Oxfam's finest

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
For some reason that link won't open. Starts to create a new tab but then closes again.
Does the same for me but you can paste the link into a browser and it works.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
For some reason that link won't open. Starts to create a new tab but then closes again.
During the interview the CD admitted to using prostitutes in his OGB residence. On being briefed on the wider allegations, he took full responsibility and offered to resign. After further discussion with the **** and the *************************** it was agreed that OGB might accept his resignation, and allow him a phased and dignified exit, provided that he would fully co-operate with the rest of the investigation. This proposal was subsequently agreed with Barbara Stocking (standing in for Penny Lawrence) as there were potentially serious implications for the programme, affiliate relationships and the rest of the investigation if he were to be dismissed on these charges.
The paragraph above is particularly interesting. To me it says Van Hauwermeiren's account (when it appeared) more or less agrees with Oxfam's (eventual account).

I'm guessing that The Times and some other newspapers saw this or other documents or were told a version similar to the above paragraph or the bits in the appendices by the time the story was 'live'.

I'm guessing it's some of why Penny Lawrence resigned. The middle bit is incredibly toxic and a journalist is going to read that as a cover up whether it is or not. I suspect not, but who ever wrote that paragraph it seriously didn't help, especially as Oxfam themselves kept on quoting selected words from the same sentence "phased and dignified exit", but not disclosing the rest. That's going to seriously enrage a journalist who is not going to enjoy effectively being taunted. Also, I suspect Mark Goldring won't agree with this, but he commented about Van Hauwermeiren not being doorstepped, but here is a possible explanation why journalists might want to doorstep him and Lawrence and not Van Hauwermeiren. After reading this I find some of Goldring's replies a bit clunky, naive and disinterested. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's someone who is very tired and under a lot of pressure who isn't that interested as it isn't his 'area' and devolves such matters onto others as he as much said himself. I can see why journalists or others might see it differently though. That's before you even get onto people who want to see particular things.

Overall over a week later it seems Oxfam conducted a reasonably thorough basic investigation, under difficult circumstances. There's a fairly lengthy section on plan of action, although some of that might be quite scary reading. It was in 2011 though. The safeguarding stuff, I find it very reassuring there was someone who used to work for them who was very concerned with this stuff.

The comments more recently by Oxfam about the details not being divulged wasn't to protect the men, doesn't sit very well though. Again some people are going to jump to conclusions.

On the references bit, it is interesting that one of the people got done for CV fraud. There were recommendations, very basic ones to improve matters there. I can definitely see why the head of safeguarding might be so frustrated.

Then there's the whole raft of extra allegations.
 
Last edited:

Joey Shabadoo

My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
Interesting piece on why it's the Mail and the Telegraph running with the Save the Children story - the Guardian wasn't interested

https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/leslie-francis/silencing-of-difficult-women

The victims of Cox and Forsyth and their allies didn’t stop at telling peers, senior management and trustees about what was happening. They also went to the media. You might be wondering why all these stories of harassment and abuse are being broken by the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph—it was the Mail that originally covered Cox’s departure from the charity back in 2015. Why didn’t the complainants go to somewhere like the Guardian? They did.

These victims are not typical Mail and Telegraph readers and they understood that a story about a lack of accountability in an aid organization will likely be followed in those newspapers by calls for less foreign aid. None of the victims support that goal. What they want is aid plus accountability.

Almost all of the complainants went to the Guardian first. Different Guardian journalists were contacted, but all went quiet
 
I just found this opinion piece in the Grauniad https://www.theguardian.com/comment...iving-oxfam-so-should-you-charity-mark-haddon
I am sad and angry about what happened in Haiti and Chad, but I am also sad and angry that people in the UK who had no interest whatsoever in the welfare of those people are now occupying the moral high ground or, worse, using this crisis as a way of furthering their own campaign against overseas aid in general.
Taking money away from Oxfam is not an act without consequences. If you want to stop donating to the charity, make sure your money still gets to the people who need it. And whichever charity you choose, ask what they are doing to root out and prevent abuse. Because it will be happening and it will come to light. It has to come to light.
The only route out of this terrible mess is for every charity – for every organisation of any kind – to turn a harsh light on itself, to accept its failings and to change them. It will be a painful journey, but it is one they are all going to have to take. And the sooner they start, the better.
 

Viking

Senior Member
[QUOTE 5159608, member: 10119"]I just found this opinion piece in the Grauniad https://www.theguardian.com/comment...iving-oxfam-so-should-you-charity-mark-haddon[/QUOTE]

The last paragraph is IMHO really important
The only route out of this terrible mess is for every charity – for every organisation of any kind – to turn a harsh light on itself, to accept its failings and to change them. It will be a painful journey, but it is one they are all going to have to take. And the sooner they start, the better.
with the proviso that these audits have to have genuinely independent oversight. The current and past leaders and the trustees have proved to be, at best, incompetent and cannot be relied upon to sort this mess out.
 
The thing is we live in a world where, for example, one of the most powerful world leaders has been recorded on film talking about sexually assaulting women - and absolutely nothing has happened about it. In fairness the sexual harassment of women at that President's Club dinner did cause a bit of outrage, yes. This year - after how many years of not doing so? And how many comments have you seen justifying the behaviour of those attending or claiming that the women working at the event had signed up for it/got a good deal out of it/were being paid well/knew what they were getting into/asked for it? Yet if women point out that sexual abuse and sexual harrassment is fairly endemic we tend to get accused of being man-hating feminazis.

Of course I think that the abuse of vulnerable people, predominantly women, by people, predominantly men, in a position of relative power is outrageous. I'm just not surprised by it.
View attachment 396973
Image from http://www.keffy.com/how-to-get-away-with-harassment/ where there is a transcript of the text.
 

BoldonLad

Veteran
Location
South Tyneside
[QUOTE 5160219, member: 10119"]Of Oxfam? Or of "every charity [&] every organisation of any kind"?[/QUOTE]

Well, it would appear, if a person answered "Oxfam" to that question, they would be 100% right, if they answered "every charity and every organisation" they would not be 100% right, but, although not a gambler, I think I would have a tenner on more right than wrong.

I am not a donation dodger by the way, just do not really see how I can possibly know who is doing unsavoury things, or taking a bung, except when the odd revelation or two briefly illuminate(?) the headlines.
 

Inertia

I feel like I could... TAKE ON THE WORLD!!
Well, it would appear, if a person answered "Oxfam" to that question, they would be 100% right, if they answered "every charity and every organisation" they would not be 100% right, but, although not a gambler, I think I would have a tenner on more right than wrong.

I am not a donation dodger by the way, just do not really see how I can possibly know who is doing unsavoury things, or taking a bung, except when the odd revelation or two briefly illuminate(?) the headlines.
That is true for anyone though. We don't know if people in Lots of companies we use are up to unsavoury things.

I think we should be careful not to tar everyone with the same brush. Especially in an area where a lot of people depend on the help and it is a case of life and death for some .
 

Joey Shabadoo

My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
Oxfam in the news again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56670162

The UK has suspended aid funding for Oxfam again after fresh allegations of sexual exploitation and bullying were made against staff.
Two Oxfam workers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) were suspended last week following the latest claims.
The charity had only been allowed to start reapplying for aid funds in March.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
The Charity Commission report into the original abuse was, very unusually, strongly critical of Oxfam.

It appears those incidents were the tip of a very murky iceberg.

The whistleblower in this Beeb story has been proven correct in her assertion it will take years to adequately reform Oxfam.

The latest allegations indicate we still have years to wait.

Oxfam only cares about keeping its own gravy train rolling.

The only way to stop that is to starve the organisation of donations.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48593401
 
Top Bottom