These are two headlines from a Times email this morning:
The first is, admittedly, an anti-Momentum piece. The second includes this:
Of course I am happy for better regulation to prevent abuse. I'd start with that at Westminster and move on from there. Include charities by all means. Who could say no?
But what has that to do with regulation of charities' right to express an opinion?
Is the National Trust to be denied a voice on conservation?
Or the RSPB one on conservation?
And should Cancer Research be denied the right to talk about the resources required to tackle that disease?
Must children's charities no longer call for better regulation?
Or education charities be told they cannot express an opinion on curriculum reform?
Because all of those lobby, extensively. As do many more charities on many other issues.
Is that what we really want?
Do we really think that because some people have undoubtedly behaved wholly unacceptably and maybe illegally that the whole charity sector should be silenced?
And if so, where does this end? With the end of free speech? That would be the inevitable consequence.
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:
You still seem unsure that Oxfam staff have behaved illegally.
It is not like Google’s tax affairs where you insist there has been abuse but cannot point to a named member of their staff who has committed a crime.
So it’s one rule for going abroad to have paid sex with foreigners where the law is clear – that’s unacceptable, no references for you then, but you can’t bring yourself to state that it is illegal with your usual flourish of hyperbolic words like wholly, clearly, obviously. You’ll call that a ‘maybe’.
But another rule for multi-nationals where it is not clear at all if the law is being broken, and rather than blame the law, you blame the multi-nationals. And to boot you support Oxfam, an organisation which itself recently called the multinationals child killers.
http://www.cityam.com/275072/conflating-multinational-corporates-child-murderers-oxfam
I am still struggling to understand what part of the action of Oxfam’s staff you think I have not condemned
But your comment is absurd
Oxfam did not send anyone to have sex
It disciplined those who did
It reports offenders to authorities
But multinationals do actively condone tax abuse for gain
If you cannot see the difference you clearly have no moral compass
“It disciplined those who did
It reports offenders to authorities”
It allowed people to resign instead of sacking them – which it could have done.
According to Helen Evans it took NO action over abuse of teenagers in UK shops.
Just admit you are wrong and the fact that you’ve been paid in the past by Oxfam has horribly clouded your judgement.
I have read its annual report
It says it has taken action
I have put up the links
I have not said for a moment that Oxfam has got everything right
But what Helen Evans really said was that the government and Charities Commission were the people who took no action
Hi Connie,
I am assuming that your was intended as a response to a different post that was then accidentally placed here as it appears to largely off-topic and says nothing about Melanie Phillips’ pompous pontifications.
According to the Independent, ALL the agencies helping in areas of conflict/famine/disease are users of prostitutes…as are the UN “peacekeepers” (or piecekeepers).
many, and I mean MANY foreign diplomats abroad use a large variety of sexual “services”.
Even in this civilised (sic) country, we get politicians and their supporters/donors/owners using women for titillation, or worse.
Then there is the alleged Westminster paedophile cover-up.
The L O N G history of sex-in-politics, globally.
Seriously…we elect these clowns to serve us, and they spend their time servicing women/men/children etc…and not just in this country…
Hi Richard I would like to defend to the hilt your position on Oxfam. It seems clear to me that, in essence, the mass media have picked on a non-story to attack anyone critical of the effects of of capitalism and the BBC have swallowed the bait whole, being themselves part of the establishment.
@David Penn
” … the BBC have swallowed the bait whole, being themselves part of the establishment.”
And they operate to an Establishment derived agenda.
Meantime all sorts of organisations are allowed to claim to be charities e.g. Legartum, Global Warming Policy Foundation, Institute of Economic Affairs etc. Will these to be allowed to continue with their disinformation and lobbying in Melanie Phillips’s brave new world??
Melanie Phillips! Enough said.
The main point here is to realise that this is classic campaigning from Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”, and that there is undoubtedly a project underway to demonize all critical players in the information marketplace, for fear they will tell the truth, or at least reveal the realities behind appearances.
Remember the classic quote from Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”
As Richard has made abundantly plain, Oxfam did wrong through the activities of some of its workforce, for whom they are vicariously liable, but by and large acted properly in dealing with those acts of wrongdoing.
Whether they went far enough or not is a matter of importance, and the good Oxfam do cannot entirely outweigh the wrongfulness that occurred.
However, it is crucial that eyes are kept on the ball, and that the real issue is kept in focus, which is that the kleptocratic establishment is seeking to stifle critical voices, and close down debate.
If any of you recall that meme/video of the 20 biscuits, 19 of which are snaffled by one person, who then proceeds to tell the person next to him to keep his eyes on the ONE remaining biscuit, warning him that one of the others might try to snaffle it. And he then goes off, leaving the remaining people quarrelling over that one biscuit.
Alas, I fear we, on this blog, and elsewhere, have fallen into the trap laid by the kleptocrats, and are arguing rge pros and cons of Oxfam’s behaviour – VERY important, and MUST be done, but NOT to the exclusion of the real issue, which is that of the siphoning off of the world’s wealth by the kleptocrats, and their adding insult to injury, by blaming their victims for what those victims have suffered, and are suffering, thereby intensifying and validating structural and systemic injustice.
By all means let us pursue malfeasance, but not at the expense of the vulnerable and those in need.
Thanks Andrew
That issue will become the focus again soon
But if charities can’t talk about injustice it will be much harder to beat it
And I have no doubt that the aim here is to make it very hard to talk about injustice
Yeah, does Phillips want the same level of scrutiny for think tanks and lobbying organisations? Doubt it. In her world only the powerful are entitled to influence.
I’m reminded of a quote that I wish I could remember more accurately. I think it was by a Brazilian bishop in the 1970s but I may be wrong. I think the quote went something like: “When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are hungry, they call me a communist.”
Of course the extreme right want to silence anyone who questions the status quo. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lder_C%C3%A2mara
Wow.
Deputy chief executive of Oxfam resigns saying she is ashamed.
President of Haiti condemns Oxfam.
More allegations come to light about behaviour in Chad.
EU threatens withdrawal of funding for Oxfam
Jeremy Corbyn condemns ‘disgraceful’ way that Oxfam behaved.
Helen Evans, former head of safeguarding at Oxfam reveals she told bosses about abuse of teenagers in UK shops.
Richard Murphy continues to defend Oxfam and says it’s all a neoliberal plot.
I have condemned those who abused when in Oxfam’s employment
I have said Oxfam made mistakes
Helen Evans said the government and Charity Commission did as well
And yes, it is a neoliberal plot
And are Helen Evans, Jeremy Corbyn, the President of Haiti, Penny Lawrence and the EU all part of this plot?
Not for a moment
Like me they are saying Oxfam needs to do better
But actually read what Helen Evans wrote. I have posted it. If you do your interpretation cannot stack.
Of course I read what Helen Evans wrote. It is clear she was blocked and frustrated by higher management within Oxfam. She could see that oxfam as an institution was not doing enough. She resigned.
She has some honour left. Yours is in tatters.
You are entitled to your opinion
But let’s be honest, you probably thought that anyway
A right winger talking about honour……….very amusing. Have you read Richard’s post about Barclays being charged with fraud over it’s lending of money to Qatar so that its shares could be bought to avoid it needing a bailout?
How about the behaviour of the directors of Carillion who ran the company into the ground through their own incompetence and greed, and have dumped the cost of the pension fund they underfunded onto the rest of society?
Or there’s the £100m spent by the DWP fighting appeals against benefit sanctions that came about as a result of the anti claimant policies put in place by right wing politicians; that’s OK is it?
And how about you criticising the total lack of transparency from right wing think tanks who refuse to divulge their sources of funding whilst claiming charitable status?
Thanks for the article, Richard. As a long time Oxfam volunteer I am not surprised that this story broke. In a sense it is the turn of the voluntary sector to be put through the same mill as Parliament, the BBC and the Churches. Hopefully Oxfam will emerge stronger and more willing to listen to their own safeguarding staff. The danger is that the usual suspects will attempt to cripple the foreign aid budget and stifle criticism.
Sorry, in my last sentence I meant that Charities would be hindered in their right to criticize Government.
You are, I’m afraid, now dissembling. You say these are old allegations, reported at the time. That is not true – Oxfam said that it had disciplined people but didn’t say it was for sexual offences. You say Oxfam reported the offences to the authorities – but it did not. No report was made to criminal prosecutions/police in the UK or Haiti.
When you say it is a neoliberal plot you risk looking like a parody of yourself. You are shredding your credibility.
With respect, there are many who would disagree
Largely because you have not apparently read what I have written but are instead choosing to project onto it what you would like it to say
Oh God.
Melanie Phillips!!
Rod Liddle is bad. But Melanie Phillips!!? If she was alone in a room she’d end up condemning the room for something or other.
I will say one other thing though.
I have worked with a lot of NGO s over the years and I have noticed that things that statutory and professional services orgs have like complaints procedures, customer service standards and oversight of operations are not as rigorous in the voluntary sector. This is an issue that has cropped up before in the specialist media.
Although Phillips wrongly portrays the NGO sector as seeking to take on more work, the truth is that the voluntary sector involvement has been expanded by Central Government listening to Buchananist critiques of state provision and opting for a more ‘pluralist’ delivery of services (using non public service providers alongside public sector services in the name of effectiveness – which in itself debatable).
I remain to be convinced that the operations of NGOs have kept up with the increased complexity of the work they are given to take on. And I bet NGOs can be cheaper to use than in-house public services because of their lighter touch to operational management.
However, I go back to the principle that we have a state and its legislature who set the context for the work of business and charity.
We have seen what a mess Companies House is in and the fraud this can enabled by a lack of Government interest in making it meaningful. The same may be the case for the NGO sector.
If we want better NGOs then let us create them in law and regulation.
And do the same to business, banking – oh – and politics too!
A courageous state would do this.
Another thing I have noted is how the Government (usually Tory) behaves towards those non-public orgs whom it recruits to help do its work. Take for example housing associations.
Many HA s were small providers looking after niche need. However, as soon as the Tories saw them as a way of getting rid of Council Housing (an ideological goal), the HA s were showered with money by the Housing Corporation to develop social housing.
Then, they decided to reduce the amount of development grant for HA’s so that many had to start using private banking money to make up the shortfall for development (this fundamentally changed the legal status of a lot HA s).
And finally post 2010 we see HA s being accused of greed and causing high housing benefit bills.
In some cases this may have been justified but it seems to me that the MO of mostly Tory governments is to woo new providers for social policy delivery, build them up and then knock them down. Why? Because the long term attitude of most modern Tories is that they do not believe in such services. They believe in markets, social Darwinism and very limited social mobility to conserve the status quo.
I ask you: What is the best way to get rid of something that people like and value? Like this: build it up, build up expectation, make it reliant on investment and then undermine it by making the money harder to get or just cut in order it to make it look as though it is failing to justify getting rid of it.
Whether it is a railway line, the NHS or Oxfam – this is the British way of governance: Build ’em up and knock ’em down.
Is it any wonder that the UK is in such a mess when Government wants to work like this?
Thanks PSR
And you are right: how does the government reduce cost?
By reducing standards
Yes – exactly!
” If she was alone in a room”
She would be doing everyone else an enormous favour.
The attack on #Oxfam is political. They have made enemies in high places. My blog: http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
I think you have made your points clear here Richard and on the whole you are correct.
We know in all walks of life there are saints and scum, whilst the majority of us are somewhere in between. Some of the worst people in the world where doctors, tv stars and even recently a former accountant! etc (I don’t want to name them as I would feel obliged to name all their victims as well as to me the innocent are more important). We never heard suggestions we should stop funding the NHS because of atrocities committed by a member of staff or ban broadcasters…
Generally improving controls / regulations are a good idea and you are right we should start with Westminster, which is institutionally elitist and if there is a, “culture of impunity”, it emanates from there.
If I were you I would concentrate on the other battles as on this topic people seem to be just arguing the toss with you. You have made your position clear and I’m sure if in the future it transpires you are wrong you will admit it (not convinced your critics here will).
I’m going for a few days away tomorrow morning
It rarely stops me blogging
I may change theme
But probably not, I am afraid
This issue is at the core of being able to do this work in the future
Enjoy the break 🙂
Melanie Phillips, of all people, has the audacity to write in The Times, of all places, that Oxfam is the “tip of a sanctimonious and morally compromised iceberg”.
The queen of sanctimony, preaching from the tip of Rupert Murdoch’s morally compromised iceberg of disinformation.
I can do little better than Matthew 7:3: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Spot on Andrew.
Phillips is a pompous, servile drone following the same prescribed “opinion” formula as the Murdoch hacks in his Australian papers and other rags like the New York Post.
Its odd how they all have the same “opinion”. Murdoch buys titles like the The Times and the Wall Street Journal in the hope that their history will give his crud some veneer of respectability but they eventually lose respect over time.
A ‘shock jockette’ perhaps?
Yet another example of how the UK, and England in particular is becoming ever more like Trumps America. The same strategies, the same tactics – driven by closely linked political groups
Andrew says:
“Melanie Phillips, of all people, has the audacity to write in The Times, of all places, that Oxfam is the “tip of a sanctimonious and morally compromised iceberg”.”
Andrew, you have to hand it to the Times in this one……an opinion on sanctimony and moral compromise comes best from an accomplished expert practitioner. 🙂
Earlier today, in another comment, I noted that the rapidly declining Murdoch press may be inclined to switch their attention from mainstream politics where they are now increasingly ineffective, to smaller, more vulnerable targets where reputations are not as easily ignored or defended .
Well Melanie Phillips piece confirms it . This story is no longer a news item it has become an agenda. The people that were stupid enough to hack your phones and think they would get away with it now think that they can demonise the entire Charities and NGO sector.
They won’t get get away with that either but they will make some sort of impression which is why this agenda should be called out, identified and challenged.
The State may want the change Charities behaviour by altering their regulation or license to operate. This may be because they don’t agree with their behaviour or politics………so what?
You want to change companies behaviour through threatening / changing the limited liability, something they currently take for granted, what is the difference?
Why is it OK for you to change company behaviour through regulation according to your politics but not OK for the current Government to change Charities behaviour according to theirs?
Is the only answer you believe yourself to be moral and right while the current Tory government is not?….That’s pretty shallow tribal rubbish………….and hypocritical to boot.
So you think the world would be improved by removing the right to free speech?
Tell me how?
Have you heard of human rights?
Oh, and limited liability is not a human right: it is a limitation on them, before you ask
A charity license to escape Corporation tax is not a human right either, just like limited liability.
So get them to do what you want or they lose their exemption, your dramatic claim to their losing free speech does not wash……….in the current climate we all know that we are limited to what we can say and when………..Charities will have to obey new rules and limits as well.
This all comes down to your belief that Oxfam and other charities are morally good, despite the recent evidence…………you believe they are moral and you are never wrong, so end of story.
This is another time your ego and epic self belief in your own moral righteousness has got you into trouble. I don’t know if your inability to climb down is a practical decision based on your belief people would never let you forget it (as you would do in their case) or just a supersized self belief that you are moral incarnate and therefore can never be wrong!
And don’t say you have admitted you are wrong in the past……….its always been politicians talk……..I was mistaken, the evidence misled me, people have let you down, I hoped humanity was better etc….
The logic of a charity escaping corporation tax is twofold, as you should know
a) Donations come from others and may have been taxed
b) The state wishes to encourage charity
But let’s move on. Please explain why if the employees of a charity have committed abuse wholly unrelated charities should have their right to comment curtailed?
Re my certainty: that;s down to have an ethical code. It’s quite easy to explain really
“This all comes down to your belief that Oxfam and other charities are morally good, despite the recent evidence…………you believe they are moral and you are never wrong, so end of story.”
What a very primary school playground comment ! About the Level of PMQs.
When you have a few bob going spare, Richard, (Murphy) perhaps you could get your web designer to add a pigtail pulling icon. 🙂
Two points.
1 The odious lobbying act passed by D Cameron’s government restricts the abilities of charities to campaign – many have to register in order to do so – and they can be caught out by a “snap” general election (remind you of someone?)
2 The Charity Commission’s resources – for regulation – have been reduced as part of austerity cuts (good idea??).
My belief is that MIND (the mental health charity was established specifically as a campaigning body.
Does that make it ‘political’.
We need a national discussion about what a charity ‘is’ or ‘does’.
Does Eton College have legitimate ‘charitable objectives’ ? As a campaign group setting the standards for state education I’d say ‘yes’. In terms of its effectiveness in producing ‘graduates’ who see it’s role in this light I’d say it is an abject failure.