Ben Shenton ups the ante on the lifeboat!
But I notice that the JEP is misleading in a number of ways – for a start “in a position to launch” just means they have a bank account, can start fund raising, and have some kind of timetable for getting a new boat –not actually launching a new boat, or for that matter, signing agreements with the Harbourmaster and Coastguard regarding the operational chain of command.
I’ve been told on good authority that the only boats they’ve looked at so far, while reliable all weather lifeboats, are at least 20 years old, and may need considerable ongoing maintenance. It will be good to have some concrete idea of exactly what they are looking for, whether it is older than the current all weather lifeboat, and what the purchase price, ongoing costs and insurance are likely to be, and how its speed and stability compare with the current vessel.
These are all the kinds of figures and information available to the general public from the Southport lifeboat Trust, and I would hope to see the same level of transparency locally.
The earlier report mentioned plans to buy a second-hand all-weather lifeboat to provide cover in the short term and plans to purchase a more modern vessel once further funds are available. But unless the second hand vessel is superior to the current RNLI boat, why should it be called out when that could mean significant delays? Why not go for a more modern vessel from the start?
The logic of this does not make a lot of sense, and it seems more done to keep public support as a short term strategy by having some momentum than patiently waiting longer for a first class vessel to be funded and bought. If the harbourmaster has two vessels, one superior to the other, which one does the JLA think he will call upon when lives are at stake? Do they think it will be done on a rota basis?
It will be interesting also to see how much public support for the JLA on social media translates into digging deep into their wallets. Social media can be a fickle indicator, as past elections have shown when candidates with a considerable social media presence actually polled badly.
The JEP is also misleading in saying “The JLA, made up largely of crew members who were stood down following a heated dispute with the RNLI”. It is not, according to the reports on the formation of the JLA, which gives four members of the JLA, Ben Shenton as Chairman, accountant Ian Jones as treasurer, trustee Tim Cartwright as secretary and marketing director Simon O’Donoghue as a council member.
Any former crew members formed part of the steering committee which has now been superseded and now form part of the “Friends of the JLA”, a fund raising body, but from the details given so far, they are not part of the JLA. It would be helpful to clarify this by publishing the Royal Court foundational documents for the JLA.
Looking from a distance, Ben Shenton’s remarks, as reported by the JEP, that once the JLA are established, the RNLI may leave Jersey, as it would make little sense to have a valuable lifeboat facility in a ‘jurisdiction that already has their own lifeboat’, come across more as a propaganda battle against the RNLI which contradicts his previous statement:
“We have received a letter from the RNLI saying that they are willing to give their assistance in establishing the Jersey Lifeboat Station. We are not sure what form this assistance will take, but we are looking forward to working with them.”
Contrast this with:
“I doubt the RNLI will want to keep a resource in Jersey if it is already covered by another crew.’
Telling the RNLI to leave Jersey hardly seems consistent with “looking forward to working with them”!
And he seems to be completely ignoring the fact that the RNLI is currently successfully training a locally based replacement crew. What do his remarks make them feel like, I wonder? He doesn’t address that problem. It seems a bit insensitive, to say the least.
And all the other local volunteers, such as the St Catherine's crew, seem to be casually brushed to one side, as if it does not matter what they think. Are they to be bullied into submission? What have they done to deserve that? Has Ben Shenton asked them what they want?
According to the JEP report, the JLA are set to set to unveil their plans, including fundraising measures and when they hope to have a boat this week. Let us hope this is a realistic timetable, and not one which has been slipping with the extravagant claims of the past -" weeks rather than months"! It is starting to resemble the slippage of the revamped Jersey Aircraft Registry. I would prefer a realistic date rather than one made from expediency.
There is also the thorny matter of formalising agreements for the chain of command with the harbourmaster, and it will be interesting to see if they feature in the timetable, especially if the trickier aspects of the timetable are left until later.
To my mind, the agreements should be in place before looking at fund raising or buying a vessel.
A salutary lesson comes from the Winston Churchill commemorative bust, which had money raised for its construction by subscription, was made – but then it was found that no one could agree on a location in the Royal Square, something which should have been done at the start, and not the end of the process. In the end, it ended up at Woodford Park in St Brelade, which was renamed the Winston Churchill Memorial park, but it illustrates the dangers of procrastination over the more important aspects of a process.
Formal agreements regarding the legal authority of the harbourmaster to call out the appropriate asset or assets in an emergency, and the chain of command, should be at the forefront of the timetable, and I will be watching keenly to see if it is there.
But I notice that the JEP is misleading in a number of ways – for a start “in a position to launch” just means they have a bank account, can start fund raising, and have some kind of timetable for getting a new boat –not actually launching a new boat, or for that matter, signing agreements with the Harbourmaster and Coastguard regarding the operational chain of command.
I’ve been told on good authority that the only boats they’ve looked at so far, while reliable all weather lifeboats, are at least 20 years old, and may need considerable ongoing maintenance. It will be good to have some concrete idea of exactly what they are looking for, whether it is older than the current all weather lifeboat, and what the purchase price, ongoing costs and insurance are likely to be, and how its speed and stability compare with the current vessel.
These are all the kinds of figures and information available to the general public from the Southport lifeboat Trust, and I would hope to see the same level of transparency locally.
The earlier report mentioned plans to buy a second-hand all-weather lifeboat to provide cover in the short term and plans to purchase a more modern vessel once further funds are available. But unless the second hand vessel is superior to the current RNLI boat, why should it be called out when that could mean significant delays? Why not go for a more modern vessel from the start?
The logic of this does not make a lot of sense, and it seems more done to keep public support as a short term strategy by having some momentum than patiently waiting longer for a first class vessel to be funded and bought. If the harbourmaster has two vessels, one superior to the other, which one does the JLA think he will call upon when lives are at stake? Do they think it will be done on a rota basis?
It will be interesting also to see how much public support for the JLA on social media translates into digging deep into their wallets. Social media can be a fickle indicator, as past elections have shown when candidates with a considerable social media presence actually polled badly.
The JEP is also misleading in saying “The JLA, made up largely of crew members who were stood down following a heated dispute with the RNLI”. It is not, according to the reports on the formation of the JLA, which gives four members of the JLA, Ben Shenton as Chairman, accountant Ian Jones as treasurer, trustee Tim Cartwright as secretary and marketing director Simon O’Donoghue as a council member.
Any former crew members formed part of the steering committee which has now been superseded and now form part of the “Friends of the JLA”, a fund raising body, but from the details given so far, they are not part of the JLA. It would be helpful to clarify this by publishing the Royal Court foundational documents for the JLA.
Looking from a distance, Ben Shenton’s remarks, as reported by the JEP, that once the JLA are established, the RNLI may leave Jersey, as it would make little sense to have a valuable lifeboat facility in a ‘jurisdiction that already has their own lifeboat’, come across more as a propaganda battle against the RNLI which contradicts his previous statement:
“We have received a letter from the RNLI saying that they are willing to give their assistance in establishing the Jersey Lifeboat Station. We are not sure what form this assistance will take, but we are looking forward to working with them.”
Contrast this with:
“I doubt the RNLI will want to keep a resource in Jersey if it is already covered by another crew.’
Telling the RNLI to leave Jersey hardly seems consistent with “looking forward to working with them”!
And he seems to be completely ignoring the fact that the RNLI is currently successfully training a locally based replacement crew. What do his remarks make them feel like, I wonder? He doesn’t address that problem. It seems a bit insensitive, to say the least.
And all the other local volunteers, such as the St Catherine's crew, seem to be casually brushed to one side, as if it does not matter what they think. Are they to be bullied into submission? What have they done to deserve that? Has Ben Shenton asked them what they want?
According to the JEP report, the JLA are set to set to unveil their plans, including fundraising measures and when they hope to have a boat this week. Let us hope this is a realistic timetable, and not one which has been slipping with the extravagant claims of the past -" weeks rather than months"! It is starting to resemble the slippage of the revamped Jersey Aircraft Registry. I would prefer a realistic date rather than one made from expediency.
There is also the thorny matter of formalising agreements for the chain of command with the harbourmaster, and it will be interesting to see if they feature in the timetable, especially if the trickier aspects of the timetable are left until later.
To my mind, the agreements should be in place before looking at fund raising or buying a vessel.
A salutary lesson comes from the Winston Churchill commemorative bust, which had money raised for its construction by subscription, was made – but then it was found that no one could agree on a location in the Royal Square, something which should have been done at the start, and not the end of the process. In the end, it ended up at Woodford Park in St Brelade, which was renamed the Winston Churchill Memorial park, but it illustrates the dangers of procrastination over the more important aspects of a process.
Formal agreements regarding the legal authority of the harbourmaster to call out the appropriate asset or assets in an emergency, and the chain of command, should be at the forefront of the timetable, and I will be watching keenly to see if it is there.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment