Rod Liddle, writing in the Sunday Times this morning, makes clear what that papers supposed expose of a story that Oxfam press released in 2011 is all about. The email headline is:
And the article (behind a paywall, so I reproduce this part in the public interest) says:
At last we get an honest comment on what this is all about. Liddle, who vies with Toby Young for being one of the nastiest commentators in British politics, does at least have the decency (or maybe the stupidity) to make clear what this is all about.
What The Times is really angry about is the fact that the world, rightly, believed Oxfam when they said that capitalism distributes the rewards of market activity inequitably and that the world's wealthiest people did not actually earn their fortunes but extracted them from others. And so, in an attempt to discredit this message The Times is dedicated to raking Oxfam's muck. And it found some.
Of course it did. No organisation the size of Oxfam has no muck. Real, fallible, people work for it. They do not advertise for saints because there are none. The C of E and RC churches have proved that. But so does casting around humanity itself do so. In a world of flawed people the question is how organisations deal with the crises those flawed people create.
So the only relevant questions here are a) is The Times justified to argue that capitalism is a global panacea to inequality (to which the World Bank, IMF and OECD, all of them hotbeds of socialism, suggest the answer is 'no') and b) did Oxfam appropriately deal with this problem when it found it? The answer here is not an unambiguous 'yes'.
It could have, perhaps, cooperated more fully with the Haitian authorities. But as far as I can see Oxfam say they found no convincing evidence of illegality. If that is true what were they meant to report? I can see no way an employer can report an employee for action that clearly breaches its internal safeguarding procedures that does not breach the law. Maybe others can: if so I am wrong, but that would look like time wasting to me.
And they could have been clearer with DfID and the Charity Commission, maybe. But did they do a cover up? Hardly: they did report it. Which means they did have systems in place. And they did work. Maybe not perfectly, but as it is the outcome here is much better than I suspect would happen in many organisations faced with similar wholly unacceptable conduct
So, we come back to the point that Liddle reveals: this is really about The Times' fury at Oxfam for making clear that capitalism as it functions at present does not help the world's poorest people because inequality is deeply harmful to them. And the fact is that The Times are calling this one badly wrong as a result. They're so frightened that Oxfam is right they are resorting to desperate measures to discredit the charity. The cost will be to the victims of the next world disaster that requires humanitarian intervention.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Well – that’s all I need to know: Rod Liddle is involved. He’s a provocateur – that’s his ‘previous’ and we should all know this by now.
‘Nuff said I say.
Liddle has no consistent rhyme of reason for his targets. He just likes to draw attention to himself because like Farage, his mummy was too busy to pay him any attention.
Oh, and he’s being paid to talk nonsense too. Rather badly in this case.
There are other organisations that wail about inequality, as if it’s a bigger issue than equal opportunities, fairness, security, freedom and protection from bad governance.
They are not subject to exposure from the Times. Even the BBC is getting stuck in and they use phrases like poverty as an absolute when they mean relative poverty.
So this has to be about what Oxfam got up to and what Oxfam kept covered up.
Haitian law does not permit the exchange of sex for money, which is what Oxfam have established. So on the question of illegality you are as Norberg would say ‘Dead Wrong’
I am entirely happy that those responsible for the crimes (and Oxfam was not) be prosecuted for them. I have made hat abundantly clear.
But did Oxfam commit a crime? No, it didn’t. But you imply it did. And that is wrong.
But I note you fail to answer the questions in my later post. Why might that be?
What a sad life it would be to make ones living from being a professional arsehole like Liddle, Toby Young, Katy Hopkins etc. It was truly very funny that Toby Young’s toxic past came back to haunt him.
If people succeed in a campaign to degrade Oxfam’s capability to respond to disasters who will take their place? Will Rod Liddle accept his responsibility for more people dying if future disaster relief is compromised? I think I know the answer.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?
Or indeed: Who mediates the media ?
Looking at other media outlets this morning, it is clear to me that the Government is putting the boot in about future funding for Oxfam.
I think that this episode is being used as a diversionary tactic by the Government ( a good day to bury bad news perhaps?) to take attention away from them?
If so, what is it that they hope we are not noticing?
Eyes peeled people!
Radars on!
Something maybe afoot!
I have to admit when I saw the news coverage I reached the same conclusion, that this is a politicised smear campaign.
Oxfam issued a press release at the time publicising their findings for crying out loud.
This will just play nicely into the growing anti foreign aid discourse
Thank you for this insight. This was my first thought on reading the story on Friday (that and the fact that the story came from a paper owned by a tax-avoiding billionaire, at a time when Oxfam is stepping up its campaign against tax avoidance). I would like to be able to share this on my own social media, but as I work for Oxfam that’s probably not in my best interests right now. Still, kudos to you, and I hope other people will share this.
Around 6,000 shares for he stuff I have written on this so far
Good luck at Oxfam
I’ve seen Oxfam close up over many years and am appalled at how it has been treated. No question in my mind that this is deeply politically motivated, and they have my total support. Few other organisations have the same ethical standards.
Stay strong Oxfam
[…] But reinforcing the status quo of predominantly white male power inherent within modern capitalism, whose power structures have been copied within far too many charities, is not going to deliver that change. But that is what The Times wants. […]
[…] wealthiest people did not actually earn their fortunes but extracted them from others,” he wrote. “And so, in an attempt to discredit this message The Times is dedicated to raking Oxfam’s […]