>
> <snip>
>
> >> Yeah, that would be a balanced argument to you wouldn't it. Conflating
> >> the cost of a few items of clothing V several peoples wages. > >
> >They quoted a defecit this year of £6m.
> >
> >That is money that would have paid for people and equipment for saving
> >lives in the UK.
>
> If that was their primary remit but now you know it isn't.
Was this before or after donating money and or time. I've always thpught the RLNI was about saving lives around UK shores, not going to bondi beach to save surfers.
And what if
> 1M saved one life in the UK but 100 lives in Bangladesh?
Well obviously we'd send all the RLNI fleet off to where it could save the most lives. Same as we do with the NHS pack up all the doctors and nurses and send them where they could save more lives.
>>> The primary resposibility should be to the UK (where the contributors
> >>> are based and most probably think that the operations are confined), > >>
> >> Because they were to lazy to ask / find out ... or falsely 'assumed'
> >> (and we know what assumption leads to ... ). ;-)
> >
> >As a charity that promotes itself as providing lifeboats with collection
> >boxes around the UK, in the shape of or with pictures depicting UK style
> >lifeboats and no mention of work abroad, the vast majority of people
> >would likely think it a UK only charity.
>
> And if they are willing to *think* that without checking then that's
> their problem eh? What does assumption make ... ?
No that wpould come under the advettising standards authority. Perhaps all the funds the RLNI get goes into Boriss back pocket, would you object to that ? Or just say tought those donating should have known.
Isnlt this a bit like voting for someone or something, the label next to the mark you make should go to who you expect it to.
>It cannot be expected that people dropping a few coins in a box once in
> >a while would look up the details of the charity first.
>
> And I'd suggest that for most people doing that it wouldn't make any
> difference if they did.
That depends on the result doesn't it.
Woud yuo really have made yuor own box on the referedum ballot if yuo;d know that any mark not in the designated two boxes would result in you being marked as a Brexiteer ?
>>> followed by providing help abroad if they have *spare* funds. > >>
> >> BS. See their resolution.
> >
> >Again, they make no mention of work abroad at the point that they
> >"advertise" themselves or on collection boxes. Very few people are going
> >to search out and read the details of such a charity - and should not be
> >expected to have to do so.
>
> And why would they need to ... other than because they were racists > somehow?
Well when I give £3 to water aid and they say the money goes to africa or simialr country I expect it to be sent their rathert than pay for some MP to have the best wine in the house of commons resturant. Or isnlt that racist enough for you.
> So, would it be ok if they saved lives from the IOW or IOM? What about
> Ireland or the Shetland's ... or the Falklands ... or would it just
> have to be white English from the Falklands? Or any one of the
> hundreds of places even where British people happened to be living,
> working or traveling ... ?
I;d say they;d have to be saving lives in British waters or of british citizens as their proirity or do you think the money should go to saving serfers on bondi beach ?
> And so they pull half a dozen fishermen out of the sea and 3 of them
> aren't British? What should they do then, thrown the foreigners back
> as they aren't part of some quota that you imagined existed? ;-) >
> Get a grip mate ...
get a clue.
> Cheers, T i m