BS: Charities and Oxfam

Subject: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 05:07 AM

Have the infamous exploits of Oxfam caused irreparable damage to all charities. We are used to seeing figures illustrating how little money collected actually ends up being spent on "good works". This data is barely acceptable, but tacitly accepted. But to me it seems charities are becoming increasingly polarised to serve different agendas. On the one hand we have the caligulan exploits of Oxfam, on the other we have the politicisation of the National Trust, and taken to extremes, some very dodgy charitable foundations.

Do charities in the UK require more transparency, more oversight,or a root and branch overhaul of the entire concept of giving and what actually defines a charity?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5383251/Inside-Oxfams-Caligula-orgy-villa.html

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 05:15 AM

Gee, Ians, in the US, we think of Oxfam as the Ultimate Charity of Integrity. I tend to think that the article you linked to is, like, really weird. I mean like, really, really weird.
Do you believe it yourself?
An Oxfam orgy?

-JOe-

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 05:23 AM

I'm certain that the vast majority of Oxfam workers are in in it for the right reasons, in many cases having forgone much better-paid job opportunities.

Know what I mean, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 05:43 AM

Joe. Sadly the evidence seems to exist. Undoubtedly most charity workers are there for honourable reasons and can hold their heads high. It only requires a few misbehaving to taint the entire operation. Do we condemn the entire operation or seek to put measures in place to prevent a repetition?
Should we go down the former path we would have to shut down UN peacekeeping operations because they also exhibit less than saintly behaviour in some areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 05:47 AM

Charities and NGOs employ thousands of people. All abuses should be investigated and action taken BUT I wonder what percentage of all these thousands are involved. UK Parliament has 600 members, the percentage of sex pests etc in Parliament is, I suspect, much higher, but they are not suggesting stopping paying all MPs! Withholding funds just hurts the people they are trying to help.
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 05:59 AM

So I take that you've now brushed aside the Daily Mail article, replete with such scandalous things as photos of the outside of a building with trees, some settees with coffee table and a sparsely-furnished bedroom with mattress devoid of bedding (a double mattress though - shock horror! Pity they couldn't find a C of E vicar, wearing suspenders accompanied by a couple of bikini-clad "escorts" fondling him, to lie on it). Still, you've now come to the conclusion that most charity workers are in it for the right reasons and that, contrary to the implication in your opening post, that they aren't all in it in order to set up Caligulan orgies. That's progress, I suppose. But that's two Daily Mails in one morning. You still have a long way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 06:17 AM

Agreed, Roger. Slightly off the point, maybe, but I do think that charities in general should be closely monitored to ensure that donations are not being wasted on excessive wages, junkets and unduly heavy bureaucracy. At least a hundred million dollars of donations to Mother Teresa's charity was used for anything but helping the people the donors thought they were helping. No-one was watching the saintly lady anything like closely enough. I suspect that the same could be true of a good few charities, which are generally somewhat protected by that fuzzy warm feeling the very word "charity" generates. But the vast majority of charity workers are doing their best and what we don't need is a few miscreants giving ammunition to the sensationalist gutter press cheerled by the Mail and to mean-spirited and unpleasant hawks such as Penny Mordaunt and Priti Patel. There's already a persistent undercurrent running through these discussions, perpetuated by the right and by ignorant isolationists, that we should be scrapping international aid. The audience member who advocated that on Question Time last week received lynch mob-style applause.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 06:58 AM

Steve
Sex sells newspapers to dwindling band of readers and while the readers are getting justifiably uptight and genuinely concerned about this revelation it takes the heat away from other issues.

Question:- do any of us really think that charities will be subject to increased scrutiny .... a simple yes or no will be sufficient ....chance would be a fine thing ( smiley)

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 07:02 AM

Oxfam is fairly decentralized. The kinds of abuse recently reported are what happens when a local manager decides to suppress complaints rather than getting them acted on, or letting the law take its course.

Charities have been forced to structure themselves like private companies and the authoritarian power structures that result sometimes lead to the same outcomes as in a large capitalist enterprise. (As Joe knows, I am not just making this up, I am writing from experience). It is very unusual for problems to be more than local issues, and I very much doubt they are more than that at Oxfam. But a local manager who sees criminal activity by a volunteer as a threat to their own career, and as such something to hush up, can cause a lot of damage.

Obviously the Mail wants most charities destroyed, and foreign aid ones in particular, as they are nearly all opposed to its Nazi political project. As a Corbynite, Helen Evans (the Labour councillor responsible for feeding this story to the tabloids) shares that faction's grovelling submission to the fascists.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 07:24 AM

This is a matter for the charity's own disciplinary procedures from which no staff (up to the highest levels in management if they have engaged in misconduct) should be immune.

The charity (ie the vast majority of its employees and volunteers) must be able to carry on the important work it does without hindrance. That includes the threat by the Charity Commission of possibly freezing the charities accounts. Similarly Mordant must shut her interfering mouth.

If one person dies or suffers anywhere in the world as a result of aid being delayed because of this, or through loss of public support for the work of the charity, then Mordant, the idiots who voted for her, and the Charity Commission staff will be by default murdering **** and should be treated by decent society as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 07:28 AM

That's what I'm worried about. All this feeds into the crude xenophobia that brexit has helped, deliberately of course, to exacerbate.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 07:46 AM

All this feeds into the crude xenophobia that brexit has helped, deliberately of course, to exacerbate.

Once again, personal opinion being paraded as fact.

How can 'Brexit' have done anything deliberately? It is an event, not an individual.
There may be xenophobes within the Brexit movement, but it is wrong to attribute their motives to Brexit.
There will also be racists in the Brexit movement. That does not mean that Brexit is racist.

It is also probable that there are both racists and xenophobes amongst those who voted to remain within the EU. But I doubt that that would help your case in any way, so you will doubtless continue with your current views.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:00 AM

What's it like having a stalker ready to pounce on your every word, Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:01 AM

The brexit DEBATE for Christ's sake. I know we haven't had brexit yet. And of course the brexit debate has fuelled xenophobia, all the doing of brexiteers, not remainers. Taking back control of our borders, uncontrolled immigration, foreigners putting strain on public services and driving down wages...where have you been for the last two years, Nigel? What remainers have you heard saying any of that xenophobic bullshit? Now we have Mordaunt threatening Oxfam, putting charity-giving into the unwanted limelight, and we hear calls for cutting foreign aid. Don't be naive, Nigel. It's all feeding into a new isolationIst narrative that's gaining ground. It isn't just Trump, and it's exactly how wars start.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:02 AM

Oh, he's harmless, Dave. He could use a bit of help I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:33 AM

The relevance is that antipathy towards commitment to foreign aid was one of the central tenets of the most rabid leave campaigners, and anyone who voted leave because of this therefore did so on an immoral basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:44 AM

I have no doubt there are some in Oxfam and elsewhere who exploited people into prostitutes: all power corrupts, don't you know. However, I see little evidence it is widespread yet, nor anything to make references to the orgies of Caligula appropriate.

More oversight? Yes, of workers in the field ny the organisation. Oversight of the organisation by child protection and similar specialists? Again, yes. But by people who were calling for foreign aid to be cut before this surfaced? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:52 AM

And of course the brexit debate has fuelled xenophobia, all the doing of brexiteers, not remainers
Ah, changed from 'Brexit' to 'the Brexit debate'. You may be getting there.
But, if the brexit debate has fuelled xenophobia, how can you excuse the remainers. Without them (admittedly a minority) there would be no debate, and you are now blaming the debate for fuelling xenophobia.

It's all feeding into a new isolationIst narrative that's gaining ground
It's not being isolationist to want to be able to trade globally without interference from Brussels.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: peteglasgow
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:53 AM

well said, steve. i used to feel that the world was generally progressing in a more enlightened, more liberal way with a few stumbling blocks here and there. in recent years - in this country anyway - we just keep going backwards and as you say it's a 'new isolationist narrative' driven by global capitalists and the very wealthy. i've heard and read many defences of the idea of a hard brexit - they all boil down to a gut, emotional feeling about foreigners or a thinly disguised, more eloquently expressed, racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: peteglasgow
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:54 AM

oops - sorry, strayed off into another thread there

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:55 AM

A Labour MP pointed out today that those of an uncharitable nature will use this as a weapon against all foreign aid - as if some of THE FUNDOS needed an excuse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 09:04 AM

The response to Mog is that if UK fails to meet its moral obligations, and if ever in the future it faces a humanitarian disaster, there needs to be a common international accord to just do nothing and let the British victims rot.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 09:31 AM

UK does meet its moral obligations, the EU publishes details of Aid giving as a percentage of GDP, and the UK shows up very well in comparison with most of the EU members: EU aid explorer

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 10:11 AM

When I was a kid scoutmasters were scoutmasters and teachers were teachers and nothing further was thought about it. Today no-one can work near children without being thoroughly vetted. Does anyone here think that is a bad thing? Does the world stop going round because of a hiatus caused by vetting? Of course it does not - We live in a more enlightened time and regard such safeguards as essential in order to offer the maximum levels of protection to children.
   Why do we not have more safeguards built into the running of charities. I see no difference between the objectives of both processes. i.e.maximum good for minimum harm!
   Only a sicko like shaw and his tame acolytes would try to make political capital out of the very public, localised failure of a charity. By the way shaw public schools have charitable status. Are you so busy point scoring about brexit that you forgot that you regularly criticise their status?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 10:24 AM

Many on your side would like to see foreign aid cut or stopped. Unless you've jumped ship and come over from the dark side, Nigel. And I made it perfectly clear that the xenophobia generated by the brexit debate all came from the brexiteer side. Your side, Nigel. It doesn't matter how many racists or xenophobes you think are lurking among us remainers. There will be some, but nowhere near as many as on your side, though it's as irrelevant to this discussion in any case as would be arguing about how many remainers/leavers believe in God as they didn't articulate it in the brexit debate. During the debate, it all came from leave. All of it. And it feeds into the anti-foreigner, anti-aid narrative, as do the intemperate remarks of Penny Mordaunt. And you now have the discredited Priti Patel upping the ante. Must make you feel good having these sanctimonious buggers on your side. As SPB-Cooperator said earlier, if just one person dies or suffers anywhere in the world as a result of aid being delayed because of this... Well, I suppose we could just blame somebody else, couldn't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 10:27 AM

What's it like having a stalker ready to pounce on your every word, Steve?

Well, I could tell ya some stories, Dave......

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 10:38 AM

Why just restrict the safeguards to charity workers. Surely the duty to behave with propriety should then apply to every company, business person, politician, even holiday maker. Charities are tightly regulated, they have to account for how their funds have been used and split spend on charitable objects from governance, support costs, fundraising so that it is wholly transparent on the Charities Commission website as to how much of the money donated goes directly to furthering the aims of the charity and potential donors (if they can be bothered) can judge for themselves as to how well the money is used. Again as to the impropriety of a handful of aid workers, and the lack of transparency (if any) in the way that the discretion was handled is purely a disciplinary matter, and unless as I said above Mordaunt and the right-wing press are not applying the same levels of outrage to other organisations/businesses/individuals as well as charities they are (at best) hypocritical, at worst, attacking the wellbeing of those that aid charities and NGOs are there to hel.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 10:40 AM

"Only a sicko like shaw and his tame acolytes would try to make political capital out of the very public, localised failure of a charity."

The whole tenor of my postings here has been to defend the charity and to oppose tabloid and Tory attacks on it. The political capital is being made from the Daily Mail, your main source of information, and a couple of Tory right-wingers whipping up anti-charity sentiment.

"By the way shaw public schools have charitable status. Are you so busy point scoring about brexit that you forgot that you regularly criticise their status?"

Nope. But most people here would think it distinctly odd if I suddenly brought it up in a thread about Oxfam. On the other hand, what has happened in the brexit debate with regard to leavers fuelling xenophobia is relevant to the anti-foreign aid sentiment that's being whipped up by the Mail and the International Development Department. Start a thread on public schools and I'll go to town on you, worry ye not.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 10:53 AM

Having seen how some of these bodies behave in the field I would say more oversight is definitely needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 10:53 AM

And if the government were to pull funding, is Mordaunt intellegent enough to put in place withing 1 hour an entire distribution infrastructure, transfer all the staff and volunteer support systems so that workers get paid and volunteers are fully supported in their roles, will the government match the money already donated by the public to Oxfam at zero cost to the tax payer, ie out of the pockets of their party supporters to this alternative charty/NGO that will be fully up and running in 60 minutes?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 11:16 AM

Many on your side would like to see foreign aid cut or stopped.
And many, if not all, on your side wish to see us remain part of a union which already spends less on aid that we do, and continue to align ourselves with them.

I don't wish to see our aid payments cut, but I do believe they could be better targeted.
I see Oxfam as one of the better means of redistributing some of the wealth this nation has.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 11:19 AM

There might be a reason why the government is lax to change charity law to put more onus on public schools to prove that their area of benefit is not for the self-interest of the privileged few who use them. Just saying.....

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 11:39 AM

From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 10:53 AM
And if the government were to pull funding, is Mordaunt intellegent enough to put in place withing 1 hour an entire distribution infrastructure, transfer all the staff and volunteer support systems so that workers get paid and volunteers are fully supported in their roles, will the government match the money already donated by the public to Oxfam at zero cost to the tax payer, ie out of the pockets of their party supporters to this alternative charty/NGO that will be fully up and running in 60 minutes?

Oxfam retain financial reserves so that there would be no need to put in fresh infrastructure as an emergency matter. They aim to retain 'reserves' of 25 million pounds. Their accounts can be seen here: Latest annual accounts fortunately Oxfam appear to be well organised financially.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 11:58 AM

Not much use if the Charity Commission decide to freeze the bank accounts which they have said that they would consider as an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 12:18 PM

Sorry, I was responding to your question about pulling Government funding.

I have seen no suggestion that The Charity Commission would freeze their bank accounts, and a web search doesn't find such a suggestion.

The Charity Commission statement on Oxfam 10/Feb/2018 is Here

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 12:39 PM

"There might be a reason why the government is lax to change charity law to put more onus on public schools to prove that their area of benefit is not for the self-interest of the privileged few who use them. Just saying..... "

Hmmmmmmmm!
Better review status of the following outfits then:
             Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)
             Charitable status
             Known as training ground for many of Labour’s special       advisers
             Demos
             Charitable status
             Smith Institute
             Education and research charity

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 12:58 PM

"And many, if not all, on your side wish to see us remain part of a union which already spends less on aid that we do, and continue to align ourselves with them."

We're not obliged to align ourselves with them in the matter of foreign aid, any more than we're obliged to align ourselves with them on what kind of hats our bobbies wear. A red herring and a desperately weak response, Nigel. And let me remind you that you would rather like to align yourself with a country that has such low welfare standards that it has to make its chickens safe to eat by chlorinating them, which thinks nothing of GMing its crops and which wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out. Ah, how we could go on with this....

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 02:25 PM

Nigel. And let me remind you that you would rather like to align yourself with a country that has such low welfare standards that it has to make its chickens safe to eat by chlorinating them, which thinks nothing of GMing its crops and which wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out.

I don't know who you think you're quoting, but it's certainly not me.
Yes, I think we should trade with the US, but that does not mean aligning ourselves with them.
The stated point of the EU is "ever closer union". (i.e.closer alignment)

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 02:44 PM

"and which wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out."
Maybe we can sell them the English Channel? After all London Bridge is in Arizona!

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 03:01 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-43046966


https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/oxfam-scandal-deepens-with-claims-of-sex-for-aid-and-abuse-in-shops-3659760

The news is not getting any better.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 06:27 PM

Well, Nigel, giving more aid than other EU countries (I'll do my homework on that if I can be arsed), or not, equally has nothing to do with aligning ourselves with the EU. The funny thing about you leavers is that you've swallowed the Daily Mail sucker message hook, line and sinker that we have our laws and rules imposed on us by some remote foreign power in Brussels. Understandable that Iains falls for it, as it's all he seems to read, but I'm very, very disappointed in you, Nigel. One more time, let me remind you of our transaction with the EU. One percent of our GDP is committed to the EU. Ninety-seven percent of our EU-related laws have been enthusiastically agreed to by us, and they can only be imposed by an elected body, and we play a major and influential part in drawing them up. The EU cannot dictate our foreign aid budget. We are a sovereign nation and we make up our own rules on foreign aid, and lots more besides. We are at odds with the EU on very little. Give me a list and I'll trump you a hundred times over. The attacks on Oxfam, coming from your party alone apart from gutter tabloids, are compromising the good work that charities overwhelmingly carry out. They feed into the burgeoning anti-aid narrative coming from the xenophobes on your side. And the brexiteer narrative has reset the agenda in a terrible way in this regard. Your party, you brexiteers and your benighted compatriots already have a lot to answer for, and, if you get your way, you are going to add to the burden of misery on this planet. It's that serious, Nigel. Cop yourself on.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 07:49 PM


Well, Nigel, giving more aid than other EU countries (I'll do my homework on that if I can be arsed),
No need to be 'arsed'. I've given the link Netherlands, Luxembourg and the Scandinavian Countries may give more than us, the rest give less. or not, equally has nothing to do with aligning ourselves with the EU. The funny thing about you leavers is that you've swallowed the Daily Mail sucker message hook, line and sinker I don't read the Mail, so I can't have "swallowed their line". that we have our laws and rules imposed on us by some remote foreign power in Brussels. Understandable that Iains falls for it, as it's all he seems to read, but I'm very, very disappointed in you, Nigel. One more time, let me remind you of our transaction with the EU. One percent of our GDP is committed to the EU. Ninety-seven percent of our EU-related laws have been enthusiastically agreed to by us "Enthusiastically agreed"? even if agreed, that statement would suggest that we were pushing for the acceptance of these laws. Source please?, and they can only be imposed by an elected body, and we play a major and influential part in drawing them up. The EU cannot dictate our foreign aid budget. We are a sovereign nation and we make up our own rules on foreign aid, and lots more besides. We are at odds with the EU on very little. Give me a list and I'll trump you a hundred times over. The attacks on Oxfam, coming from your party alone apart from gutter tabloids, are compromising the good work that charities overwhelmingly carry out. They feed into the burgeoning anti-aid narrative coming from the xenophobes on your side. And the brexiteer narrative has reset the agenda in a terrible way in this regard. Your party, you brexiteers and your benighted compatriots already have a lot to answer for, and, if you get your way, you are going to add to the burden of misery on this planet. It's that serious, Nigel. Cop yourself on.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:15 PM

I've given the source for the proportion of laws we've agreed to with the EU ad nauseam, Nigel. For the second time time today, Nigel, do try to keep up when it comes to foreign aid. I note that the UAE is the most generous and that Israel is the least generous when it comes to foreign aid. So tell me, Nigel. Which of those would you like us to align ourselves to?

Alternatively, in order to leave you a little more comfy, Nigel, shall we now move on beyond this red herring?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 03:29 AM

"The attacks on Oxfam, coming from your party alone apart from gutter tabloids,"

I see our resident clown that considers himself well educated likes to judge a book by it's cover.Hardly an attribute of being educated.
Anyway to highlight the stupidity of his position here are a few other sources, further amplifying the sad affair.

Regulator to examine Oxfam behaviour after fresh sex claims in UK
Irish Examiner-13 Feb 2018
Abuse rife in BRITISH Oxfam shops: 123 cases of alleged sexual ...
Highly Cited-Daily Mail-12 Feb 2018
Oxfam sex abuse scandal takes its toll as more than 1200 people ...
International-Telegraph.co.uk-14 hours ago
The moral of the Oxfam shops scandal? The good guys aren't all good
Opinion-The Guardian-17 hours ago
Oxfam prostitution scandal widens to at least three countries
In-Depth-Washington Post-15 hours ago
BBC News-9 hours ago
Oxfam scandal boss resigned years earlier over sex allegations

I suggest you take your own advice and cop on. You stupid boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 03:41 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 13 Feb 18 - 08:15 PM
I've given the source for the proportion of laws we've agreed to with the EU ad nauseam, Nigel. For the second time time today, Nigel, do try to keep up when it comes to foreign aid. I note that the UAE is the most generous and that Israel is the least generous when it comes to foreign aid. So tell me, Nigel. Which of those would you like us to align ourselves to?

I don't wish us to align with either. I want us to be a free nation, able to set our own goals and aspirations, and to trade with other nations on terms which we feel are acceptable.

You, however, seem happy to see us continue as part of a European super-state.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 03:45 AM

Another view on aid agencies that seems reasonably balanced to me.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/oxfam-scandal-is-the-aid-industrys-metoo-moment/article37969502/

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 05:44 AM

You see, Iains, because your source is the lamentable Daily Mail, you can't tell the difference between opportunistic attacks, the focus of my criticism, and responsible investigative journalism, which, in many regards, would actually help to temper the heat and smoke coming from your side and enable us to take a measured view of whatever wrongdoings have been going on. I should think everyone bar you can see that, so I'll leave it there. And do grow up.

Nigel, being part of a European superstate would make me very miserable. Tabloid-thinking has dictated to you that, just because one or two EU bigwigs have voiced that aspiration, or what you think is something like it, it's in danger of happening. Well it isn't and it never was. Believe it or not, the EU consists of a very large number of states who, just like us, are fiercely jealous of their national identities and sovereignty. Each and every one of them has its own red lines. To take one example, while we are members there can never be an EU army. Why? Because we have a veto and we will never allow it to happen. Ironically, because of your superstate nonsense talk and the fear of foreigners generated by the leave side, we will now increase the likelihood of it happening. In my opinion that would be a very undesirable thing and a perfect example of how we will actually have lost control, not taken it back.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 05:57 AM

Stop wriggling shaw. You are only embarrassing yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 06:18 AM

DMcG: I have no doubt there are some in Oxfam and elsewhere who exploited people into prostitutes: all power corrupts, don't you know. However, I see little evidence it is widespread yet

I've commented to people for years that I rarely give to "mainstream" charities working abroad, as I've seen at first hand how a lot of them (and it IS a lot of them, not a tiny minority), and UN staff, behave in areas where they're supposed to be helping. That's not to say I disagree with foreign aid, but the delivery, especially among the bigger charities, seems to be in many cases sadly lacking.

It's not just the sexual abuse of minors (though that's probably the most heinous thing that goes on) but the "living high on the hog" in places where many of the locals are lucky if they get one poor meal a day....the best restaurants in, say Khartoum, Omdurman, N'Djamena or Mogadishu (back in the day when there actually WERE restaurants in Mogadishu!) were easily identifiable by the long lines of UN/ NGO and charity vehicles (usually brand new, desert-hardened 4 x 4s) parked outside.

I knew a guy in Sudan who was making $200,000 a year tax free profit there, importing communications systems from Singapore and installing them in charity and NGO vehicles for 15 times the total of their purchase price, shipping costs and fitting labour costs, and nobody gave a damn. They all wanted these radio systems, even though they never left the Khartoum/ Omdurman conurbation or got outside mobile phone coverage.

I saw an entire shipload of grain from a charity offloaded in Mogadishu, and the next week re-loaded onto a (then) Soviet freighter which came in and offloaded a load of armoured cars.

Containers supposedly containing generators mainly contained cases of whisky, vodka and gin for the expat aid workers.

I've seen projects in Africa where wells for clean water were dug by NGOs, and as soon as the photo-opportunities had ended and the installers pulled out, local warlords moved in and started charging people (often the women, payment being sex) for drawing the water from these charitable wells.

If anyone's read "Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures" by Heidi Postlewait and others and thought it might be exaggerated, it's not.

This sort of thing has been going on the whole time I've been working abroad (ie since at least 1979) and despite scandals blowing up every decade or so, never seems to go away. I've been extremely cynical about large scale charities, NGOs and the UN since about 1981. Friends who were recently in Haiti say that very little rebuilding has happened since the earthquake there. The American Red Cross had claimed that 120,000 new homes had been built, but investigations showed that fewer than 6,000 had actually been constructed. Vast amounts of the $15 billion aid funding has disappeared, and a lot of the rest has been spent inefficiently/ ineffectively.

We see these tragedies on our TV screens. Money is pledged. Photo-ops show "things happening".....then the fickle finger of newsworthiness moves on and it all turns to shit in its wake.

My own charitable giving abroad always goes to small-scale projects, with local oversight. My last significant contribution was to rebuilding a school in Nepal following the earthquake there. The money went directly to a fund set up jointly by a UK climber and expedition leader I know well, and a Sherpa who I also know. The sums involved and the transparency are such that waste is kept to a minimum and there is little incentive for corruption. The waste I've seen from mainstream charities beggars belief....maybe because they're so big that control seems to be so remote and corporate that front-line delivery is often compromised.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 06:26 AM

"Only embarrassing myself?" Not so! I'm going shopping in a minute in addition to embarrassing myself! Or do you mean "embarrassing only myself?" Also not so! I'm thinking of embarrassing my favourite checkout girl in Morrisons by telling her a risque joke!

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 07:00 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 05:44 AM
In my opinion that would be a very undesirable thing and a perfect example of how we will actually have lost control, not taken it back.

You seem to be confusing the issues.
Brexit is not about whether we have control over the EU (Why should we have it? Why would we want it?), but about whether the EU has control over UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 09:22 AM

Rob Naylor. What you say is backed up by what I have seen. I wonder why so many brand new UN badged Toyota Landcruisers clutter up the carparks of the only 5 star hotels in these countries? The wastage is phenomenal.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 09:37 AM

How it is:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/what-has-the-un-achieved-united-nations

Several years old but nothing has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 09:40 AM

Well Nigel, it's neither, it never was and was never planned to be. If by "control" you mean adhering to high standards of animal welfare and food safety, environmental protection, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, then I must admit I'd much prefer to be "controlled" by those things than to cut loose from them and let Tory philosophy control us. The Tory track record on the NHS, on housing, on the disabled and on austerity doesn't exactly fill me with optimism that they'd be much use when it comes to replacing those EU "controls" (which, as I keep reminding you, we play a major and influential part in drawing up, over which we have a veto if we don't like what's proposed and which we overwhelmingly agree with - and which we will hang on to lock, stock and barrel almost, once we're out). Taking back control is an illusion and always was.

Incidentally, we are discussing this in the wrong thread.

That is a distressing catalogue of wrongdoing, Rob. What I'd like to know is how it stands in proportion to the actual amount of good that charities do. I take your point about supporting smaller projects with better oversight. Is there a solution for larger charities or should we stop supporting them, and if so how should we urgently redistribute their work? They are big questions. I see that the Mail is still on the attack this morning. Seems to me that that approach is simply going to sharply diminish charities' income, with deleterious consequences for the people they help.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 10:46 AM

"European Superstate"???

Who is behind that plot, Steve? The Illuminati? The UN? (they're after 'One World Government' after all) The Jesuits?? The Masons? The Shriners?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 03:08 PM

Getting back to Oxfam, how dare idiots like Mprdaunt suggest that money that people have donated which they are expecting that it would be directly spent on relief be used to pick up the tab for withdrawn government funding. If this happens then the government should be refunding donations and there own expense, including the cost of identifying where every single penny donated has come from, so that donors have the opportunity to re-donate the money elsewhere. That works out about £178 as a poll tax for each tory party member, maybe double that to account for administering the refunds.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 04:20 PM

It is not just Oxfam that is guilty of malpractise, many other organisations are tainted from the UN on down. It has been going on for years and runs the entire gamut from misuse of funds, to theft of food aid, to child abuse all the way up to and including UN peacekeeping forces. It may only be a small minority but the damage they cause is immense. The existing oversight mechanisms are totally inadequate.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/audio/2018/feb/14/oxfam-allegations-are-tip-of-iceberg-sexual-harassment-and-aid-

.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/peacekeepers-hit-allegations-sex-abuse-170701133655238.html
and for those that like to judge a book by its cover. Wikipedia below tells a similar story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers.
and even worse western forces seem to turn turn a blind eye to below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 04:34 PM

Put NGOs and Charities into some for of special measures by all means, but the government should not be threatening to withdraw aid funding which i the end will harm the intended recipients. And if this results in even more rafts of compliance reporting, then I trust that central government will pay the costs for smaller charities like those I work with, and charities that provide trust funding.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 05:33 PM

SPB-Cooperator. I do not think anyone would like to see government withdraw funding. Perhaps there is a case for redirecting some of it.
The reports are too widespread and far to well substantiated for the numerous allegations to be dismissed. The case for reform is clear. How to go about it is a discussion that has yet to start. From what I have seen it is the larger bodies that cause the most havoc. International bodies seem to have to operate on a cross between national self interest and Buggin's turn. This creates a downward spiral of administrative ineptitude from the top on down. Without reforming the administration oversight is merely a joke. For NGO's such as Oxfam it would seem to me they have to put their house in order rapidly before their funding dries up. Why would any rational person continue to donate to a corrupt organisation?

The argument about the gutter press harming the income of Oxfam is a totally false construct. If the house was in order the situation would not arise. Is criminality to be covered up in order subscriptions do not diminish. That in itself is a far greater crime!

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 06:42 PM

many other organisations are tainted from the UN on down.


I KNEW it was the goddamn UN behind the Euoropean Superstate plot!

Thanks, Iains !

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 17 Feb 18 - 03:53 PM

"I KNEW it was the goddamn UN behind the Euoropean Superstate plot!"

It must be a wondrous experience to have shit for brains.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Feb 18 - 05:54 AM

Have the infamous exploits of Oxfam caused irreparable damage to all charities.
probably.

They have a problem - what you might call the Harvey Weinstein syndrome.

I heard a screenwriter (employed twice, sacked twice) recounting tales of the man. "He was a bully" - sums it up.

The point is a forceful person gets things done. And the force doesn't stop at work. Select for guys who have morals and you may find they wield less force. Get less done.

unintended consequences is a two edged sword here. In the wake of improving the morals of charity workers, there is another effect. While we welcome the trend, ignoring the co-effects is only going to surprise us.

Maxwell's Maxim "To measure is to know". Measuring should be holistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: JHW
Date: 19 Feb 18 - 06:42 AM

I've sent an annual direct debit to Oxfam for forty years at least. Last year they sent a standard letter asking for more but left out my second initial. Later a request for how they should write to me. Then another request for something. I insisted each time they change their cba attitude to my name. No reply. I cancelled the direct debit. A standard goodbye letter, initial omitted.
I am so sorry that all these decades I have sent donations thinking them worthwhile yet to them I am of no consequence. Why oh why did I do it so long?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Feb 18 - 06:51 AM

Having prepare accounts for charities in the past, I can assure you that it is very unusual for more than 10% of funds donated/collected to be in excess of administration costs!

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 Feb 18 - 06:55 AM

An extremely elderly friend gave very generously to Oxfam (and one or two other big charities) by direct debit each month. They were perpetually ringing her asking for more, in quite an aggressive way. She was also bombarded with mail in the same vein. It got so bad she was almost reluctant to answer her phone. In the end she had to threaten them with harassment, and she stopped her contributions.
She told me she was sad for the poor folk who might have benefited, but
she just couldn't put up with any more hassle.

We resent being accosted in the street by chuggers. They follow one along the pavement and won't go away. No-one realises more than us how dire the sufferings are in so-called Third World countries, but we are supporting a huge African family and all our available spare money goes to them. I try to be polite, but sometimes one is biting one's tongue!

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: BobL
Date: 20 Feb 18 - 03:04 AM

Bonzo, do you mean that <10% usually covers the admin costs, or that <10% is what's left over after paying them? I hope it's the first, but can read your post either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 05:20 AM

BobL. A partial answer. The percentage reaching the intended destination seems very low in some cases. It clearly demonstrates the need for a radical overhaul, including the charity commissioners.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/how-much-charities-spend-good-causes

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 07:14 AM

It strikes me as sad that the whole of the Oxfam Charity is suffering for the misbehaviour of the few. As always this thing has blown out of all proportion. People are stopping their monthly payments to Oxfam and other charities but the money is still needed to help those who are suffering and in need in third world countries. The charities have done a lot of great work. The actions of those few will possibly cause untold hardship!! It seems likely that such charities may fail to get the funds needed to continue....

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Mr Red
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 07:43 AM

unintended consequences

In just about any human endeavour, the system is so complex we don't visualise the whole, just the detail presented.

The charities spend a lot of their publicity on the suffering of victims. We react to that. Now we have a wider view, we are reacting to that.

My favoured charities are specific and the workers are volunteers. It is the best I can do, and I choose to ignore aspects I can't see. One surprised me, I deposoted a sum with a Credit Union in the hope it helps responsible local people suffering hardship. They charge me 1 GBP as a reward for my largess. (nothing in their documentation!). When it works, they give me 0.25% interest. (once in 3 years so far). I had to laugh when I pointed-out their passbook was deficient in explaining a fairly important facet. It still makes me smile and is small beer in comparison with Oxfam's oversights.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 07:53 AM

It seems to me that inappropriate behaviour, sexual harassment and abuse have been going on for ages in nearly every organisation of every kind, and it's just that people are now exposing the situation and demanding that it stops. Which is quite right. It must stop.

It's not a bit of good saying one is making too much of a fuss, or there will be collateral damage. It must be made plain that wrongdoing and exploitation are NOT acceptable at any level.

People in positions of some power (and I'm afraid it is usually men) are accountable for how they conduct themselves.
Once all this is enforced and the Augean stables cleaned out, things can resume as normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 08:15 AM

"As always this thing has blown out of all proportion"

That statement is a matter of opinion, many will have other views. Five minutes of internet research will show these allegations about various Internations and NGO abuse go back for years. Very little has been done to cure the rot, sometimes whistleblowers have also been victimised. Selective amnesia seems to be at play.
If charities want donations they need to be far more proactive in making themselves squeaky clean. That they feel no need to pursue allegations betrays an arrogant mindset totally at odds with their function. Those that continue to donate are merely encouraging their continued misbehaviour.
How can a normal person continue to contribute to a charity knowing that their donation is helping prolong the cycle of abuse?

https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/save-the-children-and-irc-dragged-into-oxfam-abuse-scandal-1.704713
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/04/police-investigate-save-the-children-whistleblowers-over-nauru-abuse-repo
https://news.sky.com/story/oxfam-admits-it-knew-about-abuse-report-10-years-ago-11254729

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 08:35 AM

Hahaha Iains, I think we must have cross-posted, and I agree with every word of your latest post.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 09:05 AM

Senoufou. We will have to be careful agreeing some of the time. You know how tongues wag on this forum!

By the way it is good you are back. Your contributions always show both insight and compassion.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 09:16 AM

TOXFAM

this is more of Rush Iain's toxic digital warfare.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 09:18 AM

Donuel. You spend too much time down rabbit holes. Just ask Alice!

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 09:31 AM

Of course you would say Mueller's indictment and proof of Rush Iain advanced digital warfare is a rabbit hole. You deny and lie as much as Trump.

Where can I find you folk singing or playing something?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 10:22 AM

Got the right thread have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 22 Feb 18 - 06:38 AM

An interesting perspective. Could it apply to other Charities? Is it the function of the RSPCA to attempt to
prosecute for alleged "blood sports transgressions?"


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/oxfams-troubles-began-when-it-became-politically-correct/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=emai

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Feb 18 - 05:43 PM

I find myself giving less to the big charities these days , and more to smaller ones which I hope have less overheads and big exec salaries . Sadly , oxfams scandal will discourage giving to them. I hope it is transferred to smaller and hopefully safer organizations

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Feb 18 - 09:51 PM

I'm cure that https://creationmuseum.org/ would be glad to take your money, Pete. They might even let you ride a dinosaur in appreciation.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Feb 18 - 06:40 AM

I hope it is transferred to smaller and hopefully safer organizations

in these straightened times, I suspect the total "giving" will actually reduce. Charity begins at home, don't ya know.

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 26 Feb 18 - 03:29 PM

https://www.rt.com/uk/419843-sex-abuse-charities-list/

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Feb 18 - 02:45 PM

Carry on Greg ; you must have a miserable life , attacking people at every opportunity ....

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Feb 18 - 02:48 PM

I thought I read somewhere , mr Red , that charity giving had been increasing in the last few years, but I'm not dogmatic on that . Unfortunately these scandals may discourage some from donating