[News] Oxfam sex abuse scandal

[nicko31]

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.

Yes there are some in the current Tory party that are just looking for an excuse for another wave of attacks on the charity sector. Unless they are Independent Schools of course...

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Charity fundraising is a business where plenty of people are living comfortably through it. I met someone who set up his own charity street fundraising 'company'. He was all about getting rich. The managers are earning above the national average and yet they are relying on the public to donate money.

Why can't these people set up a business which makes money where they can put a percentage of their profits towards a good cause rather than have 'minions' stand in the street begging for sign ups?

This Oxfam scandal is just an example as to what the charity sector has turned into. A joke.

Not a joke,but a racket like CEO on £200k plus along with BUPA,PENSION AND CAR and you don't even have to get dirty or be on call. Unlike the RLBI.

 

[The Clamp]

I agree about point scoring, but I see this a little differently from you.

First, I don't think this issue has been ignored, I think we have all agreed that this was despicable behavior, a massive betrayal of trust, and worthy of wholesale condemnation.

The fact that people also have a couple of questions for you is not at the expense of dealing with this topic.

Calling this thread a disgusting disgrace is an expression of outrage, and your rhetoric was similar in the President's Club thread, it also demonstrated outrage. The one topic you have not expressed quite the same level of outrage about is this one, which is the one topic truly deserving of outrage.

The conclusion I have come to is that you reserve your outrage for wealthy and powerful people, people you call "right wing" and for people who question your consistency. I.e. your outrage is for point scoring. You don't care about defending the people you claim to want to defend, you care about attacking the people you want to attack. Even in this thread you've directed more anger at the OP than you have at the perpetrators of sexual exploitation in this case.

That is what is being pointed out to you, not to score points, but because people who behave like that should be called on it, and if it makes you feel uncomfortable, good. It should.

Yawn. Incorrect and a poor attempt at sounding like you know what you're talking about. I seem to recall you making a plum of yourself on the other thread too. If you'd actually read my post pertaining to the subject matter you might realise you're clueless regarding my motivations.
No, I'm not outraged, I'm disgusted. Hence the word "disgusting".
This isn't a thread start d about the Oxfam scandal, this was a thread started to criticise what Block F thinks the left have done or not done regarding the scandal. It's a disgrace and it's disgusting. But I have said all this to him and we agreed to disagree. Nice of you to be outraged on his behalf though.

Sorry. A massive fail on your part. Nice try though. Anyway, I've said all I wish to say on the matter, I'm sorry it all went over your head.

 

[Hamilton]

I posted earlier that I felt that no matter what your position, abuse of power is unacceptable. I'm also concerned that there is another agenda at work here. Two cases from 2006 and 2011 are being used to rightly point the spotlight on unacceptable behaviour.

I think the difference in this case is how people are stepping forward to accept accountability - rightly so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43027631

My key concern is how this case and this charity will be used as a political football to advance the agendas of others. Is Oxfam broken, riddled with sex scandal from top to bottom? I very much doubt it. Does that mean it shouldn't held to account? No.

 

[London Irish]

I had no idea that NSC's resident bunch of right-wing swivellers considered charities "left-wing"? I guess compared to them probably everyone from Pam Ayres to the Krankies are too

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes there are some in the current Tory party that are just looking for an excuse for another wave of attacks on the charity sector. Unless they are Independent Schools of course...

Is that really the case? I thought that right wing tories were all in favour of charties - because their success absolves government (i.e., taxpayers) of responsibility (and spending money). As a sometime lefty I was once suspicious of charities on the grounds that didn't see why unaccountable organizations could be charged with delivering the social care that our tax is supposed to deliver (my old and, perhaps, naive notion of the core meaning of socialism - tax provision of healthcare, education, police, armed services and a few other things). In the last 50 years or so, however, things seem to have become muddled, with 'charities' set up to take advantage of tax breaks (independent schools) or, in the great US tradition, to make money for their directors. Personally I find it hard now, to know whether undermining/supporting charities is a right wing or left wing issue. Certainly volunteering to do work for a charity is (or ought to be) a personal act of selflessness.

Anyway, regardless of any hidden or overt agenda of the so-called left or right, no doubt that the present events will reduce Oxfam's income and the income of 'similar' organizations. Clearly some members of the public will tar the British Heart Foundation, Cancer UK and the British Legion with the same brush but, fortunately, these folk never give to charity anyway so their opinions are valueless and the impact of them will be nil.

The one issue I still can't quite fathom is the extent to which charities obtain funds directly ('grants') or indirectly (tax breaks) from the public, and if they do, how this can possibly be justified without 'our' explicit agreement. That is an issue. Somehow I can't see right wing types campaigning against charities en bloc because the public schools they attended and their kids attend are to a greater or lesser extent charties. Maybe right wing types of a certain texture imagine they can pick and choose which charities can be allowed to obtain state support. Good luck with that.....anyway, the dust has yet to settle.

I have some experience of volunteering for a small charity. I was treasurer of a research society. I had many rows with committee members over expenses (I was a strict observer of the spirit of the charity - no first class travel or swanky hotel expenses). I have also been involved with a much larger research charity; this one has a paid CEO and paid staff (around a dozen). The salaries were extremely generous. Thinking about the present kerfuffel, it concerns me (as it always has) that the expenditures are not properly justified, and the charity operates like a business that, provided income exceeds expenditure by a certain amount, nothing will ever be said, and the charity commission will never poke around and start asking questions. This means that within the organization there is continued expansion, justified to spend the income. Think about that. Like a perpetual motion machine....income in this case comes mainly from one source (which I won't identify, but which can be defined as the sale of perpetually self-restoring installments an educational item). I am not alledging this charity is doing anything illegal or immoral - but it is awash with money and can therefore 'afford' to pay good salaries, without any need to 'make a real difference' in measurable terms.....which to me does not fit comfortably with the usual notion of a charity.

I could really go off on one on this topic but I'd best not.

 

[cunning fergus]

Not for the first time a post of yours has completely baffled me. When did I advocate borrowing money? What has spending money in China () got to do with overseas aid?

Rather than get into another pointless and psychedelic rigmarole, I will cut to the chase and say that handing over money to a charity, whether it be out of my pocket voluntarily, or skimmed off my tax (on the radio it said the government gives money to Oxfam which surprised me) is something that has always been done with a presumption of trust. That trust has gone. I am appalled by what is being said on the radio this morning. And yet....it doesn't surprise me....

I have a feeling that 'we' have treated charities as if they are people doing all the good things that individuals and governments don't have the time or money to do, and are therefore good by definition. The idea of governments handing over money (taken from us by tax) to charities actually now seems perverse to me. Especially as we are now seeing there is inadequate safeguarding (modern parlance for no checks, no audits, not assessment of where the money is going let alone whether it is providing value).

Yet on the radio someone just summarized the emotional blackmail: "if you stop giving money you are killing babies". Emotive stuff....

Still having a think about it, but sufficie to say the quote above to which this is a reply is a load of drivelling irrelevant absurd nonsense. Sorry, but it is.

The fact is that whilst foreign aid may only be 0.7% of U.K. GDP (Approx. 13bn last year) the U.K. spends approx. £48bn servicing debt because the country spends more money than it generates from tax etc. which is approx. £780bn.

If you cannot understand the very simple financial equation that arisies when your outgoings are greater than your income, I guess it’s understandable that you struggle to comprehend why the foreign aid budget is an anethema to many people in this country, not least those that struggle to live within their means.

As I have also highlighted this budget is enshrined in law a status that no other aspect of HM Govt spending receives. If political parties want to dish out 13bn a year of money that the Government wants taxpayers to pay back with interest, then let them set that out as a political objective. None advocated putting it into law, and yet here it is.

As for where the money is spent, beyond it being handed over to organisations riven with systemic sexual misconduct and weak governance, it also ends up being spent in countries which spend billions on their military and even space programs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds-in-aid-to-ch/

It’s indefensible, and illogical when the NHS is in perpetual crisis.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

‘Just £30 per month can provide an aid worker with access to clean prostitutes.
To donate, just text 'TART' to xxxxxx’

Oxfam are finished and will need a major rebrand.

Otherwise there is always the question hanging of how much of the pound donated is used to fund someone's shagging.

 

[cunning fergus]

I posted earlier that I felt that no matter what your position, abuse of power is unacceptable. I'm also concerned that there is another agenda at work here. Two cases from 2006 and 2011 are being used to rightly point the spotlight on unacceptable behaviour.

I think the difference in this case is how people are stepping forward to accept accountability - rightly so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43027631

My key concern is how this case and this charity will be used as a political football to advance the agendas of others. Is Oxfam broken, riddled with sex scandal from top to bottom? I very much doubt it. Does that mean it shouldn't held to account? No.

Your concern is unfounded, the account just given by Oxfam’s ex head of global strategy on C4 news is a sickening indictment of how Oxfam failed to deal with hundreds of claims of sexual abuse, rape and peadophilia. This was not just about staff abusing vulnerable people in the 3rd world with their “sex for aid” approach, but children helping out in U.K. shops etc. being abused.

You may want to wave a flag about Tories and the press but the stark facts are Oxfam is not fit for purpose.........I doubt it is the only charity behaving this way, especially as some of those given the opportunity to quit Oxfam found work with other charities.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The fact is that whilst foreign aid may only be 0.7% of U.K. GDP (Approx. 13bn last year) the U.K. spends approx. £48bn servicing debt because the country spends more money than it generates from tax etc. which is approx. £780bn.

If you cannot understand the very simple financial equation that arisies when your outgoings are greater than your income, I guess it’s understandable that you struggle to comprehend why the foreign aid budget is an anethema to many people in this country, not least those that struggle to live within their means.

As I have also highlighted this budget is enshrined in law a status that no other aspect of HM Govt spending receives. If political parties want to dish out 13bn a year of money that the Government wants taxpayers to pay back with interest, then let them set that out as a political objective. None advocated putting it into law, and yet here it is.

As for where the money is spent, beyond it being handed over to organisations riven with systemic sexual misconduct and weak governance, it also ends up being spent in countries which spend billions on their military and even space programs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds-in-aid-to-ch/

It’s indefensible, and illogical when the NHS is in perpetual crisis.

If anyone finds my will to live, please pm me. I seem to have mislaid it.

 

[Hamilton]

Your concern is unfounded, the account just given by Oxfam’s ex head of global strategy on C4 news is a sickening indictment of how Oxfam failed to deal with hundreds of claims of sexual abuse, rape and peadophilia. This was not just about staff abusing vulnerable people in the 3rd world with their “sex for aid” approach, but children helping out in U.K. shops etc. being abused.

You may want to wave a flag about Tories and the press but the stark facts are Oxfam is not fit for purpose.........I doubt it is the only charity behaving this way, especially as some of those given the opportunity to quit Oxfam found work with other charities.

No, my concerns are still valid.

I have no doubt you will not be going into your local Oxfam shop to harangue the staff there as monsters.

The account you give is somewhat exaggerated.

And last, let’s be clear that what has happened is entirely unacceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nicko31]

Big fan of Channel 4 News, but 24 mins dedicated to this story tonight four days after the story broke. It ain't great what's happened but 5 mins top is more than enough

 

[cunning fergus]

No, my concerns are still valid.

I have no doubt you will not be going into your local Oxfam shop to harangue the staff there as monsters.

The account you give is somewhat exaggerated.

And last, let’s be clear that what has happened is entirely unacceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You said your “key concern is how this case and this charity will be used as a political football to advance the agendas of others”.

In light of the damning testimony by Helen Evans on C4 I still suggest your key concern is unfounded. You are making the proposition that somehow the abuse of children in the U.K. or rape of women in the 3rd world by Oxfam employees is secondary to your political sensibilities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...pens-allegations-sex-aid-abuse-charity-shops/

Frankly I think you have you priorities wrong, but maybe you are such a bigot that even when faced with the undeniable facts of systemic abuse and shamefully weak governance in Oxfam you think it’s the media/Tories/JRM or Brexit that is the problem.

 

[Buzzer]

I had no idea that NSC's resident bunch of right-wing swivellers considered charities "left-wing"? I guess compared to them probably everyone from Pam Ayres to the Krankies are too

Love the old school 70s cultural references (Harty would be proud) however you've picked two bad examples there. Pam Ayres is a Tory and although she has been silent on the subject, her husband has been very vocal in support of Brexit on Twitter. And the Krankies are big supporters of the Act of Union and were even co-signatories on that infamous celebrity open letter. Can't be sure if they are Tory but they live in Torquay, are mates with Jim Davidson and moan about political correctness a lot so probably not left-wing either.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Really don't understand how a discussion on a subject like this always has to end in slagging matches ..

 

[The Fifth Column]

Given the numerous historical sexual misdemeanours of politicians I really don't think they can take the moral high ground here. Actually can anyone? After all the real headline is, "Men in shagging prostitutes incident while they were away in a foreign country", hardly the news of the century is it.

 

[cunning fergus]

Given the numerous historical sexual misdemeanours of politicians I really don't think they can take the moral high ground here. Actually can anyone? After all the real headline is, "Men in shagging prostitutes incident while they were away in a foreign country", hardly the news of the century is it.

Well, if we are reverting to moral relativism then I guess we should be clear that prostitution is illegal in Haiti and the age of consent is 18. The more damning aspects of this case concern the involvement of children. This is not spurious, it was part of the claims made by Oxfam’s ex Head of Global strategy and has also been raised by Haiti’s President.

Further, the claims of rape and sexual abuse by Oxfam employees extends beyond Haiti, and there were also reports made to Oxfam management that in the U.K. children helping in shops were sexually abused.

If there is anything depressingly repetitive about cases like this it’s that the abuse of children was institutionally ignored and it is now being played down. Maybe your right and this kind of practice is “hardly the news of the century”.

 

[cunning fergus]

Big fan of Channel 4 News, but 24 mins dedicated to this story tonight four days after the story broke. It ain't great what's happened but 5 mins top is more than enough

I suspect you may need to recalibrate your chronological analysis of news programmes, the segment was 18m 22s.

https://www.channel4.com/news/oxfam-whistleblower-allegations-of-rape-and-sex-in-exchange-for-aid

This included 8m from the interview with Helen Evans, where the most serious aspects of Oxfam’s failings were exposed with references to the reports she made, and emails she sent relating to rape by Oxfam employees and the abuse of children in U.K.

Following this there was an interview with Mark Goldring the Chairman who received the reports from Helen, who had an opportunity to refute the claims as spurious, if he felt they were but he didn’t.

So, to get this news item down to a more digestable 5 mins what aspects of the item would you want to leave on the editorial cutting room floor.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Really don't understand how a discussion on a subject like this always has to end in slagging matches ..

And it’s been hijacked by some to further personal political agendas against others.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Really don't understand how a discussion on a subject like this always has to end in slagging matches ..

You could post a picture of an A4 piece of white printer paper and some on NSC would argue the colour is black, others that you’re a racist and some that it’s clear evidence of the inefficiencies of the EU and a clear case therefore for Brexit.