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?