Letter: Charity lifeboats
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Letter: Charity lifeboats
Sir: David Walker's attack on the RNLI in his discussion of the role of charities is ill-considered (Comment, 4 May).
That the operation of a maritime rescue service is a government responsibility is quite correct. The Navy and RAF provide rescue helicopters, and naval vessels will respond to any distress call within range. Nevertheless, the provision of the main seaborne rescue service by the RNLI means that the service is free from political interference, and allows a consistent and co-ordinated rescue service.
With the best will in the world, it is unlikely that the service would be so well equipped if it had to compete for funds with front-line warships, especially in years of repeated defence cutbacks. Think of the dismay with which mariners greeted the closing of smaller Coast Guard stations, and how little notice the Government took of them.
The RNLI is not "fat". A fast deep-water lifeboat costs well over pounds 1m and even with volunteer crews costs a great deal to maintain and operate. These boats cannot be bought off the shelf; the RNLI has to design them, and this takes a lot of time and money, which must be predictably available over periods of years.
The charitable status of the RNLI does commit the Government to some funding of its responsibilities in this area. The voluntary nature of the majority of its revenue means that the service is paid for by those who use it or sympathise with them, and so causes no resentment among inland communities who think they have no connection with the sea.
Why take it under government control when it works better as it is? Why forbid people to organise themselves to help one another and force them to instead rely on a remote and distracted government?
KEVIN LOGAN
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments