Management Mind Virus and the RNLI

The recent events in Portsmouth have highlighted the issue of the RNLI acting as a taxi service for illegal immigrants, ferrying them from boats that are not sinking to the shores of the UK.

But as you look further, it brings into focus the Management mindset, the corporate claptrap of the executive world.

For instance, the RNLI doesn't just save the lives of mariners around the UK coast. It's involved with international efforts as well. See here: https//:rnli.org/what-we-do/international

Most people I reckon wouldn't realise that an organisation set up primarily to save lives at sea round the UK coast would actually be spending money in Bangladesh and Tanzania, for instance.

Most people also wouldn't be impressed that the head of a charity would demand a six-figure salary. 

This is the corporate bullshit world, not the world of a charity that dotes on a chintzy local vibe, that the RNLI like to promote. 

You know as soon as the see links on a website that say "Sustainability" and "Modern Slavery Statement" that the organisation is captured by corporate bullshittery.

I hate to say that there's more than the whiff of Common Purpose Marxist Ideology about this, but I'm afraid there is. This is an ideology that has captured a huge amount of the corporate world.

I mean, what purpose does a modern slavery statement serve in the modern world where there is no slavery? Modern or Traditional. 

Dig deeper and click on the link, you get the title and opening paragraph quote:

"RNLI statement on the elimination of modern slavery and human trafficking

This statement is for the year ending 31/12/2025. The RNLI has zero-tolerance toward slavery and human trafficking and does not accept modern slavery in any form. In our operations and supply chain, we work with partners and suppliers to ensure compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the Act”) and the updated 2025 statutory guidance."

Rather ironic, given the RNLI are effectively trafficking humans into the UK or at the very least, forming the last link of a human trafficking chain.

And even more ironic that other than the mention in the title and the opening paragraph, human trafficking doesn't get another mention. No details on how they are preventing human trafficking, anywhere.

You'd think that an organisation that "does not accept modern slavery in any form" and has "zero tolerance towards slavery and human trafficking" would avoid transporting people that had been trafficked to the English Channel. It would avoid delivering people that had been trafficked and at risk of being used for human slavery (for instance being locked into Cannabis farms to tend to the plants) would avoid the political minefield of the migrant boats.

You'd think the RNLI would require clear confirmation that lives were at risk and that the migrants being rescued were not part of a human trafficking organisation or subject to modern slavery once in the UK before committing resources to the channel. But no, corporate bullshittery means the statement on the website mans absolutely nothing and is more of a virtue signal than an operational requirement.

The men on the dinghies, shepherded by the French coastguard and attended by Border Force vessels  in a calm sea are not at risk and do not require the attendance of an RNLI lifeboat. 

But the corporate bullshittery around the boats says that the immigrants are in desperate straights (despite already being at sea for a few hours without sinking), are vulnerable (despite two French ships being in attendance), are at risk of drowning (despite the French coastguard giving them lifejackets) and the RNLI must at once be committed to launching and "rescuing" the immigrants. 

On Sunday night both the Bembridge and the Yarmouth long range offshore lifeboats launched along with a number of inshore boats and committed to the operation off Calais. 

That decision left the Solent and a large area of the English channel without inshore and offshore lifeboats. What would have happened if a yacht in that area got into difficulties at the same time the RNLI were attending? 

Thankfully, we didn't have to wonder. But it just shows the priorities in play of the organisations involved. 

To be clear, here's a timeline of Sunday's events via A.I.:

The Sunday Launch Track & Incident Details

Launch Time: The Bembridge all-weather lifeboat launched from its slipway at 10:11 AM on Sunday. It was closely followed by the Yarmouth RNLI lifeboats around 10:26 AM. [1]
The Route: The lifeboats were tasked by HM Coastguard to intercept an exceptionally large migrant vessel carrying roughly 140 to 160 people. The vessel had departed from the Baie de la Seine in France (near Normandy), an unusual starting point roughly 170 miles from the typical Calais route. [1, 2]
The Interception: At approximately 12:34 PM, the UK lifeboats met up with the vessel and two French rescue ships (Amiral de Tourville and Abeille Liberté) about halfway across the Channel. [1]
The Return Track: After taking the individuals aboard, the RNLI lifeboats tracked back toward the UK mainland, arriving at the Langstone Channel near Portsmouth at 5:11 PM to safely bring the passengers ashore. [1]

Straight away the question is, if two French vessels were in attendance, why was there a need for the RNLI to ferry migrants to the UK?

The Admiral De Tourville is an all-weather lifeboat, very much like the Bembridge lifeboat.

The Abeille Liberté is a large high-rise rescue tug. 

Now, for me, the tug is big enough to deal with the immigrants on it's own. Why were the RNLI called and why did they transport the 100+ immigrants to the UK? Especially with two French vessels in attendance capable of dealing with any rescue required. 

Considering that the operation was in international waters outside of the 12 mile limit of UK territorial waters, why ferry the migrants to this side of the channel?

I think we all know the reason.

And it has to stop. 

Postscript: Part of the A.I. mentions an "exceptionally large migrant vessel". I assume that's taken from an official statement somewhere. If so, what does that say about the reduction in small boat crossings being crowed about in the media?

Do we now have to request how many exceptionally large vessel crossings have been made instead?

Are the number of small boat crossing down because exceptionally large vessel crossing are up?

Portsmouth: NOT a new Route for the Traffickers.

Well, there was a bit of argy-bargy in Portsmouth last night, Eastney to be precise. 

After the French Police had closed down the beaches closest to Britain, the traffickers tried a new route from the Cherbourg peninsula. 

Except this isn't a new route. 

I've documented before that I've personally seen strange small boats arriving in Langstone harbour at night. By strange, I mean not the usual boats you see if you live down at Eastney. And at one point I did virtually live down there as I had a yacht down there on a mud mooring. Anecdotal evidence of what those boats do when they eventually hit land at the top of the harbour is that men are bringing large heavy bags ashore and loading them into vans. Note they land at the top of the harbour, which is not on any of the Islands like Hayling or Portsea (Portsmouth) which have ANPR cameras on the limited routes onto the islands. Make of that what you will. 

Now what's in those bags, one can only speculate, but with crime comes weapons and drugs. Contacting the Police is pointless, because before you even get a response on the phone, the boats and the vans are gone.

So the route picked yesterday is a known route for the traffickers. They know how much extra fuel to carry to cover the extra mileage. This is no desperate slingshot across the channel. It has been done many times before, just not carrying people. 

Now, to the events of last night. 

Eastney lifeboat station is on the end of a peninsula served by just one road. It also has a pontoon for the ferry boat between Eastney and Hayling island on the other side of the harbour entrance. 

So the authorities made a bit of a strategic error getting the Bembridge lifeboat to land there. I see that there was time to get coaches to Eastney to pick up the illegal immigrants before the residents of Pompey closed the road. And set up tents. And supply care packages. Makes you wonder if the authorities already knew this was a trafficking route and had resources in place nearby, ready to deploy at a moment's notice.

Also the authorities underestimated the community spirit here. Plenty of people are motivated enough to turn up and protest, in numbers. And are quite happy to defy dispersal orders too. 

Also it seems that Danny Tommo's balaclava mob got the news via facebook and jumped on trains to Pompey from Dover to add to the crowd. Not that there's a shortage of balaclava-wearing blokes here in Portsmouth anyway. Also the Police had better watch out: Pompey lads are always up for a ruck. Heavy-handed Police tactics might backfire.

A word of warning to the authorities: Portsmouth is not the ideal location for this activity. It's an island city with only 3 roads onto the Island. As Portsmouth residents know all too well, those routes can quite easily be blocked and cause chaos across the city. There's more than one way to block the importation of more immigrants. And to prevent Police reinforcements from dispersing any protest. 

Just saying.

UPDATE:

After reviewing the videos on FaceBook from last night, I'm a bit confused. Basically the people of Portsmouth blocked the single road and the Police threatened to baton the protesters to clear the way. 

As I mentioned, this was an unsuitable place to land the immigrants. It was at the end of a peninsula, served by a single road. It was the first time the immigrants had been landed outside a controlled port area. Literally on the other side of Portsea Island was Portmouth Naval base. Why were the immigrants not landed there?

Considering the speed of the response regarding transport, tents clothing, etc. it has the hallmarks of a planned  exercise. After all, we are hours away from Dover by road, so the resources must have been housed locally. 

If it was a planned exercise, then the use of an unsecured landing area was planned. One thing I have learned since I came to Portsmouth is that it has a very close sense of Community. As soon as one person sees and hears the activity (many listen to Marine VHF as a matter of course, so would have known in advance what was going on) it was sure to start swelling numbers even just to see what was going on. 

I have a niggling feeling that this was orchestrated, to provide the circumstances to create the large protest and difficulties for the authorities, such that there would be a public order issue and therefore the dispersal order. Unfortunately for the authorities the crowd largely complied, avoiding the confrontation they desperately wanted.

Next time is going to be interesting. 

Why Conscription up to 65 Won't Work.

This weekend I turned 64. Rather than the usual trip up North to visit parents, as they have now shuffled off to join the Choir Invisible I decide to celebrate doing something different.

I went camping with the extended family. Kids Grandkids and the single great-grandkid. All in about 6 tents. 

But the weekend just hit home how stupid the recall of ex-military up to the age of 65 is. 

I was crippled. Just by sheer dampness. I mean, modern tents go up in minutes. A 4-berth inflatable tent like ours is up in 10 minutes and completely guyed out in 20.

Setting up inside takes a little longer, but prioritising the kitchen means you can be having a cuppa in half an hour. 

The bed inflates itself from the power pack, as do the chairs. 

Camping is not as hard as I remember it was back when I was a kid. 

But the weather beat me. My joints were racked by the damp. Not the cold. It was far from cold. But it was relentlessly damp.

If I was a 64 year old reservist deployed to some moist part of Europe, there's no way I could defend myself or my colleagues effectively. It would take me a couple of minutes to get up, let along dash to some muster point, or some fire pit ready to repel some foreign army. 

By the time my joints had complied with some semblance of flexibility without pain, we'd be overrun.

An that's the reason why Recall up to the age of 65 won't work, not for the military. There's a reason that you can pension out at an early-ish age. It's because your body can't do the things it did when you were in your twenties. 

I suppose you could be recalled and used here in the UK to fill logistics roles, or maybe some home defence type of role. 

But home defence? Using what exactly? 

It's just pie in teh sky. I don't know what the MOD were thinking, or smoking. But they should lay off it and come back to some for of realism.