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

ofshoes You can carry on with you anti-everything-any-government stance but please do and try see that these things are not the same

Charity = an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.

Government = the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office

Despite what you might think, we do need a government and we do have the power (that thing called democracy) to vote them out

Penny Lawrence resigned and admitted they failed to adequately act

This is lefties gone mad - so scared of seeing something as institutionally embedded as Oxfam with this 'helping others' ideology as anything other than 'a bit mistaken'

They have put their need for money over the needs of the people they were supposedly helping. I'd have thought that would raise every leftie heckle you own.

I don't work for Oxfam. Nor am I arguing that there should not be a thorough investigation of what has occurred and why. Nor am I saying that they (and other charities) shouldn't be forced to get their houses in order.
But having lived in developing countries and witnessed the abuse of local men, women and children by many western organisations/off shoots of government first hand and having lived for many years as a woman in the UK, I am slightly sceptical about their sudden commitment to stopping abuses against women.

Giving aid on the basis of receiving sex, hosting sex parties, turning a blind eye to allegations of sexual abuse, using donated funds to pay for sex and sex parties, rewarding and quietly shunting off a few employees as a sop to those raising concerns, deliberately downplaying the extent of the abuse, refusing to report alleged abusers to the police/authorities in the country in which it took place and using the flimsiest of reasons as an excuse, I'd say all of those things break rules and regulations and laws both UK and International, wouldn't you Noeuf?

Yes on an individual basis.

I'm interested in how public this stuff should be that's all.

It was you that started down the path discussing integrity for any organisation getting public money. So it's only organisations that are tangentially getting funding this applies to now then? We're all good with various MP/BBC sex scandals, military fuck ups etc?

"lefties gone mad" My god it's like a parody of the stereotypical Daily Mail reader.

*Yes on an individual basis.

I'm interested in how public this stuff should be that's all.*

Why on an individual basis? Don't we all accept there are fuck ups in the world and aid workers are not exempt - what is important is how an organisation deals with them? Oxfam aren't doing too great with this.

Which leads to your next point - a charity needs to be trusted so yes they should be public, and even more so when they are getting public funding.

There is a push and pull between wanting to appear the perfect charity so people donate and they keep their government funding, and acting with integrity and being open about the bad apples they have encountered and publicly doing the right thing with these people is imo imperative for any organisation never mind Oxfam.

It was you that started down the path discussing integrity for any organisation getting public money. So it's only organisations that are tangentially getting funding this applies to now then? We're all good with various MP/BBC sex scandals, military fuck ups etc?

Seriously, you are not making a good argument here. It is so flawed. Massively flawed and ultimately eats itself up.

Why are you defending wrongdoing at Oxfam? Or do you believe they did no wrong and it's just one of those things?

It ceases to be on an individual basis when the organisation decides to cover it up it then becomes part of the culture of that organisation and the organisation is deemed, rightly imo, to collude and condone the behaviour.

It should be made public, it should have at the time as it would have proclaimed loud and clear that Oxfam would not tolerate this behaviour from any of their employees or volunteers and they would take seriously and deal with appropriately any allegations made by either recipients of aid or other employees and volunteers. Swift, decisive, open action would have been a very powerful message and would have increased rather than decreased confidence in Oxfam, as it is now Oxfam is looking decidedly seedy (for want of a better word).

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

Yep!

Kids Company were everybody’s darling until they dared to whistle blow on the systemic failures which workers were being blamed for.

Report here is interesting reading. www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/enough.pdf

"lefties gone mad" My god it's like a parody of the stereotypical Daily Mail reader.

I say lefties gone mad because you are consumed by the 'helping others' ideology that Oxfam work on and you want feel part of. And it makes you a terrible person if you don't support Oxfam

Whereas the reality is their culture seems to be turning in on itself as they become more dependent on raising funds and less able to actually deal with the people in need (and the people who do donate) with absolute integrity

Massively flawed

well that's just your opinion if you're not going to point out the flaws. I see you're not doing that though, you're just moving the argument in a different direction. I haven't actually defended any of the actions of Oxfam, I think the term I used to describe what had happened was "shit show" all I've done is ask why you're so keen to defund it but allow other organisations to crack on.

Cutting funding will force Oxfam, and other charities, to properly address what has been happening, put in robust policies to stop it and prevent it occurring in future and to be totally open and honest. Once they have done that there is no reason not to reinstate the funding.

If Oxfam care as much as they say they do about helping the poor, disadvantaged and needy then they will have no problem doing the above.

all I've done is ask why you're so keen to defund it but allow other organisations to crack on

You keep referencing 'the government' as an organisation that we should defund? It's just a bad argument. We have a democracy - and sometimes revolution if a government is really corrupt.

But it is not the same as a charity.

I could take on your argument about the BBC, but that would be a thread about public broadcasting and that is constantly raging anyway.

I was always suspicious too of the full reasons behind the demise of kid company. They may have had some issues, and relied overly on it he charisma of one leader, but they did some great work. And threw light on much UK social injustice.

No, I actually never referenced "the government" as an organisation that could be defunded. I said, the BBC, MPs and the military. you're deliberately misinterpreting.

Anyway I'm sure our boys in uniform are all above reproach. Good lads to a man.

The thing with Oxfam though is that they often recruit on the ground in the countries they work in, which have different laws or logistical difficulties around vetting candidates, disclosing convictions, and providing references.

MSF and UNICEF also find this a problem, and have experienced similar abuse allegations to Oxfam. In fact I don’t believe any international aid charity is exempt.

Oxfam lied and covered up abuse.
Similar to scandals in Rotherham and Oldham.
Wonder how many fine ladies and gentlemaen on here defending Oxfam, would similarly defend Rotherham/Oldham
Not many
Same thing using vunerable women/children for sex.
Where is the court cases for Oxfam
Or is it okay because it middle/upper class white men/women invovled with abuse.
Not working class muslim/white men/women involved.
Double standards again
It is not government money it is taxpayers money, many not very well off

MPs are the elected government but don't let that derail you

Anyway I'm sure our boys in uniform are all above reproach. Good lads to a man.

I am sure there are some bad apples in the military but if you are seriously promoting the defunding of all military capability you need your head examining

^ that was to ofshoes

but if you are seriously promoting the defunding of all military capability you need your head examining

Again, just following your argument to it's conclusion. If you're up in arms regarding Oxfam but not about "some bad apples in the military" then you're a bit of a hypocrite really.

I agree that is a difficulty to navigate Reggae but that's hardly the case with Roland Van Hauwermeiren nor, I suspect, with the other employees who were 'let go/resigned'.

The culture of the organisation is set by the people at the top who are directing any overseas operation and the culture in Haiti (and no doubt elsewhere) was set by RVH, that is directly the fault and responsibility of Oxfam.

The allegations surfacing about abuse amongst Oxfam employees and within Oxfam High Street Shops in the UK don't fall into the 'difficulties experienced overseas regarding vetting employees and volunteers' category and they failed to deal with them either.

Oxfam have pretty much admitted that their failure to deal adequately with this issue was because they didn't want to jeopardise their funding hence the minimising and cover up. Their concern for victims was at the bottom of the list if it even appeared on the list at all.

Again, just following your argument to it's conclusion. If you're up in arms regarding Oxfam but not about "some bad apples in the military" then you're a bit of a hypocrite really.

A charity is not a public service

You must see the difference. I just can't understand why you can't see it.

We need public services to function as a society.

We don't need charities to function.

You might argue that governments rely too much on the third sector and yes that might be true (and how things like this have occurred), but they are not public servants, they are charity workers.

I think the big charities generally need to look closely at themselves. There seems to be a culture of "what we say goes" and it is affecting their public image badly. Just look at the RSPCA...

Penny Mordaunt and Priti Patel have both been on TV today and both pretty unequivocal about the possibility that govt (taxpayer) funding could be removed from Oxfam if there are no clear answers about who knew what when and what was done.

Charities, by their very nature, SHOULD be better than eg corporations simply because their whole raison d'etre is to do good. To do good while turning a blind eye to abuse, or not acting on it effectively enough when it is brought to light, is hypocrisy IMO.