[News] Oxfam sex abuse scandal

[cunning fergus]

....and so everybody should. Charitys still prove an outlet for aid and compassion that a government whatever it's political leanings will not do.

If we all suddenly stopped giving to charity shops etc, it is the very people that most need our help that will suffer from the actions of the very few.

No they shouldn’t, or at least they should be checking where they go, Charities sending second hand clothes into Africa and other poor countries are not helping those countries improve themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35706427

Helping the poor doesn’t always mean giving them our cast offs for nothing.

 

[Jim D]

It is as ever about power and control, it seems that bad people manage to get themselves in to a position high enough to abuse whatever power they have.

30 or 40 years ago the paedos were all in schools and churches (and football academies) - where the kids were. Nowadays we have more stringent checking and they're getting caught, so they go overseas as members of an aid mission. As most of these have no other interests they quickly rise up the ranks into positions of power. They also tend to bring in their 'mates' to protect them from proper scrutiny. It's just the same stuff but in a different environment and it's not difficult to see how the aid agencies miss it if the reports coming back are favourable.

 

[vegster]

30 or 40 years ago the paedos were all in schools and churches (and football academies) - where the kids were. Nowadays we have more stringent checking and they're getting caught, so they go overseas as members of an aid mission. As most of these have no other interests they quickly rise up the ranks into positions of power. They also tend to bring in their 'mates' to protect them from proper scrutiny. It's just the same stuff but in a different environment and it's not difficult to see how the aid agencies miss it if the reports coming back are favourable.

Saw a long piece from Peter Kyle MP who worked in the field for charities abroad and he said he had met some very unsavoury characters while working in some hostile places. He said that many of them went to the most risky and dangerous places to work, looking back he said he could see why. Equally he said it was important not to brand a whole charity as the majority of all workers wanted to genuinely help. As you say, people who wish to exploit manage to get themselves in to positions of power to do it and sadly this probably will not change.

 

[Dave the OAP]

No they shouldn’t, or at least they should be checking where they go, Charities sending second hand clothes into Africa and other poor countries are not helping those countries improve themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35706427

Helping the poor doesn’t always mean giving them our cast offs for nothing.

No but it may go some way to help....but you are an annoying argumentative sod who would pick a fight with yourself n a toilet, for that reason...you are out.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

On the contrary, David Lammy MP on question time made exactly the same point I was making on question time this week. I would not always agree with him on his Tory based political ideology, but on this mater he is on the money.

The fact is that the organisational model that is now the orthodox approach for how UK charities manage and facilitate the delivery of aid to poor counties needs to be reviewed urgently. The model we have where rich white westerners descend into the third world and set up their mini fiefdoms operating outside the law within these countries has to end.

There is nothing to prevent those countries that receive aid taking a far more active role in distributing aid, locals can be employed far cheaper than sounding out legions of well connected middle class Herberts and Henriettas to perform the same role, and the charities, if needed can operate on a more consultancy basis.

Medical related charities are evidently different, but the likes of Oxfam are not doing anything locals would not be able to do.

This episode must change the way Charities operate, the victims deserve better..........I know some don’t have them as their key concern but they are quite simply wrong.

Look, I don't have any beef with you personally. I can sometimes missread (misread) or misunderstand things. But this is now about 4 times I find I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about. I once marked a student's exam essay that was perfectly literate. But it made no sense in context. I gave it 5%. I gave it to a colleague to second mark (as is our requirement) and he accused me of being far too generous, and awarded it zero. I feel a bit like him when I read your posts. I half fear that one of us has had a stroke. No disrespect, but I hope it isn't me. In all seriousness - are you OK? I'm a bit worried about you, to be honest. I apologise for my exasperated replies - probably somewhat rude. Feel free to pm me. Take it easy.

 

[cunning fergus]

No but it may go some way to help....but you are an annoying argumentative sod who would pick a fight with yourself n a toilet, for that reason...you are out.

Who’s arguing?

Presenting a different view should not equate to arguing? If people want to donate their clothes to charity because they want them to go to poor countries because they a) want to feel good about themselves or b) because they think it it helps the needy should understand there are consequences to their actions.

It is the Govts of these poor African countries that are saying “no thanks” to the Charities dumping tons of western cast offs into their countries to not me, I understand their point though.

 

[BadFish]

Who’s arguing?

Presenting a different view should not equate to arguing? If people want to donate their clothes to charity because they want them to go to poor countries because they a) want to feel good about themselves or b) because they think it it helps the needy should understand there are consequences to their actions.

It is the Govts of these poor African countries that are saying “no thanks” to the Charities dumping tons of western cast offs into their countries to not me, I understand their point though.

I haven't read all of this thread but it seems to me that you are using this situation to vent your spleen over some personal vendetta against organised charities. You are arguing with anyone who presents even the most moderate support of charities. Did Oxfam reject some of your clobber or something?

I get the point that you don't think charities are the most effective way of helping folks that need it. Could you perhaps post a suggestion of an alternative?

 

[cunning fergus]

Look, I don't have any beef with you personally. I can sometimes missread (misread) or misunderstand things. But this is now about 4 times I find I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about. I once marked a student's exam essay that was perfectly literate. But it made no sense in context. I gave it 5%. I gave it to a colleague to second mark (as is our requirement) and he accused me of being far too generous, and awarded it zero. I feel a bit like him when I read your posts. I half fear that one of us has had a stroke. No disrespect, but I hope it isn't me. In all seriousness - are you OK? I'm a bit worried about you, to be honest. I apologise for my exasperated replies - probably somewhat rude. Feel free to pm me. Take it easy.

I have no beef with you either, I’m surprised you would even consider that I have.......I may hold different views to some on here but I will treat those who engage with me in the spirit of that engagement.

You really don’t need to worry about me, honestly I don’t take your contributions that seriously.

You are a classic example of someone on this forum that chooses to play the man not the ball, I mean here is a thread about the failings of Oxfam, and my posts are on that subject. You on the other hand have nothing to add to the subject matter, but you will suggest I have had a stroke.

I suspect in your life you have found it difficult to maintain stable long term relationships, it’s a shame because you seem bright in a kind of autistic way.

I hope you are ok too, I’m always here with a friendly ear and if you want a hug let me know.

Chin chin.

 

[cunning fergus]

I haven't read all of this thread but it seems to me that you are using this situation to vent your spleen over some personal vendetta against organised charities. You are arguing with anyone who presents even the most moderate support of charities. Did Oxfam reject some of your clobber or something?

I get the point that you don't think charities are the most effective way of helping folks that need it. Could you perhaps post a suggestion of an alternative?

Nope, I had a couple of spiky exchanges with posters who indicated that their biggest concern about this scandal was that it would be used for political purposes by “politicians” who disagree that the U.K. taxpayers should have to pay interest on money borrowed and then given to other countries as “aid”. In my view, it is the victims and justice that should be the number one priority here, and it’s not a point of debate, I know I am right.

I have no personal vendetta against Oxfam per se, but this scandal merely exposes the reality that charities and their staff are not beyond criticism. Their management in this case have been exposed as being shamefully dishonest and deserve all the criticism they are getting.

I have already indicated that the model which exists now should change, if you want detail David Lammy covered it in QT on Thursday, pick it up on catch up.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I have no beef with you either, I’m surprised you would even consider that I have.......I may hold different views to some on here but I will treat those who engage with me in the spirit of that engagement.

You really don’t need to worry about me, honestly I don’t take your contributions that seriously.

You are a classic example of someone on this forum that chooses to play the man not the ball, I mean here is a thread about the failings of Oxfam, and my posts are on that subject. You on the other hand have nothing to add to the subject matter, but you will suggest I have had a stroke.

I suspect in your life you have found it difficult to maintain stable long term relationships, it’s a shame because you seem bright in a kind of autistic way.

I hope you are ok too, I’m always here with a friendly ear and if you want a hug let me know.

Chin chin.

 

[portslade seagull]

Now awaiting numerous other charities to now become embroiled in this mess.

 

[BadFish]

Nope, I had a couple of spiky exchanges with posters who indicated that their biggest concern about this scandal was that it would be used for political purposes by “politicians” who disagree that the U.K. taxpayers should have to pay interest on money borrowed and then given to other countries as “aid”. In my view, it is the victims and justice that should be the number one priority here, and it’s not a point of debate, I know I am right.

I have no personal vendetta against Oxfam per se, but this scandal merely exposes the reality that charities and their staff are not beyond criticism. Their management in this case have been exposed as being shamefully dishonest and deserve all the criticism they are getting.

I have already indicated that the model which exists now should change, if you want detail David Lammy covered it in QT on Thursday, pick it up on catch up.

I won't waste my time any further then.