Outrage over RNLI overseas spending

[Jono8]

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.

I have consistently backed this (that i don't have exact figures, none of us do).

I am making the point that my position has far more validity than yours.

Your whole anger over this, is the assumption that they would have had all that money anyway. All the evidence points to this not being the case.

Therefore your position is entirely guesswork also, but guesswork that goes against the evidence presented before you.

 

[BowdonUK]

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 was respecting your reply until you started to insinuate people are racist, interestingly like the DM did in their article.

The bottom line is, if a person is donating to the RNLI they think its going to the life boats for around the British isles. You can copy/paste off websites all you like, but I've never seen that information on a donation box, and neither have you.

Imagine if you donated to a charity for African childiren and found out the money never left this country and was spent here instead. I'm sure you'd be annoyed at that. This is the same thing.

It amazes me how people look the other way on a principle when it happens to benefit them or their aims. But they would be the first to be shouting about it if other principles were broken that went against them.

 

[Jono8]

Imagine if you donated to a charity for African childiren and found out the money never left this country and was spent here instead. I'm sure you'd be annoyed at that. This is the same thing.

Any reasonable person would not be annoyed if the charity they donated to that said they carried out African aid, also spent a very small percentage of their funds on UK aid as well.

This would be especially so, if they cared to read a bit more about the charity they were giving to and read the detailed information on their website explaining that they do this.

 

[BowdonUK]

Any reasonable person would not be annoyed if the charity they donated to that said they carried out African aid, also spent a very small percentage of their funds on UK aid as well.

I doubt most donators have looked at the RNLI website before they are sending donations. This as led to a misunderstanding that as now become clear.

Let's not forget a donation is a gift.

 

[FoxEye]

I have consistently backed this (that i don't have exact figures, none of us do).

I am making the point that my position has far more validity than yours.

Your (total) guesswork is somehow more valid than than someone else's?

I... see.

It amuses me knowing who the posters are from the Brexit thread who loudly and repeatedly bang the drum of "where is your evidence", then seeing them turn up in other threads demanded that their guesswork be treated as fact.

It is profoundly amusing

 

[Jono8]

Your (total) guesswork is somehow more valid than than someone else's?

I... see.

It amuses me knowing who the posters are from the Brexit thread who loudly and repeatedly bang the drum of "where is your evidence", then seeing them turn up in other threads demanded that their guesswork be treated as fact.

It is profoundly amusing

No, again you seem to misunderstand.

You seem to be very angry at the RNLI, based on pure guesswork.

I am telling you that it is highly likely that they wouldn't have some or maybe even all of that 3.3m anyway due to private donors and foreign aid fundraising.

You seem to want to ignore that this might well be the case, and instead stay angry at the RNLI.

You are angry at them, based on your own assumptions.

 

[StriderX]

I was respecting your reply until you started to insinuate people are racist, interestingly like the DM did in their article.

The bottom line is, if a person is donating to the RNLI they think its going to the life boats for around the British isles. You can copy/paste off websites all you like, but I've never seen that information on a donation box, and neither have you.

Imagine if you donated to a charity for African childiren and found out the money never left this country and was spent here instead. I'm sure you'd be annoyed at that. This is the same thing.

It amazes me how people look the other way on a principle when it happens to benefit them or their aims. But they would be the first to be shouting about it if other principles were broken that went against them.

It's not the same thing as it's only a small percentage being spent, the real argument here is that it shouldn't even be a charity in the first place and people should be paying through taxation.

 

[FoxEye]

It amazes me how people look the other way on a principle when it happens to benefit them or their aims. But they would be the first to be shouting about it if other principles were broken that went against them.

Double standards are rife these days. As is cognitive dissonance.

The trick is to believe at all times that you speak the undeniable truth, from atop the highest moral high ground, and that the opponent is a brain trauma victim on day release from the asylum. Or just plain evil/angry/loser/etc.

Also to call your mates in from the Brexit thread to have your back

 

[FoxEye]

No, again you seem to misunderstand.

You seem to be very angry at the RNLI, based on pure guesswork.

I am telling you that it is highly likely that they wouldn't have some or maybe even all of that 3.3m anyway due to private donors and foreign aid fundraising.

You seem to want to ignore that this might well be the case, and instead stay angry at the RNLI.

You are angry at them, based on your own assumptions.

I understand completely. Really I do.

You are countering assumption with assumption, and demanding to be validated.

Then being really confused when people aren't validating your assumption, as far as to call the matter settled in your favour

 

[Jono8]

I understand completely. Really I do.

You are countering assumption with assumption, and demanding to be validated.

Then being really confused when people aren't validating your assumption, as far as to call the matter settled in your favour

Incorrect again. I am not making an assumption. I am simply presenting you with new evidence to rethink your initial position and offering potential scenarios, based on evidence, to show how you may be wrong and that your anger may be misplaced.

At the moment, you are angry at the RNLI over this whole thing, based on an assumption. An assumption that the 3.3m/money they put into foreign aid would still be there to give to the UK, even if they did no international projects

This is an assumption that might well be incorrect, based on the fact that they specifically fundraise for international aid and have private donor's that help to fund some of their foreign projects. Given that we know they fundraise specifically for their foreign aid work, we know at the very least that some of that 3.3m is accounted for in that.

Based therefore on this new evidence, are you still 100% positive that the RNLI are completely in the wrong?

Or, maybe let me put it this way, if that 3.3m is covered by private donors and foreign aid fund raising, would you still think that they are in the wrong?

 

[FoxEye]

"May"; "may be"; "if"; "maybe".

You still haven't found any data. We'll leave it there as probably everybody else is bored. I know I am.

Until and unless you present data showing that 100% of the foreign projects budget is separately funded, then we have nothing to discuss. Otherwise some % of donations is being diverted. That could be tens of thousand, hundreds of thousand, or millions. You just don't know.

Likewise something *I* don't know is what % of domestic donors would be opposed to such a diversion. So I'm not claiming to have data either (just to be clear).

In the absence of data this back-and-forth serves no purpose.

 

[413x]

rnli do great work, im sure ill need them some day.

and yes, people are becoming more isolationist, its a shame, it feels like a lot of progress is being lost.
i wonder if this is the start of forming 2 different species, the polarised climate we live in in our western world.

 

[Jono8]

"May"; "may be"; "if"; "maybe".

You still haven't found any data. We'll leave it there as probably everybody else is bored. I know I am.

Until and unless you present data showing that 100% of the foreign projects budget is separately funded, then we have nothing to discuss. Otherwise some % of donations is being diverted. That could be tens of thousand, hundreds of thousand, or millions. You just don't know.

Likewise something *I* don't know is what % of domestic donors would be opposed to such a diversion. So I'm not claiming to have data either (just to be clear).

In the absence of data this back-and-forth serves no purpose.

So you are angry at them based on your own assumption and you wont let anything change your mind. Got it.

 

[BUDFORCE]

It's not just the job cuts.

After talking to the wife she said the lifeboat crew at wells don't have the proper safety equipment they need to do the job the volunteer and risk their lives to do, due to lack of funding.

 

[FoxEye]

So you are angry at them based on your own assumption and you wont let anything change your mind. Got it.

Only if you are working on the assumption that you have already presented all the existing facts and evidence, and thus there is nothing else that anyone else could present (which in turn could change my mind).

You seem blissfully unaware of your own assumptions, whereas I acknowledge mine.

As I have already stated, if the CEO categorically said that no donations were used in foreign projects, except those specifically given with the intent of funding said foreign operations, I would not have an issue.

 

[Jono8]

Only if you are working on the assumption that you have already presented all the existing facts and evidence, and thus there is nothing else that anyone else could present (which in turn could change my mind).

You seem blissfully unaware of your own assumptions, whereas I acknowledge mine.

As I have already stated, if the CEO categorically said that no donations were used in foreign projects, except those specifically given with the intent of funding said foreign operations, I would not have an issue.

I haven't made any assumptions. I have simply presented you with evidence to back up the possibility that your anger is likely unwarranted and tried to show you how the argument behind being angry at them not giving the UK that 3.3m is potentially flawed.

Charities are complicated organisations and the notion that it would be as simple as putting that 3.3m into the UK instead of foreign aid, is flawed.

 

[FoxEye]

I haven't made any assumptions. I have simply presented you with evidence to back up the possibility that your anger is likely unwarranted and tried to show you how the argument behind being angry at them not giving the UK that 3.3m is potentially flawed.

Charities are complicated organisations and the notion that it would be as simple as putting that 3.3m into the UK instead of foreign aid, is flawed.

.... yet again the sum total of your evidence/data is... shhhh, listen.... i'm visualising it. I'm willing it into existence. No, it's gone. I tried.

 

[Jono8]

.... yet again the sum total of your evidence/data is... shhhh, listen.... i'm visualising it. I'm willing it into existence. No, it's gone. I tried.

The evidence is the fact that they specifically fund raise for their foreign aid work through the international development fund etc, and that clearly donors do contribute significantly to the foreign aid projects (ie the burkini one they mention, that was majority funded by a donor).

 

[Dis86]

The evidence is the fact that they specifically fund raise for their foreign aid work through the international development fund etc, and that clearly donors do contribute significantly to the foreign aid projects (ie the burkini one they mention, that was majority funded by a donor).

That's incorrect. They've had funds provided for them by it. They don't state that they specifically fund raise through it.

 

[Greebo]

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.