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

At least the Kids Company weren't blowing it on handjobs and BJs.

Whether you believe there is a government conspiracy or not (highly unlikely), the fact remains that the organisation is morally corrupt. I am amazed at so many people on here excusing this.

Big charities seem to be a force to be reckoned with. More than governments seemingly which we have the power to vote out.

So fuck all those people that rely on the aid then? As shit as the Oxfam thing is there is a bigger picture unfortunately

I'm all for the charitable sector cleaning up its act. Just not sure why it should be held to a higher standard by government than they hold 1. themselves 2. anybody else.

So fuck all those people that rely on the aid then?

This is really dramatic. The £32m from the govt is a minor part of their funding. They chose not to disclose to the Charity Commission what had happened, so that's fine is it?

We continue to fund that?

Why them, and not Kids Company? What is so different? Because their PR is better? Big charities beyond reason and law?

And Oxfam put their own reputation (to not stop the British Public donating anothe £199m in fundraising) above the morally right thing to do - that is be clear about why these people were sacked, not give these people the right to go on to further charity work, and be actually honest

If this were any other type of organisation (public or private), I cannot imagine why anyone would like to fund it with tax payers money.

If people personally still chose to give willingly, no problem, up to them

Dont be silly - we fund the NHS, Westminster, the BBC, local authorities - all of which have much bigger scandals than this in recent years.

Think you are deliberately missing the point with your virtue signalling

Oxfam is a charity not a public service

Why them, and not Kids Company?

Numerous people on the thread have explained why but it looks like you've chosen to ignore them because it doesn't suit your agenda. One more time for those at the back then eh? Kids Company was a scam and Oxfam continues to do good work despite this particular shit show.

What virtue signalling? Im asking why the abuse of women should be more morally reprehensible in a third sector organisation than in a private or government run one? Surely none are tolerable?

My agenda? That would be charities who are misleading people and lying shouldn't be funded by the government

Both charities, KC and Oxfam, are equal in this.

But seemingly not, as Oxfam are above laws and regulations. Why is that?

You need to stop calling these abused, vulnerable women prostitutes it's shameful the way that word is used to minimize men's behaviour and imply choice on the woman's part

Not you personally OP that reads wrong I agree with you 100%

I don't get why it would be such a big deal if the government cut its funding. Most charities operate purely on fundraising and it should be an absolute privilege to receive any and held to the highest scrutiny

Letting this go is absolute nonsense and very dangerous - and that is where the virtue signalling comes in - "what about all those poor people you nasty op?"

Well, the govt could find many good charities to put their money in if we want to help people properly and fairly

Oxfam compounded the issue by lying and covering up what had happened, they did not tell the Charities Commission or the Government the truth about what had occurred. The employees were allowed to resign and go and work for other charities without so much as a stain on their character. It is not limited to Haiti where this abuse has gone on, allegations are surfacing from other countries and within their shops in the UK. Oxfam were aware of all these issues and they systematically shut down any investigations. For all those reasons, yes, the Government should withdraw the tax payer money they give to Oxfam.

All other charities funded by the Government should also be investigated, I don't believe for one minute that Oxfam is the only one who has behaved in this manner.

Notably, businesses who also support Oxfam are reviewing whether they will continue to do so, do those who think Government funding should continue also think businesses who fund them should ignore what's happened and continue to support them?

I don't think it should be "let go" and I don't think anyone else is advocating that either. There will be an enquiry and lessons from it must be learnt. But withdrawing funding at this point seems hypocritical and may potentially cause greater harm.

The 'greater harm' is letting charities bypass the rules and regulations

I too wonder about your agenda here, OP. If we withdrew the funding from Oxfam, what do you propose we do with that money?

Exactly which "rules and regulations" do you think Oxfam is bypassing ?

Their flouting of rules has been described on this thread - not reporting, passing on good references, I'm not sure if renting luxury villas comes into it

If we withdrew the money from Oxfam, we could put the money elsewhere, there are many charities crying out for assistance - some (probably nowhere near all) would be worthy of funding

What exactly do you think my agenda is?

-they did report to the charity commission, though it is claimed their report wasn't detailed enough. The investigation will look at this.

• they deny passing on good references. Again, the enquiry/investigation will look at this.

• the luxury villas? Well that will depend on: what is meant by luxury? What else was available at short notice (the place was pretty wrecked so I'm guessing the number of options with adequate security, running water, electricity and a phone connection were limited). But again I'm not sure what regulations exactly you're referring to here. Please clarify.

There is also a lack of empathy with the actual people who have experienced these abuses from aid workers.

What do they see? The men being waved off with a nice reference and shiny new job.

That's not a good position for Oxfam whichever way you look at it.

BarbarianMum - I can only assume you work for Oxfam or similar. Your total refusal to see that there is any wrongdoing here other than 'a few bad apples' stance is staggering

There are bad apples in whichever walk of life you take and aid work is not excluded but like I said earlier, an organisation who receives public funding has a duty of high integrity. Which means honestly dealing with these bad apples. They haven't done that, and probably repeatedly and I don't think that should continue.

They took the choice, and there was one, to keep it hidden. This is their problem but I don't propose that allowing them to flout the rules is good for any person in need in the future.

an organisation who receives public funding has a duty of high integrity

Oh good, so are we going to have an enquiry for every arm of government then? I don't know about you but I'm looking forward to the military getting defunded.

Aside from not providing a detailed enough report to the Charity Commission what rules and regulations (UK and international) do you think they breached?

Or is it just a general any serious incident in a charity should be made public knowledge?