David Babbs sacked

[Floomph]

The founder of campaigning group 38 degrees, David Babbs, has been sacked because of giving ketamine and cocaine to younger staff. What jumped out at me when I read this story was the line, 'Separately the board has commissioned an independent external investigation into a number of other allegations which have been made relating to David's conduct.' (this was in the Mail article, but I'm linking to one in the Telegraph)

Whilst it's probably not right to speculate about what other allegations have been made in this instance, this story has made me think again about Brendan Cox and the issues with sexual assault in the charity sector. I am acquainted with another man who founded a small charity (also near Hackney, funnily enough) who I know has given drugs to his young staff at parties and who doesn't sexually assault them but is highly coercive and manipulative about having sexual contact with some of them. I was a victim of his in a sense but told him to fuck off when he tried it on with me repeatedly, not being as young and vulnerable as some of the other people he works with. I'm just feeling like the whole sector is rotten right now. I can't think how I trust which charities are staffed by decent people. I am wondering generally how much charities attract narcissists or are founded by narcissist because these men end up having an endless supply of young attractive volunteers and interns who are desperate to get work or experience and who look up to these men given they think they're saving the world.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/04/founder-campaign-group-38-degrees-sacked-giving-drugs-younger/

Good.

Didn’t 38 degrees remove one of the original petitions in 2017 when it had barely got started?

Bunch of misogynists

Yes I remember 38 degrees refused to host Amy Desir (Man Friday) petition titled
"The government should consult with women about changes to the GRA"

Misogyny is rife at 38D.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Husband emailed them re. getting rid/refusing to host/support any vaguely GC petitions, asking for an explanation; no reply. Because they don't really care about women and don't feel any need to justify their actions. Because they must be right, obviously.

Reminds me of the Radio 1 DJs in the 70s.

Men in positions of authority surrounded by lots of young women to exploit.

Untouchable because "they do such good charitable work, you know"? And nobody to hold them to account.

Daily Mail linkl

"It is understood that further complaints have been made about Mr Babbs' alleged 'emotional abuse' of staff, particularly young women.

One source claimed: 'He would make people feel uncomfortable, and he would talk down to females. There were often people crying in the toilets after he'd finished with them.'

Another person described Mr Babbs as a 'merciless bully'.

The Times has the story too, with similar quotes. I immediately thought of them taking down the GC petition.

I think it was one even prior to that DpWm.

I wrote to them and told them to fuck off and never contact me again. They haven’t.

I feel emotionally abused by 38degrees. Where do I complain

Honestly the only charities that I trust to donate to now are small women focused and women run charities.

There does seem to be a pattern of men who see themselves as virtuous due to working with vulnerable people therefore absolving themselves of truly awful behaviour.

I’ve found it now. It was ‘No to the erasure of women and abolition of our spaces’ in July 2017. It wasn’t Mumsnet who radicalised me, it was those fuckers. I’ve been raging ever since.

to all women who’ve ever encountered Babbs.

Thanks to the times for covering. My subscription is the best money I’ve ever spent.

I can't think how I trust which charities are staffed by decent people.

I agree that there is an issue in charities. However I've worked for charities my whole life, volunteered as well and do now and have never experienced any sexual coercion or abuse (unlike in other parts of my life).

Male run and staffed charities, well funded, that work with vulnerable women and children seem to be the ones to avoid. Particularly in the majority world.

Reminds me of this psychologist behaving badly

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12093263/Drugs-charges-against-Kids-Company-psychologist-all-proven.html

Male run and staffed charities, well funded, that work with vulnerable women and children seem to be the ones to avoid

Its almost as though this is some sort of safeguarding red flag, isn't it.

Apropos of nothing at all, perhaps someone should do some digging into the men at the helm of the NSPCC.

Honestly the only charities that I trust to donate to now are small women focused and women run charities.

This was in today's Reuters news about WWF:

news.trust.orgitem/20190404182231-0ta9t/

The whole sector, in terms of the big established charities, looks to be rotten.

From that Reuter's article:
"The inquiry follows a year-long investigation in six countries by BuzzFeed News published in March that found WWF had provided salaries, training and weapons to paramilitary forces implicated in atrocities against indigenous communities."

Today's mumsnet seems to be a succession of WTAF moments. I am just gobsmacked by this.

I read The Times report and wondered whether they'd been infiltrated by Chris Morris in a very dark mood.

Christ alive. Collated together like this, it does appear to be a systemic/cultural issue.

Not enough oversight? Old-boys network equivalent?

So much for championing the vulnerable.

It surprises me that people are surprised that charities are a natural magnet for malignant arseholes. Any organisation that works with the vulnerable is going to attract people like this in droves. Of course at the point we finally tightened up on safeguarding in this country and clamped down on sex tourism to Thailand etc paedophiles and rapists were going to go to war zones to abuse with impunity under the guise of ‘charity’.

I am very cynical and today I have really had enough

I imagine he'd lose his shit at the sight of a plastic straw but cocaine, and its trail of destruction from Colombia to a rolled-up twenty in London is just fine.

Predators are attracted to positions that give them access to victims but I don't believe that all of the guilty people started out with that intent.
I think the majority of them went along with what was happening around them and lost their moral boundaries one inch at a time.

It breaks my heart, when I was younger charity used to equal good now I am just sceptical. It was reading about Haiti and what some of the "charities" were doing to children, fronting as rescuing them while trafficking them to be sold for sex.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7259907/Haiti-judge-frees-eight-of-ten-US-missionaries-accused-of-kidnapping.html
www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/sunday-nights-matt-doran-goes-undercover-with-operation-underground-railroad-to-bring-down-haiti-child-sex-ring/news-story/dcecf5950ca5b6d501c48ed927127bc3
www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-25/clinton-silsby-trafficking-scandal-and-how-media-attempted-ignorecover-it

I think predators are far more prevalent than anybody can bring themselves to admit.

But yes there is also a problem with boundary erosion and people not standing up to be counted as we are currently witnessing on a national if not global scale

And this is why effective safeguarding is so important.

I've been in some situations where I've watched the reactions and behaviour of people around me, and been shocked by how utterly spineless they were. People who claimed the moral high ground but
caved at the first sign of pressure.

I think the majority of people are too scared to stand out from the crowd to do anything but comply with whatever they think the group approve of, and that predators can manipulate that behaviour for their own ends.

I think the majority of people are too scared to stand out from the crowd to do anything but comply with whatever they think the group approve of, and that predators can manipulate that behaviour for their own ends

I’d certainly agree with that!

Systemic. A family member was pursued through the courts for more than a decade by a huge charity, because their local charity offered the same service cheaper at a higher quality with much higher success rates.

Perjury, judges bullied, libel, accusations of fraud and in the end a local charity destroyed (with over 100 staff losing their jobs) by a politically well-connected behemoth for profit.

The worst thing from my perspective was how many people were taken in by the whole no smoke without fire insinuations and how much trust these well-known charities continue to command even when - as this one did - they decide to be open about putting their corporate profit before people. The judge even stated in the last verdict that there is something inherently untrustworthy about small charities and therefore she was inclined to trust the accusations of the huge one.

Of course now everyone locally has come to understand who the bad guy was, but it's no good to them, as the local community has been damaged and no good to my family member as their livelihood and reputation were destroyed, and they were bankrupted. Of course we've since found out a truly sinister reason as to why the establishment supported the huge charity and it is too despicable for words.

There is something that seems to go wrong when charities grow to a certain size or stature in terms of reputation and power. And it seems near impossible to police because by the time whistleblowers or outsiders manage to raise their concerns, these charities are too powerful to take on successfully. I think it's because politicians love to align themselves with charitable causes and well publicised organisations that have become part of the establishment for the instant recognition factor.

And this seems to happen in every single sector, whether that is environmental, medical, or international aid related.

CharlieParley

For your family member

That seems a similar scenario to what is playing out here:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-gymnastics-accused-of-trying-to-eradicate-rivals-pd6j9qsxk