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?

Catherine swimming has to be taught in our primary schools. It’s statutory.

In addition to this should the needy get to a beach they are fortunate to be living in a country that has most beaches lifeguarded by the RNLI. The RNLI also teach safe water skills to primary schools. Think they’re covered.

Some of the views in here are incredibly petty and rather unpleasant.

School swimming lessons are a cop out. Mine go private but those just doing swimming where completing the course with a can swim 5m with a float award. That’s not going to help anybody.

Only small sections of certain beaches have life guards and only at certain times of the year and certain times of the day.

I’ve been on the beach at low tide before the life guards have arrived and the beach was full already. They marked off a tiny area Not suitable at all for the amount of visitors the beach has.

I’m sorry but lifeguards will never be able to lifeguard an entire beach. We live near several beaches in a tourist area and children are taught that if you wish to swim you stay in the right zone. It’s perfectly adequate even in high tourist season. If people choose to flout those rules I have little sympathy and as a donator to the RNLI would rather a teeny tiny amount went on those without such luxuries in other countries.

Schools have to publish how many year 6 reach the NC swimming requirements. It’s not a cop out.

Do you have a link for that as I know very well our school just send pupils on short courses for example once a week for six weeks for two years. When the course is done it’s done regardless of what stage the child is at.

www.swimming.org/swimengland/new-requirement-schools-publish-swimming-levels-welcomed/

Not found the exact thing but a report on swimming.org states that only 50% meet the required level. That’s a lot of 11year olds who are being let down for something that’s mandatory. So yeah school swimming is a cop out.

Posted at the same time. Same website says only 50% achieved that standard though.

I've forgotten what's been said and what hasn't. But this is important.

It seems that the International projects are mainly funded from donations given SEPARATELY from the lifeboat appeals. It's already been mentioned that much of its funding is from two or three wealthy individuals. But when I wanted to make a donation to it, I discovered that when you donate from the international work page of the website, 100% of your donation goes to that project.

Consequently I think it's highly unlikely that donations sent to the main organisation (or put in buckets at the seaside) goes to the international projects. People seem to be ranting to no purpose.

It also said schools can used the sports premium to rectify this. Publishing numbers and using funding is an attempt to increase the numbers. School swimming is not a cop out.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/mar/23/one-in-five-adults-in-england-cant-swim

1 in 5 British adults cannot swim because they did not attain proficiency at school and thinking back to my own lessons which involved being shouted at from the sidelines it's not suprising. After primary, parents have to pay private and loads of leisure centres have timetabled after-school and weekend group swimming lessons for children for exactly this reason.

That 3 million could be put to work helping economically disadvantaged adults in the UK who never learned to swim. Ironically among this demographic would be immigrants and refugees to our country from other parts of the world who may never have had the chance to learn to swim either. They fall under the umbrella of 'national' since they have settled in the uk, and could carry on those skills to the next generation.

There is a lot of talk here about local fundraising and people wanting their money to support their local lifeboat. And I understand the desire to want to give money so your community has a lifeboat. But there seems to have been very little mention of the fact that the RNLI fundraise specifically for international work and get large amounts of funds from government international development bodies (they quote the Isle of Man and UK development departments) that exist to fund overseas work. The burkini project they state was mostly funded by one donor who specifically requested to fund that project.

So actually it is not a case that 2 or 3p from UK donations are going to international work and you can probably be fairly happy that your donations are funding UK lifeboats.

Coming from a family of watersport enthusiasts I will always support them because it would be cutting off my nose to spite my face to see them go under just because they support overseas projects (and fundraise for those projects separately).

I think if they are £6m in debt they shouldn’t be sending £3m abroad, new CEO needed methinks.

And as they are fundraising from international development bodies they couldn't use that £3mil in the UK instead because that would be outside the remit of those funders. So they would just have less money overall and fewer lives would be saved overall.

@JasperRising I think you and I have our work cut out. I've been making the same point (though you put it better) in other arenas too, and people just aren't listening.

This whole thing is very depressing

Why are you assuming that the 1 in 5 are all economically disadvantaged?

Yes, my understanding is that this is pretty much restricted funding to their international work. They have Dfid aid match funding which will double donations. Worth understanding the difference between restricted and unrestricted funding.

My understanding is that the RNLI are part of the global End Drowning coalition. There are massive benefits to that kind of coalition and the sharing of British expertise is vital (I think the Australians are also very active).

£3 million is small fry for their size of charity and the impact will be huge.

I've just started a direct debit. And I say that as someone who has three immediate family members in the fishing industry and other family who have been on the Lifeboats.

I wish the media would include things like the End Drowning coalition in their reporting to give proper context! I haven't seen any reference to that. And not all outlets are including the reference to dfid funding in their articles - in reporting on a rise in donations in the last day, the Guardian did include the dfid part of the statement from the RNLI but the Independent didn't (for example).

Countries like eg Bangladesh manage to train their own doctors and other medics, why would the country struggle with lifeguard training? It just seems so bizarre

It's not just lifeguard training, @Passthecherrycoke, it includes learning to swim in a desperately poor country where this doesn't normally happen.

And - whether we're talking about lifeguard training or medical training - it's not a matter of whether individuals have the skills to train, but whether the money and facilities required exist. Swimming pools don't come cheap.

So you’ve cast GB in a heroic role whilst imagining that RNLI is the a real factor in saving drowning children. Those statistics are pulled from where exactly? How are the children drowning (ie during cyclones where no amount of swimming lessons will help, or flooding caused by poor infrastructure)?

Why on earth would anyone seriously write lazy sneering stuff like this without bothering to check the facts? The relevant information is so easily available and makes this sort of post look very stupid indeed.

If I give to Scottish society for prevention of cruelty to children instead of the royal society of prevent of cruelty to children am I racist? Or vice versa.

If you object to the Scottish society using its funds to prevent cruelty to children of other races when it publicises the fact that it does so - yes, yes you are.

It’s not fashionable to help your local community, I get it.

Who has said it's not fashionable? I haven't seen anyone objecting to the fact that 98% of RNLI funding goes on helping local communities, rather the reverse. It's seriously disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

People quibbling about the efficacy of school swimming lessons are missing the point. A poster said "Certainly one could argue that there are plenty of children in the UK whose parents cannot afford swimming lessons and 3 miliion could certainly help them.". The point is that swimming is a compulsory school curriculum subject; if schools aren't teaching it effectively, that is something the Department for Education needs to address and doesn't meant that the RNLI shouldn't organise swimming teaching in a country where the death rate from drowning is far too high.

It's also pretty ridiculous to say that the RNLI should use the funding for teaching children in the UK when it is in fact specifically donated for the purposes of their international work. That isn't comparable to people putting money in lifeboat collecting tins; these donations are in fact specifically made via the website only for that purpose. I suspect if the RNLI started diverting this funding it would simply disappear.

I think if they are £6m in debt they shouldn’t be sending £3m abroad, new CEO needed methinks.

Hardly. If the CEO started diverting money donated for international work in order to pay off UK debts, s/he would soon find himself out of a job and probably in the dock.

The RNLI are not £6m in debt.

They can't spend money restricted to a specific (overseas) project to mitigate other projects that may have a shortfall.

They already have. New CEO. He's been in post a few months.

A large amount of Bangladesh is below sea level and floods regularly. You can't 'lifeguard'. It's not a leisure facility. Women and children often can't swim due to cultural issues. Most child drowning is not in cyclones but kids falling off something in everyday life (40 a day in Bangladesh). That sort of expertise isn't available locally which is why the RNLI (and presumably others in the coalition) are partnering with local organisations to train them to do it themselves. And then, voila, they won't need to do it anymore.

It's super easy to understand. Just have a look at their website. But perhaps it's easier to snipe.