Sunday, March 29, 2009

I'm sorry? Who banned him?

Via The Man Who Fell Back To Bed, your humble Devil sees this chink of common sense in a fucking stupid world.
A lifeguard dog banned from patrolling a Cornish beach because of health and safety rules is to be reinstated after hundreds of people signed a petition.

Bilbo, a Newfoundland, patrolled Sennen with his lifeguard master and got round a dog ban on the beach by sitting in an all terrain bike (ATB) during patrols.

However, the RNLI said passengers were not allowed on ATBs and banned him.

The petition succeeded in getting him classed as a legitimate working animal which exempts him from the dog ban.
...

The six-year-old dog, which wears a special yellow jacket and paddles out to stricken swimmers while pulling a rescue float with him, had been part of the lifeguard team at Sennen for three years.

Newfoundland dogs are well adapted to swimming because they have a double coat - with the outer layer repelling water - and webbed paws.

And why was all of this expended time, money and effort required?
However, the RNLI said passengers were not allowed on ATBs and banned him.

The RNLI banned him? You fucking what?

I'm sorry, I am generally a fan of the RNLI—it's certainly no fake charity—but since when did a lifeboat charity have any jurisdiction over what people can and cannot do on the beaches of this country? Since when did the RNLI make fucking stupid rules like this—since when have they had the authority, precisely?

Perhaps the Beeb have cocked up the reporting of this, and the RNLI are not responsible for this stupidity. If the story is correct, however, I foresee another cancelled Direct Debit...

7 comments:

haddock said...

the RNLI provides the lifeguards for Sennen
http://www.rnli.org.uk/rnli_near_you/southwest/beaches_division_map?filter=s
so the quad is probably theirs.... and I reckon they have a right to say what happens with their equipment.
No doubt now they will rewrite their constitution and re-visit their insurance policies to allow for 'checking with DK to see if it's OK with him'

Anonymous said...

I think they probably said that he couldn't ride the ATB, which I'm assuming belonged to them, because of insurance of something.

You're right about it not being a fake charity - it has so much money (from genuine donations), the irony is that it was told to spend its reserves, or have its charitable status withdrawn. That's why there was a huge spending spree on new equipment (we got a £250k tractor for the B-boat!).

In what sort of world can you have charitable status withdrawn because you raise too much from the public (ostensibly because you are making more from fixed assets than revenue), but keep it if you raise nothing from the public but take from the taxpayer?

Not Quite Hayek said...

but since when did a lifeboat charity have any jurisdiction over what people can and cannot do on the beaches of this country? Since when did the RNLI make fucking stupid rules like this—since when have they had the authority, precisely?


Err... Probably since they took over from a number of local authorities to manage health and safety on beaches?

Dogs aren't always allowed on beaches, for health and safety reasons (just as cars aren't). Those vehicles that are allowed often have to be insured with various conditions attached before being allowed to use beaches and slipway areas.

All that had to happen here was an exemption that allowed the dog to be recognised as a service animal, which was what happened.

JuliaM said...

This is utterly ridiculous, but shouldn't tar the good name of the RNLI - just find the idiots who made the decision and fire them.

"Dogs aren't always allowed on beaches, for health and safety reasons..."

Or in food shops, but exceptions are made for service dogs. This is no different, and should have been accounted for in the same way.

troymolloy said...

Aside from the silliness of the ATB rule (since when did a dog count as a 'passenger'?), it does get my goat a little that some people apparently think dogs on the beach are a 'health and safety threat'. Presumably it's something to do with the turds they produce, but what's wrong with the normal by-laws that force people to clean up after their dogs? Sand would seem to be the perfect material to scoop up poop from with absolutely no remnants. Is the suggestion that there are children who might stick it in their mouth on the beach, but not in parks?

fewqwer said...

A turd on the beach is pretty tame compared to what's in the water.

Roger Thornhill said...

Maybe the RNLI is being infected with Fabians, Fifth Columnists and, dare I say it Common Purpose.

The rot needs to be stopped. The tumour cut out.