UKC

So due to a few isolated ass holes who couldn’t keep their weener in their pants and abused their seniority and trust; The government is potentially going to pull the £32m p/y of funding given to Oxfam. Factor the brand being associated with such grim activities, which will no doubt have a knock on effect with joe public i.e. favoring other charities over Oxfam. This is going to no doubt effect the very people who require the aid.

Name and shame the culprits. 

 

 

In reply to handofgod:

 

No.  It’s not their actions.  It’s the subsequent actions of the organisation.  It’s generally accepted that you get isolated people abusing their position, which is why the wider organisation as a whole has to follow obligations around compliance and reporting.

Funding isn’t just going to be yanked from Oxfam.  There will be an independent investigation to determine if they failed in their obligations around compliance and reporting.  Funding should be linked to organisations doing that right.

Throw in the significant dangers posed by the GDPR to the current chariteee approach of sending emotionally loaded begging letters out by mass mail shot, things aren’t looking good for Oxfam.

In reply to wintertree:

What frigging organisation is perfect? This is a politically motivated witch hunt against an organisation that does what most of us aren't prepared to do.

Personally I already pay Oxfam, I'm going to increase my DAD tomorrow.

In reply to handofgod:I’ve got a dd with Oxfam. Have had for years. I’m in no hurry to cancel it unless anything far more serious comes out. I think there is an awful lot of opportunism and political double standards here and it is being used as a hammer to bash the international aid sector at a time that there is a big populist push (right wing tabloids, I’m looking at you) to divert the overseas aid budget to fund domestic funding shortfalls.

which isn’t  to say there haven’t been some fairly big organisational failings by Oxfam and probably others, but there are still people out there relying on our help. 

And don’t get me started on the non issue of voluntary sector salaries or wastage. Compared to the average government department, it’s negligible.

 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

A lot of organisations have been getting a lot of press and regulatory attention over falling far short in legal compliance with reporting of sexual offences.  It’s not being called a witch hunt for any organisations except for Oxfam.  They’re barely a decimal point in the government’s aid budget, hardly a good target for political change.

In reply to handofgod:

This is ultimately the case. Whatever Oxfam's failings, they have the infrastructure in place to respond to worldwide events. Financially punishing them, be it by the government or private supporters is not a mature response as people in crisis will die.

I don't know what the solution is - more transparency? Better vetting of volunteers and staff?

Sad times.

In reply to toad:

Mini Driver is ditching her affiliation to Oxfam.  So will the public.

 

 

In reply to handofgod:

sorry. I’ve just worked out that mini driver isn’t some liberal female equivalent of mondeo man that I’d missed out on.

In reply to handofgod:

I may be cynical old git, but this issue has been known about for years. Why is it just being stirred up now? I suspect some politicians - Rees Mogg and Priti Patel, for starters - see it as a way of turning public opinion against any foreign aid. It took Mogg about 5 minutes to produce a petition with about a quarter million signatures, so don't tell me there wasn't a plot. Mogg - a devout Catholic, which I believe is a branch of Christianity - would apparently like to get rid of aid altogether.  But then he did visit a food bank and came away feeling "uplifted". Words fail me...     

In reply to handofgod:

I volunteered for them in africa for a couple of months last year; as an organisation they were difficult to work for, technically not great and spent $100 a night per person on accommodation and gave another $25 a day as food allowance, both which I thought excessive.  On the other hand I met the bravest person I've met in my life and other great people, between 25-50% seemed to be sponging though, particularly in management.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

It's interesting that it should emerge a few days after Rob Wilson, the former Conservative charity minister was attacking Oxfam for being left-wing - 

“It stands accused of being anti-capitalist, anti-wealth and anti-Conservative. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that it is now a front-group for extreme left-wing Corbynistas. It certainly gives every impression of being incapable of evidence-based rational argument."

In reply to handofgod:

Oxfam, as a huge organisation, should certainly have had far more robust SOP's in place regarding safeguarding. It smacks of either naivety (no idea how to spell that) or incompetence or laziness to not have rigorous vetting of volunteers and oversight. 

That being said... I work with quite a few international NGO's, and volunteer with a disaster response NGO. The response charity requires everyone to have a DBS - however when a disaster strikes, sometimes the role of the vetted volunteers is to supervise a team of spontaneous volunteers, who will not have been vetted.

 

The small NGO's require this as well, however vetting local volunteers or employees in sub-Saharan Africa can be very challenging beyond some oral references. 

Until more comes to light regarding the Oxfam events, I don't want to judge too harshly. Doesn't seem to have been handled particularly well though.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Can't think of any perfect organisations. Also can't think of many that would employ someone with a history of traveling to third world countries and hiring impoverished women for sex parties in villas provided by their employers.

Good for you, but doesn't every UK tax payer also pay for Oxfam ?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

 

You’re right; no organisation is perfect but, if there’s one sector or industry where it is imperative to operate above board and be squeaky clean, then it has to be charities.

 

They rely on the goodwill of the public. Any smear hugely jeopardises this an already fractures relationship.

 

 

 

How many times do you hear people say before donating to charity;

 

Where is my donation going?  

 

What % is actually spent on aid?

 

How much goes on fat cat salaries?

 

Etc etc.

 

 

It’s all about trust and Oxfam here have done themselves no favours.

 

 A terrible shame really.

 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Actually, minor point, but Rob Wilson wrote the original article in the Telegraph a few weeks ago though he rehashed it all on twitter the day the Oxfam story broke last week. He's just bitter because he lost his job at the election, and he was the latest in a succession of civil society ministers who were rubbish at their jobs, and are now attacking the sector that they were once responsible for. Disgusting.

Him, Patel and Rees-Mogg hate the likes of Oxfam because they have pointed out, quite rightly, that Conservative policies have increased poverty and inequality in the UK. So it takes some gall to accuse them of lacking evidence-based argument.

I don't think Wilson's stance is actually related to the Oxfam story. The Times journalist said his source came from within Oxfam and there is no reason to doubt this as further whistleblowers have come forward since. Nor was the Rees-Mogg petition directly related as that was organised by the Express (I think?)

There is certainly a lot of shameless opportunism from the usual Tory suspects though, seeking to ride a populist wave of resentment at the 0.7% overseas aid commitment.

In reply to handofgod:

I was impressed by the resignation compared to the usual equivocal shirking of responsibility and lack of shame. 

Penny Lawrence today (12/2/18) resigned as Deputy Chief Executive of Oxfam.

Lawrence said: "I am deeply sad to announce that I have resigned as Deputy Chief Executive of Oxfam GB.

"Over the last few days we have become aware that concerns were raised about the behaviour of staff in Chad as well as Haiti that we failed to adequately act upon. It is now clear that these allegations - involving the use of prostitutes and which related to behaviour of both the Country Director and members of his team in Chad - were raised before he moved to Haiti.

"As programme director at the time, I am ashamed that this happened on my watch and I take full responsibility.

"I am desperately sorry for the harm and distress that this has caused to Oxfam's supporters, the wider development sector and most of all the vulnerable people who trusted us.

"It has been such a privilege to work for such an amazing organisation that has done and needs to continue to do such good in the world."

https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2018/02/oxfam-announce...

In reply to handofgod:

It's important to recognise the actual effect of pulling that funding - it might not be what meets the eye for most members of the public. Public funding to Oxfam is essentially in the form of contracts to deliver specified services. If it was cut (which wouldn't happen immediately anyway), the funding would have to go to a different organisation. Staff would probably be TUPE'd across (not actually sure if this applies if they are working abroad...?). All this is bad for Oxfam, certainly, and particularly bad for their brand and trust in them, but not necessarily catastrophic. Anyway that is all worst case scenario...

Essentially what you've got here is the govt. can grandstand about Oxfam because it wants to look like it's doing something, and deflect blame - the obvious weak point for the govt is oversight via the charity commission - like all government functions it has been weakened by funding cuts under austerity. I suspect what will actually happen is there will be an enquiry (charity commission is doing this); it will find that Oxfam did a great deal wrong, and not a great deal will change.

Oxfam is a (very) large charity with a mixed income - trading, donations and public contracts - which puts it in a reasonably strong position. That said, I agree with you that the way the right wing press and some prominent tories have handled this is - there is clear sense they see this as revenge - is repellant.

 

Some other thoughts:

- the only sensible criticism of Oxfam is around whether they handled the original incident correctly at the time. As far as I can see they did, although doubtless they could have done it better. some actually sensible people are saying they covered it up but I don't see how that is a sustainable claim.

- Penny Mordaunt and a few others are basically saying they should have done more to stop them working again in the sector. this seems unfair to me - is there a precedent for this? would it apply in other sectors? People working in aid are often basiclaly free-lancers so how are you supposed to police this in reality. Basically you need to know somethign of the reality of how the industry works before whipping up manufactured outrage.

- Personally I won't condemn anything until I am pretty confident about the facts and can come to a rounded judgement. We now live in a world where the twitter mob can froth at the mouth and the print media in particular is so weak that everyone can shoot first and ask questions later. Awful.

 

 

I agree that this should happen and it will be interesting to see how the left wing critics tie themselves in knots when the ethnicity of some of the individuals is made apparent.

 

In reply to handofgod:

Imagine if Bus Driver or Train Driver did the same in the middle of a journey, just because they thought the bus company was not perfect.

 

She's more interested in enhancing her own standing with the sheep than helping Oxfam fix it.  Perhaps every nurse should leave the NHS because it is not perfect and it employed people like Dr Shipman?

In reply to handofgod:

Oxfam and any other charity shouldn't receive any government money.

If the government is using these organisations as a means to distribute UK aid money then they need to have a greater control over these charities.

If that means naming and shaming individuals who either commit illegal/immoral acts or cover them up then so be it.

A detailed examination of how overseas aid money is distributed is long overdue but for various reasons will probably never happen.

In reply to baron:

Why?

In reply to baron:

I don’t think I’m exaggerating if I say that’s probably impossible. Pretty much every charity, from private schools to cancer research to mountain rescue receive some form of government support somewhere down the line, be it tax relief, direct grants, money for specific projects or whatever. 

Im chair of the worlds smallest friends group, not a charity, way too small, but we’ve had funding from the local councillor and help in kind from the District. That is still government support. 

Even the lottery is effectively govt. money - look how quickly it’s been repurposed for the Olympic medal machine. It was never intended for that, but govt. control means that’s what it’s become

 

In reply to MG:

Because then they become open to political manipulation.

If a charity is a good cause it should be able to survive on public donations.

In reply to toad:

If a local council wants to support a local good cause then fine.

All other charities can depend upon the public to support them.

In reply to baron:

Some people think this but you haven't provided a reason. Charities have been receiving public money for decades if not over 100 yrs, so it isn't likely to change. Approx £14bn of taxpayers money goes to charities so it's a fairly substantial sum - though a drop in the ocean of mainstream public welfare spending however.

Spending the money entirely through publicly-controlled organisation doesn't solve the problem however. You'd have to create some sort of executive agency and therefore still have a principal-agent problem: ie the funder can't control all of the activity of the 

In this specific case the activity was individual and/or group behaviour outside of work hours (I assume). Do you think your employer should be held accountable for your (illegal) behaviour outside of work hours? Obviously it muddies the water if you are on work business away from home.

The rationale for using charities to deliver aid, amongst other things, is that they have greater expertise in delivering it, are more streamlined (basically cheaper) than public bureaucracies, and are more likely to be trustworthy in doing so. Obviously not perfect, nothing is, but that is broadly true.

Precisely the point that has received little coverage amongst the moral outrage. Prostitution may be illegal in Haiti but it was essentially a failed state and Oxfam seems to have taken what it thought was the best course of action in the circs. Obviously you are not in a better position to judge that. They clearly DID take the view the behaviour was immoral and a sackable offence.

Maybe but not for the reasons you give. Actually change almost certainly will happen: the Tories would love to reduce aid spending and Boris and others are angling to bring Dfid's budget under FCO control, which is code for making it purely a handmaiden of self-interested (neo-colonial) foreign policy, rather than a more rational assessment of need and impact/£. The irony of this is that UK aid has always largely been attuned to foreign policy, eg reducing migrant flows that impact on Europe etc.

In reply to Stig:

I don't believe that charities should receive government money because I think that the state should do less not more.

If a cause is worthwhile then let individuals donate.

While sending immediate aid, often utilising the military, in the face of a natural disaster is fine it isn't the job of the UK government to fund other countries development.

In reply to Stig:

The evidence suggests that the Tories don't want to reduce aid spending and in fact were the first ones to achieve the 0.7% of GNI as requested by the UN.  They also, in 2015, made achieving that target a legal duty and Theresa May reaffirmed that as part of the 2017 GE Manifesto.  Hardly a party that is aiming to reduce it.
There might well be individual Conservative MP's that want to review it, but official policy is to leave spending as it is.

 

In reply to baron:

I don't see how one follows from the other there.  Fine, you think the state should do less.  But given (I assume) you think it should do something, why shouldn't it, where appropriate, use charities to make that something happen?  As an example, universities are mostly charities. Do you think they should get no public money?  

In reply to MG:

Why are universities and many other organisations charities? Tax avoidance reasons?

Why should the government give them any money?

I can see how routing money through a charity might save the expense of setting up and running a separate public organisation and might make use of the charity's expertise. But then I'm struggling to think where the government should do this.

In reply to baron:

All things considered, you're a bit of a selfish tw*t really, aren't you? 

In reply to baron:

Because they are seen as acting for social good in various ways, rather than profit.  This gives various advantages in how they operate, including some tax benefits, yes.

Because higher education and fundamental research are of great benefit to the country as a whole and can't by and large be effectively provided without public funding

You seem to be contradicting yourself.  If you can see this, why do you object to the government spending money on charities?

So in  your view the government has no role to play in any of the following legal activities of charities??

1. the prevention or relief of poverty
2. the advancement of education
3. the advancement of religion
4. the advancement of health or the saving of lives
5. the advancement of citizenship or community development
6. the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
7. the advancement of amateur sport
8. the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
9. the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
10. the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
11. the advancement of animal welfare
12. the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
13. other purposes currently recognized as charitable and any new charitable purposes which are similar to another charitable purpose.

In reply to Stig:

Employment law prevents blacklisting, and data protection law prevents sharing allegations of wrongdoing between employers, unless the employee has given their old employer explicit permission to share such.  I think this is going to be much more strict come the GDPR in a few months.

Any such information sharing would need explicit legislative support and almost certainly government oversight.

What can be done within the law is to be as open and transparent as required by law, so that the legal system can decide on guilt and then the DBS can prevent guilty parties returning to such work.

This all revolves around the concept of someone being innocent until proven guilty, and protects employees from malicious allegations.  The problem is it doesn’t protect vulunerable people from malicious employees until they get caught - almost by necessity after their first act(s) of harm.

I really don’t know what the “right” answer is, although an employer not complying fully with the law is clearly a wrong answer.

In reply to Tyler:

Possibly.

How can you tell?

In reply to MG:

Gosh you type quickly.

In an attempt to answer your long list of charities that the government should give money to - 

1 - 13. No

This doesn't mean that I don't think that these charities shouldn't exist just that they should survive on public donations, fundraising, etc. Then the public can decide what they want their money spent on.

The government should be responsible for and take control of some of the things on your list, otherwise why have a government? (Now there's an idea). if charities wish to add to these efforts then good on them.

We can also have the debacle which is the National Lottery where certain citizens are taxed, sorry, buy a lottery ticket, and the government hands out this money to its good causes.

In reply to baron:

So basically you think the government has no role except defence?  Or maybe we should each choose our own militia and pay ourselves?

I think Tyler's on to something.

In reply to baron:

Interesting, because it was partly Thatcherism - "rolling back the frontiers of the state" - that led to an expansion of delivery by some charities. A good example in the 1980s was the expansion of spending on drug abuse reduction: the majority of the extra funding went to charities. Quite explicitly, the Conservatives wanted to give the money to charities because they thought they would do a better job. So there is an irony in what you say: Thatcher was indeed trying to get the state to 'do' less. Not so easy to spend less, particularly if your economic policies were partly responsible for increased poverty etc.

The reason this is not a good idea is because people don't donate to unpopular causes: AIDs in the 80s, drugs harm reduction, homelessness. Instead the public likes to donate to donkey sanctuaries, cat rescue and cancer charities. So it's not a good idea to leave spending entirely to the market in compassion.

You sound like BoJo (or even Trump)! As I said before, UK development spending is already heavily geared to foreign policy.At best it could be characterised as enlightened self-interest. I think you'll find that your libertarian free market view is pretty niche, for instance if you don't think it's a good idea to encourage recovery from wars and adaptation to climate change to reduce migrant flows into Europe.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Apologies, when I wrote 'Tories' earlier it was shorthand for 'Tories who are increasingly in the ascendancy in contemporary politics, particularly in the vacuum of sensible norms created by Brexit and the rise of nasty populist rhetoric'. You are right, Osborne in particular ensured 0.7% was enshrined in law. Osborne and Cameron are no longer in parliament. The 2017 Manifesto is entirely irrelevant. So officially no they are not aiming to remove the aid commitment but if Rees-Mogg or Johnson were to become PM it would be under threat, assuming there was enough bandwidth left over from leaving the EU.

 

In reply to MG:

I obviously didn't state my case clearly.

Actually I was too lazy to reply on a point to point basis.

The government needs to be responsible for what the people want or what they think the people want.

Hence each party having a manifesto.

Things like health, education, housing tend to be on most peoples lists.

Other things are more open to discussion.

There is a discussion to be had as to how much we want and expect government to do and how much we should provide for ourselves. But that's completely off topic.

In reply to Stig:

I wasn't suggesting that the government leaves everything up to charities but if the general population is more concerned with saving donkeys than homeless people then that surely sends a message to our politicians. Unless, of course, they think they know better than the people who voted for them.

I agree that much of foreign aid goes for political aims but that's not what it should be for.

Maybe we could call it something else more appropriate.

In reply to baron> I

Right. And on the list above. So why not fund charities to do some of that with public money. As you say, they exist and have the expertise.

 

In reply to MG:

Because in the examples I gave it's the governments job to provide these services.

There's an argument to be had for using experts to provide better services, as in outsourcing government projects, but then I think that charities receiving  government money in the future would need to be under far tighter control. As in money for a specific project for a specific time with measurable results.

In reply to baron:

So you would nationalize the universities ,health charities and housing associations etc?  How does this fit with thinking the government should do less?

 

 

In reply to MG:

Universities can fund themselves.

The good ones will survive and the poor ones can go to the wall.

Charities and housing associations likewise.

The government can run defence and provide universal health care, pensions, benefits and education.

Local government can provide emergency services, housing, bins, etc.

Charities and philanthropists can support whichever causes they like.

I'm sure I've missed lots of things out but you get the picture.

No charity receives any government funding without strict oversight, with a time limit and only when the government is not able to provide such a service.

Except the Donkey Sanctuary, Snowdonia National Park Society and the North West Air Ambulance which are my favourite charities.

In reply to baron:

I think you should move to perhaps Somalia, it would be more to your liking.  

In reply to baron:

What makes you think this isn't what happens?

In reply to MG:

Any particular reason you picked Somalia?

In reply to MG:

Children's Company or whatever it was called.

In reply to handofgod:

Maybe they could make some savings by not paying their management so much and moving their big fancy offices from Oxford to somewhere cheaper. Like Swindon. Or Stirling. Or Hull.

 

Maybe.

In reply to baron:

Practically no government.

In reply to baron:

That was a) acknowledged as a complete mess and mistake and b) I suspect in any case they had things to deliver.  I'm sure sometimes government just makes donations but by and large it will be specific things, like delivering UK aid effectively, that he government doesn't have the resources and expertise to do..

In reply to baron:

I thought right wingers thought charity was the solution.

In reply to The New NickB:

They probably do.

In reply to MG:

A government but not a very effective one.

I might as well stay in the UK.

In reply to MG:

 

I can assure it’s exactly what already happens. 

But as someone else above said, the principal-agent thing is called a problem for a reason.

The great thing about being retired is you could actually go away and learn this stuff. Or easier to make silly statements about how the U.K. is like Somalia...

 

In reply to seankenny:

Eh?  a) I am not retired. b) I never compared the UK and Somalia. c) I pointed out this is how government funding to charities mostly works.

In reply to MG:

Outsourcing? Boo, hiss, Carillion, Capita ....blah blah.....

In reply to MG:

Sorry that was for baron...

In reply to seankenny:

I've stated my case about the government funding of so called charities quite clearly.

I could spend lots of my retirement researching things but then I wouldn't post as much nonsense and smart arses like you would have nothing to reply to.

Have you got anything to add to this debate other than snidey comments?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hi PMP. I get that you are being facetious but it isn't actually outsourcing (or possibly sometimes, but only very rarely).

A typical example would be something like services for children with a physical disability or autism. When people became more aware of disability and didn't want their children to be shut away (and institutional settings were closed down), they set up their own charities to support each other and bring about change. Over time some of these got public funding to do various services - usually by local councils. So it's not outsourcing as it was never in house.

Similarly, following the 2012 Health Act more NHS services have been put out to competitive tender. Drug and alcohol services are sometimes won by big charities, and they deliver under contract to the NHS. More like outsourcing in this case.

Anyway, I take your point about the Left: given the bollocks that Corbyn spouts about nationalisation it would suggest he doesn't understand any of the nuance of this stuff.

In reply to Stig:

Not Tory policy then and not likely to be Tory policy unless there's a radical change in leadership?

In reply to baron:

My point was that you think government funds charities in a particular way but I’m afraid it doesn’t work like you seem to think it does. 

In reply to handofgod:

Archbishop Tutu has now cut ties with Oxfam. There goes anther big name.