BS: Charities and Oxfam

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Iains
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 10:22 AM

Got the right thread have you?

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 - 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 - 09:16 AM

TOXFAM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Charities and Oxfam
From: Iains
Date: 21 Feb 18 - 09:05 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Iains
Date: 14 Feb 18 - 05:57 AM

Stop wriggling shaw. You are only embarrassing yourself.

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 - 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: 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 - 03:29 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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