The Oxfam 'Scandal'

[londonlewis]

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

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]

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...

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

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

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]

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.

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]

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...

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

I wouldnt call a budget of around £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 £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]

I wouldnt call a budget of around £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 £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.

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]

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.

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.