The following comment was posted on the blog overnight. It raises an issue in a fair way that needs addressing:
Richard,
Are you not defending child abuse and other wrongdoing by attacking these journalists who are doing their job?
Oxfam have said that they didn't describe the details of what happened to anyone because it would have “drawn extreme attention to it” which would “have been in no-one's best interest”.
Which looks very much like a cover up to me. If this was some group you disagree with you'd be all over them attacking them like you are doing with the Times, but because you are on their side you are trying to attack the Times and defend Oxfam, claiming some conspiracy against them.
It could just be of course, that Oxfam aren't as clean and wonderful as you would like to think. Haiti and Chad aren't the only stories which are going to come out — this I know for certain.
I stress four things. First, that I have very clearly condemned the abuse that took place. It was utterly unacceptable. Second, I have made clear that the issue was reported at the time: it is impossible to say that there was the total cover up that has been claimed. Third, I have said I think Oxfam could clearly have done better with the Haitian authorities. Fourth, that may also be true with the Charity Commission, although that is much less clear: it seems they did have opportunity to ask based on information supplied.
In that case to suggest that I have in any way defended child abuse is just wrong. I also suggest that to say that Oxfam has is also just wrong.
And in saying that I want to draw attention to the evidence that is now being used against Oxfam but which actually says it seems to be doing its best to deal with this situation. This comes from its 2016 /17 annual report (page 24):
That does not read like an indifferent organisation to me. That reads like one that recognises there is risk in what it does and is doing its level best to tackle it.
That includes reporting a majority of cases to external authorities.
And it includes admitting that a large proportion of complaints were justified.
Notably, many of those took place in Oxfam shops. The majority of abuse was not in the supply of Oxfam's frontline services.
But where that happens referral is also being made.
All this is admitted. As is the need for more vigilance, despite which Oxfam admits that like all organisations it will miss cases because of under-reporting.
There is in a sense nothing here to be proud of. The ideal level of abuse is no abuse. But equally here is an organisation that seems to be trying to tackle something that is a reality. And what it is making clear is that it is not afraid to report to authorities. It is reporting its own failings.
To suggest that this means the organisation is supporting child abuse seems way wide of the mark to me. Instead this evidence suggests that much of the criticism made is taking one issue where things were not run well and blowing them out of proportion.
In saying that do I think I am supporting child abuse? I think the suggestion is absurd.
Do I think Oxfam is supporting child abuse? Again, I think the suggestion is absurd.
In that case do I think it fair to ask if the journalism in this case was objective? Yes, I do.
Do I think it appropriate to suggest that there were other motives for that journalism? Yes, again, I do.
Do I also think it right to suggest that the UK cannot do without its development NGOs, and the awkward questions that they pose? Emphatically I do.
And do I think that there is coincidence between this overall story and this picture from Friday?:
Yes, I do.
Of course, I may be wrong. I have stuck my neck out on this issue, believing that there is no systemic issue in Oxfam. If it proves otherwise my judgement will be incorrect. But I am going to be surprised if such a systemic failing is found. And I am going to say that if it is the malaise in our society is much deeper than I have ever realised. And in that case I will admit I am wrong at a great many levels.
But based on my experience of working with many people from that agency I am not expecting to have to do so. Oxfam has its faults, but this is not, I think, one of them. And whatever those faults are, nothing justifies this attack on the vulnerable who Oxfam support or this blatant attack on an organisation whose doubtless main fault in the eyes of its accusers is to ask whether the very richest should be as rich as they are.
Right now I am willing to say Oxfam got things wrong. It's admitted that. But to suggest that defending the charity is to defend child abuse is absurd. That is not what Oxfam does.
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:
Maybe it was reported at the time. It appears the sector is still struggling to deal with the sad issue. Even last year there are now reports of similar situations which are now coming out, which is still involving Oxfam. It appears to me they didnt take the issue very seriously at the time and its not a one off. The public need to be made aware so we can our selves rate this charity. If there were no allegations from last year, then maybe we could move on. My family are now avoiding Oxfam.
I have published the evidence
Do you avoid every institution where there has been abuse?
Do you know which ones they are?
There are more reports in the media today.
I know
And they don’t seem to change anything
I have read them
You must stop saying it was reported at the time, because this is wrong. They hushed it up and arranged quiet resignations. They told the Government there had been sexual misconduct, but didn’t tell the Charity Commission or anyone else. There was no press coverage at the time because nobody knew (and if you disagree you should post a link).
The Government were the only ones who had an inkling of what was going on, but Oxfam assured them that none of those involved had received money from Government – which was not true.
Blaming The Times shows a worryingly conspiratorial mindset – any paper would have run this story, as the follow-up from the Guardian and others makes clear.
The links have been posted here by others
The BBC and others made clear there was an issue
Your claims on the other hand require evidence
It is pretty sad to see people claiming this was reported at the time, and then posting links from 2011 reporting unspecified misconduct. This is the point. The fact it was sexual misconduct was covered up. If you have contrary evidence then post it. If you don’t then please stop defending the indefensible.
But it was reported at the time
You can’t deny it
You even acknowledge it
They did not get it right, but they did report it
No, he must not. I well remember this being reported. It was brave of Richard to post this. If aid is cut to Oxfam what do you think the consequences will be?
Of course it was reported at the time. For example, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14514905
“The director of Oxfam’s operations in Haiti has resigned amid an inquiry into allegations of misconduct by staff.”
There is some interesting context here: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sean-penn-responds-to-rolling-stone-s-haiti-story-20110930
“… Haiti country director for Oxfam, Great Britain, “voluntarily” stepped down from his post, following allegations not of his own misconduct but of staff misconduct under his charge. It is unclear whether he had knowledge of the misconduct in this situation, but from the outside [he] was a rare beast indeed. Rare, in that few country directors in Haiti brought as much ethically philosophical leadership skill sets and experience to the table of relief, despite working for a large bureaucratic organization … one of the best country directors in Haiti”
Anything created by human beings will be flawed in some respect, and any large organization will have individuals in it who are tempted to commit, or try to commit, or actually do commit acts that are immoral or criminal or both. The same applies as much to Oxfam and other large NGOs as to the NHS, the police, the civil service, or Parliament. The important question are: what step do you take to try to prevent it, catch it and deal with it.
Thanks
And my point is that it looks like Oxfam has learnt a lot more than many organisations
I’m sorry but the nature of the “misconduct allegations” was not specified at the time of these reports. It is stretching it a bit to say that these reports of unspecified “misconduct” are the same as saying that the story had already been reported. It had not.
In any event, it appears that there have been further allegations of “misconduct” since 2011.
a) Wrong: they were reported. DfID and the Charity Commission could have asked any question they liked
b) That’s beed admitted – just read the story you are commenting on
Posted where?
Many times in answers on this blog
My claims were based on the Guardian’s reporting: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/11/oxfam-show-moral-leadership-lose-government-funds-prostitutes-haiti. What are yours based on?
That is not a new story
I have said Oxfam needs to address all issues
But I have also provided evidence of what Oxfam is doing now and you are ignoring it
That makes debate with you rather hard
I think what you are saying is reasonable and fair. It is principled and objective.
I feel you right to draw attention to anti-aid agenda. We have had almost forty years of promoting American style individualism -which is a self praising narrative and which legitimises a disregard for the welfare of others. Our society is the worse for it. In the end we all lose.
A man or woman’s religion is their affair but when it affects their involvement in public policy, we have the right to question their consistency. He has told us how it has affected his voting on other issues.
New International Version
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. 1 Thessalonians 5.11 and Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6.2
there are other quotes. We do have a responsibility to others as they do to us.
it seems to be emerging that sexual abuse cases are cropping up within a wide range of charities and has been extensively reported on in regard to UN missions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/united-nations-personnel-sexual-abuse-allegations-31-three-months-a8036781.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charity-workers-sexual-abuse-scandal-oxfam-save-the-children-christian-aid-red-cross-a8205101.html
It seems clear this exploitation is has been reported on for some years and is by no means a recent phenomenon. It might even be a sign of greater transparency that we are hearing more about it. I don’t know.
The Mogg picture above is likely to make many people feel like retching. This is a man who props up a system of global capitalism that perpetuates poverty and inequality not only around the world but within the UK. he is clearly creating another decoy to take the spotlight of some of the real causes. The man is a charlatan; he bangs on about deficit reduction which he must know will reduce people to debt slavery to the financial sector even more and eviscerate public services even more, yet he’s willing to bang the drum of xenophobia using the cover of one of the trashiest rags in the history of journalism. Mogg knows what he’s doing; he’s in the money management game and MUST know how central banks work. Using knee-jerk, one-dimensional presentation of dangerous ideas is a conscious move on his part. People like Mogg and Redwood know EXACTLY what they are doing.
Richard
none of us know all the facts but the campaign looks like an orchestrated one by both the right wing press and their paymasters. I’m less and less proud of this country but the foreign aid budget is a beacon of hope and makes me feel that some goodness still exists in Government and the UK.
There is no question that there are elements who would like to slash the foreign aid budget. My instincts tell me that the whole thing stinks. Of course I totally condemn the actions of the perpetrators and almost certainly the structures within Oxfam are not optimal. I suspect however that given human nature there will be a small fraction of unpleasant people in every large organisation.
I’m reminded of Cardinal Richelieu “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
this looks like an orchestrated witch hunt
Agreed
Perhaps to distract attention from this https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year thus Oxfam itself becomes the story, and their report on inequality doesn’t. I wouldn’t be in any way surprised to learn the Tory-supporting MSM have been sitting on this story for some time, ready to publish it in case of Oxfam releasing a report which started to gather attention and made their political chums uncomfortable.
It’s the same people that are against the foreign aid budget that are pushing for a hard brexit and for us making international trade deals.
We use the foreign aid budget often as ‘soft power’ to curry favour overseas. How are they going to go and negotiate loads of great trade deals whilst chopping off a big part of their negotiating ‘hand’?
You recently said:
“as far as I can see Oxfam say they found no convincing evidence of illegality.”
Do you now withdraw that claim, or stand by it?
When Oxfam said fuller disclosure would have brought ‘extreme attention’ on their work in Haiti, can you not read between the lines and work out what that means?
I thought it was already fairly obvious that if prostitution was illegal in Haiti then there had been illegality?
And as I have made clear, if Oxfam got that wrong, they got it wrong then
But they’re getting it right now by the look of it
What would you rather?
And what do you want?
Look Mr Tasker, the flip side of this is that the Right has piled in on Oxfam with an already established story just as the nasty Express and its nasty readers have just ‘delivered’ an anti foreign aid message to No.10. This is clear manipulation of the media by Government sources.
If you are saying there is just a coincidence between these two events then you are either very naïve or just obdurate . I suspect the latter.
I could be just as cheap and look at how the company that owns this rag used to sell porn mags and owned an adult television channel until recently – but hey – this is Merry Old England after all – the world centre of hypocrisy!
Express readers (a minority, as it is not the force it was) are so backward that they do not realise that it is the Government’s unwillingness to print money into the economy that is causing problems with the NHS and other public services – it is has nothing to do with the paltry levels of state foreign aid we give out taking money away from the people of this country.
I have to say that I did not immediately make a connection between the foreign aid issue and The Times article so I believe Richard that you are perfectly right to highlight this gross manipulation of public opinion by a Government that as far as I can see has no moral compass whatsoever.
I mean, the Tories must be absolutely desperate to resort to this sort of stuff to drum up support. They are really scraping the barrel. In fact they have gone through the barrel and into the swamp on this one.
Aid work has some things in common with the Catholic priesthood – lots of unsupervised access to kids, weak management that prefers an easy life to confrontation, no questions asked, and excused because of the ‘greater good’ being done.
At least priests are usually on about the same economic level as their parishioners. Aid workers from developed countries can flash the cash at levels beyond the usual experiences of the local population. This adds to the potential for exploitation.
So the work itself is a magnet for these kinds of perpetrators (as was the priesthood). If Oxfam does not have utterly stringent policies and procedures on this, it is foolish.
How would any of us feel if we were (say) villagers in Niger, and Oxfam turned up? Would we feel comfortable giving them access to our children? I wouldn’t. The ‘greater good’ of country-by-country reporting would be a long way from my mind.
I have been candid
I have drawn attention to the fact Oxfam clearly do say issues arise and that they deal with them
Now tell me – what would you prefer given no abuse is an impossibility – we know flawed people exist?
No aid? Why?
No Oxfam? So who?
Or no systems, which Oxfam clearly has?
What is your alternative?
Whether they have cleaned up their act – maybe they have, maybe they haven’t, we’re only taking their word.
The Catholic church issue started as ‘a few isolated incidents’ and then snowballed. This precedent suggests to me we can’t assume the Haiti incident is an isolated one.
If I were a villager in Niger I would not want Oxfam anywhere near my kids without supervision. Aid or no aid. Would you?
Or should the villager be kept uninformed on this issue, with the decision about the risk to their kids made by someone in England? That’s what will happen.
It is a public confidence issue.
The Haiti incident is not the only one. You have read the comments in which Oxfam say it is not.
So Oxfam, like all large organisations dealing with the vulnerable has a problem with abuse. It says so, openly. It says it sent 53 cases for prosecution or further action in a year.
I applaud them for saying so.
I think they are taking steps in the right direction. I applaud that too. It is how change happens.
But what would you rather? That Oxfam be closed down? Why?
You defend Oxfam as a whole despite sex abuse, you condemn some companies as a whole because of tax abuse.
What a strange moral code you have.
I am trying to find the difference. Maybe it’s that Oxfam have bunged you a few quid in the past?
If it is hard to spot the difference let me explain.
Oxfam did not decide to do tax abuse. Some of its staff abused. And it sacked, or at least got rid of, them. Maybe not perfectly, but it was abundantly clear where Oxfam stood on the issue, and it was the right side.
On the other large companies abused as a matter of policy and directors were rewarded for doing so. If you cannot spot the difference I think most of the world can.
Closing down would be a better option than imposing themselves on vulnerable communities who don’t have good reason to have sufficient confidence that their children are safe. And the risk assessment must be left to the parents in those communities, having been adequately informed. Not by strangers in England.
I would say the same about any other organisation. Oxfam is no special case.
Hopefully Oxfam can act to restore that confidence. They can’t rely alone on their altruism.
But Oxfam have already put reforms in place
What are you talking about, bar a desire to shut down aid?
My point is that it isn’t for anyone in England to say whether the reforms are adequate. I don’t know if they are, and neither do you. It isn’t your kids or mine at risk.
The judgement must be made by local communities where the aid is delivered, armed with adequate information.
If they’re not satisfied, aid should stop. Oxfam should stay away. If they are satisfied, it can resume, but not a moment before.
Tony
Have you read this blog?
Most of the abuse Oxfam has found amongst its staff is here in the UYK, in its shops
Why are you deliberately missing the point so often?
And of course it is up to any country to decide if Oxfam can work or not. Whoever said otherwise?
Richard
1) the abuse of children in the developing world is a different thing to abuse here. Not that the consequences are less, just that their children are quite a bit more vulnerable due to economic differences, plus fewer institutional protections around them, plus differences in the avenues for victims to report things.
2) it is indeed up to the ‘country’ whether they can work there, but am not sure a visa in the passport in itself would be adequate. It wouldn’t comfort me as a parent if I lived in say, Haiti.
3) Maybe their disclosures in their annual report are accurate and complete, and represent sufficient actions. Do you read everything in an annual report at face value? I have read a lot of B/S on the subject in my time in glossy brochures – looks good on paper but…
I believe that report
I belief Oxfam is a force for good
It is apparent you don’t
You have made your point
It’s prehaps a bit unfair to pick on this contribution to the debate on Richard’s comments, as many other display an equivalent (and astonishing!) lack of comprehension, but there we go.
“How would any of us feel if we were (say) villagers in Niger, and Oxfam turned up? Would we feel comfortable giving them access to our children? I wouldn’t. ”
Really? You’d prefer them to die of malnutrition? Or perhaps cholera? Or exposure? I hope being that perfect a parent would make you feel good as you bury your children. Do you have even the faintest idea of what sort of circumstances Oxfam and the like are typically working in? Your holier-than-thou perfect world naivete could only be the product of privilege and entitlement.
One human factor in all this which hasn’t been in any way acknowledged in the debate I’ve heard so far is that, in the circumstances these workers frequently find themselves, emotions run very deep, and in those circumstances sex often rears its ugly head in ways and with an intensity which are difficult to comprehend unless you’ve experienced them. The wonder is that there is not more to tell, and I strongly suspect that is down to the good governance of Oxfam and many similar organisations on exactly this issue. The fact is that there are predatory sociopaths who see an opportunity in even the most extreme circumstances: if possessed of even moderate intelligence/cunning, they are extraordinarily difficult to stop.
Richard, I’m with you on this. The media clamour will be such that every reasonable person will feel compelled to condemn Oxfam. That’s by design. This has all the hallmarks of a politically motivated takedown. It’s time people woke up to the way public opinion can be manipulated.
To avoid these sort of headlines we will have to send troops to third world countries rather than aid workers who cannot be relied on.
I am not aware of any recent allegations about our brave sailors or soldiers paying money to prostitutes. An aged friend told me about what he got up to in Malta and Trincomalee in World War 2 but no doubt today’s military are very different.
I don’t know whether it would be a disciplinary offence, or whether the media would have had a problem with it if a serviceman did pay for sex. Perhaps it would be worse if a sailor paid for a prostitute while he was ashore as part of a disaster relief effort?
lionsafterslumber. This from HuffPost:
“Meanwhile, one former British diplomat, Arthur Snell, tweeted last night: “Anybody who has worked in stabilisation missions will know that the biggest users of sex workers are the military and security contractors.” Will that be the next area for investigation?”
This Oxfam shambles brings out the very worst in you RM, which is a shame as the technical work on Tax is important and requires a level of seriousness.
It is not just the hypocritical nature of your comments, taking into account you would slaughter any FTSE company or right wing political organisation in this position but also the self righteous belief in YOUR causes being on a higher moral level!
Because you favour Oxfam, work with Oxfam and consider it a left wing moral organisation then it should automatically be forgiven, that these allegations should be downgraded or set off against other good works. This tribal nonsense is not helpful in a serious website on tax and risks your other work.
So lets be clear, just because Oxfam favours your causes, and is an organisation on the left does not mean it gets a pass!……..If these acts are wrong then they are wrong everywhere and the organisation must be condemned…….even if that puts you on the side of right wingers or harms an organisation you like.
Principles and consistency are important, you can’t wander from side to side just because you don’t like who is in the firing line this time.
Trust you to come up with weasel words. This is the first time you have ever had a good thing to say about my tax work.
But what’s more you have not even noticed I have said what Oxfam employees did was wrong. As Oxfam also has.
And I have said it needed to reform.
I have shown it is seeking to do so.
And I think it right to note that. The concern would be if nothing had happened, but it has.
So the problem is all yours. Your’s making a false accusation.
And as I have just noted, when I condemn FTSE companies on tax it is because it is policy to abuse. You’re not seriously saying Oxfam did that, are you? Because that would very obviously be wrong.
I am afraid the hypocrisy is all yours for not noting the facts. Not noting what I said. Not noting the change. And not noting the fundamental difference with a FTSE company.
Ahhh…….so its a staff problem and nothing to do with the Organisation?…….How convenient!……..So Oxfam can remain moral and pure while its staff have let it down.
But if a banker gets caught fiddling LIBOR or a right wing politician gets caught selling access for money?………..Then it is indicative of the whole organisation and they should all be condemned / shut down / heavily regulated.
Totally hypocritical……..You are scrabbling to defend Oxfam in a situation where you would normally pile in……….no consistency, no principles, just a claim that Oxfam is different because you like what it stands for!
The politician is an entity in themselves
LIBOR is only the bank’s responsibility to the extent it knew and gained from it: I have never said otherwise
You really cannot make this stick Richard precisely because it is clear Oxfam did not condone this, accepts the error, a person has resigned now, and it has put improved systems in place to stop it
When FTSE 100 companies stop using tax havens for abuse and seek to be tax compliant I will defend them too
Indeed, I do when they sign for the Fair Tax Mark
There is no hypocrisy here, except by you
The opportunity for sexual or any other abuse is largely a function of an unequal power relationship. Unequal power relationships are universally hierarchal in nature. Hierarchies are endemic to Capitalism and that power relationship mirrors the flow of income and wealth upwards and the flow of poverty downwards.
Every hierarchical system is abusive, although this abuse is not necessarily sexual. Most abuse is not considered illegal. How else would we allow homeless people to freeze to death (I believe the figure so far this year in Bournemouth is eleven), or our nurses being forced to rely on food banks. Austerity is abuse on steroids.
It is the duty of a free press to promote good investigative journalism. It’s a pity we have neither a free press, nor good investigative journalism. How anyone can believe that Billionaire owned news outlets and the echo chamber broadcasters even remotely constitute a free press is totally beyond me.
The Fleet Street hacks and their broadcast equivalents will print and promote whatever their employers tell them to.
The attack on Oxfam has nothing to do with the abuse of young women. That has never been a Government or media priority.
The attack on Oxfam has everything to do with its stance on wealth and income inequality and its support for tax reform.
Richard, this attack on Oxfam therefore is primarily an attack on you and your colleagues thirst for tax justice. Of course, for the Government to admit that and attack you directly would be bad PR. A more circumspect way must be found. An easier target sought. If a sex angle can be produced — perfect.
Richard you are winning all the arguments. The Government at the behest of their lobbyists are seeking to drive a wedge between the Charity and Tax Justice sector with the aim of derailing reform. They will fail.
Thank you John. Yours was an excellent quality response. If only others took as much care.
Why complicate everything. It is about the shocking behaviour of senior Oxfam workers and the failure of the organisation to deal with it / cover it up. Not everything needs be turned into a political issue.
Everything is a political issue
There’s not a person on earth who is justifying what happened in Haiti, Oxfam included
And as I have shown, Oxfam has very clearly improved its act since the naive days of 2011 (please remember this was the year Saville was buried as a folk hero)
But the organisation did deal with it, vastly better, for example, than the BBC managed at the time. Or most other organisations did then, come to that.
So let’s agree it was clearly far from Oxfam’s finest moment
And then let’s note that The Times is pursuing this for utterly unrelated reasons which have everything to do with politics. Rod Liddle proved that.
It’s not a contest re how immoral or hopeless an organisation can be.. if they handled something better or worse than the BBC so what? That isn’t the relevevence it is the cover up. I personally believe in any organisation left or right, profit making or non profit making power breeds arrogance and Oxfam is no different. It is a shame because the vast majority of its workers are no doubt in it for the right reasons and do a great job.. trust me not everything has to be political. The public at large are not interested in anything else than weeding out the culprits,and those who covered it up and to make sure it doesn’t happen again..by making it political it looks like you are creating a sideshow away from the main issue. You clearly are conflicted having been on their payroll.
Rob
You are entirely wrong
This is all politics
That is why The Times are doing it
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/02/11/the-times-campaign-against-oxfam-is-all-about-defending-inequality/
Who is ‘Rob’?
“In any organisation … power breeds arrogance” Yes, but the answer is not usually to emasculate the whole organisation. How is the government going to spend the money that it is maybe about to stop sending to Oxfam?
“the vast majority of is workers are in it for the right reasons” Seems likely – babies and bathwater?
“trust me – not everything has to be political” Maybe, but many things are, and always are when they concern the organisation of society, as some presently attacking Oxfam clearly believe.
“The public at large are not interested in anything else than weeding out the culprits” How do you know what interests the public? But in any case I thought they had been at the time.
“and those who covered it up and to make sure it doesn’t happen again” You seem to discount entirely what has been done already.
“You clearly are conflicted having been on their payroll.” Why “clearly” – in your mind maybe, when you find it politic to abandon the charitable interpretation that you generously extend to “the vast majority of its workers” – not good politics to slag off all of those but RM is “fair” political game to you.
Re the last point, I have not been paid by Oxfam for several years and as I am now a full time employee it’s unlikely I will be in the foreseeable future, which could be forever
But facts are not in this equation for many who have commented here
And for the record well over 90% of comments have gone up. Only those straightforwardly abusive have not made it
Conveniently distracts attention from the current on-going Westmonster paedophile ring, attracts attention to the 0.7% given as foreign aid (and accounted for) (and legislated for by the selfservative gubberment).
Gives attention to Jacob in his current move to become Prime Monster of the Dis-United Serfdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Face it, this is a Gubberment that has, indirectly or directly. taken actions that have led to the deaths of over 100 thousand people, the impoverishment of hundreds of thousands more, and now wants to kill millions abroad…..
A bit like returning to the good old days of the Raj… Oh, wait….
Yes, that would suit Jacob…..
https://twitter.com/dlsgibson/status/962281374068740099
JohnM what you say could be cut and paste into any text about a news story which grabs the headlines and then detracts from the political issues upon which you want to fight.
I have so much empathy with much of the material RM produces but not on this. Anyway enough said.
I’ve never worked for an “aid” organization but I’ve lived, worked and traveled for a long time in developing countries.
Some of the reaction to this story seems a politically calculated attack on Oxfam that is pretty contemptible — as if it was the organization’s purpose to exploit vulnerable women (or children), instead of it being just another institution employing human beings who have betrayed trust placed in them (like the church, the BBC, parliament and others).
I have been to an awful lot of places where comparatively wealthy, often lonely, westerners took advantage of available women–often women who went looking for them out of economic necessity, or choice (lots of girls find richer older men attractive, even here). Indeed, I have had more offers than I could shake a stick at. Yielding to such temptation has plenty to do with human nature and rather less to do with “Charities”. NGOs employ people willing to go and live in challenging places, away from from home, often for long periods. It would be astonishing if some did not yield to temptation and opportunity.
That is simply not a reason to punish the people charities try to help. It’s a reason for stronger vetting of employees and other improvements (independent investigation of alleged wrongdoing e.g.).
But as we saw with the recent exposure of some “handsy” men whose names were in private circulation among women, I have no doubt that in many organizations staff have a good idea of which non-nationals (and in my experience they are not all westerners) indulge in recreational sex with less well off women. The reputation of a former colleague from a financial institution based in Washington comes to mind e.g., but I certainly never thought to act on hearsay.
Several middle-aged men I know have had trouble getting visas to the UK for their new (and younger) wives whom they married thinking they were single, only for the Home Office to establish that they were bigamously married, with children (the exploitation is not all one sided). Unhappily for all concerned they couldn’t get divorced legally so simply pretended they were single.
A great way to give, is to give money as directly as possible to people who need it and who are then free to spend it as they wish, not as aid agencies think best. See http://www.kiva.org e.g. But when it comes to dealing with disasters and large scale operations large well-resourced operations are essential.
The UK does a lot of good overseas for the poorest of the poor and has much to be proud of. I hope it will continue to do so.
Some sensible comments PJ
I’ve also worked, lived and travelled in some of the places where organisations like Oxfam work, whilst working with or for large multinationals as well as on personal travel and development work. The Oxfams go to far, far tougher locations. Just as you say, not everyone behaves as you would wish. Local employees outnumber expats and their values are not always the same.
Inevitably incidents happen. I know because I’ve seen the reporting myself, that Oxfam is absolutely on the case and cares deeply. When people are in remote locations it is impossible to control or monitor perfectly but they try damned hard. It reflects their values
I could not say the same for all the companies I’ve worked with. Not being caught – or not finding out in the first place – is more important. The banks attitude to fraud would be a prime example – happy to pass the costs on to customers. The behaviour of directors and sexual harassment at the recent party. Harassment at Westminster. We could go on. None of them have any excuse whatsoever. They are not in remote, challenging circumstances. And they mostly get away with it
As has been said, this is a purely political vendetta. Against overseas aid and against those who campaign against inequality and tax evasion. For me it’s yet another new low for this government and its media supporters. We all need to speak up and get active to stop them destroying the institutions and fabric of the UK
Just to get a handle on this, has country by country reporting actually delivered any mind-blowing results that we did not already know? I only ask because I have a tax accountant friend who thinks it is a scam to reap fees for the tax pros
The evidence I have is that the behavioural changes it is giving rise to are massive
And I am told by tax authorities that the data they have is invaluable
I know from banks that CBCR shows profit shifitng
I’d day the answer us a resounding yes
I really dislike the emphasis on child sex, when that has not been proven. Why reduce it to its worst possibility as though that were now a fact?
And yes, sex with local women and men is always a possibility. Perhaps with prostitutes it is at least a business transaction which means that local virgins and married women are left alone.
As I remember, both Martin Luther King and Schindler had a weakness when it came to women. Do we now throw their work into the dustbin?
The only surprising thing about the whole affair is that anyone should actually be surprised. More revelations to come I suspect.
In that Oxfam say there have been issues elsewhere there may be more detail, yes
I’m loving the newspaper headlines on Oxfam! After years of being accosted in the street and being sent junk mail in the post by Oxfam I’m so happy that this is happening! Hopefully Oxfam will be able to get back to what they used to be instead of what they have become.
So what do you think Oxfam were?
What do you think they gave becom?
And why do you think Oxfam stopping asking why some people are in poverty will help?
oh dear Richard, you are on the wrong side of this one. The evidence is pointing to the abuse being systematic and it is the organisations covering it up that people really take offence too. And taxpayers subsidising it. All the sorts of things you campaign against.
Your language just makes it worse… “not their finest hour” just doesn’t cut it when it comes to assauting minors..
Except a) Oxfam acted b) its actions make clear this was not systemic because it was not approved c) it does report to authorities d) that makes it vastly better than, sky, the House of Commons
I stand by what I said
And the fact that the attack is wholly political
And yes, I mean wholly
“The evidence is pointing to the abuse being systematic”
I think you mean systemic – so, what evidence – where?
“when it comes to assauting minors” –
What minors? When and where did “minors” appear? Fictionally? By suggestion when your lot felt that you didn’t have enough to go on?
You’re an anonymous troll which is a bad position for the condescendingly righteous to be in – especially when you’re just making stuff up.
OK folks.
It seems that Oxfam have tossed the baying crowd a bone and one of their senior people has resigned. So you’ve got your pound of flesh. Well done.
I note however that the head of Goldman Sachs who was in charge during the 2008 crash when his company sold pension funds worthless investments and made sure that GS (and himself of course) got a fat pay out when they failed is still in his job. Funny old world isn’t it? It’s also well known that drug use and the sex industry is considered ‘entertainment’ by the likes of GS and their mates.
But what now?
Shall the Government hand its Oxfam money to Capita? Serco? G4S? Shall we get that shower to run foreign aid? Where I work Serco can’t even give me a stable IT platform from which to work.
Or how about asking star performer Carillion to do it?
I say let Oxfam sort out its problems and let them get on with it.
Richard, it looks like you’re in the middle of what I think is called ‘a shitstorm’ – viewers of ‘In the Thick of It’ (available from all good streaming services) will recognise it – so just wanted to add some words of encouragement.
I think your analysis, and the logic of your argument, are spot on; I think the hail of opprobrium being heaped on you is amongst the worst I’ve read here in a long time not least because there’s a hysterical ‘Burn the witch’ fervour to it, and in all of it I think the writers are failing to keep their eye on the ball.
As ever, a picture is worth a thousand words, and the cartoonist Rowson’s a few more. In the circumstances I refer you to this morning’s Graun cartoon.
Thanks Alan
Whoops! – link:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2018/feb/12/martin-rowson-oxfam-sexual-abuse-scandal-cartoon
It’s very good
A belated contribution. I’ve read through all the comments and have nothing further to add other than that your logic is impeccable on every count. Not that you need my accreditation.
The emotional, knee-jerk reaction from so many people is disappointing but not unexpected. We can only hope that a reformed Oxfam – and all the other aid agencies who will doubtless be affected – will be able to continue to save lives. As you state in today’s blog, in an ideal world there would be no need for charitable work on such a scale. Hence the fight against the sociopathic Neo-liberal, kleptocracy must continue at every level. It will be messy but worth it for future generations here and across the planet.
Thanks for your daily time and patience in relentlessly refuting the misguided and/or intentional negativity expressed here. Especially when there is the day job that has also to be accommodated!
Off to teach very soon
Not about Oxfam…..
This is exhausting.
But witch hunting usually is, I suspect. To sit through Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’ is to experience a sense of deep frustration, and despair at the ease with which corrupt power can be wielded.
In common with witch hunting the issue exposes a sanctimonious commentariat, ignorant (not necessarily stupid, but ill-informed or misinformed) ‘common’ people, and is an extra-legal process by which a powerful elite eradicates opposition in the form of an alternative viewpoint.
I wonder what a Times of a different political persuasion could expose in our own dear government’s cesspit. A great deal of filth I imagine.
A very appropriate parallel Andy.
I acted in the Crucible at school – it’s powerful message has never left me and now is a good time to be reminded of it. Abuse of power, the stirring up of moral panics, the sacrificial victims…
In the interests of fairness, it’s worth noting this: https://twitter.com/helentevans/status/963138090507399168
I will put that on the blog when I am off a train
Er, guys, hey, guys… the problem is inequality, not Oxfam. Guys? #theyoungonesneil
Another interesting contribution, albeit from a different angle, but it does make the point that it is easy (and, I suspect, deliberately made so to think that money donated for aid is being used for these purposes, when, as this very frank aid workers says, it was his own money he used. http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/aid-worker-judge-me-by-my-work-not-my-time-off/
Worth reading
Thank you
Hasn’t it always been true that the Conservatives and their media supporters have always been entirely comfortable with financial fraud and other business misdemeanours, but the faintest whiff of sex has them frothing in an instant
Did anyone listen to LBC’s Maajit Nawaz attacking an Oxfam volunteer from Liverpool (Tom) for trying to out these revelations into some sort of proportion. He was outrageously rude, judgemental and very self righteous, shutting Tom down and basically accusing him of collusion with those at the top who had let it slide.
My perception was that Tom was being very brave and polite.
I think he was particularly outraged because Tom suggested that the media were making it worse. Outside of Jeremy Kyle and some of the Southern States shockjocks I have never heard such reprehensible, downright rude behaviour on the radio or TV.
Never tuning into him again.
So, I welcome the studied comments Richard has largely generated.
[…] Do I also think it learned? Yes: there is evidence of that. […]
Your well-judged and balanced account of the two sides in this media stoked furore cuts right to the chase. The hyping up of the issue by a government which has attracted international, indeed UN condemnation, for the ‘human catastrophe’ of its own welfare policy for disabled people goes well beyond the jaw-dropping. This government, and especially its economically illiterate right-wing, has one major agenda – the pruning of the state and its expenditures, especially on social policy. International aid is an obvious target and, in line with long-established Tory practice on the Unions, such an assault would be best begun with an attack on the strongest, most publically respected charity. Hence, an Oxfam scandal now 7 years old – and, yes, I remember the contemporary reports – is the chosen vehicle. This is the same government whose own child abuse enquiry has become a by-word for shambles and obfuscation. These are the ‘crusaders’ who lost files, saw Chair after Chair resign and has saddled the process with such terms of reference and shortage of resources as are likely to see the matter buried for years. The whole holy ‘outrage’ at Oxfam – and the sudden enthusiasm for other anti-charity ‘stories’ quite simply stinks – and you, Richard, have been absolutely justified in questioning it with forensic care. Oxfam, seven years ago, got a number of issues in one or two – or, who knows, maybe three – places fairly badly wrong. They ‘fessed up – not all at once, but by degrees and have shown every sign of making all the right changes. Not the worst of performances. The present government’s intentional policies have covered up all sorts of past abuse in past territories, have hampered and ham-strung investigation of abuse at home and have contributed pretty directly to the humiliation and even the deaths of significant numbers of vulnerable people. One of the good things they have not – yet – stopped doing is supporting international aid agencies. You are right to raise your questions and it is good that this gives readers a chance to reflect – on this story, and then upon this.
Thanks
Richard, you have certainly opened Pandora’s box with this thread!
Would it be useful to remind ourselves that Oxfam, and indeed all organisations, do not exist without the activities of their staff and other representatives. There is no “Oxfam” doing diddly squat, there are only the activities of human beings that make up the organisation.
As far as I can tell, what is surprising is that we are surprised by the inappropriate activities of some of these folks that lose their moral compass and exploit the power that they hold. Surely if people are involved then occasionally, we will have to clear up a mess? Even the churches – upholders of righteousness – have failed miserably in this respect.
To suggest that Oxfam’s benefits are negated by the personal failings of staff is a classic syllogism: Oxfam has staff, some staff abuse their position, therefore Oxfam abuses it’s position. It is patently not true.
Even if it is proven that the various accusations are warranted we should support oversight that aims to fix the problem; this should not include, in my opinion, the large scale dismemberment and de-funding of an organisation that merits commendation for the lives that it has saved and enriched by it’s actions.
So let’s concentrate on weeding out the bad eggs that work for Oxfam and stop this ridiculous chatter about this being the end of Oxfam. If we adopted the same approach to other such “infected” industries there would be no: entertainment, religious organisations, political institutions, health care, social care, law inforcement, etc etc.
Well done Richard for providing this excellent platform to debate these difficult issues.
Thanks Bob