AIBU to think that people donating to the RNLI to save people from drowning shouldn’t object to 2% of that money going to save children in poor countries from drowning?

Who knows how many potential terrorists we have let into our country. (Eyes roll back in head with exasperation and exhaustion at the levels of ridiculousness.)

Probably a lot less than the British colonialists that forced their way into multiple countries around the globe.

Anyone would think we were totally innocent and put upon.

Let's get this clear.
If you can't swim, don't go near water.
If your country has flash floods or tsunamis, being able to swim, at any age, is no guarantee against drowning, in fact you have as much chance as a non-swimmer.
It's the responsibility of parents to keep their children safe at all times, with consideration for their age and abilities.
Many parents may work but children can accompany mothers to work if the surroundings are suitable.
It's safer to let one mother mind 10 children in a room with a few toys than let 10 children play outside near water, unsupervised.
Why don't the mothers do a rota so they all get equal pay whilst one or two mind the children?
That would not cost the RNLI anything.
I support half the country anyway via my UK spending habits which amount to more than 2p in the £1.

The RNLI CEO received upwards of £188,000 per year, all paid for from public donations, thank you very much . Not a drop in the ocean by anyone’s standards (if you pardon the pun) .

Not arguing whether he’s worth it or not , just saying that it takes 188,000 donations of just £1 just to pay him alone.

Receives not received.

I was going to say something to GG54 and a couple of others on here but I can say nothing that will change your mindset, you know it all, throw around cruel unthinking comments about people as you live your smug little lives and are beyond my comprehension.

rrebonk 2% of their revenue goes to this work. I also suggest you go to the top of this page and read peardrops post.

My DH has spent a lot of his time out at sea, visiting oil and gas platforms and more recently windfarms. He has had the RNLI on standby when he was trapped underwater in a mini submarine in bad weather, so we have had a vested interest in how well the RNLI works. The RNLI is one of the main charities we support. So there is no virtue signalling when we say we are entirely behind the work they are doing overseas.

Gabriella you ask why the children's parents do not teach them to swim. The answer is very simple. They cannot swim either, but if they make it to adulthood they are aware of the dangers. In many of these families both parents are having to work long hours, even when their children are very young, which is why so many children drown because their parents have to take risks leaving them unsupervise. the alternative is that they do not eat.

These children when they grow-up, will be in a position to teach their children to swim, so this modest undertaking by the RNLI will lead to children's lives being saved down the generations.

My cousins DH was once saved by the RNLI when he was out at sea in a trawler. They now do a lot of fundraising . I went to one of their charity “do’s” earlier this year and they raised about £1500 which we were so proud of.

Less than a tenth of the CEO’s salary.

GillT57 & MOnica, you've both said it so much better than I could.

Thank goodness some of you have compassion! I read all of the nastiness and bigotry on here at times and despair. So genuinely, thank you!

I don’t begrudge a penny being spent on ANY child from anywhere being taught to swim. Swimming can be a lifesaver. I am so glad my DGC learned to swim from being tiny (paid for by their parents I hasten to add) . My baby granddaughter who is just 16 months old can already swim on her own ! Although the lessons are very expensive .

M0nica
Are you really telling me that no parents or the grandparents of children say, under 16, know how to swim?
With respect, I think that's stretching the truth into the realms of incredulity.
Are they so far behind with their thinking that leaving children unsupervised is zero on their list of priorities?
Have they not advanced in the last 20-40 years.
Where is the aid money going?

I wrote of parents in the workplace operating a rota to mind their children and those of co-workers.
If you can't provide a safe environment for your children then don't have any.

One cannot expect 'childcare' and child safety to be provided by another country's charity which is essentially a national charity, not an international charity.

India isn't addressing the problem and it's a rich nation, I wonder why and I wonder why we still send them aid when, on numerous occasions, they have told us they don't need it.

Can't the parents teach their children to swim Gillybob?
No need for 'expensive' lessons.

I don't resent a penny being spent on any child from anywhere being taught to swim but I do like to know exactly where my donations are going. So, if I thought all my donations were being spent to keep Lifeboats afloat in local waters, I would reserve the right to feel a little peeved if it was going anywhere else than that. It wouldn't necessarily mean I was a bigot nor would it mean that I would stop donating but it is rather sad that the former accusation is bandied around willy nilly.
My Mum couldn't swim so she was determined that my sister and I should learn. I still swim like a brick despite loads of lessons and a swimming pool in my back garden.
I suspect JenniferEcles is sitting under her bridge getting a great deal of satisfaction from the reaction of all those horrified by the post.

On the whole, this has been quite an uplifting thread because most people do not begrudge a small percentage of the donations going to other countries.

Those who put forward the view that we should "look after our own" are, I notice, often the same people who, judging from their input on other threads, seem very much averse to providing help for people in this country also.

A contributor on the Jeremy Vine Show this morning pointed out that the founder of the RNLI, Sir William Hillary, stated that the charity should “extend our views from our own immediate coasts, to the most remote quarters of the globe, and to every neighbouring state”. Mention was also made of the fact that a very generous donor had specifically asked that his/her donation be used to save lives overseas. And, as has already been stated, the charity's website does include information as to overseas donations.

It is commonly known that overseas aid frequently comes with "strings attached" and some have argued that the trade deals which poorer countries are obligated to enter into in exchange for short term aid are often to those countries' long term detriment. An opinion piece in the Guardian last year expanded on this: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/02/as-a-system-foreign-aid-is-a-fraud-and-does-nothing-for-inequality.

Neither my Mum nor my Dad had learned to swim because they had little opportunity as their own parents couldn't swim. Consequently I too couldn't swim until I was 38 when I went for swimming lessons in our local pool. Luckily, that facility was available to me but in poorer countries it will be extremely limited.

And BTW I have no objection to people from other countries being trained in the UK and then returning to their own countries to train others.perhaps that would have been a better use of funds?

A high percentage of RNLI rescues involve people who get into trouble on beaches because they use unsuitable inflatables, don't inform themselves about tides, don't check the weather forecast, don't take sensible precautions when windsurfing or sailing, get stuck on cliffs, walk into the sea when drunk, try to commit suicide, etc. These days fishing vessels are bigger and better built so don't generally have difficulties in stormy weather, as they did in the past.

Would it be acceptable not to rescue these people because it was their own "fault"? I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

The RNLI also gets called out when there is inland flooding. They are extremely well-trained and their expertise is valued throughout the world, which is why they host overseas rescue operatives and send RNLI staff overseas as advisers.

My family has been involved as volunteers with the RNLI for 200 years since it was first founded and still are - one of them was even honoured in the New Years Honours List. When there was more shipping around our coasts, many of the rescues were of foreign sailors and I have never read of any resentment that British volunteers were saving foreigners and I've read hundreds of articles and books about rescues.

People don't seem to understand the motivation of people who put their own lives on the line to help others - a life is a life as far as they are concerned.

PS. Vivian I know the RNLI is well run - that was the point I was making about why the RNLI prefers to remain a charity rather than be state funded and organised.

I think it would be very difficult for a parent to teach a very small child to swim Gabriella until they are a bit older. I attended a few of my DGC’s swimming lessons (none of which were funded by the RNLI or anyone else btw ) and they can be quite hair raising times. My DGD (16 months) attends a Dinky Swimmers class and has been swimming unaided since she was about 13 months .

Personally I would like to see free swimming lessons for all children . The 6 x 1 hour sessions they get (once) in primary school are just not up to the mark. There is no way a child could be taught to swim in such a short time.

Does anyone watch “Saving lives at sea”? Those volunteers do an amazing job and put their own lives at risk every time they go out.

This thread reminded me of the time I had to send out a Mayday signal. Not for us but a friend who was on another boat. They had run aground on a falling tide and the husband had a heart attack and the wife couldn't use the radio ( I kept telling her to take the radio course)
Anyway, it got me thinking where does Mayday come from.
Nobody told us when I was taking my radio exam.
It's from the French Venez M'aider ( come help me)
Something I've learnt today.

Gillybob Two of my relatives were in the programme, which is why I'm so hopping mad to read some of the comments on this thread. Like all emergency services, their mission is to save lives. In the case of the RNLI, the vision to save lives across the globe was in the original charter.

Eloethan has summed up the whole thread "Those who put forward the view that we should "look after our own" are, I notice, often the same people who, judging from their input on other threads, seem very much averse to providing help for people in this country also."

The thread has been a tiny sad snapshot of the UK, thankfully with a significant majority wanting to help others regardless. And a little hard line of ignorance running through it.

Two thoughts...

1. The RNLI run a Fish Supper fundraising appeal every October where you can host a ‘fish supper’ at home with your friends and donate the proceeds. I’ve done this for a couple of years now and everyone involved has a great evening and we raise a few quid too. I’m slightly worrying about the coming one as it’s started to grow quite large in numbers and I’ll have to run it in shifts. (!!)

2. Those moaning that the N in RNLI stands for National will probably have a heart attack when I tell them that the RNLI covers Ireland too.

Some people seem to be unaware that India and Bangladesh are different countries. Also, just because a charity has “national” in its title doesn’t mean it can only rescue/ help white British people. Also, just because you buy a carload of cheap clothing made in some poor country on a weekly basis , doesn’t mean you support “half the country”. Those workers are working a 12 hour days, 6 days a week sewing 100 garments an hour. Teaching children to swim will come down the list of priorities when it’s a choice between working or not eating.

I don't think anyone suggested people should not be rescued growstuff . All rescue services risk life and limb willingly but some people need help through their own stupidity by being ill prepared or ignoring prevailing conditions. They should be obliged to make a contribution to the voluntary service who rescued them.

sodapop AFAIK there are no plans to make people pay for their own stupidity. The point is that rescuers don't judge the people they rescue. Their first priority is to rescue and, secondly, to educate people about the risks they are taking. It would be going down a slippery slope to charge people for making genuine mistakes and/or being ignorant.

My understanding is that the RNLI is "national" because when it was founded it replaced numerous local operations. Before the RNLI, many coastal areas had lifeboats, but the service wasn't co-ordinated nationally. Even as late as the early twentieth century, there were independent rescue operations. There was never any intention by the founders for "national" to mean British (and Irish) only.

Drownings are the leading cause of child death in Bangladesh. Thousands of children drown every year. Preventing them is an international initiative:

www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/nation/2019/04/10/research-30-children-drown-every-day-in-bangladesh

The RNLI is one of the (if not the) leading advisers on water safety in the world. The UK should be proud that it has the expertise to make a difference.

BTW, the reason the RNLI has a funding shortfall is because it has received less money than expected in legacies (which make up the bulk of its funding) and its investment portfolio hasn't performed as well as expected. The shortfall is many times the amount spent on overseas aid.

It's uplifting to see that newspaper articles about people cancelling their donations have resulted in an unprecedented upsurge in people making donations.

It restores some faith in humanity.