated their international work is 100% funded by international donors. I simply asked you how you knew that it wasn't. Do you know for sure that the international projects are not covered by foreign donations/working with the the Isle of Man’s International Development Fund and Department for International Development?

The RNLI said, that despite the 6.3 million loss incurred this year, that they would continue to increase spending on foreign projects year-on-year. Including a 400k increase this year.

Because political correctness trumps even financial accounting.

It is always this way when left-wing CEOs are appointed. The PC mission always comes first. Even if the organisation loses support and goes bankrupt, that doesn't matter. THe PC agenda is sacrosanct.

No, your whole anger over this seems to be based on the totally unproven premise that they would still have that money that they spend on international projects to spend on the UK, if they didn't do those international projects.

You rather simplistically seem to think that if that 3.3m was not spent on international projects, that they would still have that 3.3m to spend in the UK and that they might not have had to have let as many people go. You have zero proof that this is the case, and the fact that some of the international projects were helped in funding by specific donors and that they work with international development fund etc to raise funds, actually implies the opposite of your misguided notion.

 

[FoxEye]

Incorrect. I have never once stated their international work is 100% funded by international donors. I simply asked you how you knew that it wasn't. Do you know for sure that the international projects are not covered by foreign donations/working with the the Isle of Man’s International Development Fund and Department for International Development?

No, your whole anger over this seems to be based on the totally unproven premise that they would still have that money that they spend on international projects, if they didnt do those international projects.

You rather simplistically seem to think that if that 3.3m was not spent on international projects, that they would still have that 3.3m to spend in the UK and that they might not have had to have let as many people go. You have zero proof that this is the case, and the fact that some of the international projects were helped in funding by specific donors and that they work with international development fund etc to raise funds, actually implies the opposite of your misguided notion.

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.

And also somewhat contradictory too.

 

[Chris Wilson]

So a sinking ship full of illegal immigrants has to be ignored by the RNLI lifeboats then? How do they tell? Do they go out to rescue them and as soon as they see they are "brownies" they let them drown? You sir, have really hit a new low even for you!

It's not a "new low" it's a stance I have always had and do not hide. Just how many of these little boats are actually sinking, rather than having chosen a perilous and illegal journey, versus those they just draw up alongside and offer the occupants a free ride to Blighty, like the NGO's in the Med`?? If they returned them to France it wouldn't be quite as bad, but no, they fetch them here, for very few to be later chucked out. Aiding and abetting is what it is.

But others make a point as to the RNLI web site showing they do indeed use charitable funding outside of the UK, it shows one should always read the "small print" and not assume a National charity has solely nationalistic interests in mind for your donations. I assume many will claim they made just such an assumption based on their title and that's why they feel so aggrieved. Hopefully those that feel duped will vote with their cheque books and legacies from now on. We'll see...