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?

I'm confused.. what's the AIBU ?

I'm much more concerned about their overly generous final pension scheme (which has only just stopped) and the fact that their wages are higher than the local average.....

.... Unless you are the poor sod who goes out on calls and puts their life at risk, then it's voluntary.

It clearly states on their website that they do work internationally to reduce drowning.

It was trending on twitter after being reported in the DM.

Good old daily mail readers. They don't strike me as caring, sharing, charity giving types yet they'll moan about someone else's donations going abroad. Enough said really.

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

Why do simpletons not get hysterical when a story is also in other news outlets?? Believe it or not, stories are not unique to the DM, even the Grauniad has some, but one assume's that that's OK!

I'm going to make an educated guess that the 2% of their overall income that's been used abroad, has saved far more lives than their lifeboats have during that period.

I came across this on twitter. Apparently it was a story in both the Daily Mail and the Times.

The RNLI posted a link to their reply. They had really detailed answers to any possible questions or complaints and also explained that their international work isn't a secret - details have been in their published accounts for years. As a pp has said, it's only about 2% of their money.

There were plenty of indignant tweets from dm types who said that they would stop donating if some of their money was going to save foreign children but these were outweighed by the tweets supporting the RNLI for all its lifesaving work.

I set up a direct debit donation after reading it all and I was far from the only one.

I was surprised, I thought it was to fund lifeboats & crew around our coastline. Maybe they should make their policy clearer.

Maybe they should make their policy clearer

It seems pretty clear to me. Their twitter response:

"In response to the @MailOnline & @thetimes
we are proud of our international work. Its saves (mostly kids') lives. And we haven't kept it secret - it's in our annual report, on our website and in the media. We spend just 2% of our expenditure on this work"

It’s 3%. Really not worth getting excited about. Presumably the other 97% stays in the U.K.

It is perfectly clear to anyone who chooses to spend roughly thirty seconds researching what the RNLI do that they do this work and have done for a number of years.

They are not just about lifeboats, their motto is "Saving Lives at Sea" which has included water safety campaigns and lifeguard training and provision both here and in the UK for years.

They do of course have the temerity to save lives on Irish inland water (Lough Derg) and the River Thames as well - how very dare they.

I've been on mumsnet for six years and have rarely been as pissed off by posts as some of those on here - "it's not our lifeboats so I won't donate". Fine, don't. But don't try to convince others that you've got some sort of moral high ground.

I just went on their website.
rnli.org/
Hover over the 'What we do' tab, and there it is. Their international work, what it is, why they do it, and what it achieves. They've done a very poor job of hiding it then.

Sorry, that should say both here and abroad.

Agree with a PP that their overseas work probably saves far more lives for any given amount of money.

I saw this on twitter last night. Some people are just vile.

I know there are 12 million unique users on MN, but I’m always shocked when I come across opinions of the kind I’m seeing on here.

Do some people just not do basic research into organisations they support?

I think the clue is in the name, Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

I think the assumption therefore is that it is there for your own rescue needs as a country. I imagine support for the rnli is skewed towards coastal populations who probably see it as a fourth emergency service and therefore donations directly serve their own community.

Personally if I were a donor this would not bother me. But it is not a charity I have chosen to regularly support (probably for the reason above, as I live very far from the coast and probably only visit the British coast once a year at most do not on my radar).

So personally think the charity was unwise to do this especially if they are cutting services in the UK. The initiatives they support abroad are very worthy but there are a lot of international charities that could take this role or the rnli could set up an international arm of their charity to raise money for these initiatives.

If I donated to RNLI I would also expect the money to be spent in GB and Ireland, I didn't actually know that they had projects elsewhere. I'd have thought that the RLSS was more suited to that sort of work, being a drowning prevention charity. RNLI, for me, is about lifeboats (and beach lifeguards) in GB and Ireland.

If you are that set on where you want your donation to be spent @berlinbabylon then you should specify (in writing) when you make it, or read the charity in questions annual report so you understand what you are funding. A charity may however turn down your donation if the conditions are too onerous.

I support it. I would’ve thought also the training and considerations that go into international support also grow the skills of the organisation. Eg findings from the crèche maybe some small scale relevant on spotting signs on UK beaches, or the burkini project for women in this country. It’s never as simple as them and us. Maybe even the project management skills grow and then we have skilled people implementing projects here nationwide. Maybe work on flood projects fees into training for floods here, how to manage, what equipment works and logistics as we don’t get much practice? I don’t know the details, but it’s hardly an unrelated field their project partners will work in. They’ll grow links

I used to be a fundraiser professionally.

RNLI is interesting along with likes of Salvation Army. They have lots of money but it's all from older people and bequests in their wills. Younger people just don't buy into the cause in the same way - fewer people working with the water I guess?

If the charity is going to survive long term it needs to rebrand and I imagine international work like this is part of that effort.

Who knows, maybe OP even works for them and is trying to generate awareness among mumsnetters...

Don't be silly. Of course only British people are worthy of being saved from drowning. I find it disgusting that a charity in one of the world's wealthiest countries shoulduse their years of expertise and a tiny proportion of their funding to help educate communities in poorer parts of the world to prevent death. How very dare they.

If I hadn't read about redundancies I would be fine with this but.....why are they making people redundant? Its not like people dont need rescuing?

They have corporate donations, sponsorship and overseas donations, the individual donations stay in the U.K.

I think there are big issues with the running of the RNLI as like many charities (RSPCA) they get high jacked by idiots with extreme ideas. Some places now have their own lifeboats - Jersey for example, where there were huge rows over staff and when they could go out - these people are volunteers risking their lives.

I want my money used on lifeboats in the U.K. many places in Africa get plenty aid money, the army and politicians steal it (Zimbabwe for example where Mugabe ended up a billionaire with a private jet, funnily enough)

If donations should only be spent on 'us', maybe they should carry out eligibility checks before rescuing people? We wouldn't want a nice English crew going out to save immigrants, would we?

If you want to complain about a charity, find one that's paying its staff 99% of the funds it raises. Please don't give someone a hard time because they are saving lives of 'foreigners'.

I applaud the RNLI for having a conscience and using a tiny bit of what they raise to do a great deal more good than those funds would achieve here.

I think people need to see this for what it really is: stirring up feeling against foreign aid and, yet again, the Daily Mail attacking the RNLI.