to think that if we drop the government funding to Kids Company we should do the same with the £32m to Oxfam?

[mooncuplanding]

There was absolute uproar about Kids Company not keeping a good hold on their accounts and giving ad hoc pocket money to needy kids - they were shut down and lost all funding

Oxfam - covering up sexual exploitation, surprising expenses policies (renting luxury villas) and not reporting correctly to the charities commission

I wonder if we'all drop the funding to Oxfam like we did to Kids Company?

I haven't even heard it muted

[Snowbelled]

It is absolutely disgusting what has haopened witht the aid workers but in comparison to kids company it is a much smaller issue to the organisation as a whole. Whereas the problems at KC ran through the whole company.

[UrsulaPandress]

I thought ceasing funding to Oxfam was being considered?

Although it would of course affect many more people than Kids Company.

[ssd]

Oxfam does so much good why should they lose the funding they need?

get rid of the arseholes at the top and get it run properly, but dont pull the funding

[mooncuplanding]

Affecting 'more' people than Kids Company is a strange reason not to pull the funding

The bigger you get, the more you can flout the rules?

[Dolphincrossing]

I think the difference is that in KC the rules were literally flouted from the top, so to speak.

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

Affecting 'more' people than Kids Company is a strange reason not to pull the funding

I don't think it is. Pulling the funding on KC affected a few hundred (I think they fudged figures to make it look like thousands) whereas pulling the funding on Oxfam would affect millions. Also the work is very different - Oxfam work in disaster areas so the effects could be devastating.

[meditrina]

If Oxfam had been in a financial mess to the same extent as KidsCo, then I think government grants would have been rapidly curtailed (remember that Kids Co was in a dire state, and even had an additional extra government bail-out grant to put things straight which they spent in a totally different way).

There is no suggestion if misuse of funds in this case.

What there is misconduct with inadequate response 7 or so years ago in one specific place. The proper investigation, which might show if it was indeed an isolated incident - the persistent employment of shitty people, with known consequences in one place, and possibly more to be unearthed - and if their systems now would be strong enough to detect such wrongdoing rapidly and deal with it effectively, is still ongoing.

Oxfam is essentially in the same place as KidsCo was when they got their bailout. This is their chance to fix things, if they don't take it and use it well then there should indeed be further consequences.

[Scabbersley]

I can't believe anyone would suggest cutting funding. What a cruel thing to do. The kids company money wasn't being used properly throughout the organisation. Oxfam does amazing work.

[ssd]

isn't it the right wing among the gov who are suggesting funding is cut, as they think the foreign aid funding should be cut?

this plays right into their hands

[meditrina]

The government can only withhold governmental funding. Oxfam has other and more diverse funding streams. KidsCo was much more dependent on official grants and a handful of philanthropists, and that's an important difference in the likely continuation of the charity even if some grant money is suspended.

Also, I think it is more likely that a bigger charity will have better internal governance and will be more likely to respond in a way that seeks to set things right (rather than choosing to close precipitately)

[AuntieStella]

"this plays right into their hands"

Bloody well hope not. I thought it was more a case of which charity would be the recipient of the funding (could be any of the DEC) not whether the funding should exist.

[BarbarianMum]

MPs have been caught using sex workers in the past. Should we pull the plug on funding Westminster too?

If I find you a few NHS staff who use sex workers (or doctors who coerce vulnerable women into sex) should we pull fundingvto the NHS?

School teacher abuses a child? Pull funding to the school?

[HollyBayTree]

'Kids Co' was a racket from day one

OXFAM is a proper charity, not a one woman slush fund, and to pull the funding would disadvantage hundreds of thousands.

[Thedogsmells]

Oxfam do fucking awesome work. Cutting funding would be a stupid, small minded, populace pleasing action. So I expect they'll do it. 🙄

[leddeeburdee]

There are thousands of committed and principled Oxfam workers out there, who no doubt are as horrified as the rest of us at what happened.
I’m really not sure why you would choose to punish the many for the actions of the few.
This is their opportunity to improve and get rid of the people who have failed them.

[Scabbersley]

And yet men who go to prostitutes in this country are allowed to keep their jobs.

[Cornettoninja]

I think that would be a terrible move. Oxfam is a huge part of an infrastructure that provides much needed resources. You can't pull that piece of the puzzle without massive repercussions.

The scandal should prompt a huge investigation and swift sackings with much more transparency in the future but this shouldn't be allowed to kill off the whole organisation.

[AuntieStella]

If the prostitute-using man worked for a charity supporting vulnerable women, and it was women who were actual or potential beneficiaries of the charity, then actually I don't think he would be able to keep his job, or there would be an outcry if he did (and possible backlash against the charity if they didn't sack him for gross misconduct and bringing charity into disrepute).

If however the charity was prepared to take serious action to ensure that any such incidents were fully investigated and they had the strongest possible systems to guard against rogue staff abusing or exploiting their beneficiaries, then there would be no reason to switch funding to a different one.

[FluffyWuffy100]

OXFAM is a proper charity, not a one woman slush fund

^This

The two are completely not comparable.

Yes there was some really shitty behavior, and oxfam didn't deal with it well enough. Hopefully this is their change to do a thorough clear out and firm up their procedures and tone at the top.

Kids Co was basically one woman funding her own lavish lifestyle and a few chosen children.

[FluffyWuffy100]

@Scabbersley yes but in this country prostitution is not illegal, it is illegal in Haiti.

[BarbarianMum]

OK so our government is saying that they are totally fine with vulnerable women being used for sex by men in the UK but they are so outraged by a small number of the self-same men doing so abroad that they are going to cut a huge swathe of charitable funding to developing countries. Yes that's an ethical stance I can get behind.

The most shocking thing about this whole thing is how much noise the government is suddenly making about the abuse of women in developing countries. I can only commend them and hope they turn their attention to the foriegn service and the armed forces next.

[scaryteacher]

Why the Armed Forces BarbarianMum and the Foreign Office?

[Allthecoolkids]

Every single news report I’ve read on this has mentioned the possibility of them losing their funding. I’ve no idea what you’ve been reading.

Also: gross misconduct from a few (now disciplined or dismissed) employees, whilst terrible, is completely different from the systemic dishonesty and near fraud that ran through KC.

[BarbarianMum]

Because they are other things that the government fund to do work abroad whose staff have a long tradition of using sex workers/paying local women for sex.

As are the men that work for the big construction companies that our government employs to build roads/hospital etc under the guise of aid.

[ofshoes]

I thought it was well understood that the reason this story has come to light is because the government are looking for excuses to cut spending on foreign aid and are hoping a bit of moral outrage will grease the wheels for them? You're giving them exactly what they want.