[News] Oxfam sex abuse scandal

[Eeyore]

A sad indictment of our society that these cases are often exploited to advance a particular political agenda.

This is my concern.

What happened was wrong. Very wrong. Let's not deny that.

But I am concerned that an agenda is being advanced through a populist move to put the boot into NGO groups.

Some folk will not just want to correct short comings at the time. They will want to destroy the sector- as they have done for a long time. We never hear of the outstanding work that is done. We just hear when something goes wrong. And the sector is large enough to find enough stories. And if you don't you can always make one up.

 

[ozzygull]

It amazes me that this is even political. The issue is there is high number of men, whether it be rich, poor, left or right are unable to behave in an appropriate manor, if they fill they can get away with it. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Ernest]

Everyone knows if there was any chance to have a go at the Tories you'd be all over this exploiting every last drop of the victim's misery.

Like you and your swivel eyed mates do at every occasion you mean

 

[JC Footy Genius]

This is my concern.

What happened was wrong. Very wrong. Let's not deny that.

But I am concerned that an agenda is being advanced through a populist move to put the boot into NGO groups.

Some folk will not just want to correct short comings at the time. They will want to destroy the sector- as they have done for a long time. We never hear of the outstanding work that is done. We just hear when something goes wrong. And the sector is large enough to find enough stories. And if you don't you can always make one up.

True on the other hand the reputational damage to supposedly worthy institutions has been used as an excuse to hide/ignore the abuse. See Catholic Church ,BBC.

 

[Chicken Run]

It amazes me that this is even political. The issue is there is high number of men, whether it be rich, poor, left or right are unable to behave in an appropriate manor, if they fill they can get away with it. It really is as simple as that.

Indeed, reported today the husband of a recently murdered MP has in the past had an allegation of inappropriate behaviour passed to the local Police where he worked for a charity at the time.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Like you and your swivel eyed mates do at every occasion you mean

Feel free to quote/link to an example where I have.

 

[Buzzer]

i know it's a parody Twitter account but this really is the only solution for Oxfam. Their credibility hinges upon doing precisely this:

[tweet]962660829601640449[/tweet]

 

[janee]

Whilst absolutely abhorrent, this actually happened in 2012. It is being reported now because Jacob Rees Mogg is calling for foreign aid to be reduced.

A billionaire advocating taking money from the world's poorest. The media need to report on aidworkers when they are terrible but the timing is strange

 

[Buzzer]

This is my concern.

What happened was wrong. Very wrong. Let's not deny that.

But I am concerned that an agenda is being advanced through a populist move to put the boot into NGO groups..

I think this is partly because some NGOs have gained the reputation for haranguing and guilt-tripping and at a time when a lot of Western nations are taking their commitment to international development aid extremely seriously. Consequently, they then take on the appearance, less of a charity taking direct and hands-on action to save lives but more like a political lobby.

Taking Oxfam specifically, only a few weeks ago they published a report about billionaires owning half the world's resources with what many see as a very simplistic, crude and unhelpful measure of who is and isn't wealthy. There are very legitimate problems but they didn't acknowledge that absolute poverty has reduced by half since the World Bank global poverty line was set up in 1990. It looked suspiciously like an attack on Western capitalist economies which as an argument completely collapses when you see how poverty has reduced in China since they've opened up their markets. Oxfam admits that it isn't necessarily politically neutral but they do seem overly critical of certain governments and silent on others so I'd say it's lost sight a bit of its impartiality.

This (flawed) attack on capitalism in itself is fair enough but their report about the top 1% also looks odd when they pay some of their top executives so much that they fall into the 1% themselves. I've no problem with at at all, they need the best talent to do the best job in tackling famine but if Oxfam have a problem with it then why are they party to it? And now we read about villas being rented for their executives. I think in this instance Oxfam can expect some payback.

But you're right also about how this undermines a lot of the work that so many NGOs do. I've worked for Save The Children International and for Cancer Research, both huge NGOs and both really do make a difference with staff that are dedicated to their vocation. I can honestly say I've never heard of Save The Children renting villas. I've seen the pictures of their living accommodation, I've seen the invoices too and this includes Haiti. I've seen workers give talks about what they do, the conditions that they work under and they deserve medals. These Oxfam execs need to be hung out to dry for dragging everyone down.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Whilst absolutely abhorrent, this actually happened in 2012. It is being reported now because Jacob Rees Mogg is calling for foreign aid to be reduced.

A billionaire advocating taking money from the world's poorest. The media need to report on aidworkers when they are terrible but the timing is strange

Very interesting.

 

[dingodan]

Whilst absolutely abhorrent, this actually happened in 2012. It is being reported now because Jacob Rees Mogg is calling for foreign aid to be reduced.

A billionaire advocating taking money from the world's poorest. The media need to report on aidworkers when they are terrible but the timing is strange

To not give money to someone is not the same as taking money from them, that is pretty twisted logic.

The foreign aid budget is not charitable giving, it's taxpayers money given to multilateral organizations and foreign governments, it does not go to charities.

It is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. It becomes weapons of war, fuels corruption and lines the pockets of dictators.

Let people give what they want, I encourage charity, but you do charity with your own money. Taking money from one person and giving it to another person isn't charity, it's stealing.

 

[cunning fergus]

Whilst absolutely abhorrent, this actually happened in 2012. It is being reported now because Jacob Rees Mogg is calling for foreign aid to be reduced.

A billionaire advocating taking money from the world's poorest. The media need to report on aidworkers when they are terrible but the timing is strange

I’m not a cheer leader for Mogg, but on the matter of foreign aid he has a point. The allocation of foreign aid and the percentage of GDP to be spent was recently written into law. No other Gov department has this status with regard to spending. This is absurd as it means any Gov is obligated by law to spend billions of pounds taxpayers money on foreign aid.

At a time when the UK Gov is borrowing billions of pounds to maintain its spending plans under crushing austerity, it is odd that there is a fixed position on this single area of spending.

Those that rail against the Government for not spending enough on the NHS or whatever, are pissing in the wind with a significant constituency of the British public that believe that charity begins at home.

 

[Eeyore]

Taking into account the excellent responses from [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] I'll put some time into a response.

Firstly this incident. It is universally condemned. We all agree. But the concern is the outworking and upheaval that ensues. Is there is a desire to redress the balance and ensure just and altruistic intervention continues without such practice or is there something else at work here ?

Much of the NGO work that goes on is not through voluntary donations but as a result of direct support that the overseas budget channels through them. This can come at a price.

Money supplied by overseas budgets is often conditional. Some resources can be supplied for meeting the medical needs of certain groups but not for others. In my view, an advancement of foreign policy.

The timing of this, especially as it was know back in 2011, concerns me. I worry that charities may be more reserved about speaking out now.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I think this is partly because some NGOs have gained the reputation for haranguing and guilt-tripping and at a time when a lot of Western nations are taking their commitment to international development aid extremely seriously. Consequently, they then take on the appearance, less of a charity taking direct and hands-on action to save lives but more like a political lobby.

Taking Oxfam specifically, only a few weeks ago they published a report about billionaires owning half the world's resources with what many see as a very simplistic, crude and unhelpful measure of who is and isn't wealthy. There are very legitimate problems but they didn't acknowledge that absolute poverty has reduced by half since the World Bank global poverty line was set up in 1990. It looked suspiciously like an attack on Western capitalist economies which as an argument completely collapses when you see how poverty has reduced in China since they've opened up their markets. Oxfam admits that it isn't necessarily politically neutral but they do seem overly critical of certain governments and silent on others so I'd say it's lost sight a bit of its impartiality.

This (flawed) attack on capitalism in itself is fair enough but their report about the top 1% also looks odd when they pay some of their top executives so much that they fall into the 1% themselves. I've no problem with at at all, they need the best talent to do the best job in tackling famine but if Oxfam have a problem with it then why are they party to it? And now we read about villas being rented for their executives. I think in this instance Oxfam can expect some payback.

But you're right also about how this undermines a lot of the work that so many NGOs do. I've worked for Save The Children International and for Cancer Research, both huge NGOs and both really do make a difference with staff that are dedicated to their vocation. I can honestly say I've never heard of Save The Children renting villas. I've seen the pictures of their living accommodation, I've seen the invoices too and this includes Haiti. I've seen workers give talks about what they do, the conditions that they work under and they deserve medals. These Oxfam execs need to be hung out to dry for dragging everyone down.

Great post Buzzer.

 

[BadFish]

Terrible, and it is good to see the government taking actions over this.

I doubt that this thread will be as long as the posh nobs groping party one as we don't seem to have the mealy mouthed excuses.

Hypocrisy indeed.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Unless I have missed something, I am surprised that there has been no thread on the charity sex scandal involving 120 aid workers from Britain being accused of sexual abuse in the last year.
Additionally the revelations that Oxfam workers paid locals for taking part in organised sex parties in Haiti is surely worth a comment or two from the worthies of NSC, especially after all the moral judgements made against the 'President's Club' nasty rich men for touching up and trying to kiss scantily clad hostesses.
Just goes to show, those wonderfully moral high ground charity workers are just as bad, or even worse than the 'over privileged nobs'.
Come on you Lefties, rise up in anger and have a pop at the do gooders doing bad, or stand ready to be accused of hypocrisy!

What's left wing about charity? A very confusing post tbf.

If you didn't know that corruption and profit were prevalent in the charity game then you've clearly lead a sheltered life.

And not read The Constant Gardener.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Terrible, and it is good to see the government taking actions over this.

I doubt that this thread will be as long as the posh nobs groping party one as we don't seem to have the mealy mouthed excuses.

Hypocrisy indeed.

Spot on.

 

[BadFish]

What's left wing about charity? A very confusing post tbf.

If you didn't know that corruption and profit were prevalent in the charity game then you've clearly lead a sheltered life.

And not read The Constant Gardener.

Indeed. I have always considered charity to be a right wing device to 'look after' the less fortunate elements of society. A left wing system would include provisions for those parts of society and charity would be less necessary. The NHS is a good example of this.

 

[Buzzer]

Taking into account the excellent responses from [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] I'll put some time into a response.

Firstly this incident. It is universally condemned. We all agree. But the concern is the outworking and upheaval that ensues. Is there is a desire to redress the balance and ensure just and altruistic intervention continues without such practice or is there something else at work here ?

Much of the NGO work that goes on is not through voluntary donations but as a result of direct support that the overseas budget channels through them. This can come at a price.

Money supplied by overseas budgets is often conditional. Some resources can be supplied for meeting the medical needs of certain groups but not for others. In my view, an advancement of foreign policy.

The timing of this, especially as it was know back in 2011, concerns me. I worry that charities may be more reserved about speaking out now.

I think this could be a good thing all round. I say that only because Theresa May has said that the aid budget will not be reduced so it's up to the NGOs to get their houses in order - and most of them have. Whilst there's a lot of cynicism from outside, I honestly don't think the same is true for those in the government who work with these NGOs. There's a lot of mutual trust, respect and goodwill between the two.

I’m not a cheer leader for Mogg, but on the matter of foreign aid he has a point. The allocation of foreign aid and the percentage of GDP to be spent was recently written into law. No other Gov department has this status with regard to spending. This is absurd as it means any Gov is obligated by law to spend billions of pounds taxpayers money on foreign aid..

This is one of those rare occasions when I'm going to disagree with you. The figure is specific at 0.7% because this is what was agreed upon by the UN as the target for the richest nations. I'm all for tearing down the charade of the UN but if we're to do that then we need to make sure our own house is in order in that respect. The 0.7% is also never a fixed amount but contingent on UK GDP growth or decline. As we get richer, the pot gets bigger and contrawise if we go into recession the pot gets smaller.

These charities are by and large the most effective way of sharing out this pot because they have the experts who are the very best at what they do, they have decades of experience and they don't have political baggage (or shouldn't). They often can gain access to places and people that governments or UN bodies can't. Taking it away from these bodies and trying to deal with it within government would in my opinion cost us a lot more and would be a lot less effective.

Where I hope you and I would agree is that JRM would be better focused in this instance questioning the funding of those that aren't spending it how they promised they would (Camila Batmanghelidjh, Oxfam) and those that are spending money we gave them on campaigns criticising us (Oxfam again).

 

[larus]

What's left wing about charity? A very confusing post tbf.

If you didn't know that corruption and profit were prevalent in the charity game then you've clearly lead a sheltered life.

And not read The Constant Gardener.

I would guess that his reasoning for this is the accusation/abuse from many lefties/liberals that the Tories are the selfish party and out for themselves. Therefore, it’s not exactly rocket science to assume that those who are involved on the charity sector are not Tories (based on the first point).

This then allows the critique of the charity workers as not being that different to the Presidents Club. It just proves that some men, from all political persuasions, will take, or try to take, advantage of women for sexual purposes.

It’s not really that complicated to make that leap. People, when they get into positions of power/influence can often get corrupted and do things which benefit themselves.