Oxfam's finest

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
[QUOTE 5150740, member: 45"]Meanwhile, I think that Minnie Driver has made a mistake by giving up her opportunity to help to put things right.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Meanwhile, major corporate partners are reacting with various degrees of understanding and support.

The Mail article trying to make yet more capital is bathetic as it works out that the much-vaunted 1,270 DD cancellations might amount to as much as £144,000 a year. I suspect Oxfam has received more than that in the last couple of days from people horrified at the abuse meted out to it.
 

J1888

Über Member
[QUOTE 5150740, member: 45"]Meanwhile, I think that Minnie Driver has made a mistake by giving up her opportunity to help to put things right.[/QUOTE]

She says that there are lots of other NGOs that she can support etc...will she be able to vet them to weed out wrong'uns in their midst? Unlikely
 

J1888

Über Member
[QUOTE 5150933, member: 43827"]It's easier to flounce (and get a bit of publicity for her caring attitude) than to stay and engage internally with the organisation to try to improve matters.

(I readily admit to cynicism over celebrities' motivation).[/QUOTE]

That was my first reaction; she Tweeted in the third person to a Telegraph article about her decision, but presumably she just C&P'd. However, she may well just be appalled by the actions of those Oxfam staff and the way that the organisation reacted, to the point that she doesn't want anything to do with it any more, and she's entitled to that.

What I did find particularly galling was Priti Patel on LBC, when questioned whether she'd donate to Oxfam she said 'well, I wouldn't' - interesting that she's happy to deal with others whose actions are less than commendable...still, that's another argument.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
What I did find particularly galling was disgraced former minister Priti Patel on LBC, when questioned whether she'd donate to Oxfam she said 'well, I wouldn't' - interesting that she's happy to deal with others whose actions are less than commendable...still, that's another argument.
FTFY a bit
 

SpokeyDokey

64 and a little bit.
Moderator
Mod note:

Thread tidied up to remove off topic dialogue - sadly a brilliantly funny Emoticon had to be deleted too. :sad:

FWIW and not wishing to detract from an interesting thread; when posts are deleted I think that you can only see a record of your own deleted posts and not the other member's posts that have been cast into the virtual wilderness.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
A very fine article from Tim Harford. Sorry, FT paywall, but you can read a few articles for free.

"The self-reinforcing dynamics mean that unpredictability is a feature of the outrage system. They also suggest that we need to learn two lessons.

The first is that we should ask ourselves, is there anything that happens in my profession, industry or community that is taken for granted, but that the wider world might view with sudden outrage?

[...]

The second is to beware tribalism. "
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
[QUOTE 5153270, member: 76"]Mod edited.

To say, over and over again, that this is all a big conspiracy by the Tories, big business, the media and whoever else because they have an agenda is simply ludicrous. Whichever outlet broke the Weisntein story would have had an agenda, but no-one seemed even a little bothered where the story came from, there was just relief that it had so the situation could be dealt with openly. The FT had an agenda when they went to the Presidents Club, that was considered a good thing as the story was out.

Now this is out, why are people hung up on where or why the story came out, and not about the victims?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE 5146012, member: 10119"]Oh - and to be clear and in hope of avoiding a confusing diverson, of course I agree that from what I have read both now and at the time, the actions of those Oxfam staff in Haiti were completely unacceptable. I also thought it was reasonably clear that Oxfam thought so too.[/QUOTE]

For instance.

HTH
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[QUOTE 5153270, member: 76"]Now this is out, why are people hung up on where or why the story came out, and not about the victims?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE 5147904, member: 10119"]I think you are probably misunderstanding some people's positions somewhat here.[/QUOTE]
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the complex world, the world where you don't throw out the whole orchard just because there's one worm in one apple, tomorrow's Guardian has a powerful, fair but critical interview with the boss.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
[QUOTE 5153300, member: 45"]I think it's just the Friday afternoon wind-up.[/QUOTE]
Drawing attention to the apple which has been infested is sensible. If you don't deal with it, it will multiply and infect many more.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
[QUOTE 5153350, member: 76"]It happened for years after the original 2011 report, so that didn't work eh?[/QUOTE]
If you can find a way for a complex, major international organisation to guarantee that there will be no abuse on its watch I think there's a prize in it for you.

In the meantime, it's a pretty sad state of affairs if it's become mandatory to preface every comment with "of course, it's dreadful that the abuse has happened" - personally I have a more optimistic view of humanity than that, and tend to assume that people aren't going to be very happy when they hear about people suffering.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
[QUOTE 5153363, member: 76"]Do you think they were unwise to try and squash this story about the abuse of some extremely vulnerable people?[/QUOTE]
And I think you credit me with rather more power than I have. Any attempt I had made to squash the story would have been doomed to failure.

This was never going to be a story that was going to go away - as @User observed there was a story because someone decided there was a story. And I stand by my observation that in a different way it's a non-story - it's a tale of successful and high quality management making advances that they should rightly be proud of. But some wrecker of a journalist has decided to ignore that fact and pursue a much darker agenda, which might well have resulted (and still might result) in an important organisation which employs thousands in the UK and which saves the lives of millions around the world folding.

If you want to get het up about "extremely vulnerable people", think about the millions who might not now receive the aid they so desperately want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rickshaw Phil

Overconfidentii Vulgaris
Moderator
Mod note

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this one. I've been doing other things.

A cleanup of the thread derailment and associated bickering has been carried out and the discussion is now open again. Please talk about the subject sensibly without making personal remarks or attacking the character of other members.

The discussion may be locked permanently if it turns to bickering again.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
The interview with the boss and other articles on saturday did provide more light.

The issue of references is an interesting one. It shines a light on differences between how references are done or viewed in different organisations.

I find some of the oxfam comments about a blank/basic reference should have been viewed with alarm bells as a really scary and unaware of how much variation there is between sectors, organisations and people. The 'from oxfam' comments make sense but I don't know why it doesn't go into more detail.
 
Top Bottom