Oxfam Staff Sexual Exploitation

Giving to charity is old hat nowadays. Everybody knows that “raising awareness” is where the kool kids are at. What’s the point in donating towards a well in Africa if you don’t get a wristband for it?
 
Oxfam has agreed to stop bidding for UK government funding until it can show it meets the suddenly requisite government "high standards", says the BBC and Sky. Wonder what the standards were before the sh*tstorm happened and they all got found out.
.
Mmmmm... MP's and high standards when it comes to sexual mis-conduct...me thinks that may be a tadge optimistic.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Oxfam has agreed to stop bidding for UK government funding until it can show it meets the suddenly requisite government "high standards", says the BBC and Sky. Wonder what the standards were before the sh*tstorm happened and they all got found out.

The charity, which had a total income of £409m last year, received £31.7m from the government in 2016. This is about 8% of the charity's income. The amount also represents about a quarter of a percent of the government's annual foreign aid spending. Oxfam agrees to stop government funding bids.
Having read that snippet I wonder why this person wasn't bothered previously.

In other developments on Friday, Oxfam International's executive director Winnie Byanyima said the charity would "do justice" and "atone for the past" by setting up a commission to investigate past and present allegations of exploitation by staff.

She invited victims to come forward "for justice to be done" for them, saying she was "here for all the women who have been abused".


And the obvious question is why was she not here before for all the women who have been abused.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Having read that snippet I wonder why this person wasn't bothered previously.

In other developments on Friday, Oxfam International's executive director Winnie Byanyima said the charity would "do justice" and "atone for the past" by setting up a commission to investigate past and present allegations of exploitation by staff.

She invited victims to come forward "for justice to be done" for them, saying she was "here for all the women who have been abused".

And the obvious question is why was she not here before for all the women who have been abused.
If the rumours are true, you can add girls and boys to that. Odd choice of words to use.
Maybe it might be considered more acceptable to use woman prostitutes rather than them actually saying, they had sex with children as well. That would be seen as admission of guilt that children were abused by those people and smack of massive cover up.
How odious could they get by covering up child abuse, for the sake the organization and funding. Rather than protecting those they were meant to protect.
 
How odious could they get by covering up child abuse, for the sake the organization and funding. Rather than protecting those they were meant to protect.
As posted above...
churches, sports organisations, teaching, scouting, political parties...
And the frightening thing is that, guaranteed, many of the abusers and nonces were probably involved in more than one of them.
 
As posted above...
churches, sports organisations, teaching, scouting, political parties...
And the frightening thing is that, guaranteed, many of the abusers and nonces were probably involved in more than one of them.
And allowed to carry on doing what they do, because spineless people were more concerned about said organizations image and funding than those of the victims.
Infact I'm waiting to hear, lets not turn this into a witch hunt.... from various people.
 
The hypocrisy of OxFam is overwhelming.

The President's Club, a fundraising organisation that raised millions was forced to shut down (correctly IMHO) over a bit of slap and tickle by some lecherous millionaires with no legal wrongdoing whatsoever.

OxFam staff allowed some of the poorest and most vulnerable women to prostitute themselves out to its staff, degrading and abusing those they had set out to assist in Haiti. All done on the taxpayers time as well. Also, if reports are to be believed, its staff committed statutory rape of minors, threatening and intimidating behaviour and a cover up. Yet they still claim some form of moral high ground?
 
Let he that is without sin etc...
When it comes to sh@gging kids I think the vast majority of us are without that particular sin.

I'm not sure about Oxfam's motivation in refusing further government funding. They are of the left and standard procedure for lefties when disaster strikes seems to be get your head down till everybody forgets. Keith Vaz, Ken Livingstone and Jared O'Mara are living proof of that. The kangaroo "courts" that take place in far left political groups happen largely to keep the groups out of the public eye. Rape? No comrades, she was gagging for it.

The cries of political bias and overreaction from Oxfam senior management do not inspire confidence in the charity's ability to deal with this matter internally. Like entitled MPs, they seem to believe that they are above the law. Their celebrity "ambassadors" are publicly deserting them like the proverbial rats from a sinking ship. In private, I expect that their friends in high places are fleeing at a rate that can only be provoked by an impending paedophile scandal.

Oxfam was in receipt of tens of millions of pounds from the government, err I mean from us, while these alleged crimes were taking place. Foregoing future funding should not stop any government investigation that is under way. If they're found to be culpable, they should receive no more public funding and their charitable status should be reviewed. They're not indispensable and I'm sure plenty of other charities could replace them.

Finally, British citizens who molest kids abroad are guilty of an offence in the UK. We might not be able to deport anybody to Haiti because of the state of their prisons but we can sure as hell prosecute them here. Hopefully the Department for International Development has people and DNA kits in Haiti as I write this.
There's a lot of truth in this.

Having worked for a few charities, alongside several more, and in the environments where all these agencies work, several things have dawned on me.

1. It's a business. These agencies sell 'altruism'. "For just £3 a month..." the punter gets a sense of well-being.

2. It's a projection of soft power. As @jim30 says, every potential migrant persuaded he can make it at home is one less trying to take a li-lo across the med. Every WWII landmine taken out of the Western Desert is one less recycled IED main charge. Hence there being two different funding streams: the High Street and the government.

3. The NGO operate in conditions of 'market failure'. The beneficiaries are not the customers. Thus there are complexities in measuring success. Instead of it being a back and forth deal (like in a shop) it's more of a triangle:

a. Government to NGO
b. NGO to beneficiaries
c. Feedback loop (beneficiaries to donors)

4. The NGO are, on the whole, complacent. Objectively they concentrate on the bit that's most important to them (a), and when it comes to (b) they tend to have an annoying attitude of "oh but we're such good people, doing such a good thing", often without any real supporting evidence.

5. There isn't enough feedback loop. DFID et al spend a lot on financial audits but not enough effort (IMHO) on a proper feedback loop. That's why stories like this get missed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When it comes to sh@gging kids I think the vast majority of us are without that particular sin.

I'm not sure about Oxfam's motivation in refusing further government funding. They are of the left and standard procedure for lefties when disaster strikes seems to be get your head down till everybody forgets. Keith Vaz, Ken Livingstone and Jared O'Mara are living proof of that. The kangaroo "courts" that take place in far left political groups happen largely to keep the groups out of the public eye. Rape? No comrades, she was gagging for it.

The cries of political bias and overreaction from Oxfam senior management do not inspire confidence in the charity's ability to deal with this matter internally. Like entitled MPs, they seem to believe that they are above the law. Their celebrity "ambassadors" are publicly deserting them like the proverbial rats from a sinking ship. In private, I expect that their friends in high places are fleeing at a rate that can only be provoked by an impending paedophile scandal.

Oxfam was in receipt of tens of millions of pounds from the government, err I mean from us, while these alleged crimes were taking place. Foregoing future funding should not stop any government investigation that is under way. If they're found to be culpable, they should receive no more public funding and their charitable status should be reviewed. They're not indispensable and I'm sure plenty of other charities could replace them.

Finally, British citizens who molest kids abroad are guilty of an offence in the UK. We might not be able to deport anybody to Haiti because of the state of their prisons but we can sure as hell prosecute them here. Hopefully the Department for International Development has people and DNA kits in Haiti as I write this.
I can't disagree with any of that and don't get me wrong. The charity seems to have carried on regardless until it was bang to rights; there is no excuse though like every other sleazy scandal that's gone before: we're right to suspect the whitewash and cover ups are coming. More scrotes -- them as always 'know best'-- will get off scot free.

Those you mention in your post are beneath contempt. These exposures and condemnations are long overdue, but it's time the rampant vile and perverted 'elite' were stopped, before they go on to do more damage and despicable crimes on a global scale.
 
And allowed to carry on doing what they do, because spineless people were more concerned about said organizations image and funding than those of the victims.
Infact I'm waiting to hear, lets not turn this into a witch hunt.... from various people.
It's already happening mate.
 
Having read that snippet I wonder why this person wasn't bothered previously.

In other developments on Friday, Oxfam International's executive director Winnie Byanyima said the charity would "do justice" and "atone for the past" by setting up a commission to investigate past and present allegations of exploitation by staff.

She invited victims to come forward "for justice to be done" for them, saying she was "here for all the women who have been abused".

And the obvious question is why was she not here before for all the women who have been abused.
They're always sorry after the fact, doing a fat lot of good to themselves or the victims. The BINGOs might have been too busy with self congratulatory, self righteous hedonism to deal with global child exploitation and sex tourism - eh?. I'm past caring about restraint after years of listening to this shite from too many places. They deserve a hefty size 12 boot in the groin.
 
Threads like this always seem the same. People seem convinced that they, or their organisation is so righteous normal moral standards and legal safeguards do not apply.

Perhaps it is down to naivety - but since when was that a defence against negligence? Turning a blind eye to individuals (it cane only be a handful) to use the cover of charity work to sexually exploit children, in devasted parts of the world with little law enforcement.
 
There's a lot of truth in this.

3. The NGO operate in conditions of 'market failure'. The beneficiaries are not the customers. Thus there are complexities in measuring success. Instead of it being a back and forth deal (like in a shop) it's more of a triangle:

a. Government to NGO
b. NGO to beneficiaries
c. Feedback loop (beneficiaries to donors)
Surely more like a triangle with a big leak on one of the sides. Up to 75% loss from a. to b. is a pretty big anchor to be dragging around for any good work that good people do.

But that's okay, because compared to raping children, it doesn't matter.
 
Giving to charity is old hat nowadays. Everybody knows that “raising awareness” is where the kool kids are at. What’s the point in donating towards a well in Africa if you don’t get a wristband for it?
Donations? Charities don't want donations these days, they want you to set up a Direct Debit so the money rolls in every month.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top