to think that if you donate money to stop people drowning, you shouldn't have an issue if aome of that money is used to stop people drowning in poorer countries

[chomalungma]

Yes - the RNLI

They have been spending 3% of their income on supporting projects in poor countries to help prevent people drowning - even though it has had to lay some staff off.

They give a project to buy burkinis so women in Zanzibar can learn water safety skils.

They help support a creche because children are often left unsupervised as their parents have to work and many children drown each day. The creche project has helped reduce drowning deaths by 82%.

I can see that some people would be annoyed that a tiny percentage of their donations is going towards supporting poorer people in foreign countries and reducing their chances of drowning at a time when the RNLI lay off staff.

But it's a good thing to teach people water safety even if they are not in this country, isn't it?

Agreed. Everyone needs the skills. I don't mind where the money goes. As long as it helps someone.

I’m not sure. I think I’d see supporting the RNLI similarly to my local mountain rescue. I donate to mountain rescue to fund the work they do and equipment for the volunteers because I hike and value knowing they are there. I’d be a bit if my local mountain rescue were sending their donated funds off to the alps or Andes.

I think I’d see supporting the RNLI similarly to my local mountain rescue

Isn't the RNLI much much bigger though?

I'm surprised by this tbh, like a PP I think of money donated as being for the specific role that the RNLI undertake in this country. That said, I'm not bothered in the slightest, especially given it's only 3%.

If you read the report from last year, they've been training lifeguards abroad. Working in poor areas that are becoming popular and training them.

I think that's a good thing to do.
rnli.org/-/media/rnli/downloads/181280_lifeguardannualreport_2018_a4_aw_resupply.pdf?la=en&hash=93E61291B61120FE8B0850078D1EEFB0FB3E12CB

Who is actually annoyed?
Your post is odd.
You’re not bothered.
You’re not actually reporting that anyone else is bothered.
🤷‍♀️

Their international work is explicit on their website.

If anyone doesn’t realise (which I can imagine) not all of their money comes from donations. There is the merchandise, and I expect interest on well managed investments from money bequeathed. So if anyone doesn’t like THEIR donation going abroad - it isn’t.

Not really getting your point.

Who is actually annoyed

Plenty of people are annoyed, It was trending on twitter after being reported in the DM.

Lots of outraged comments from people.

Some of the stories

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brits-cancel-rnli-donations-because-20069456

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rnli-funding-burkinis-for-africans-while-cutting-jobs-tnctwwl7d

I give zero fucks about the opinions of people who allow themselves to get stirred up by bile in the DM

And it’s just disgusting that the international project picked is burkhinis in Africa.
Fucking Muslims.
Fucking Darkies.
“Journalists” should be ashamed of themselves.

Whether anyone thinks their international work should be a topic for debate is secondary to the fact that those papers have chose to use racism for clicks. Bastards.

I don't know about anyone else, but despite never having donated to the RNLI before, I'm tempted to now. In fact I might ask for my entire donation to go to their international efforts.

I haven’t been to a lifeboat open day in decades but twenty years ago it was very much pitched as “we need your money to keep this boat here running”.
I do think the international work is a good thing but I hope their messaging is now “reducing the number of drownings” not “providing a uk emergency response service”.

People are people wherever they live. I have no problem donating to overseas causes.

But there are plenty in this country who object to helping people that don't look or sound like them, and they've seen their views legitimised by politicians and the media in recent years.

I think it depends on whether they were upfront about sending money raised to projects abroad. If I donated to the RNLI I'd expect it to fund lifeboats and crews here in the UK.

It’s a good thing. However, some people sadly cannot stand the idea of ‘their’ money going to help anyone or anything they deem less worthy - like those nasty forriners.

We used to get calls from those sorts at the charity I used to work for a lot, moaning that they supported us and how dare we send money to developing countries (our name literally said that we were an international charity, but ok!). Funnily enough we never could find donor records for them... I reckon we were lucky to get 10p in a collecting tin from any of them. Bet the majority of the RNLI moaners are just the same!

I wouldn't have an issue if they hadn't just made over 130 people redundant due to falling donations allegedly. It is also a national charity according to their name not an international charity. Maybe a name change is in order. Sometimes we do have to look after our own countries interests first. This doesn't mean we are all racists.

It’s called the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Donors could be said to have a reasonable expectation that the organization might do what it says on the tin...

Donors could be said to have a reasonable expectation that the organization might do what it says on the tin

You do know that it works in Ireland as well......

I have no problem with charities sending monies off to 3rd world countries such as Oxfam, Save the children , Wateraid, etc.
I donate to those . But I am a little confused when donate to a charity such as RNLI or a charity you'd imagine donations being distributed in the UK and it is not.

And? Since Ireland is directly contiguous with and shares a body of water with the UK that’s hardly an unreasonable extension of its role.

Extending a supposedly “national” organization to the rest of the world is rather less reasonable. Change the name and make your role clear if you don’t want donors to feel misled.

It's not 3%. It's £3 million which works out Just under 2% of total spend. The mirror does get that correct in the link you give.

The RNLI are loaded, they have 4 years operating costs sat in the bank. Any redundancies will be for structural reasons, not lack of funds.

I think a lot of charities that people think are national do work abroad to help their 'mission' in other poorer countries.

I won’t donate now. I donate for the lifeboats and lifeguards on our beaches for the hard work they do to keep us safe not for their pet projects aboard. Some areas cannot even get a funded lifeboat/lifeguards and people are being made redundant but they apparently have spare cash. Nope.

Extending a supposedly “national” organization to the rest of the world is rather less reasonable. Change the name and make your role clear if you don’t want donors to feel misled.

Lots of organisations waste vastly more than 2% on stuff like aggressive fund raising. Such a small amount is not a meaningful change in their purpose.

I always thought that when you donated to that it was for lifeboats, am i getting my charities mixed up?