# The Oxfam 'Scandal'



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 12, 2018)

As long as nothing illegal going on - is what has been uncovered just a reality for those living and working in very harsh environments, and the scandal is being blow up by those with a vested interest to be used as a stick to beat Overseas  Aid?

Or is this a real scandal and a serious ethical problem?  

Whichever way my feelings lie on this - and I am not sure where I am at the moment as I donate quite a lot to Oxfam (and support them through a lot of purchases in the local book shop) - I feel it is dangerous and counter-productive to cut support to Oxfam - thereby undermining the great and difficult work that Oxfam does in difficult and dangerous circumstances - cutting on the grounds of the behaviour of a few 'bad uns' and the perhaps misguided actions of senior management.  

Were charities to have management of their staff and associated groups at the level required to spot and stop such behaviour - we and the Charities Commission would soon be jumping on the back of the charties for excessive admin and manegement costs.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 12, 2018)

As I understand the issue is Oxfam told porkies when challenged with regard the alleged 'incidents'...


In my experience there is only one outcome when you start off with lying...

You eventually get caught out...


----------



## hors limite (Feb 12, 2018)

From what I've read they are busily conflating the use of paid adult prostitutes and the sexual abuse of minors.The former is not something that aid workers should have been doing but the latter is at a totally different level of abhorrent behaviour. Why is this happening? The House of Commons scandal had the same thing with everything from a fleeting touch of a knee to rape being lumped in together.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 12, 2018)

If you are going to be an aid worker then don't be a dick.  Not all aid workers are dicks's as a lot do valuable and needed work. Just get rid of the ones that are.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 12, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			If you are going to be an aid worker then don't be a dick.  Not all aid workers are dicks's as a lot do valuable and needed work. Just get rid of the ones that are.
		
Click to expand...

And, when found out for being a 'dick' tell the truth and admit to it...
It'll work out as being a whole lot better in the long run...

By all accounts some of these 'dicks' have just moved on to being 'dicks' elsewhere...
All because those in charge of 'dicks' thought it better/easier to cover up the 'dicks' rather than expose them..


----------



## drdel (Feb 12, 2018)

It is uncomfortable reading but I'm not aware of the 'legality' or acceptance of prostitution in those countries so while I might be uneasy about the morality there may not be any illegal activity that justifies punishment.

Clearly the exploitation of the vulnerable (minors or others) must be condemed.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 12, 2018)

Oxfam Deputy CEO resigns accepting responsibility.  What I am most uncomfortable about is the fact of lack of reporting to police is use of prostitutes in Haiti where prostitution is illegal.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 12, 2018)

This will hammer Oxfam. Would you donate to them at the moment?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 12, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Oxfam Deputy CEO resigns accepting responsibility.  What I am most uncomfortable about is the fact of lack of reporting to police is use of prostitutes in Haiti where prostitution is illegal.
		
Click to expand...

I think you'll find it was reported to the police at the time, but unsurprisingly they had lots of other things occupying thier time. It has also been said that similar happening went on in Chad in 2006.
Disgusting behaviour.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 12, 2018)

I don't really understand the question. It seems that charity workers were exploiting the very people they were supposed to be helping. How is that not scandalous?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 13, 2018)

So if this isnâ€™t a â€œscandalâ€, what is it?
With whatâ€™s coming out concerning recent behaviour both home and abroad,  perhaps the title should be changed?.
To me, Iâ€™m seeing similarities between Oxfam and the Catholic Church with their covering up of illegal activities.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Feb 13, 2018)

In my experience, most of the senior management at these charities are working there because it is a well-paid job, nothing to do with the charity or the good causes they aim to represent.    I saw a ton of financial mismanagement and waste at one very well known UK charity and would never ever give anything to them again.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 13, 2018)

We should remember that these charities do a lot of good, but, when you see they made a profit of Â£408 million a few years back and they received over Â£60 million combined from our Gov and the EU in the last financial year it sticks in my throat.
These fat cats abusing their position with the very people they are meant to help is disgusting.
Saw at first hand these NGOâ€™s driving round Bosnia and Kosovo in their Landcruisers, staying in the best hotels and bragging how much theyâ€™d make while being there.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 13, 2018)

Before we cancel our Oxfam direct debits and stop supporting them through their shops, read this. Perhaps it's better to question their procedures rather than withdraw support.

https://onlinecham.com/2018/02/12/oxfam/


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 13, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Before we cancel our Oxfam direct debits and stop supporting them through their shops, read this. Perhaps it's better to question their procedures rather than withdraw support.

https://onlinecham.com/2018/02/12/oxfam/

Click to expand...

if their procedures are that lax and terrible, how can you trust them with the roughly Â£400mill they have to play with each year?
They are donated money to help those needy and impoverished people around the World, not to run luxury lifestyles with villas and sexual favours.
Just as VW were ultimately responsible for the major anti diesel feelings, Oxfam may well be seen as the VW of the charity world.
Instead of trying to defend them, condemn it for the reprehensible behaviour that it is.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 13, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			if their procedures are that lax and terrible, how can you trust them with the roughly Â£400mill they have to play with each year?
They are donated money to help those needy and impoverished people around the World, not to run luxury lifestyles with villas and sexual favours.
Just as VW were ultimately responsible for the major anti diesel feelings, Oxfam may well be seen as the VW of the charity world.
Instead of trying to defend them, condemn it for the reprehensible behaviour that it is.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not defending them - I'm just asking the question...


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Feb 13, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			if their procedures are that lax and terrible, how can you trust them with the roughly Â£400mill they have to play with each year?
They are donated money to help those needy and impoverished people around the World, not to run luxury lifestyles with villas and sexual favours.
Just as VW were ultimately responsible for the major anti diesel feelings, Oxfam may well be seen as the VW of the charity world.
Instead of trying to defend them, condemn it for the reprehensible behaviour that it is.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty fair summary from my perspective


----------



## NWJocko (Feb 13, 2018)

Pathetic Shark said:



			In my experience, most of the senior management at these charities are working there because it is a well-paid job, nothing to do with the charity or the good causes they aim to represent.    I saw a ton of financial mismanagement and waste at one very well known UK charity and would never ever give anything to them again.
		
Click to expand...

If you look into most of the biggest charities, in any sector, this is true.  A very, very small percentage of money raised is actually used to the effect the charity promotes, almost like businesses. Note that is not to downgrade the role they play in terms of publicising issues etc it is just a fact.

It is why, in the main, I don't support "big" charities anymore as I'd rather 90p in my Â£1 donated goes to use through a smaller charity than 10p in my Â£1 through a "big" one.

I bet the majority of the UK public would be shocked at how little of their charitable giving actually ends up anywhere near supporting causes they thought they were when donating.


In terms of the Oxfam situation FairwayDodgers post sums it up perfectly for me :thup:


----------



## NWJocko (Feb 13, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not defending them - I'm just asking the question...
		
Click to expand...

Well it would seem you're not looking very hard for the answer yourself then :thup:

Why are you asking the question out of interest?  Quick to condemn many others in other arena's (political etc) but you seem to be "OK" with this?  Does your church (local/parish/denominational) have links to them by any chance?


----------



## pendodave (Feb 14, 2018)

Pathetic Shark said:



			In my experience, most of the senior management at these charities are working there because it is a well-paid job, nothing to do with the charity or the good causes they aim to represent.    I saw a ton of financial mismanagement and waste at one very well known UK charity and would never ever give anything to them again.
		
Click to expand...

My sister did some accounting work at one of the well known ones based in London. This is also her considered view of the situation.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Feb 14, 2018)

pendodave said:



			My sister did some accounting work at one of the well known ones based in London. This is also her considered view of the situation.
		
Click to expand...

Yes when you do RESEARCH into some of these top charities, you realise they can be a CANCER to the word charity.  Which is terrible when the cause is so just.


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 14, 2018)

I refuse to use Oxfam shops at all, and I love rummaging around in charity shops, you can get some cracking bargins, but not at Oxfam. Their prices are sometimes comparable to brand new items in other shops! Nut's to 'em I say! I hope they go down in flames and the thieving untrustworthy management never work in the industry again.


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 14, 2018)

Pathetic Shark said:



			Yes when you do RESEARCH into some of these top charities, you realise they can be a CANCER to the word charity.  Which is terrible when the cause is so just.
		
Click to expand...

What you trying to say? 
Don't use this place either. I was told by someone that the Pharma industry is and are pumping BILLIONS into solving this, coz the on that cracks it is gonna make ZILLIONS. So there is no real need to give to this one.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 14, 2018)

Any charity that has multiple Directors on six figure salaries for what amounts to part time 'work' doesn't really need my money....


Prefer to donate to more local/focused groups rather than the big money pit ones...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

And if you remove funding from the big charities and then bow to pressure to cut Overseas Aid - then who is going to be running the big projects - including those that require significant infrastructure build.

In the past I have done a lot of work with some of the UK's largest charities - including Amnesty, WWF, FoE, Save the Children UK, Diabetes UK, RSPCA; Macmillan, Cancer Research UK, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Sue Ryder Care, as well as many smaller ones such as Clic Sargent; Blue Cross; British Lung Foundation; CTC.   I know quite a lot about how charities work.  And in my experience those who work for these charities are generally very dedicated to their causes - are proud of their charity; work tirelessly; often sacrifice well-paid jobs to work for much less; and are very conscious of the money they are spending on administration and management - with many have very strict targets for maximum spend to maximise funding of projects.  I also spent quite some time working with Oxfam (though we didn't get their business) and they seemed to be just the same - certainly the offices I was visiting were very far from luxurious...

I truly believe that we have to be very careful about what we are doing here in respect of Oxfam, baby and bathwater comes to mind.

And my door-to-door collecting for Christian Aid might be interesting this year.  I fear that all this outrage is going to make for some interesting doorstep discussions and a reduction in giving.  I hope not.

Christian Aid Week (13-19 May).  It matters.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And if you remove funding from the big charities and then bow to pressure to cut Overseas Aid - then who is going to be running the big projects - including those that require significant infrastructure build.

In the past I have done a lot of work with some of the UK's largest charities - including Amnesty, WWF, FoE, Save the Children UK, Diabetes UK, RSPCA; Macmillan, Cancer Research UK, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Sue Ryder Care, as well as many smaller ones such as Clic Sargent; Blue Cross; British Lung Foundation; CTC.   I know quite a lot about how charities work.  And in my experience those who work for these charities are generally very dedicated to their causes - are proud of their charity; work tirelessly; often sacrifice well-paid jobs to work for much less; and are very conscious of the money they are spending on administration and management - with many have very strict targets for maximum spend to maximise funding of projects.  I also spent quite some time working with Oxfam (though we didn't get their business) and they seemed to be just the same - certainly the offices I was visiting were very far from luxurious...

I truly believe that we have to be very careful about what we are doing here in respect of Oxfam, baby and bathwater comes to mind.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely a baby and bathwater thing. And whilst I agree that those that are customer facing are very dedicated to a cause I would question whether that applies the further up the tree they go.

As to penalising Oxfam, or any other charity, they will be squeaky clean from now on. They know they've got it wrong and, behind the scenes, the blood letting will be harsh. They will be close to a 'perfect pupil' now. As for people falling on their sword because someone they don't know, nor directly managed, went way off the reservation... no, I don't agree with that. Why appoint or promote someone who is good at doing the job, and then sack them for a non-work related failing of the organisation?

However, if there has been a cover up and people being circumspect with the truth. Their feet shouldn't even touch the floor.


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 14, 2018)

All the money we donate as a country should go to UK Aid Charities that have been scrubbed clean and let them distribute the money to ensure it goes to the areas that  need it. We should not donate any money to the governments to buy themselves fancy suits and cars and buildings.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			All the money we donate as a country should go to UK Aid Charities that have been scrubbed clean and let them distribute the money to ensure it goes to the areas that  need it. We should not donate any money to the governments to buy themselves fancy suits and cars and buildings.
		
Click to expand...

Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course that is what we would want to achieve.  But UK Charities and Oversea Aid recipients have to work in-country, and can only be there with the agreement and support of the government of that country - and often can only operate locally in the country with the agreement and support of local official and unofficial 'government'.  

The solution seems very easy in theory - but charities and other non-governmental agencies tend to work in countries where things aren't quite what they are the UK and a degree of pragmatism (including turning of a blind eye) will be required ...though see T Dan Smith and John Poulson - we are not perfect....


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The solution seems very easy in theory - but charities and other non-governmental agencies tend to work in countries where things aren't quite what they are the UK and a degree of pragmatism (*including turning of a blind eye*) will be required ...though see T Dan Smith and John Poulson - we are not perfect....
		
Click to expand...

Turn a blind eye........really??
I notice you steadfastly refuse to condemn whatâ€™s supposed to have taken place, 
I wonder if you would be so uninterested in the parties concerned if ithey were a politician you donâ€™t like?
I have witnessed your â€œChristian valuesâ€ from other people when an associated party has been found to have done wrong. The laws of the land apply to everyone, including those associated with religious groups and charities.

I assume since you refuse to condemn whatâ€™s reported you support it?


----------



## Jacko_G (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Before we cancel our Oxfam direct debits and stop supporting them through their shops, read this. Perhaps it's better to question their procedures rather than withdraw support.

https://onlinecham.com/2018/02/12/oxfam/

Click to expand...

Why? They appear corrupt to the core. Why support a charity that has been abusing its position, power and trust???


----------



## drdel (Feb 14, 2018)

We risk punishing the 95% for the bad/corrupt 5% for which there is no defence. Those responsible/culpable need to be cleaned out and punished.

Hopefully Oxfam and others will see this as a wake up call, revise their processes and ensure their somewhat overpaid managers get control or get out.

I'd be in favour of demanding that any charity receiving large amounts of government grants did not pay senior staff above the level of the PM.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 14, 2018)

The PM salary argument is always a dubious one in my eyes. The PM should get more, the pay review body always states the same, but for political reasons they always have to reject the increase. Trade off for a PM is the amount they make once they leave office so no tears from me there. It does distort the argument of comparing their salary however.


----------



## drdel (Feb 14, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The PM salary argument is always a dubious one in my eyes. The PM should get more, the pay review body always states the same, but for political reasons they always have to reject the increase. Trade off for a PM is the amount they make once they leave office so no tears from me there. It does distort the argument of comparing their salary however.
		
Click to expand...

True - I agree tis a complex argument. However the pay levels of MPs and the PM etc. do give a vague measure/benchmark of the 'public acceptability'.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Turn a blind eye........really??
I notice you steadfastly refuse to condemn whatâ€™s supposed to have taken place, 
I wonder if you would be so uninterested in the parties concerned if ithey were a politician you donâ€™t like?
I have witnessed your â€œChristian valuesâ€ from other people when an associated party has been found to have done wrong. The laws of the land apply to everyone, including those associated with religious groups and charities.

I assume since you refuse to condemn whatâ€™s reported you support it?
		
Click to expand...

What makes you think I do not condemn it?  I have simply been asking questions on how the story is being treated and the reaction to it.  

But since you asked, of course I condemn any act by an individual that exploits the weak and the poor, and will obviously have reservations about acts done by individuals that are illegal - even when done for pragmatic or necessary reasons.  But in all honesty I cannot absolutely condemn every illegality perpetrated when it may be necessary to bend or break the rules in order to get done something that - for instance - may be life saving.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Why? They appear corrupt to the core. Why support a charity that has been abusing its position, power and trust???
		
Click to expand...

Evidence supporting your assertion that Oxfam appears corrupt to the core please.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What makes you think I do not condemn it?  I have simply been asking questions on how the story is being treated and the reaction to it.  

But since you asked, of course I condemn any act by an individual that exploits the weak and the poor, and will obviously have reservations about acts done by individuals that are illegal - even when done for pragmatic or necessary reasons.  But in all honesty I cannot absolutely condemn every illegality perpetrated when it may be necessary to bend or break the rules in order to get done something that - for instance - may be life saving.
		
Click to expand...

Had 'management' dealt with the 'bad stuff' right away rather than turn a blind eye and seek to sweep it under the carpet... They wouldn't be in the bad place they rightly are now...

A bit of arbitrary falling on one's sword doesn't cut it for me...


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Evidence supporting your assertion that Oxfam appears corrupt to the core please.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43060802
not exactly looking good is it....


----------



## jmf1488 (Feb 14, 2018)

Oxfam ran a story about the top 1%

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/...nt-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year

The top 1% pulled out the prostitution card. Nothing to see here as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Jacko_G (Feb 14, 2018)

As has been stated elsewhere on this thread, when I give to charity I try and support local charities, not multi national "companies" with luxurious head offices, numerous board members on high salaries and company cars. 

Charity starts at home and we have thousands living in poverty and the same again living on the streets.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Had 'management' dealt with the 'bad stuff' right away rather than turn a blind eye and seek to sweep it under the carpet... They wouldn't be in the bad place they rightly are now...

A bit of arbitrary falling on one's sword doesn't cut it for me...
		
Click to expand...

What do you want - Oxfam to fold?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43060802
not exactly looking good is it....
		
Click to expand...

Corrupt to the core to me means that the organisation is corrupt at every level...that corruption is endemic and systematic throughout Oxfam.  What are you looking for?  What end game do you want for this 'corrupt' organisation?


----------



## User20205 (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Corrupt to the core to me means that the organisation is corrupt at every level...that corruption is endemic and systematic throughout Oxfam.  What are you looking for?  What end game do you want for this 'corrupt' organisation?
		
Click to expand...

what end game do you want? they are at best negligent, at worst corrupt. 
doesn't feel like they can survive in their current form to me


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What do you want - Oxfam to fold?
		
Click to expand...

What they need to do/have is a top down [fully transparent] review of their entire operation...

Fully outlining why so relatively little of the money they receive reaches the 'coalface'...

That's just for starters I think...

Then the same for all their procedures to highlight all their obvious management failings and how they intend to address them...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			As has been stated elsewhere on this thread, when I give to charity I try and support local charities, not multi national "companies" with luxurious head offices, numerous board members on high salaries and company cars. 

Charity starts at home and we have thousands living in poverty and the same again living on the streets.
		
Click to expand...

Have you actually been in the 'luxurious' head offices of many major charities?  Well I have.  And many are not that luxurious at all - and where they appear so, they are often that way 'front of house' and to a pretty limited extent.  These charities are multi-million pound organisations and they need good and smart people - they attract support and staff by having half decent accomodation - running these organisations from ramshackle shoe-box premises is never going to cut it.  Besides.  Many charities have their HO in buildings that have either been donated to them or that are leased at very low cost.

BTW - IMO _Charity begins at home_ is a trite phrase, misunderstanding the word charity and what is meant by it - as it actually to do with loving those closest to you.  Because if you love and care for your own (and care here does not mean monetarily), and that love is reciprocated, our mindset is such that we are better minded and able to extend our love and care to others outside of our immediate family - and the extent of that is not limited by boundaries - it is only limited by the extent of the brotherhood of man - and that is ALL of us who inhabit this planet.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

therod said:



			what end game do you want? they are at best negligent, at worst corrupt. 
doesn't feel like they can survive in their current form to me
		
Click to expand...

What end game do YOU want?

I do not want Oxfam brought to it's knees as that is an absurdity and would likely cause chaos and untold misery - and deaths - across the globe in the many places where thousands work for and on behalf of Oxfam bringing help and hope to the very poorest and desperate on the planet.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			What they need to do/have is a top down [fully transparent] review of their entire operation...

*Fully outlining why so relatively little of the money they receive reaches the 'coalface'...*

That's just for starters I think...

Then the same for all their procedures to highlight all their obvious management failings and how they intend to address them...
		
Click to expand...

Here's the facts - which will have been audited and OK'd by the Charities Commission

https://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/how-we-spend-your-money

Charities do not just get away with spending whatever the want however they want - The Charities Commission is on their case all the time.


----------



## User20205 (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What end game do YOU want?
		
Click to expand...

they have legitimised abuse, employed a fella who has form for this type of behaviour & attempted to bury these allegations. they aren't fit for purpose. they won't survive in their current format. they're a toxic organisation. What I want isn't important, what their supporters want and what the 'vulnerable' people they care for need, is answers I suspect. 
i'm sure they have good people working for them  but the organisation has endorsed sexual exploitation of minors....you ok with that?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

therod said:



			they have legitimised abuse, employed a fella who has form for this type of behaviour & attempted to bury these allegations. they aren't fit for purpose. they won't survive in their current format. they're a toxic organisation. What I want isn't important, what their supporters want and what the 'vulnerable' people they care for need is answers I suspect. 
i'm sure they have good people working for them  but the organisation has endorsed sexual exploitation of minors....you ok with that?
		
Click to expand...

So all that said - what is your end game?


----------



## Jacko_G (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Have you actually been in the 'luxurious' head offices of many major charities?  Well I have.  And many are not that luxurious at all - and where they appear so, they are often that way 'front of house' and to a pretty limited extent.  These charities are multi-million pound organisations and they need good and smart people - they attract support and staff by having half decent accomodation - running these organisations from ramshackle shoe-box premises is never going to cut it.  Besides.  Many charities have their HO in buildings that have either been donated to them or that are leased at very low cost.

BTW - IMO _Charity begins at home_ is a trite phrase, misunderstanding the word charity and what is meant by it - as it actually to do with loving those closest to you.  Because if you love and care for your own (and care here does not mean monetarily), and that love is reciprocated, our mindset is such that we are better minded and able to extend our love and care to others outside of our immediate family - and the extent of that is not limited by boundaries - it is only limited by the extent of the brotherhood of man - and that is ALL of us who inhabit this planet.
		
Click to expand...


Two separate threads now you have tried to defend abuse that is undefendable.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Two separate threads now you have tried to defend abuse that is undefendable.
		
Click to expand...

What aspect of the scandal am I defending?  What other thread?

Do you think Oxfam should be wound up?  If not what do you want to do with it?


----------



## User20205 (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So all that said - what is your end game?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know how to break this to you, Paxo, I'm not in charge. there will be a enquiry after that who knows.
what I suspect will happen is that they will fold, they can't continue IMO. Other charities will fill the void, without the inconvenient exploitation of those they purport to be helping.

what would you do?


----------



## Jacko_G (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What aspect of the scandal am I defending?  What other thread?

Do you think Oxfam should be wound up?  If not what do you want to do with it?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, wind it up they obviously can't be trusted. They have clearly abused there position and trust.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			Yes, wind it up they obviously can't be trusted. They have clearly abused there position and trust.
		
Click to expand...

Really - how absurd...through the bad and/or illegal behaviour of a few individuals - and a failure of corporate governance in respect of what was essentially an HR matter...albeit a very serious HR matter.  And remind me who has *abused *their positions - other than the perpetrators of the acts.  Governance failures are just that - and not abuses of position unless recommendations were overruled.

But OK then - how do we wind up Oxfam?

Do we nationalise Oxfam? - because the work they are doing can't just stop.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

therod said:



			I don't know how to break this to you, Paxo, I'm not in charge. there will be a enquiry after that who knows.
what I suspect will happen is that they will fold, they can't continue IMO. Other charities will fill the void, without the inconvenient exploitation of those they purport to be helping.

what would you do?
		
Click to expand...

Hobbit in #26 has it right for me


----------



## User20205 (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Hobbit in #26 has it right for me
		
Click to expand...

He, as always, speaks a lot of sense. However it seems that there has been an institutional cover up, therefore not only are the individuals liable for the offence(s), but the institution is liable & potentially complicit? 
If itâ€™s funding is, in part, reliant on public donations & they dry up, it will cease to be.
The investigation will shine a light on how deep this goes, but you canâ€™t deny that as an organisation they have directly contradicted their reason for being?


----------



## Jacko_G (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Really - *how absurd*...through the bad and/or illegal behaviour of a few individuals - and a failure of corporate governance in respect of what was essentially an HR matter...albeit a very serious HR matter.  And remind me who has *abused *their positions - other than the perpetrators of the acts.  Governance failures are just that - and not abuses of position unless recommendations were overruled.

But OK then - how do we wind up Oxfam?

Do we nationalise Oxfam? - because the work they are doing can't just stop.
		
Click to expand...


Only absurd thing is you defending the abuse within this organisation. Very strange. 

Enjoy defending them. I'll leave you to wrestle with your moral conscience. Me, well I'll bow out as your attitude disgusts me.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 14, 2018)

therod said:



			He, as always, speaks a lot of sense. However it seems that there has been an institutional cover up, therefore not only are the individuals liable for the offence(s), but the institution is liable & potentially complicit? 
If itâ€™s funding is, in part, reliant on public donations & they dry up, it will cease to be.
The investigation will shine a light on how deep this goes, but you canâ€™t deny that as an organisation they have directly contradicted their reason for being?
		
Click to expand...

An institutional cover up doesn't mean the organisation doesn't have the right policies, procedures and structure to do a good job. I have no problem sacking those that are guilty of that but to break up what, on paper, looks like a decent organisation just seems a bit daft. How long would it take to replace the people on the ground and put in place a structure(which would only replicate what's already in place) a new organisation?

As an aside, an insight into working in places like Angola and Nigeria from experience. Flying into Angola to work in the local hospital I was advised to have my $5 ready for the customs guy or expect to spend a couple of hours waiting to get my clothes and tools through customs. And when sending engineers out to Nigeria I was advised by our local agent that customs might need a "speedy clearance payment" for our engineers to get through customs quickly. And I know from charity workers in Angola, if you don't pay even they get a rough ride.

I tried the not paying the customs guy when I went out there, and 2 hours in an airless tin shack was my reward. I paid him the next time, ergo I am corrupt.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Corrupt to the core to me means that the organisation is corrupt at every level...that corruption is endemic and systematic throughout Oxfam.  What are you looking for?  What end game do you want for this 'corrupt' organisation?
		
Click to expand...

Remember Nick Leeson and Brings Bank?
I bad apple can and does bring an organisation down, only in this instance there is more than 1 bad apple...a lot more. Glossing over everything is tantamount to agreeing with their practices and whats happened.
The thread title tells me you think it's storm in a tea-cup, overblown and false. The fact it took you the best part of 3 pages and various responses to actually say you condemned what was happening just reinforces that view.
I'm sure you feel they are being persecuted and you have good intentions at heart, but you have to stop a cancer before it kills the body and burying ones head in the sand won't stop it.

For the record, Oxfam won't get another penny from me nor any organisation working with them. Not until I feel they have sorted out the whole sorry mess, and sadly I doubt they rreally will.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 14, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			I tried the not paying the customs guy when I went out there, and 2 hours in an airless tin shack was my reward. I paid him the next time, ergo I am corrupt.
		
Click to expand...

But you accepted you did wrong, and came clean about it at an early stage. At least though you weren't asking for sexual favours to have him use his stamp


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 14, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			But you accepted you did wrong, and came clean about it at an early stage. At least though you weren't asking for sexual favours to have him use his stamp

Click to expand...

But on another day _she_ might have


----------



## chrisd (Feb 14, 2018)

Lets face it, the Churches of various religions haven't been closed despite many many cases of abuse!


----------



## User20205 (Feb 14, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			An institutional cover up doesn't mean the organisation doesn't have the right policies, procedures and structure to do a good job. I have no problem sacking those that are guilty of that but to break up what, on paper, looks like a decent organisation just seems a bit daft. How long would it take to replace the people on the ground and put in place a structure(which would only replicate what's already in place) a new organisation?

As an aside, an insight into working in places like Angola and Nigeria from experience. Flying into Angola to work in the local hospital I was advised to have my $5 ready for the customs guy or expect to spend a couple of hours waiting to get my clothes and tools through customs. And when sending engineers out to Nigeria I was advised by our local agent that customs might need a "speedy clearance payment" for our engineers to get through customs quickly. And I know from charity workers in Angola, if you don't pay even they get a rough ride.

I tried the not paying the customs guy when I went out there, and 2 hours in an airless tin shack was my reward. I paid him the next time, ergo I am corrupt.
		
Click to expand...

All of which again is perfectly reasonable, but only if it is a fully functioning organisation. What if all
Senior management are complicit in a cover up? 

Have an enquiry, root & branch to coin a cliche! Including funding, salaries @ top level & specifically abuse cover up. It wasnâ€™t limited to Haiti seemingly.
Corruption maybe a way of life, you may have to buy into it to get on. Sexual  exploitation  by a charity I reckon maybe optional?


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 14, 2018)

therod said:



			All of which again is perfectly reasonable, but only if it is a fully functioning organisation. What if all
Senior management are complicit in a cover up? 

Have an enquiry, root & branch to coin a cliche! Including funding, salaries @ top level & specifically abuse cover up. It wasnâ€™t limited to Haiti seemingly.
Corruption maybe a way of life, you may have to buy into it to get on. Sexual  exploitation  by a charity I reckon maybe optional?
		
Click to expand...

What I was trying to point out is not everything is quite so black and white. Don't get me wrong, what's gone on is abhorrent. And if its been brushed under the carpet in the UK I'd like to see criminal charges brought over here.

As BM said, the organisation may, by default, disappear anyway. If they're that toxic, who will donate? I know I won't consider it unless there is a root and branch investigation. And if there has been anything criminal, then the letter of the law is followed.

However, if what we're seeing is a dozen people guilty of crimes, why close a charity with 27,300 staff and volunteers? Are all 27,300 guilty? Does it need a management team parachuted in to turn it around?


----------



## User20205 (Feb 14, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			What I was trying to point out is not everything is quite so black and white. Don't get me wrong, what's gone on is abhorrent. And if its been brushed under the carpet in the UK I'd like to see criminal charges brought over here.

As BM said, the organisation may, by default, disappear anyway. If they're that toxic, who will donate? I know I won't consider it unless there is a root and branch investigation. And if there has been anything criminal, then the letter of the law is followed.

However, if what we're seeing is a dozen people guilty of crimes, why close a charity with 27,300 staff and volunteers? Are all 27,300 guilty? Does it need a management team parachuted in to turn it around?
		
Click to expand...

I reckon that may be a good start. I doubt there will be any of the current lot left. Will the name not be toxic though, in the eyes of the charity supporter? They may have to reinvent themselves as oxfam 2.0. (The ones without the sex)


----------



## ColchesterFC (Feb 14, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			However, if what we're seeing is a dozen people guilty of crimes, why close a charity with 27,300 staff and volunteers? Are all 27,300 guilty? Does it need a management team parachuted in to turn it around?
		
Click to expand...

I think that it will be far more than "a dozen" that are guilty of a crime. If prostitution is illegal in Haiti than those that used prostitutes are guilty of a crime. On top of that there are those that are alleged to have been involved in child abuse or exploitation of minors. And then there are those that were complicit in covering up the actions of those others. My suspicion is that the actual number that have committed some kind of offence will be in the hundreds rather than the tens.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 14, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think that it will be far more than "a dozen" that are guilty of a crime. If prostitution is illegal in Haiti than those that used prostitutes are guilty of a crime. On top of that there are those that are alleged to have been involved in child abuse or exploitation of minors. And then there are those that were complicit in covering up the actions of those others. My suspicion is that the actual number that have committed some kind of offence will be in the hundreds rather than the tens.
		
Click to expand...

This is what gets me when a scandal erupts. All sorts of assumptions and accusations are made. "Far more than a dozen." So how many is it?

6 men are alleged to have been involved. Of those 6, 2 of them are reputed to have done something similar in Chad previously. Those 6 were sacked, eventually. Oxfam's Global Head of Safeguarding had passed a report up to the senior leadership team, and also expressed concerns over the lack of CRB checks.

So, we're looking at a number in Haiti and some on the Senior Leadership Team. There are 8 on the Senior Leadership team. How many of the 8 were made aware of the allegations?

"Far more than a dozen" looks like 14 max, and that's assuming that the report was shared with all the Senior Team and not brushed under the carpet by a few of the Team.

A bit of hysteria and a Lynch mob isn't the way to resolve this. Let's see what the charities commission uncovers before we break out the noose.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Feb 14, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			This is what gets me when a scandal erupts. All sorts of assumptions and accusations are made. "Far more than a dozen." So how many is it?

6 men are alleged to have been involved. Of those 6, 2 of them are reputed to have done something similar in Chad previously. Those 6 were sacked, eventually. Oxfam's Global Head of Safeguarding had passed a report up to the senior leadership team, and also expressed concerns over the lack of CRB checks.

So, we're looking at a number in Haiti and some on the Senior Leadership Team. There are 8 on the Senior Leadership team. How many of the 8 were made aware of the allegations?

"Far more than a dozen" looks like 14 max, and that's assuming that the report was shared with all the Senior Team and not brushed under the carpet by a few of the Team.

A bit of hysteria and a Lynch mob isn't the way to resolve this. Let's see what the charities commission uncovers before we break out the noose.
		
Click to expand...

But we aren't only looking at the allegations in Haiti and Chad. I've no idea exactly how many are involved in total but my guess of far more than a dozen was based on the additional allegations that "sexual abuse by shop managers in UK stores against young volunteers" was also included in the crimes committed by Oxfam staff. 

There was outrage when allegations about what Jimmy Saville and others had been up to came to light and the BBC got, quite rightly, hammered for it. This should be no different just because Oxfam are a charity that does a lot of good. Anyone that was involved or knew about what was going on should be punished and I suspect that as I previously stated it will be far more than a dozen by the time the story finishes.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 14, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			But we aren't only looking at the allegations in Haiti and Chad. I've no idea exactly how many are involved in total but my guess of far more than a dozen was based on the additional allegations that "sexual abuse by shop managers in UK stores against young volunteers" was also included in the crimes committed by Oxfam staff. 

There was outrage when allegations about what Jimmy Saville and others had been up to came to light and the BBC got, quite rightly, hammered for it. This should be no different just because Oxfam are a charity that does a lot of good. Anyone that was involved or knew about what was going on should be punished and I suspect that as I previously stated it will be far more than a dozen by the time the story finishes.
		
Click to expand...

And the Head of Safeguarding said at least 10% of staff were involved = 2,730.... really? And later on in her piece she said there were 12 allegations. 

We just don't know how many, and that's why it should be left to the authorities. Speculating is both dangerous and unfair on the honest hard working Oxfam workers. However, even more worrying is that the charities commission and the Home Office were made aware of the allegations at the time.

I'm in no way defending them, and I don't care whether its a commercial business or a charity, if found guilty throw the book at them. But Lynch mobs? No, we're supposed to be more civilised than that.


----------



## NWJocko (Feb 14, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			However, even more worrying is that the charities commission and the Home Office were made aware of the allegations at the time.

I'm in no way defending them, and I don't care whether its a commercial business or a charity, if found guilty throw the book at them. But Lynch mobs? No, we're supposed to be more civilised than that.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with both of these.

Immediate step, logically, would be to remove/suspend all senior management and anyone who was involved or had knowledge of what had happened and parachute people in in the interim sadly the obvious choices would be Charities Commission and/or Gov't but given they had been made aware of these allegations then..........  Maybe other Charities boards can second people to put together an interim management team?

Oxfam do some great work (could do more if they didn't spend so much on salaries but that's an argument for another day) and hopefully will carry on doing so, but they've lost trust now and that usually doesn't end well.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 15, 2018)

Oxfam(Spain) are reporting that 1,200 people who donate via DD have cancelled the direct debit. I wonder what the figure is globally?


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Oxfam(Spain) are reporting that 1,200 people who donate via DD have cancelled the direct debit. I wonder what the figure is globally?
		
Click to expand...

One sacrificial lamb falling on their metaphoric sword clearly hasn't cut the mustard...

Think they'll have to offer up a few more 'lambs'...

Not sure even the whole 'top table' doing the honourable 'thing' can save the day for them...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			This is what gets me when a scandal erupts. All sorts of assumptions and accusations are made. "Far more than a dozen." So how many is it?

6 men are alleged to have been involved. Of those 6, 2 of them are reputed to have done something similar in Chad previously. Those 6 were sacked, eventually. Oxfam's Global Head of Safeguarding had passed a report up to the senior leadership team, and also expressed concerns over the lack of CRB checks.

So, we're looking at a number in Haiti and some on the Senior Leadership Team. There are 8 on the Senior Leadership team. How many of the 8 were made aware of the allegations?

"Far more than a dozen" looks like 14 max, and that's assuming that the report was shared with all the Senior Team and not brushed under the carpet by a few of the Team.

*A bit of hysteria and a Lynch mob isn't the way to resolve this. Let's see what the charities commission uncovers before we break out the noose.*

Click to expand...

Well said


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			And the Head of Safeguarding said at least 10% of staff were involved = 2,730.... really? And later on in her piece she said there were 12 allegations. 

We just don't know how many, and that's why it should be left to the authorities. Speculating is both dangerous and unfair on the honest hard working Oxfam workers. However, even more worrying is that the charities commission and the Home Office were made aware of the allegations at the time.

*I'm in no way defending them, and I don't care whether its a commercial business or a charity, if found guilty throw the book at them. But Lynch mobs? No, we're supposed to be more civilised than that.*

Click to expand...

and again.


----------



## londonlewis (Feb 15, 2018)

Film recommendation - The Whistleblower - with Rachel Weisz. 

It's based on a true story and is worth watching. 
It relates to aid workers and prostitution. 

Having seen that film and then considering the news reagarding Oxfam, I would say this could quite easily be a crisis.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 15, 2018)

londonlewis said:



			Film recommendation - The Whistleblower - with Rachel Weisz. 

It's based on a true story and is worth watching. 
It relates to aid workers and prostitution. 

Having seen that film and then considering the news reagarding Oxfam, I would say this could quite easily be a crisis.
		
Click to expand...

Could be.  Oxfam might never recover.  But with the right cleansing of management and perpetrators; with the appropriate oversight put in place - and a bit of trust from the public - maybe they can.  And maybe Oxfam might be all the stronger for it - with a very salutary lesson sent out to all other major charities.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 16, 2018)

Well, here's hoping the additional funds for 'policing' Oxfam come from the 'top table' budget and not funds intended for the 'coalface'...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 16, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Well, here's hoping the additional funds for 'policing' Oxfam come from the 'top table' budget and not funds intended for the 'coalface'...
		
Click to expand...

Thing is - I suspect (fear?) that Oxfam needs no more policing than the other major overseas aid charities.  Maybe they can fund it from top people salary cuts - you would certainly hope so.  But the oversight and governance will undoubtedly require additional people and funding from somewhere.

I also hope that this gives the Charities Commission food for thought.  Whilst the CC has been portrayed as being toothless - perhaps the circumstances and nature of what has gone here would have been invisible to the CC.  Which suggests that charities should provide the CC with an audit trail on all leavers and why they left - or were asked to leave.


----------



## Jacko_G (Feb 19, 2018)

I see there are even more shocking revelations that Oxfam covered up. You had better hurry up and defend these too........


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 19, 2018)

Jacko_G said:



			I see there are even more shocking revelations that Oxfam covered up. You had better hurry up and defend these too........
		
Click to expand...

If that is directed at me then you are not actually picking up what I am saying.  I deplore the acts that are alleged and that have been proven - but any 'heinous' misdemeanours and misguided actions of a few does not damn a whole organisation into oblivion - an organisation that has done massive amounts of good over decades in the most terrible of circumstances - and without which we would have to ask - if not such as Oxfam then who?

An important piece and words of sanity and perspective by Patrick Cockburn of _The Independent_ on Saturday - in which he concludes

_If it (Oxfam) does go down then it will be a triumph for hypocrisy, in which pundits and politicians are destroying Oxfam for mistreating Haitians, about whose fate they suddenly express great concern, although few of them have even heard of the Haitian cholera epidemic Oxfam tried to stop._

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...workers-why-there-abuse-charity-a8214316.html

And so given your prompting I will go into my local Oxfam shop later this afternoon to give my support to the folks who work and volunteer there - for they will be despairing I am sure.  They have my support and best wishes until they tell me that it is not deserved or they reject it.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 19, 2018)

Public goodwill is like trust in a relationship. It can take an age to build, but a second to destroy.
Its a shame those with power and the positions at Oxfam didnâ€™t take head to that saying.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 19, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Public goodwill is like trust in a relationship. It can take an age to build, but a second to destroy.
Its a shame those with power and the positions at Oxfam didnâ€™t take head to that saying.
		
Click to expand...

So very true...sadly.  But individual reflection on what we are being told, without merely accepting damning conclusions others are choosing to draw and articulate, may add focus to, and contain, the loss of trust we all feel to a greater or lesser degree in respect of what we have heard about individuals working for Oxfam; how this very human problem was handled by Oxfam management - and why it may have been handled as it was.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 19, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So very true...sadly.  But individual reflection on what we are being told, without merely accepting damning conclusions others are choosing to draw and articulate, may add focus to, and contain, the loss of trust we all feel to a greater or lesser degree in respect of what we have heard about individuals working for Oxfam; how this very human problem was handled by Oxfam management - and why it may have been handled as it was.
		
Click to expand...

But......we wouldn't accept abuse like that of vunerable people by organisations over here, so why then should we accept it just because it's happened on a different continent? Are the abused not human as we are? Are they not entitled to the same treatment and respect the way we are?
I don't doubt your intentions are laudable towards Oxfam and the like, but making excuses for what they have done isn't going to get them to change their ways. They can have any amount of "independant equiries" but I really don't see much openess and full honesty in their comments. They need to accept that it's not just a couple of rotten apples, its a whole branch and possibly the main trunk if people that have carried out these abuses have been allowed to carry on regardless and without sanction or punishment.
As I said before, this is similar corperately to VW and the diesel fiasco and also to the Catholic church and  it's abuse of young boys.
People need to stop apologising for Oxfams actions and make them know they screwed up bigger than they think, becasue I still don't think they fully understand what a complete horlicks they have made and they way they have (or haven't) dealt with it.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 19, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Could be.  Oxfam might never recover.  *But with the right cleansing of management and perpetrators; with the appropriate oversight put in place - and a bit of trust from the public - maybe they can.*  And maybe Oxfam might be all the stronger for it - with a very salutary lesson sent out to all other major charities.
		
Click to expand...

You may be right.  But why should the public continue as they were in the hope that Oxfam will change without anything from Oxfam first?  Oxfam have abused the public's trust in my opinion; if they want to earn that trust back and continue then don't they have to make the first step and give the public something to believe in?  If they don't make the first move and they go under then they only have themselves to blame.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 20, 2018)

The charity 'sector' is one area that is crying out to be managed the 'John Lewis' way...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 20, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			The charity 'sector' is one area that is crying out to be managed the 'John Lewis' way...
		
Click to expand...

I think that most employees of a charity already have a personal stake in their charity.

Anyway - I popped into my local Oxfam Bookshop yesterday and spent Â£5.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 20, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			But......we wouldn't accept abuse like that *of vunerable people by organisations *over here, so why then should we accept it just because it's happened on a different continent? Are the abused not human as we are? Are they not entitled to the same treatment and respect the way we are?
I don't doubt your intentions are laudable towards Oxfam and the like, but making excuses for what they have done isn't going to get them to change their ways. They can have any amount of "independant equiries" but I really don't see much openess and full honesty in their comments. They need to accept that it's not just a couple of rotten apples, its a whole branch and possibly the main trunk if people that have carried out these abuses have been allowed to carry on regardless and without sanction or punishment.
As I said before, this is similar corperately to VW and the diesel fiasco and also to the Catholic church and  it's abuse of young boys.
People need to stop apologising for Oxfams actions and make them know they screwed up bigger than they think, becasue I still don't think they fully understand what a complete horlicks they have made and they way they have (or haven't) dealt with it.
		
Click to expand...

What organisation?  I am not making judgements on the crimes, misdemeanours or acts of simple human weakness or cynicism.  You are painting the abuse - or 'use' - of individuals _by _individuals as being characteristic and symptomatic of the culture of an organisation as a whole - and I do not think that that is either fair nor reasonable.  That management tried to manage the situation in a misguided way highlights flaws in management; management structures and governance - though I do not doubt that in a perhaps misguided way Oxfam management were trying to protect the organisation.  That this has backfired so terribly for Oxfam sends out a very loud and clear warning and guidance to others finding themselves in the same situation.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 20, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			You may be right.  But why should the public continue as they were in the hope that Oxfam will change without anything from Oxfam first?  Oxfam have abused the public's trust in my opinion; if they want to earn that trust back and continue then don't they have to make the first step and give the public something to believe in?  If they don't make the first move and they go under then they only have themselves to blame.
		
Click to expand...

The public doesn't.  But I would ask that the public does not simply react as recent sexual abuse events is almost conditioning us to act.  But to stand back and ask what has actually gone on here?   What is the issue?  Where does blame lie if there is blame to be apportioned?  What *can* be done to minimise risk of future misdemeanors or abuse? Who should be responsible for putting measures into place and who or what should be done to monitor compliance?

it remains - in my view - absurd to bring down an organisation such as Oxfam - an organisation of almost fearless lifesaving good and compassion over the last 75yrs - on the crimes or misdemeanors of a few individuals very poorly dealt with by Oxfam management.

But if that is the will of the British People then so be it.  We will have to find some other organisation to do the work that Oxfam does - or for a government agency to do it - funding it's work out of an increased Overseas Aid budget.


----------



## bobmac (Feb 20, 2018)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43091628


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 20, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What organisation?  I am not making judgements on the crimes, misdemeanours or acts of simple human weakness or cynicism.  You are painting the abuse - or 'use' - of individuals _by _individuals as being characteristic and symptomatic of the culture of an organisation as a whole - and I do not think that that is either fair nor reasonable.  That management tried to manage the situation in a misguided way highlights flaws in management; management structures and governance - though I do not doubt that in a perhaps misguided way Oxfam management were trying to protect the organisation.  That this has backfired so terribly for Oxfam sends out a very loud and clear warning and guidance to others finding themselves in the same situation.
		
Click to expand...

I think sexual abuse is a little more than a â€œmisdemeanourâ€.
There can be no excuses for what has happened, and those who perpetrated such acts alon with  those who knew and ignored or covered up what happened should all be punished accordingly. 
If Oxfam go down, the  people responsible will be those who have done whatâ€™s being claimed along with those who knew.
 It wonâ€™t be the fault of the general public, it will be the fault of those working for Oxfam who have abused their position and power.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 20, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I think sexual abuse is a little more than a â€œmisdemeanourâ€.
There can be no excuses for what has happened, and those who perpetrated such acts alon with  those who knew and ignored or covered up what happened should all be punished accordingly. 
If Oxfam go down, the  people responsible will be those who have done whatâ€™s being claimed along with those who knew.
 It wonâ€™t be the fault of the general public, it will be the fault of those working for Oxfam who have abused their position and power.
		
Click to expand...

I hesitated using misdemeanour but did so simply because not all of it might have been abuse - though some if not most would seem to fall into the latter category - but hopefully by my saying that at least some (maybe most - I do not know) will have been *crimes *indicates that I am absolutely NOT excusing all that has gone on.

Oxfam will only go down if Oxfam do not demonstrate any understanding of what has happened and what subsequently went wrong in handling it.  Further may well fail if we as the public refuse; cannot, or are not enabled to, discriminate between regrettable and despicable acts by individuals, and Oxfam as an organisation with historic dysfunctional governance and perhaps also shortsighted management still in denial.

I hope not.  The need for Oxfam does not go away and Oxfam has continued to provide lifesaving hope, relief and support to some of the poorest in this world, in some of the most dangerous and difficult conditions, since the scandal broke - and no matter what we might think of Oxfam *we need it* to continue to do so today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow...

There is an absolutist 'certainty' in the views of some who seem to wish to see the demise of Oxfam (for whatever reasons) that brings to mind a statement recently made in a different context - that where a very difficult decision is to be made the people to make that decision should not solely comprise those who are absolutely certain.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 20, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan;1812741The need for Oxfam does not go away and Oxfam has continued to provide lifesaving hope said:
			
		


			we need it[/B] to continue to do so today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow...
		
Click to expand...

No, we donâ€™t need Oxfam. What we need are aid agencies and charities that have staff uninterested in self grandeurment or power and who take their responsibilities to the vulnerable seriously and who the general public can have faith in.
Until Oxfam can demonstrate that those who carried out the abuse and crimes, those who knew and did nothing and those who ignored what was being said are gone and punished no trust will be earnt by them.
IF Oxfam do go down, there will be charities and aid agencies able to take over the millions in budget and staff to do the good Oxfam currently do. However to avoid it a full washing out of everything bad within Oxfam is essential and that means looking at  every aspect of their operation.
Sadly I donâ€™t think they will, for fear of what they might find or lose.
But without them looking very hard within their organisation I donâ€™t see the general public across the globe trusting them for an immensely long time...if at all.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 20, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			No, we donâ€™t need Oxfam. What we need are aid agencies and charities that have staff uninterested in self grandeurment or power and who take their responsibilities to the vulnerable seriously and who the general public can have faith in.
Until Oxfam can demonstrate that those who carried out the abuse and crimes, those who knew and did nothing and those who ignored what was being said are gone and punished no trust will be earnt by them.
IF Oxfam do go down, there will be charities and aid agencies able to take over the millions in budget and staff to do the good Oxfam currently do. However to avoid it a full washing out of everything bad within Oxfam is essential and that means looking at  every aspect of their operation.
Sadly I donâ€™t think they will, for fear of what they might find or lose.
But without them looking very hard within their organisation I donâ€™t see the general public across the globe trusting them for an immensely long time...if at all.
		
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that *we need Oxfam at the moment *- despite your assertions of others being ready and able to stand in with little notice - you know this? I really do not think that Oxfam can be allowed to crash out of business.  You make sweeping damning statements about Oxfam that I do not know of the basis upon which you draw them.  Please don't misunderstand me - I am conflicted about much of the Oxfam situation - but there is a great deal of good in Oxfam and vast amount of experience and understanding of how to deal with the most awful of human tragedies.  It is all very well saying we can do without them - but from the wider humanitarian perspective are you absolutely sure...?

And when the next similar scandal erupts in let's say Save the Children or Medecins san Frontieres - then where do we go...?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Feb 20, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What organisation?  I am not making judgements on the crimes, misdemeanours or acts of simple human weakness or cynicism.  You are painting the abuse - or 'use' - of individuals _by _individuals as *being characteristic and symptomatic of the culture of an organisation as a whole *- and I do not think that that is either fair nor reasonable.
		
Click to expand...

In your opinion at what point would it become characteristic or symptomatic of the culture of the organisation? 

According to Oxfam themselves they investigated 53 allegations in 2016 and there have been a further 26 allegations of "sexual misconduct" since the story broke - "26 reports of recent and historic incidents have been reported by Oxfam workers - 16 of them outside of the UK". So there are also allegations against UK based Oxfam staff, which could include charity shop workers.

Three Oxfam workers accused of sexual misconduct in Haiti were later found to have intimidated witnesses - and yet one of the three, who were all fired, was later re-employed by Oxfam in another country.The same report also said that the director of operations in Haiti had admitted using prositutes despite last week denying it, and was allowed to resign rather than being fired. 

I fear that the news so far released might just be the tip of the iceberg. Whether the iceberg turns out to be big enough to sink Oxfam remains to be seen. And it is also being reported that around 7000 people have stopped regular donations (by which I assume they mean direct debit contributions) since the scandal broke.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 20, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			In your opinion at what point would it become characteristic or symptomatic of the culture of the organisation? 

According to Oxfam themselves they investigated 53 allegations in 2016 and there have been a further 26 allegations of "sexual misconduct" since the story broke - "26 reports of recent and historic incidents have been reported by Oxfam workers - 16 of them outside of the UK". So there are also allegations against UK based Oxfam staff, which could include charity shop workers.

Three Oxfam workers accused of sexual misconduct in Haiti were later found to have intimidated witnesses - and yet one of the three, who were all fired, was later re-employed by Oxfam in another country.The same report also said that the director of operations in Haiti had admitted using prositutes despite last week denying it, and was allowed to resign rather than being fired. 

I fear that the news so far released might just be the tip of the iceberg. Whether the iceberg turns out to be big enough to sink Oxfam remains to be seen. And it is also being reported that around 7000 people have stopped regular donations (by which I assume they mean direct debit contributions) since the scandal broke.
		
Click to expand...

In answer to your question - I honestly have no idea...I guess we'd only know when it was obvious

I too fear it is the tip of an iceberg - and the iceberg may not simply be Oxfam - and that for me is the actual big issue that we may have to face - maybe we must face that prospect now without *any *further evidence.

Rather it might be about aid charities in general - and so what do we do then?  

Do we decide that they must all fail and we start again?  Or do we simply have to accept that a certain very unsavoury type of individual has in the past used aid charities as a vehicle and screen for their baser predilections; that we and the authorities root these people out and deal with them appropriately; and we go on to ensure rigorous governance, and a much tougher Charities Commission with a remit that allows them access to HR records of all employees?

Damn Oxfam as you feel you must - but I simply caution against punitive measures against this one charity that could lead us into troubled waters with the precedence set.

Patrick Cockburn's piece (I have linked to previously) is worth reading and worth reflecting upon whilst we judge.

And on the 7000 DDs.  What now?  Oxfam have planned their aid efforts on an assumption of donations coming in.  This loss of income will halt some current or future programs - and surely that cannot be good.  Those who will suffer most from that are those who will have benefitted most - and these will be the very needy - and not any charity fat cats.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 5, 2018)

And so where today is the outcry over Oxfam?  Oxfam has been financially hurt - but has it's brand now been that for ever tarnished?  Maybe we need to thank Oxfam for their openness in their investigation and reporting of the cases back when they were identified and on which the scandal has largely been based.   And as a result of the scandal improved controls and governance are on their way.

Meanwhile today I hear that 'sexual abuse' complaints have been registered against 26 charities.  Do the government and the anti-foreign aid crew go for them also?  If not why not?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 5, 2018)

Such is the way of news. Items are hot and then go cold. The other 25 are probably very relieved that they were not the first as the first is always the one people remember.

I've always thought an interesting programme would be a news programme that followed up stories from a month ago, 6 months, 1 year. So many things get reported and then forgotten about, natural disasters being the classic example.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 5, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And so where today is the outcry over Oxfam?  Oxfam has been financially hurt - but has it's brand now been that for ever tarnished?  Maybe we need to thank Oxfam for their openness in their investigation and reporting of the cases back when they were identified and on which the scandal has largely been based.   And as a result of the scandal improved controls and governance are on their way.

Meanwhile today I hear that 'sexual abuse' complaints have been registered against 26 charities.  Do the government and the anti-foreign aid crew go for them also?  If not why not?
		
Click to expand...

Tanrished?  very much so. They havent been open, they have been forced to come clean. If nothing had been said, Oxfam would have kept quiet.
As I said before, Oxfam are to charirty aid abuse as VW are to diesel. The damage is done, accept it and move on.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 5, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Tanrished?  very much so. They havent been open, they have been forced to come clean. If nothing had been said, Oxfam would have kept quiet.
As I said before, Oxfam are to charirty aid abuse as VW are to diesel. The damage is done, accept it and move on.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know why you continue to insist that I am defending what individual Oxfam employees did and the stupidity or short-sightedness of their senior management in the decision making around it,  By openness I was referring to the fact that the scandal was largely built on the basis of an investigation and subsequent report by Oxfam into what was going on in Haiti.  Clearly then Oxfam took what had happened seriously, they were not blind to it and did not let it just go.

Yes - the damage is done - and so those they help will be impacted and I am sure some somewhere will get some perverse pleasure from that. Meanwhile I was in my local Oxfam book and music shop on Saturday and it was chocka - and I got a great deal of pleasure from that.


----------



## bobmac (Mar 5, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I don't know why you continue to insist that I am defending what individual Oxfam employees did and the stupidity or short-sightedness of their senior management in the decision making around it,By openness I was referring to the fact that the scandal was largely built on the basis of an investigation and subsequent report by Oxfam into what was going on in Haiti.*  Clearly then Oxfam took what had happened seriously, they were not blind to it and did not let it just go.*

Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that?



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes - the damage is done - and so those they help will be impacted* and I am sure some somewhere will get some perverse pleasure from that.* Meanwhile I was in my local Oxfam book and music shop on Saturday and it was chocka - and I got a great deal of pleasure from that.
		
Click to expand...

Unbelievable


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 6, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Do you honestly believe that?



Unbelievable 

Click to expand...

If Oxfam had not taken it seriously at the time I doubt they would have investigated as they did into what had been going on...

And not unbelievable I am afraid (I wish that it was) as some clearly want (or wanted) Oxfam to fail...seemingly immune from or oblivious to the difficulties that that would cause those that Oxfam support


----------



## londonlewis (Mar 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If Oxfam had not taken it seriously at the time I doubt they would have investigated as they did into what had been going on...

And not unbelievable I am afraid (I wish that it was) as some clearly want (or wanted) Oxfam to fail...seemingly immune from or oblivious to the difficulties that that would cause those that Oxfam support
		
Click to expand...


Some investigations seem to be more about covering your back, than actually being concerned about the matter. Or hoping that people will leave you alone when you've set up an investigation committee. 
Not saying this is the case here, just an observation about what has happened in other industries (oil & gas have done this for years, the NFL did it for years - just two major examples that come to mind)


----------



## bobmac (Mar 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If Oxfam had not taken it seriously at the time I doubt they would have investigated as they did into what had been going on...
		
Click to expand...

So no cover up over the actions of Roland van Hauwermeiren by Dame Barbara Stocking who allowed him to resign with a ''phased and dignified exit'' and allowed him to continue his ''work'' for the French charity Action Against Hunger as country director in Bangladesh. 
He's been carrying on like this unchallenged since 2004



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And not unbelievable I am afraid (I wish that it was) as some clearly want (or wanted) Oxfam to fail...seemingly immune from or oblivious to the difficulties that that would cause those that Oxfam support
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish
People dont want Oxfam to fail, they want the guilty people involved put in prison.

These vulnerable people were devastated  and instead of getting help from a trusted organisation they got sexually abused in mansions paid for by donations from the public.
When the public trust their money is being used where it's needed then I'm sure the donations will return.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 6, 2018)

bobmac said:



			So no cover up over the actions of Roland van Hauwermeiren by Dame Barbara Stocking who allowed him to resign with a ''phased and dignified exit'' and allowed him to continue his ''work'' for [FONT=&]the French charity Action Against Hunger as country director in Bangladesh. 
[/FONT]He's been carrying on like this unchallenged since 2004



Rubbish
People dont want Oxfam to fail, they want the guilty people involved put in prison.

These vulnerable people were devastated  and instead of getting help from a trusted organisation they got sexually abused in mansions paid for by donations from the public.
When the public trust their money is being used where it's needed then I'm sure the donations will return.
		
Click to expand...

OK - that's your view and it is fine - I'm not that far from it myself.  Though I have heard some people quite clearly say they don't mind if Oxfam fails.  But as that is anecdotal it won't carry any weight - you just need to believe me.

What about the other 26 charities that have allegations of sexual assault made employees (and/or volunteers) - get them exposed as well?  If it's good enough for Oxfam...


----------



## bobmac (Mar 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What about the other 26 charities that have allegations of sexual assault made employees (and/or volunteers) - get them exposed as well?  If it's good enough for Oxfam...
		
Click to expand...

Of course. I don't give a dam who these people work for.
If they are proved guilty, they should be exposed and locked up if necessary


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 6, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Of course. I don't give a dam who these people work for.
If they are proved guilty, they should be exposed and locked up if necessary
		
Click to expand...

Indeed that is what should happen if any case merits it.  But what of the charities if the cases are historic (as in not very recent) and not that serious or difficult or impossible to prove.  We risk damaging the charities no matter the precise details of the cases.  Or could the charities remain anonymous unless any accusation is serious and proven, and the charity is shown to have acted inappropriately in managing it.

Just asking the question as the 26 charities is only the number to date - the helpline remains open and the number of charities that might become embroiled is likely to grow.


----------



## bobmac (Mar 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed that is what should happen if any case merits it.  But what of the charities if the cases are historic (as in not very recent) and not that serious or difficult or impossible to prove.  We risk damaging the charities no matter the precise details of the cases.  Or could the charities remain anonymous unless any accusation is serious and proven, and the charity is shown to have acted inappropriately in managing it.

Just asking the question as the 26 charities is only the number to date - the helpline remains open and the number of charities that might become embroiled is likely to grow.
		
Click to expand...

It's not the charities that are accused, it's the people and if they are guilty they should be punished.

Please note for future reference, I don't need you to explain to me the meaning of the word 'historic'
Thank you


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 6, 2018)

bobmac said:



			It's not the charities that are accused, it's the people and if they are guilty they should be punished.

Please note for future reference, I don't need you to explain to me the meaning of the word 'historic'
Thank you
		
Click to expand...

Apologies - I wasn't trying to be funny/sarcy and define 'historic'  - I was just suggesting that maybe events from 10+yrs ago might be looked at differently from events that have occurred in the last few years.  But I can see why it would have come across as that,  wasn't meant to - sorry

Problem is that the charities *do *end up tangled up in the web - and those who wish to undermine the third sector - or perhaps specific charities - will take the opportunity to drag the charity into the issue - even if they do not appear to have done anything wrong.  They will be looking for fault where there might not be any - and if they don't find any claiming 'cover up'.  Just a concern.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed that is what should happen if any case merits it.  But what of the charities if the cases are historic (as in not very recent) and not that serious or difficult or impossible to prove.  We risk damaging the charities no matter the precise details of the cases.  Or could the charities remain anonymous unless any accusation is serious and proven, and the charity is shown to have acted inappropriately in managing it.

Just asking the question as the 26 charities is only the number to date - the helpline remains open and the number of charities that might become embroiled is likely to grow.
		
Click to expand...

You appear to be missing the bit about mismanagement. That is a separate issue that is at least equally as damning. Potentially, by not dealing with the issue properly they could have created a culture for that type of behaviour to at least continue or even flourish.

99% of what Oxfam do, and 99.99% of their staff is brilliant. However, this isn't a check and balances exercise. You can't say lets ignore x,y,z because you do a,b,c. The issue of mismanagement still has to be dealt with.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 6, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			You appear to be missing the bit about mismanagement. That is a separate issue that is at least equally as damning. Potentially, by not dealing with the issue properly they could have created a culture for that type of behaviour to at least continue or even flourish.

99% of what Oxfam do, and 99.99% of their staff is brilliant. However, this isn't a check and balances exercise. You can't say lets ignore x,y,z because you do a,b,c. The issue of mismanagement still has to be dealt with.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point - I'm fully accepting it and said that at the outset.

All I am saying is that with Charities we are not dealing with any old business, these are businesses often critically important to the life and welfare of many - and some are run very close to the wire financially in providing the support and services they do.  In rooting out cases of abuse and having them dealt with appropriately, and having management flaws identified and rectified,  I am simply concerned that we have to be careful we do not unnecessarily damage the charity and so throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not missing the point - I'm fully accepting it and said that at the outset.

All I am saying is that with Charities we are not dealing with any old business, these are businesses often critically important to the life and welfare of many - and some are run very close to the wire financially in providing the support and services they do.  In rooting out cases of abuse and having them dealt with appropriately, and having management flaws identified and rectified,  I am simply concerned that we have to be careful we do not unnecessarily damage the charity and so throw the baby out with the bath water.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldnt call a budget of around Â£400 million a close to the wire run organisation.
I know Oxfam do a lot of good in general, however if you cannot trust them to control and deal with their staff when sexual crimes are committed how can you trust them to deal with a mega Â£400 million yearly budget?
Its no good trying to pass the blame onto those who you feel "want to see Oxfam fail", the blame lies with those who carried out the abuse, as well as those who knew and ignored it.
 The blame lies with Oxfam and no-one else.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 7, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I wouldnt call a budget of around Â£400 million a close to the wire run organisation.
I know Oxfam do a lot of good in general, however if you cannot trust them to control and deal with their staff when sexual crimes are committed how can you trust them to deal with a mega Â£400 million yearly budget?
Its no good trying to pass the blame onto those who you feel "want to see Oxfam fail", the blame lies with those who carried out the abuse, as well as those who knew and ignored it.
 The blame lies with Oxfam and no-one else.
		
Click to expand...

I agree (though it seems that you think that I don't) but I am not talking about charities with such budgets.  

There are many smaller charities with much smaller budgets that work to very low admin and overhead costs - indeed for some one of their main USPs and guarantees that they make to their supporters is their very low admin overhead % (often less than 5%).  These charities do not have budgets that can take a big hit of loss of support - or the admin budget to support a significant increase in governance.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 7, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I agree (though it seems that you think that I don't) but I am not talking about charities with such budgets.  

There are many smaller charities with much smaller budgets that work to very low admin and overhead costs - indeed for some one of their main USPs and guarantees that they make to their supporters is their very low admin overhead % (often less than 5%).  These charities do not have budgets that can take a big hit of loss of support - or the admin budget to support a significant increase in governance.
		
Click to expand...

But you started this thread with the title "Oxfam "scandal" " which does sort of lend the opinion that you didn't think it was and would blow over. 
What those at Oxfam who have been party to the abuse actions and claims have done is to damage the whole charity field, and started to uncover a whole sordid can of worms. The uncovering of abuse isnt the problem, the problem is that it was allowed to happen and be either covered up or ignored because "they and we are charity workers".

I would naturally asusme you despise what those at Oxfam and the other charities have done, but you havent fully given that impression rather that the need to help the impoverished overtook the need for correct actions, governence and controls. It doesn't, and don't consider that sexual abuse can ever be countenanced because there are peoples possibly dieing without their help.

I suspect the very small local charities will probably recieve more in giving and the big boys will lose out, until those big charities can demonstrate fully they have taken every possible step to rid themselves of the abusive and paedo scum that have worked their way into these organisations under the umbrella of charity workers.


----------

