Oxfam's finest

[Joey Shabadoo]

Looks more like staff fighting institutional inertia tbh -

View: https://youtu.be/wUJ--w7nTww

 

[J1888]

Minnie Driver quits her role as Oxfam ambassador...

 

[mjr]

Minnie Driver quits her role as Oxfam ambassador...

Did she not like them apples?




Sorry...

 

[mjr]

That's a bit of a hostage to unfolding events @srw The media smell blood in the water and would you really be surprised if victims start to come forward with allegations in the coming days and weeks? The full scale of the Savile affair and the complicity of the BBC wasn't apparent at first. As it is there have been plenty of whistleblowers coming forward saying this kind of thing is common in the charitable sector - see the Guardian and Independent links I put up earlier.

Isn't it depressingly too common in all sectors? Why single charities out for a kicking? Why aren't the politicians talking more about the shocking allegations about how commonplace sexual misconduct is in parliament? Why is the BBC, who depends on MPs determining its charter and fee income, giving so much airtime to the charity allegations and so little now to the political sector ones?

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Because when Aid workers go to a disaster zone and start using the Aid paid for by taxpayers to buy sex with people who have lost everything, it's an order of magnitude above John Prescott shagging his secretary.

 

[srw]

using the Aid paid for by taxpayers to buy sex with people who have lost everyt

I think you might need to point to the evidence that that is what happened.

The Oxfam internal report specifically ruled out misuse of charity funds.

 

[Hitchington]

Because when Aid workers go to a disaster zone and start using the Aid paid for by taxpayers to buy sex with people who have lost everything, it's an order of magnitude above John Prescott shagging his secretary.

Keeping it classy, well done.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I think you might need to point to the evidence that that is what happened.

The Oxfam internal report specifically ruled out misuse of charity funds.

Helen Evans said in the CH4 interview linked to above -

"in the course of one day in 2015 she received reports from the charity's global operation of "a woman being coerced to have sex in a humanitarian response by another aid worker, another case where a woman had been coerced in exchange for aid"

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Keeping it classy, well done.

... said Mrs Prescott

 

[srw]

Helen Evans said in the CH4 interview linked to above -

"in the course of one day in 2015 she received reports from the charity's global operation of "a woman being coerced to have sex in a humanitarian response by another aid worker, another case where a woman had been coerced in exchange for aid"

Fair enough, although I think your choice of words is not neutral.

Its also notable that you pick on taxpayer money, not donor money or the simple abuse of power. If I were concerned about misuse of taxpayer money I wouldn't start with the overseas aid budget.

(Edit for clarity)

 

[mjr]

it's an order of magnitude above John Prescott shagging his secretary.

The questionable interpretation of the first part has been expanded upon, so I'll just point out that the above isn't what the political allegations are about, either, so the misplaced priorities seem to be from incomprehension.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Oh give over. The common thread in this thread has been "But what about them and them and them" as if that in any way mitigates what some of the NGOs have been doing.

That and having digs at me personally of course

 

[mjr]

Oh give over. The common thread in this thread has been "But what about them and them and them" as if that in any way mitigates what some of the NGOs have been doing.

No, there's been a pretty clear thread of "why is this particular instance being given so much attention right now?" Others have linked to how long incidents of this type been known. It's not even the worst instance, is it? So why do you think this one is being kept in the headlines now?

 

[User10119]

Oh give over. The common thread in this thread has been "But what about them and them and them" as if that in any way mitigates what some of the NGOs have been doing.

My bold.

If that's what you think anyone else believes then it is less surprising that you are being so completely dog with a bone about it.

Does ANYONE on here think that? Please do shout up if so, so that we can get that out of the way.

For the record, I don't. As I said pages ago, the abuses by those in a position of relative power are completely unacceptable.

As I believe @srw said though, it's also a bit more complicated than that, particularly if one chooses to hold multiple nuanced thoughts simultaneously. Black and white thought on which we all agree - abuse unacceptable. The more complex stuff is around the contexts.

That and having digs at me personally of course

Really? I hadn't spotted any.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5150701, member: 45"]"last edited by moderator..." appears in posts that have been moderated.[/QUOTE]

[A mod objected to a paragraph here and removed it.]

Returning to the topic, it's interesting how the medium can maim the message and encourage unhelpful conflict, isn't it?

ETA: You couldn't make it up "Last edited by a moderator: 14 Feb 2018 at 16:33"