The press has a great many stories about Oxfam this morning. The Times is heavily targeting the charity over the conduct of some of its staff in Haiti in 2011. The facts seem to be well summarised by the Guardian.
Let be be unambiguous: what these staff did was wholly unacceptable.
And let's also be clear: Oxfam clearly thought the same way. The staff were confronted. Four were found guilty of gross misconduct. They were dismissed. Three resigned - or were ‘allowed to resign' according to the allegations. Quite how someone can, however, be prevented from resigning their job is hard to imagine, and this sort of thing seems to happen frequently in the police, for example, when allegations are raised. But apparently it's not allowed in Oxfam.
Oxfam says it did not provide references to these people. The explanations provided seem entirely plausible.
Oxfam is acknowledged to have told the Charity Commission. It is said it may not have provided enough information. Maybe.
And DfID says it may not have been properly advised, but again I think maybe is the right word: it's likely no one in DfID in 2011 is now left there.
So there was horrible abuse, disciplinary action to the limit of what looks to have been possible, and no references. All that's left is a possible allegation that reporting may not have been quite as tight as it might have been.
In the meantime hundreds, and maybe thousands, of Oxfam employees are besmirched and the suggestion is hinted at that this failing was systemic when that does not appear to be the case or no action would have been taken.
So the right question has to be asked, which is why is The Times raising this question now? I have to say that it is not by chance. Oxfam has been hated by right wing politicians for decades. That's because Oxfam has the temerity to ask why poor people are poor. And it also has the temerity to suggest that this is partly the fault of the way the world's economic system. It even challenges the wealth of the richest and says that maybe it needs redistribution.
Nothing can justify what the Oxfam staff in Haiti did. I make that clear. But I make it as clear that I believe that the attack on Oxfam is deeply cynical and entirely because it has upset those with wealth. On balance then Oxfam has faults, like everyone and every organisation. But what it does is overall immensely valuable. The balance is weighted heavily in Oxfam's favour. Unless of course you're very wealthy and deeply offended by those who suggest that may not be entirely due to your own efforts, as Oxfam do. And that is what this is all about. Oxfam's crime is to upset wealthy people. And on that issue, I agree, it is systemically responsible.
NB: I am aware of the sensitivity of this issue. Comments will be moderated with care and for a change I will be heavy handed with the delete button. I should also add that I am out for much of the rest of the day so don't get stroppy if it takes me time to get to you.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Also, there’s Oxfam’s work on climate change: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/issues-we-work-on/climate-change
Thank you Richard for what seems to be an accurate summary of what happened as opposed to the inaccurate and malicious story in the Times. It is surely no coincidence that they have dug up and represented this story to coincide with Rees-Mogg’s anti-aid stunt at Downing Street.
I have had close links to Oxfam, and to the best of my knowledge they took this incredibly seriously and were in no way secretive, sharing what happened and what they did about it in detail with their donors. It was a conscious decision to wash the linen in public and to avoid any sense of cover-up.
The Times behaviour is cynical and disgraceful, joining the Mail and the Telegraph in the gutter. Yet another sad reflection on the ‘times’ we live in
Agreed
What does any one expect of the Times! It’s part of the Murdoch stable (which is as bad as any of those that needed Hercules to clean them)! Of course it’s cynical, Right wing and has lost any genuine credibility it may once have had!
If it wasn’t a cover up then why haven’t I heard about it before?
Do you recall every time of news?
Google finds nothing. It wasn’t reported before. There was a cover-up. You should amend your blog.
Is every disciplinary process a news story?
Is every report to the Charity Commission the same?
Google finds this
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/six-oxfam-staff-haiti-found-guilty-misconduct/management/article/1089610
which perhaps cuts a little each way.
It was reported by the BBC at the time. There was a link to the article on their website earlier today.
BBC report from August 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14514905.
But why aren’t the government in the dock? Back in 2011 they were happy with the report from Oxfam, now they say that it was inadequate. Surely that is government incompetence? They should have asked for more information back in 2011.
They clearly could have done
Agree.
The director of Oxfam was given a really hard time on the Today program this morning. I though the interviewer was being totally unreasonable. Is it just me or does there seem to be an increasing right wing bias in the BBC and especially the Today programme recently. Ivan Horrocks made an astute comment on Progressive Pulse a few days ago http://www.progressivepulse.org/politics/real-news-not-views
‘Is it just me or does there seem to be an increasing right wing bias in the BBC and especially the Today programme recently’
Not recently, Sean-for years. The ghastly Humphries especially. I ditched my license a few years ago. On economics, the BBC is the neo-liberal ‘Tass’ News agency.
Agreed – I despair of the once mandatory-listening Today programme. At least Eddie Mair on PM shows some empathy and independent mindedness
And Nick Robinson. It is frequently the questions he doesn’t ask that are glaring in their omission when he is interviewing Tories / right wing perspectives.
Absolutely true.
Richard accurately calling out ideological purpose cynically using a situation for its own agenda.
The contrast is startling, in fact nauseating, in how the BBC went for the jugular here compares to their general airbrushing, narrative-bending, soft stance on very serious matters, and very often complete omission of crucial news while preoccupied with US nonsense and Tory press releases.
Large organisations are always at risk of this sort of thing by rogue employees. Once they hit a certain scale, it becomes physically impossible to control everything. Entire organisations and the reputations of good people shouldn’t be trashed by the actions of a few.
However, their political stances (or other virtues) should not give them immunity from public exposure. They are fair game, and it is in the public interest. The Times was right to run the story, assuming it is accurate.
It seems Oxfam have taken some action on this. Whether they have gone further to see whether the problem is an isolated one or a more endemic one – only they really know.
I would think the above sounds obvious and uncontroversial. But I wish the Catholic church was cut a bit more slack on their problems with paedophilia. I am not Catholic, have no brief to defend them, and am horrified at the sexual abuse of children. But a loosely structured organisation of 2bn, that was organisationally inept at dealing with this sort of problem (no worse than the BBC at the time, when Saville was about, same could be said of lots of organisations at the time) is always going to have problems with rogues (and may even be a magnet for them).
I’m not looking to stir up an argument about scandals in the Catholic church. That’s not my point.
My point is that we ought to treat large organisations with some sense of perspective – including them.
Given that the Catholic church actively covered up abuse and moved abusing priests from one parish to another the 2 stories cannot in anyway be compared.
Quite – difficult to compare the standards of 2011 onwards with those of 30+ years ago. Oxfam will have the benefit of the hard lessons learned by the Catholic church from grave mistakes a long time ago – when everyone was making the same mistakes – the BBC, schools, childrens’ homes, sporting organisations, aid organisations.
“Oxfam says it did not provide references to these people”
That’s funny because the BBC reports
“Oxfam spokeswoman has said the charity would not have provided a positive reference for any of those who were dismissed or resigned”
I also notice Oxfam did not mention sexual misconduct at the time, and did not join the 560 other NGOs in supporting sex worker rights in 2014 in a submission to the European Parliament
http://www.sexworkeurope.org/node/488
Why would Oxfam campaign against inequality, but not support a campaign against workers’ rights which would allow them higher levels of safety and to keep more of their own money?
The answer imv is that there’s no grant money in supporting workers’ rights.
Having seen them close up, I can be be absolutely sure that workers rights, and that includes sex workers, are very high on Oxfam’s agenda. If they did not sign a particular petition, and they are asked to sign large numbers of petitions, I suspect that there would have been a reason.
Suggesting that that they do not campaign on issues because there is no money in them is shamefully cynical and worthy only of the Daily Mail. Much of what they campaign and work on on is deeply unfashionable and sometimes unpopular, especially amongst their more conservative older donors – and the current government. That is why unrestricted funding from individual donors is so important as it enables them to campaign and run programmes on those unpopular issues which are rarely funded directly.
That is also exactly why the Mail, Telegraph and now the Times, not to mention too many Tory politicians, wish to discredit Oxfam and other NGOs working in these areas. I’m sorry to see contributors to this blog buying into their arguments. Looks like they are succeeding in their efforts to persuade everyone to be cynical about our institutions.
I just wish those large private sector organisations with whom I’ve mostly worked had a fraction of the ethical values of Oxfam and others in their field. And come to that, took prompt action to tackle the inevitable odd occurrences of unacceptable behaviour in a large, far flung organisation operating in some extraordinarily difficult situations (as Tony Fergus rightly points out). Not a lot of sackings in banking … outsourcing… VW …
My experience of Oxfam matches yours here Robin
And my experience of Oxfam staff has always been good too
And I have met a lot of them
The minute I heard this story reported this morning my thoughts were exactly the same as you have articulated above.
I remember speaking to another charity fundraiser a couple of years ago who told me they had been’ warned’ that their charity was becoming too political and it could affect their charitable status. They had spoken out about affordable homes/ homelessness/housing policies.
Murdock’s rag The Times and Downing Street are not remotely concerned about the goings on in Oxfam Haiti. They are concerned about Oxfams stance on inequality. Ask TM where are the missing papers on the alleged pedophile ring involving people in high government office. Ask the Times what happened to the millions of dollars raised by the Clinton Fund for the relief and rebuilding after the Haitian earthquake. Those are also real scandals.
Absolutely. Another classic Tory distraction from their unsavoury goings on no doubt. Times should be asking where all the public money donated for Grenfell is too. Paedophilia in high places something I and another tried to expose 40 years ago. Was warned would never progress in my career in education at a time when I was being given experience to do so. They were true to their word. Have tried several times since to tell what I knew for those I knew were victims. Rebuffed every time…. That Oxfam now having to provide assistance to so many people in the UK and not being quiet about doing so has much to do with digging up the past.OK perhaps could have handled it better but wrong doings in our own Government far more serious.
I agree. I believe it was no coincidence that the day after (at 1 minute past midnight) Westminster published a report that 19% of Westminster staff had witnessed or been victims of sexual harassment that the right-wing press published this about Oxfam. I am sure that sexual abuse is more common among the 650 MPs and special advisors than it is among the thousands who work in overseas aid. It is a distraction to stop the press exposing the misdeeds of Tory MPs.
This rather puts things into perspective:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/10/church-of-england-faced-3300-sexual-abuse-claims-figures-reveal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Not exactly a far flung organisation operating in difficult environments. But sometimes described as the Tory Party at prayer… don’t expect to see them attacked by the Mail et al and Tory politicians
I thought as soon as this Oxfam article came up it was linked to the Tory Governments announcement that they wanted to reduce Overseas Aid.Its what they do to convince the public to agree. Of course these things should nt happen but from what I understand, Oxfam reported it and took action at the time.What seems fully hypocritical to me is the obvious cover ups and delays by the same government concerning the sexual abuse allegations against mostly their MPS against children in homes such as Dr Barnados etc. How is it that this has been swept under the carpet? We need action on this now to expose these evil people in positions of power!
To me its the usual double standards.
If The Times or Telegraph were truly campaigning voices of fairness they’d also be putting up articles about MMT and have a proper debate about that or tell the public how the fractional reserve banking system really works. Or how about an in-depth article about tax havens?
Fat chance!
I don’t know anything about this story or the allegations, other than what is in this thread. But if I was asked who I was likely to trust between Oxfam and Murdoch’s Times I would have no hesitation.
To me this speaks more about the lamentable condition of what is laughably called the “free press” than anything. The majority of the press is owned by hard right oligarchs, one of whom (and several of his underlings) had (has?) easy access to several prime ministers while the editor of another right wing rag appears to have a cosy relationship with the current PM. We shouldn’t forget the track record of News International nor the way the Mail and others frequently print headlines and stories which appear to to legitimise hate. Time to get our news elsewhere.
You are right about OXFAM’s ‘crime’. They are unpopular because they ask questions of power.
Helder Camara, A Brazilian Archbishop during the time of military rule, said, ‘when I feed the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.’
The rightwing financial elites feel they are a roll at the moment and are using the opportunity to take down the opposition using methods straight out of the cia handbook.
Disproportionately spotlighting a few errant workers at Oxfam when the govt are regularly breaking the law and literally getting away with murder every day, when corporations are regularly up to their necks in worker abuse and worse with nary any mention shows us the cynical way in which they manipulate the public mind.
This latest attack has all the hallmarks of a standard attempt by the establishment to discredit the opposition.
Jane Ordley. I remember this scandal being reported in the media.
You should amend your comment.
You’re right, Oxfam’s real crime is that they point out that the poor are poor because the rich are unfair, self-serving and greedy.
Oxfam did the right thing and investigated and sacked the perpetrators. But how many MPs and bankers have been found in similar situations and not been sacked.
Only the ex-chairman of the Co-op Bank Paul Flowers was dragged through the press, and mainly because it was a small bank and he was blamed for unprofessional behaviour although the bank’s debts are due to its purchase of Britannia Building Society and its hidden debt.
But many bankers wasted millions on coccaine and prostitutes (just see Wolf of Wallstreet and a few general articles like this https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3504456/city-traders-drug-culture-laid-bare-by-spreadsheet-with-ratings-and-info-on-45-cocaine-dealers/ for evidence) but few were headline news and only fleetingly. The hypocrisy of the press is blantant.
Paul Flowers was demonised because he had the temerity to bid for ownership of a portion of Lloyds bank
I came to immediately the same conclusion this as you this morning Richard. Report on inequality leads to right wing papers digging up old (non) news.
Yet if anybody connected in anyway to Donald Trump was accused of this you would call for his head.
The hypocrisy.
Left wing nonsense
I have made absolutely clear that the people involved must be appropriately punished, including by the Haitian authorities if the law was broken.
But if you cannot see that that there is a difference between an organisation that takes action against those who abuse, as it seems Oxfam did, and those against whom that action is taken then your perceptions of justice are utterly unreliable and your suggestion of hypocrisy is based on falsehoods
John
How many bankers went to jail after the 2008 crash?
What about those in Goldman Sachs who sold flaky financial instruments to people like pension funds and then insured themselves against the very product they had just sold making sure there’d be a huge financial pay off to GS when they failed – which they knew they would do. Leaving the victims to have to take GS to court.
Goldman Sachs call this ‘market making’.
In the real world selling something like this to someone would be a fraud.
So – again – how many people in the financial sector went to prison as a result of 2008?
There’s nothing Left-wing in this. It’s about common decency and ethics and Oxfam have clearly dealt with the rotten apples in its barrel whereas the rotten apples in the financial sector get bonuses.
John Stevens,
If you are looking to win the gold medal for whataboutery then I suggest you need more practice. Hypothetical whataboutery doesn’t make the grade.
“Allowed to resign”? Allowed to jump before they were pushed over the side more like.
Do you know how you can stop someone resigning their job?
You can refuse to accept a resignation and sack the person instead – it affects pensions etc.
Having said that I remember the story being reported and think Oxfam seems to have responded reasonably. I am suspicious about the timing here.
Thanks for your blog
Richard, You seem to have missed the straightforward point that being “allowed to resign” is a euphemism for walking before you were pushed. To all intents and purposes they were sacked. They were likely told that if they didn’t submit their resignations they would be sacked. Can you really not see that?
The obvious reason for doing this is to avoid the stigma of being sacked from being attached to you when you look for your next job.
Maybe
And maybe not
Can’t help thinking that Oxfam report on poverty in the UK..
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/issues-we-work-on/poverty-in-the-uk
Then we have this and the threat of removing funding. Am I just being cynical?
No, not cynical at all
Realistic, I am afraid
A day or two before The Times’ attack on Oxfam, Rees-Mogg delivered to 10 Downing St a petition “on behalf of Daily Express and Express readers” calling for a reduction of the foreign aid budget. Mere coincidence? I don’t think so. The Oxfam saga is more of Mogg’s dog whistle, or is it ‘dead cat’, propagandising.
In the 1980s British airlines’ in-flight magazines often carried advertisements for night clubs like Rhinos and Stringfellows and small ads “for your stop-over in London between business meetings, call **** escort agency…” I look forward to reading The Times call those airlines to account for pimping.
Am I wrong in concluding that international aid staff must now be employed as couples or have a celibacy requirement?
Celibacy has not worked too well for the RCs
And I have heard of infidelity too, heaven forbid
and what is your response to the government of Haiti? Oxfam said to the charity commission they’re very sorry?
Weak arguments on this one.
They should supply details
I suggest you read page 24 here http://www.oxfamannualreview.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/oxfam-annual-report-2016-17-v2.pdf
Just to say what a privilege to read through these comments, full of information and insight- and awareness of the reasons for news management such as the famous “dead cat”. I am biased – have been an Oxfam supporter for many years and applaud the political side of their work, such as exposing the exploitative tax set ups that the big corporations use to deprive the developing world of its rightful revenue.
[…] http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/02/10/what-is-oxfams-real-crime/#sthash.13EZ54wL.gbpl […]
It appears Oxfam did report but equally did downplay the serious nature of the abuse. However, I feel the disproportionate reporting by the right wing media is for political purposes, general dislike of an organisation they perceive as “lefties” and possibly part of the campaign to end foreign aid.
I am so pleased to have seen this post. I can see that it’s most confusing and of course it was action that can not be defended,but it has given some people the opportunity they were just waiting for.Are they so pure in their own organisations? I think people should think about the good that OXFAM has done in the world before they allow it to be destroyed by people who would prefer it not to exist.
The public reporting in 2011 doesn’t seem to have mentioned sexual misconduct.
E.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14514905
Given that the people of Haiti were desparate and vulnerable, one wonders whether the women involved were as stated “prostitutes” (of long standing, by choice), or whether perhaps they were repulsed by the idea but felt it was the least bad option as a one-off at the time and in the circumstances.
I have acknowledged this
So have Oxfam
So what is your point?
And have you read my blog today showing what Oxfam is doing now? Or are you willing to ignore that?
I entirely agree Oxfam does so much good in the world that we shouldn’t allow the actions of a few people years ago to undermine it. My monthly direct debit will continue and I have told them so. I also told them that I appreciate the fact they don’t pay excessive salaries to their top executives (£129k max. in 2017), something that puts me off contributing to many of the top 100 charities. Oxfam are the good guys and they need our support now more than ever.
Your name reminds me of walks to the island that may give you your name
Fond memories of childhood
It did and I wrote a book about the origins of the name!
I’m glad you enjoyed your trips across the causeway 🙂
http://peterlihou.com/WordPress/500-years-of-island-life/
Looks fascinating
Thank you!
I hadn’t read your latest blog when I wrote that.
My point is that Oxfam does appear in 2011 to have downplayed the significance of what had taken place, specifically omitting the sexual misconduct. So accusations of a coverup are not completely without merit.
I do agree with you though that the way this story has been raked up and re-ignited at the moment is almost certanily largely political rather than a sudden concern on the part of Murdoch for the people of Haiti.
Spot on analysis Richard – and well written. Yes it was immoral and wrong but not part of Oxfam’s designs. They have been punished, perhaps not sufficiently but I am unclear if they are being accused of having broken the law. If so they should have been reported to the authorities in the appropriate country for process to take place.
Much of this type of behaviour is endemic in the powers that be, so how dare this corrupt and cynical government take such a view when they have systematically abused the disabled and disadvantaged over the last 7 years resulting in homelessness, poverty and hunger and even death in our developed wealthy country. Recognised and criticised by the UN but still they ignore it and continue their abuse. Oxfam may not have gone quite far enough BUT I understand that their information did come out of their whistle blower process and they did act and inform many of the right authorities but without sufficient detail. So what questions did the DfID or The Charities Commission ask? It appears nothing. Oxfam have learnt from this and tightened their procedures. The government have learnt nothing from their disgraceful actions. Their hypocrisy and cyclical manipulation makes me sick and very, very angry. I shall write to my Conservative MP who annoyingly actually seems to be one of the few caring Tories.
I was in Haiti as an RN after the earthquake for several months with another NGO. I witnessed some of the wonderful work Oxfam did. To fault the whole organization is just wrong. I also saw a distinct absence of the Red Cross or the Clinton Foundation. I view this as a “look over here” moment and wonder what it is they don’t want us to see.
“the suggestion is hinted at that this failing was systemic when that does not appear to be the case or no action would have been taken”
Hinted is the best that The Times et al. can hope for. A one-off event from 7 years a go can’t be systemic. The Murdoch press are scum (no explanation required). That is the issue (once again) and it should primarily be seen in those terms.
Perhaps the question “what is Oxfam’s real crime here” should have been explored a bit more before trying to establish an almost sole political motive behind the coverage. Aid organizations subscribe to several codes of conduct, among them the universally accepted ICRC code of conduct. These are core principles by which the provision of aid itself – and by that virtue the funding of it – is defined. When an organization breaches these standards which, btw are being preached to staff members at every turn, they effectively cease to be aid organizations in the actual sense of the word. When you combine this with the appalling staff conduct highlighted, then an organization simply deserves this level of public scrutiny and exposure. One caveat: I am a fan of Oxfam and still believe in their work. The sad truth is that these issues are pervasive throughout the sector and Oxfam in this case just happens to have been the one ousted. The whole incident calls for a regulatory overhaul of how we deliver aid and under what conditions. Abuses and malpractice, sadly, will always happen no matter what, but early detection and full exposure can be effective weapons as we now see, albeit too late. The sad truth of the matter is though, that aid has become an industry much like any other. And just like in “business” where staying competitive is the key to survival, the line between mission (i.e. alleviation of poverty etc.) and the need to self-sustain can get very, VERY blurry.
I accept the criticism if the aid business is appropriate. That is precisely why my own contribution in this area is to seek to help developing country governments be self funding. I have some form here and my thinking has impacted every aid agency of any size in the U.K. I would be entirely happy to live in a post-aid (barring disasters) world.
And I would agree that there is bound to be abuse.
But you argument is self contradictory. Younsay therecare standards andvreal commitments to them and training. Unless this is a sham, and I do not think you are saying it is, then they do not cease to be aid agencies when ther3 is a breach. They have not met standards. Then the question is whether they act. It seems Oxfam act more than anyone. That may be they have bigger problems. That may be they have better systems. We do nit know.
But your claim is wrong whichever way looked at.
Your suggestion that a review is needed is right.
But if the review is to suggest that Oxfam must stop asking why there is poverty then that’s the wrong question.
Hi,
Thanks for this. I’m not a fan of developmentshire, not for right wing reasons, but decolonial ones. I agree with you about the political utility of this in the parochial politics of the UK. What do you think the aim is here in terms of the longish term public conception of organisations like oxfam ?
The aim is to silence those asking why we still have poverty