The Oxfam Scandal.

[Siddo]

It seems to be getting worse?

[yTib]

there undoubtedly have been some proper bad apples working for them but there are thousands that are in it for the right reasons.

the mail and other nasty 'newspapers' are using these bad apples for their agenda of ending foreign aid.

whilst i would reform the aid system it would be a tragedy if this was the catalyst to end foreign aid.

[bob-the-scutter]

there undoubtedly have been some proper bad apples working for them but there are thousands that are in it for the right reasons.

the mail and other nasty 'newspapers' are using these bad apples for their agenda of ending foreign aid.

whilst i would reform the aid system it would be a tragedy if this was the catalyst to end foreign aid.

I agree it definitely needs a complete reform. There are some very rich countries (far richer than ours) who we should stop funding!

[LeadBelly]

For whatever reasons organisations get set up (Oxfam obviously for altruistic reasons); once they become large businesses witha life of their own, self preservation becomes their overriding raison d'etre.
Whilst the Oxfam initial Haiti etc indiscretions were maybe down to very few people remote "in the field", the cover-ups/denial was at a higher level and more damaging than if they had admitted/dealt with problems. Even the other day, the "we haven't murdered babies in cots" was an attempt to trivialise the indiscretions and avoid facing up to them. Seems like the penny's dropped now at last though.

I doubt it'll stop MPs support for UK's foreign aid package though, unfortunately.

[Rowls]

Oxfam politicized itself many years ago and hid behind a veneer of "neutrality".

Little wonder then, when caught behaving atrociously there is an unhidden glee in some quarters.

Oxfam has been missing proper scrutiny of its actions for years and years now. If it is to remain as any kind of functioning charity it needs to get its act together.

[yTib]

scrutiny is the perfect word.

[CnBtruntru]

Ignoring their duties as a employer and refusing to admit all the issues in the first place makes people think what else have they got to hide, as a Charity I believe they have to be whiter than white, my opinion of course and if I donate £10 I don't expect it to be spent on prostitutes, I could do that myself and get more enjoyment out of it.

[CleggHall]

Yes Oxfam needs to get its house in order and has been complacent and non-transparent in the handling of its sex scandals. Its reputation is tarnished and will take some recovering but in the meantime it should continue to deliver humanitarian disaster relief and development aid throughout the world. A pity, but hopefully some good will come from this episode.

[kentonclaret]

"there undoubtedly have been some proper bad apples working for them"

According to the NFU there will be plenty more bad apples around in 2018 with a lack of migrant workers to do the picking.

[Sidney1st]

Ignoring their duties as a employer and refusing to admit all the issues in the first place makes people think what else have they got to hide, as a Charity I believe they have to be whiter than white, my opinion of course and if I donate £10 I don't expect it to be spent on prostitutes, I could do that myself and get more enjoyment out of it.

I'd like to dispute the claim you'd enjoy your tenner more with a prostitute....unless horrible skank is your thing.

[Guich]

I haven't been following this story. Did they actually use the charity's cash to pay for the prostitutes?

[Firthy]

I haven't been following this story. Did they actually use the charity's cash to pay for the prostitutes?

Probably not. They donated their bodies to charity

[CnBtruntru]

I'd like to dispute the claim you'd enjoy your tenner more with a prostitute....unless horrible skank is your thing.

And I would like to know how you know this?

[Sidney1st]

And I would like to know how you know this?

I've got mates who've used hookers, never been my thing though, I prefer to remain STD free.

[Clarets4me]

I'm 54 now and over the past 30 years I've met various people who've worked in Aid situations, from a Nurse who spent time in Papua New Guinea to a neighbour who went out to Kosovo to manage Refugee camps.

Almost unanimously, they were scathing of the UN and particularly senior Oxfam Managers at local level. New 4X4's, best hotels in town as well as some of the stuff we've been reading about...the one charity that they generally praised was " Medecines Sans Frontiers " a French Aid group...
Most of all however, they were sickened by the actions of local tribal chiefs / gangs/ community leaders who saw crises as a means to make money demanding bungs and protection money, cutting out non favoured tribes/groups from receiving aid and procuring women and children for some of the aid workers...

[Hipper]

My guess is that these charities work in abnormal conditions where more compromises have to be made to get the real job done. They are therefore unable to keep things as 'clean' as you would expect from a normal organisation, such as the House of Commons or the BBC!

[Leisure]

My guess is that these charities work in abnormal conditions where more compromises have to be made to get the real job done. They are therefore unable to keep things as 'clean' as you would expect from a normal organisation, such as the House of Commons or the BBC!

I see what you've done there!

[Erasmus]

I heard today that 7,000 direct debits to Oxfam have been cancelled and that is a tragedy. Despite this nonsense, Oxfam is doing tremendous work in helping people and changing lives; this is not to any degree undermined by these revelations. I also think it is impossible to be involved in overseas aid without it becoming political because you have to consider the causes of poverty. Remaining non-political as an aid charity has been an issue for decades. The fact is that some people are very poor because others are very rich, and I include myself in the latter category.

[ClaretDiver]

The other side of this is the fact that there have been a large number of accusations of sexual 'abuse' in shops in the UK. It seems they are not following proper safeguards for volunteers and The Duke of Edinburgh Scheme are seriously considering blacklisting Oxfam shops for their participants.

[thatdberight]

It's not the few bad apples that's the problem. OK, there will be some who take joy at sticking the knife in but almost everyone accepts that things happen. The problem is the cover-up and the very easy to draw inference that a significant part of the reason for that was to keep well-remunerated charity execs in jobs.

The amount of quasi or truly public money being swilled about some charity organisations and the huge salaries being paid to people who have no real oversight or accountability but a protected revenue stream coming out of public funds is quite shocking. I've seen it first-hand.

[Paul Waine]

there undoubtedly have been some proper bad apples working for them but there are thousands that are in it for the right reasons.

the mail and other nasty 'newspapers' are using these bad apples for their agenda of ending foreign aid.

whilst i would reform the aid system it would be a tragedy if this was the catalyst to end foreign aid.

Hi yTib, why do you mention the DM? It was The Times that investigated and reported the events in Haiti and how Oxfam handled it.

Of course, no reason to end foreign aid, but maybe we should make sure that it is aid that is delivered and not an excuse for "some proper bad apples" to exploit a humanitarian tragedy.

[Sidney1st]

Amusing that the DM is being blamed when they didn't break the story

[Funkydrummer]

I see that "Save The Children" has joined the throng now - even more to follow no doubt.

[Damo]

While we are on the subject of charity. It looks as though great Ormond street are going back on their decision to reject the donation from the presidents club.

Mind You, some drunk rich blokes, learing at strippers is a drop in the ocean compared to what Oxfam have been up to. You wouldn't think so though, given the lack of soap box mounting by the SJW'S this week

[LeadBelly]

Yes the former Chief Exec of Save The Children, Justin Forsyth, resigned after "making unsuitable and thoughtless comments to three young female members of staff"
That hasn't stopped him now becoming deputy executive director at Unicef though!
Brendan Cox (said to be a friend of Justin's) also recently resigned from Save the Children after allegations of sexual misconduct.
Both Cox and Forsyth previously worked together for Oxfam and for Gordon Broon.

Dens of iniquity these charidees.

Point raised in previous comment- given how much of a frazzle the Guardian got into about Presidents Club "thing", they should be in a grade 1 frenzy about this much more serious stuff but I expect they'll try and ignore it as nothing much/a Tory smokescreen etc.

[dsr]

I haven't been following this story. Did they actually use the charity's cash to pay for the prostitutes?

I don't think so. The issue is that Oxfam employees have been sent to extremely poor parts of the world and using their relative huge wealth to persuade starving women and (allegedly) children into becoming prostitutes. It's blatant abuse of power and wealth. The further allegation is that the very highly paid top berass have known about this for 10 years or so and did nothing, or else have been told this is going on and turned a blind eye rather than investigate.

The chief executive, Mark Goldring, claims it isn't a particularly serious issue "not like they were blowing up babies" and wants people to carry on giving him money. There is no suggestion that he, for example, feels guilty that he has been receiving a £130,000 salary while people he employs have been abusing those they were sent to help; nor is there any suggestion that he intends to resign, or to work on minimum wage while he repairs the problem.

[Paul Waine]

While we are on the subject of charity. It looks as though great Ormond street are going back on their decision to reject the donation from the presidents club.

Mind You, some drunk rich blokes, learing at strippers is a drop in the ocean compared to what Oxfam have been up to. You wouldn't think so though, given the lack of soap box mounting by the SJW'S this week

What I read is that there are some Charity Commission requirements about returning such a large sum - with consequences to the beneficaries of the charity's donation. So - and I'm not sure whether what I read is an accurate report - it may not be so easy for GOSH just to say "we don't like how you have behaved, we are returning all the money you have donated to us...."

[Damo]

What I read is that there are some Charity Commission requirements about returning such a large sum - with consequences to the beneficaries of the charity's donation. So - and I'm not sure whether what I read is an accurate report - it may not be so easy for GOSH just to say "we don't like how you have behaved, we are returning all the money you have donated to us...."

You are probably correct paul.
Even so, it's for the best. Why should the kids that GOSH help suffer because some people acted innapropriately

[Sidney1st]

Not even remotely surprised to read that some of the top bods jump from one agency to another when caught out misbehaving.
They could work for the public sector almost...

[CnBtruntru]

I've got mates who've used hookers, never been my thing though, I prefer to remain STD free.

What has subscriber trunk dialing got to do with charities and prostitutes!

[tim_noone]

What has subscriber trunk dialing got to do with charities and prostitutes!

Dunno

[CnBtruntru]

Dunno

Naughty I nearly put it myself.

[dsr]

If anyone wants to see what charity is actually about, watch this.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/watch-cha ... kids-free/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hipper]

I don't think so. The issue is that Oxfam employees have been sent to extremely poor parts of the world and using their relative huge wealth to persuade starving women and (allegedly) children into becoming prostitutes. It's blatant abuse of power and wealth. The further allegation is that the very highly paid top berass have known about this for 10 years or so and did nothing, or else have been told this is going on and turned a blind eye rather than investigate.

The chief executive, Mark Goldring, claims it isn't a particularly serious issue "not like they were blowing up babies" and wants people to carry on giving him money. There is no suggestion that he, for example, feels guilty that he has been receiving a £130,000 salary while people he employs have been abusing those they were sent to help; nor is there any suggestion that he intends to resign, or to work on minimum wage while he repairs the problem.

They did investigate and sacked (got him to resign) the bloke and others at the centre of it. They gave a report to the media and Charities Commission, although it wasn't as overt as it might have been. As the Oxfam CEO has alluded to, at the time of these incidents we (or should I say the media etc,) were not interested in stuff like this. Now years later we are.

Goldring became CEO in 2013, and wasn't at Oxfam at the time of these incidents (in 2010).

[Lancasterclaret]

I worked for a freight ferry company years ago and a lot of our captains and officers had been in ships delivering aid to Ethiopia after Live Aid.

Then I was horrified at the stories of ships sitting for months trying to unload, at the amount of waste required to bribe the local chiefs and everybody else to actually get about 10% of the aid to the places that needed it the most.

Now, I focus on the 10% of aid that saved millions of lives.

I worry about these stories, mainly because you want to believe that people who do this kind of job are motivated by the urge to help and that without those people lots of charities wouldn't be able to do the jobs they do. And there is the underlying fear that people will use this as further arguments against foreign aid.

But the people who betray everyones trust by doing what they have done deserve nothing but the book being thrown at them, and there does need to be greater transparency and proper employment checks from here on in.

[Inchy]

Not sure why people are making this a left and right political thing. Left leaning and right leaning newspapers should both condem what has gone on. Surely all labour and Tory voters think what has gone on is deplorable. Some Left leaning voters will think the right will go overboard on this and use it as an excuse to stop foreign aid. That won’t happen but they will use it as an excuse to restructure it, which it clearly needs.


Also I am not clued up on foreign aid. Why do we give aid to richer countries than us? Or give aid to fund silly things? Is it related to trade deals?

[Sidney1st]

I've never understood why we give aid to countries that have nuclear weapons or space programs.
I think at one point we were giving some aid to China, but I might be wrong on that?

It's also been glaringly obvious over the last couple of decades that the aid/money hasn't been used appropriately by various countries/governments and not a lot has been done about it by lots of people in a position to do so.

The actions of various employees of these Aid companies have been deplorable and hopefully things will start to change, but if the top bods are already jumping from one job to another when it gets a bit warm for them then I can't see it happening.

[aggi]

While we are on the subject of charity. It looks as though great Ormond street are going back on their decision to reject the donation from the presidents club.

Mind You, some drunk rich blokes, learing at strippers is a drop in the ocean compared to what Oxfam have been up to. You wouldn't think so though, given the lack of soap box mounting by the SJW'S this week

It seems there are a few issues.

GOSH didn't receive any money this year, the amount they said they wanted to give back was from previous years and has already been spent. This hasn't been popular with some big donors who have said they may stop donating if they do this. It is also unclear whether they can do this under Charity Commission rules, it may depend on how they fund it.

It is also unclear who the money would actually be returned to as the President's Club charity is being dissolved.

some drunk rich blokes, learing at strippers Obviously this is just ******** that you've made up.

[bfcjg]

Stop press Shadsworth's Oxfam distribution centre has closed down.

[RingoMcCartney]

Foreign aid-

Taking money from poor people in a rich country.

Giving it to rich people in a poor country...

[NCClaret]

I wonder how fit for purpose uber charities like Oxfam have been for some time now. Have they become too large and lost sight of their main purpose? Undoubtedly people have been helped through them but to what extent considering the income they generate. A straight lift from Oxfam's web-site says: 'Oxfam's promise to you, our supporters: For every £1 you give to Oxfam; 82p goes directly to emergency, development and campaigning work;10p is spent on support costs; 8p is invested to generate future revenue'.

At first glance the 82p looks significant but the wording is ambiguous and certainly doesn't show that 82p in every pound goes directly to an individual or group throughout the world in any given disaster area say. When I see the allegations that have been made, that have seemingly gone on for some time - have they become too big, unwieldy, unmanageable and possibly cartel like.

I have a connection with a charity and know from personal experience how important it is to exercise the utmost due diligence in ensuring monies get to source. It's not impossible - we have done work in tricky places across the globe and we have been defrauded. After some rigorous due diligence we are reasonably confident that our donations now go to source. We are confident, but certainly can't be complacent of this because we micro-manage our grant making processes. We can do this because we are not that large - but that's my original point - Oxfam wasn't at the outset large it was set up by a small group of Quakers.

A difficult and torrid time for these large charities. However, we should remember that thousands of people who work and volunteer for them, do so with no other motive than to help.

[RingoMcCartney]

A couple of weeks ago, prior to all this. An Oxfam representative came on the radio, to discuss pay in balances and the relative gap between the pay of those at the top and bottom of organisations.

In their view, they believed a ratio of no more than 20 to 1 was not acceptable and it was having an adverse effect on the poorest in society.

The presenter asked whether it was part of Oxfams remit to be getting involved in socio economics and politics and whether they should be more concerned about feeding starving people?

Then the stinger.

The presenter noted that top Oxfam executives in the USA were on around $300,000 pa. Could the representative confirm whether or not that would be within the guide lines, on ratios, that they were espousing?

The representative said they hadn't come on to discuss Oxfams pay ratios.

The interview came to a end shortly after.......

[Erasmus]

Hearing of Oxfam leaders earning very large salaries is certainly uncomfortable as is the whole trend of professionalising charities to this extent. The counter-argument is that these people's expertise enables charities to raise more money and thereby provide essential aid that alleviates some of the suffering in the world. I am not sure I accept this, but we can't be certain whether or not it is the case. If it is, then the argument comes down to the old moral debate between motive and consequences.

These well-paid charity leaders may not have the best of motives, but maybe the consequences of their work are more important than their sullied motives. If I was starving I wouldn't care too much why the people feeding me were doing it.