Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: floo on February 10, 2018, 01:51:14 PM
-
deleted
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
I reckon this major screw up is likely to affect donations to the charity. We have given quite generously to Oxfam over the years, but will think twice before donating again. They need to get their house in order.
What do you think 'getting their house in order' means in terms of actions?
-
Ensuring that all the money donated is used for the purpose intended.
The accusations seem to revolve the behaviour of staff not the use of money.
-
Apparently that is not entirely clear, from what I heard on the news.
It's not referred to in the link you posted
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
I reckon this major screw up is likely to affect donations to the charity. We have given quite generously to Oxfam over the years, but will think twice before donating again. They need to get their house in order.
This was all some years ago, and those concerned resigned. The admission is that some Oxfam workers used prostitutes at a villa rented by Oxfam, not that they used donated money to pay for prostitution services.
As far as I am concerned, Oxfam have acted correctly, and the matter should be considered to be closed.
-
The matter should not be closed.
What do you think is a problem about how they dealt with it?
-
I refer you to my revised post. It would appear at the very least there was a cover up.
How if there was an investigation and action taken is it a cover up?
-
The matter should not be closed, especially as it was people who Oxfam was supposed to be helping who were abused in this way.
I do not consider the use of a prostitute and then paying the prostitute for services rendered to be abuse per se. Abuse would be forcing somebody to do something that they did not want to do, which is something different. As to using premises paid for by Oxfam, for illegal activities, that is a matter for the Haitian police.
-
Could you please explain exactly what abuse took place? I have not found any reference to abuse per se only references to "staff using prostitutes".
Sex rears its head and Victorian moralistic attitudes take over.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
I reckon this major screw up is likely to affect donations to the charity. We have given quite generously to Oxfam over the years, but will think twice before donating again. They need to get their house in order.
I don't see how what Oxfam workers get up to privately, however unsavoury, has anything to do with the ethos of Oxfam. They didn't use donations to fund their shenanigans. The article is scandalmongering, it's a great pity the story got out. Oxfam do sterling work.
-
Could you please explain exactly what abuse took place? I have not found any reference to abuse per se only references to "staff using prostitutes".
Sex rears its head and Victorian moralistic attitudes take over.
According to the news the women and children who prostituted themselves were very vulnerable and forced to do so in order to try to keep starvation at bay.
-
Indeed, Robbie. And, I suppose, using the services of a prostitute is a way of getting money circulating, getting economic activity going again after the disastrous earthquake.
-
According to the news the women and children who prostituted themselves were very vulnerable and forced to do so in order to try to keep starvation at bay.
If you can provide a link as to this allegation then I will take a look & may change my opinion.
-
According to the news the women and children who prostituted themselves were very vulnerable and forced to do so in order to try to keep starvation at bay.
Thank you for replying.
In circumstances where everyone was vulnerable. None of us know how we would behave in such circumstances. The situations may not necessarily have been abusive.
I am not condoning prostitution arising from desperation, but over 100,000 people had been killed and others were dying. Half a million people were homeless. Allowing someone to buy sex from you may even have seemed desirable if it gave you some comfort, perhaps some food and some money. In addition, we don't really know what the cultural attitudes to prostitution were among the Haitian poor.
Which brings us back to Oxfam. Perhaps, as distributors of aid it would have been preferable for the charity's workers to have retained some degree of non-involvement with the personal lives of their clients. But I think that the British government's attitude towards Oxfam does seem a little strange. Presumably, being Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson may be involved in this.
-
In any case, the workers who did avail themselves of the local hospitality in Haiti have either been sacked or resigned (despite not doing anything illegal), so one can hardly judge an organisation on the behaviour of a few members of staff out of thousands. It has all been blown up out of proportion & I sincerely hope Oxfam will not be affected because it does sterling work.
-
If you can provide a link as to this allegation then I will take a look & may change my opinion.
I have just read the BBC report and it mentions "vunerable people", presumably somebody seems to think that all prostitutes are automatically "vunerable", which they are not.
If three officials from Oxfam used consenting prostitutes & paid for such services with their own money, then I don't see that anybody has been exploited. I do appreciate that to do so on premises rented by a charity would not be considered to be acceptable by some who donated to that charity, and it was correct for the persons concerned to have resigned.
That has happened. I don't see a problem.
-
In any case, the workers who did avail themselves of the local hospitality in Haiti have either been sacked or resigned (despite not doing anything illegal), so one can hardly judge an organisation on the behaviour of a few members of staff out of thousands. It has all been blown up out of proportion & I sincerely hope Oxfam will not be affected because it does sterling work.
Prostitution is illegal in Haiti, but as I mentioned above, that is a matter for the local authorities.
-
Right. Is it illegal to offer the service or illegal to buy it, or both?
As you say, at the discretion of the local authorities.
If the Oxfam people were doing something illegal (which they may not have realised, the laws on prostitution are so vague in many countries), that was reprehensible but they were either sacked or resigned in the wake of it so I'd have thought, all over.
-
Slightly off topic, my husband used to help out in an Oxfam shop. He got annoyed when he discovered that the good quality items we donated were never put on display. We can only assume they were taken by the shop workers. He got so fed up he gave up helping out there! We have not donated items to that particular charity shop since then.
They may have been bought by the volunteers. Why assume they’d been taken?
-
In any case, the workers who did avail themselves of the local hospitality in Haiti have either been sacked or resigned (despite not doing anything illegal), so one can hardly judge an organisation on the behaviour of a few members of staff out of thousands. It has all been blown up out of proportion & I sincerely hope Oxfam will not be affected because it does sterling work.
You are right in that one can hardly judge an organization by the behaviour of a few members of staff, but you are wrong to say that it wasn't illegal according to the country that they were in. It is illegal under Haitian law, as well as being against the Oxfam code of conduct and contrary to UN guidelines. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
However the offending individuals seem to have been sacked or have resigned, so, unless something else comes to light, then that should be the end of it in my opinion.
-
It’s really quite appalling that aid workers paid to have sex with people in a vulnerable situation. But they were sacked, Oxfam seem to have disclosed the facts as they knew them. Maybe there needs to be a register of those sacked for exploiting clients sexually to ensure they cannot go in to work with other vulnerable people, but that’s not up to Oxfam.
-
I suspect things are clearer now.
The government has (a) used the word "abuse" without evidence of genuine abusive behaviour, (b) introduced the concept "safeguarding" into the discussion and (c) exhibited a Victorian disgust at the concept of sex.
It is now considering using the moral authority it thinks it has acquired to make cuts to the money it gives for overseas aid. How cynical.
I suspect that many of the people working for the charities are young and see little wrong with sexual activity with other young people. If this is so, then it is a matter of education - which is a concern for the charities employing them. Not HM government.
-
Consorting with prostitutes, whether they are vulnerable or not, is DISGUSTING behaviour, people who indulge in that sort of behaviour are the lowest of the low, imo. >:( Charity workers are bound to bring the their charity into disrepute if they get involved with prostitutes when they are supposedly bringing aid to those who need it. I am glad the Government is looking into this.
-
Consorting with prostitutes, whether they are vulnerable or not, is DISGUSTING behaviour, people who indulge in that sort of behaviour are the lowest of the low, imo. >:( Charity workers are bound to bring the their charity into disrepute if they get involved with prostitutes when they are supposedly bringing aid to those who need it. I am glad the Government is looking into this.
Lets do the knee jerk again.
Just a lurch to the right....
-
Lets do the knee jerk again.
Just a lurch to the right....
?
-
?
Your blanket condemnation of people who use prostitutes as the lowest of the low sounded like a kneejerk reaction to me. My response was a paraphrase of a popular song lyric. The reference, given your aversion to music, you probably did not get.
-
Your blanket condemnation of people who use prostitutes as the lowest of the low sounded like a kneejerk reaction to me. My response was a paraphrase of a popular song. The reference, given your aversion to music, you probably did not get.
It is what I think. I just can't imagine why anyone would wish to do so, it is creepy. :o
-
It is what I think. I just can't imagine why anyone would wish to do so, it is creepy. :o
The lowest of the low?
I thought you reserved that for paedophiliac scum.
Anyway, people use prostitutes for a variety of reasons, some reasons I find understandable, others less so. To dismiss them all in the fashion you did just sounds somewhat blinkered and prejudiced.
-
The lowest of the low?
I thought you reserved that for paedophiliac scum.
Anyway, people us prostitutes for a variety of reasons, some reasons I find understandable, others less so. To dismiss them all in the fashion you did just sounds somewhat blinkered and prejudiced.
I have no problem about being considered blinkered and prejudiced on this issue.
-
I have no problem about being considered blinkered and prejudiced on this issue.
You really didn't need to state the obvious.
-
You really didn't need to state the obvious.
;D
-
I suspect things are clearer now.
The government has (a) used the word "abuse" without evidence of genuine abusive behaviour, (b) introduced the concept "safeguarding" into the discussion and (c) exhibited a Victorian disgust at the concept of sex.
It is now considering using the moral authority it thinks it has acquired to make cuts to the money it gives for overseas aid. How cynical.
I suspect that many of the people working for the charities are young and see little wrong with sexual activity with other young people. If this is so, then it is a matter of education - which is a concern for the charities employing them. Not HM government.
I both agree and disagree with this. If people who needed aid were given some (money, jobs, produce) in exchange for sex then that is abuse - it's an abuse of power and I've no problem with the word used in this context. There does need to be safeguarding in place because people in a position of power and privilege will be in contact with vulnerable and desperate people when working in the field.
This issue for me is that it is clear that Oxfam have reviewed their procedures and have far better and more robust contracts and safeguarding procedures in place.
I also don't think this is a case of young people thinking it's ok to pay for sex with other young people. It's emerged that prositutes had visited an Oxfam-rented property in Chad - at the time when Roland van Hauwermeiren worked there. He was the man in charge of the programme in Haiti too. Seems far more like a case of a bad apple.
I agree that the government are looking at ways of jettisoning Oxfam, or at least clipping their wings. This from Morduant is pretty chilling:
I am going to afford them the opportunity to speak to me tomorrow, but I want to make clear: it doesn’t matter if you’ve got a whistleblowing hotline. It doesn’t matter you’ve got good safeguarding practices in place. If the moral leadership at the top of the organisation isn’t there, we cannot have you as a partner,
So she isn't going to look at the kinds of procedures accepted in any other sphere where people work with the vulnerable, but on her own judgement of what is 'moral'. I don't think the Govt can change the overseas aid budget so I don't think this is about cuts, but is rather being played as an opportunity to exercise control over charities that may be critical of government and a thorn in their side.
And of course it's a distraction from all the other shit. 'Look how on the ball we are here'. No you aren't, fuck off.
-
Consorting with prostitutes, whether they are vulnerable or not, is DISGUSTING behaviour, people who indulge in that sort of behaviour are the lowest of the low, imo. >:(
What is intrinsically wrong with having sex with somebody in exchange for money? Why are you so disgusted by the idea?
Charity workers are bound to bring the their charity into disrepute if they get involved with prostitutes when they are supposedly bringing aid to those who need it. I am glad the Government is looking into this.
OK, especially if the prostitutes are in desperate straits. But what do you want Oxfam to do about it? As I understand, everybody involved has resigned or been fired. What more is there to do?
-
What is intrinsically wrong with having sex with somebody in exchange for money? Why are you so disgusted by the idea?
OK, especially if the prostitutes are in desperate straits. But what do you want Oxfam to do about it? As I understand, everybody involved has resigned or been fired. What more is there to do?
Excuse me whilst I vomit. :o
As for Oxfam, the story isn't going to go away, and nor should it.
-
Excuse me whilst I vomit. :o
As for Oxfam, the story isn't going to go away, and nor should it.
I find people using 'while I vomit' in sentences where it is completely unnecessary quite repulsive.
The story is being milked by the right wing who see the charitable sector as a tool of the left. Your blinkered 'morality' just panders to that.
-
What is intrinsically wrong with having sex with somebody in exchange for money? Why are you so disgusted by the idea?
OK, especially if the prostitutes are in desperate straits. But what do you want Oxfam to do about it? As I understand, everybody involved has resigned or been fired. What more is there to do?
Agree with this.
-
Excuse me whilst I vomit. :o
As for Oxfam, the story isn't going to go away, and nor should it.
I asked you two questions:
1. What is intrinsically wrong about giving somebody money in exchange for sex?
2. What more should Oxfam do about the current story?
You have answered neither of them. Please give my questions some consideration.
-
Let's have a look at why the government might want to do exactly what Floo suggests and replace the current board with their own Yes men/women.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/refugees-suicidal-immigration-policies-family-reunification-refugee-council-oxfam-a8185371.html
Trump will approve.
-
I can't imagine how anyone cannot see anything wrong in paying someone for sex, I think having sex with a prostitute is morally reprehensible. Besides which, sexually transmitted diseases are rife among prostitutes and their clients.
That is still not an answer. I certainly agree that there are problems with prostitution as it currently exists, but this is more much to do with societal attitudes to it than whether it is intrinsically wrong to pay for sex. So, please, what is intrinsically wrong about paying money for sex. Most (actually, I would say all) of the problems associated with prostitution stem from the fact that it is effectively illegal.
It would appear, if the Oxfam reports are correct, that there has been a major cover up, and the abuse was more widespread than first thought. I think the Government should insist the whole of the Oxfam top brass should be replaced by people who have no stain on the characters, before giving another penny to the charity.
As far as I can see, there are now two claims of using prostitutes, both involving the same staff who have now gone. Seriously, what more could Oxfam do?
If I am blinkered, so be it. I have said my piece, and will leave it there. Enjoy yourselves slagging me off. ::)
It's not that you are blinkered, but you keep coming out with opinions that could be described as forthright but you are not prepared to discuss them.
-
LR: I can't imagine how anyone cannot see anything wrong in paying someone for sex, I think having sex with a prostitute is morally reprehensible. Besides which, sexually transmitted diseases are rife among prostitutes and their clients.
Sex workers are far more careful with regard to STDs than anyone else - because their livelihoods depend on them being clean.
We don't know much about the prostitutes who entertained the Oxfam people in Haiti but they may well have been sophisticated professionals, not poor exploited people.
-
STDs can be an issue for sex workers, but they are an issue for anyone who is sexually active and who changes partner. I think it's unlikely that the prostitutes in Haiti were anything other than desperate, but as already noted the Oxfam worker responsible has a history of using prostitutes and no longer works for the organisation.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/11/oxfam-foreign-aid-jacob-rees-mogg
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/11/oxfam-foreign-aid-jacob-rees-mogg
Yes the BBC have announced that there is now a question mark on all charities. And Government funding is at risk.
-
Yes the BBC have announced that there is now a question mark on all charities. And Government funding is at risk.
I don't see the overseas aid budget disappearing until Mogg is PM. What i do think though is that charities will no longer get the dosh and instead it will be given directly to those countries that we will be relying on getting trade deals with post Brexit our new friends and partners.
-
Why is it that whenever I see or hear or read anything about Rees Mogg I immediately think of the parable pf the Pharisee and the Tax Collector?
-
I was actually thinking of starting a thread to see if anyone has any ideas on how a committed Christian can not only be so, well, unchristian, but actually miss the point of much of what Jesus taught entirely.
-
I watched Marr yesterday and having listened to Govt thought this sounded very bad. Prostitution is legal the orgys clearly should have meant people were dismissed which they were, case closed?
Or am I missing something?
-
You are right in that one can hardly judge an organization by the behaviour of a few members of staff, but you are wrong to say that it wasn't illegal according to the country that they were in. It is illegal under Haitian law, as well as being against the Oxfam code of conduct and contrary to UN guidelines. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
However the offending individuals seem to have been sacked or have resigned, so, unless something else comes to light, then that should be the end of it in my opinion.
And, it seems, plenty has now come to light, with, no doubt, plenty more to come. I think that it is a good thing that we are now starting to examine more seriously how charities vet their personnel and how they conduct their business.
-
And, it seems, plenty has now come to light, with, no doubt, plenty more to come. I think that it is a good thing that we are now starting to examine more seriously how charities vet their personnel and how they conduct their business.
It will definitely be avoid thing if we avoid the politicisation of it, and look at how charity works across the board.
-
And, it seems, plenty has now come to light, with, no doubt, plenty more to come. I think that it is a good thing that we are now starting to examine more seriously how charities vet their personnel and how they conduct their business.
You think that charities should ask any prospective employees if they use prostitutes? :o
-
You think that charities should ask any prospective employees if they use prostitutes? :o
Possibly the question would be have you broken the law in another country?
-
Possibly the question would be have you broken the law in another country?
My understanding is that if you break the law in another country & that law is repugnant to English/Scottish/ NI law, then it is not automatically enforceable in any of the latter.
TBH such a question reminds me of some TUPE agreements, where the new company asks TUPE employees to sign bits of paper signing away their contractual rights, without actually changing their employment contract.
-
TUPE - Transfer of Undertakings(Protection of Employment) Regulations?
I had to look it up. Don't assume we are mind readers. ??? ???
-
TUPE - Transfer of Undertakings(Protection of Employment) Regulations?
I had to look it up. Don't assume we are mind readers. ??? ???
My apologies.
TUPE means that your employer loses the contract with their client, but you are given the chance to transfer to the new company under the same conditions.
-
Some interesting statistics. How ‘transparent’ are the major beneficiaries of UK multilateral aid I wonder.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43031911
-
My apologies.
TUPE means that your employer loses the contract with their client, but you are given the chance to transfer to the new company under the same conditions.
Thank you. I suspect that - with situations like that of Carillion around - it is an important consideration.
-
You think that charities should ask any prospective employees if they use prostitutes? :o
If prostitution was an illegal activity in a crisis hit country that a charitable organization was entering, then I would have thought that anyone who used prostitutes would be at risk of damaging the charity that they are representing. Hence, the charity needs to make sure that the personnel they employ are responsible as well as caring people.
-
Being a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, I intend to make a special donation to Oxfam.
-
From what I've read and heard over the past couple of days I feel the same as you. Oxfam has done so much good for so long despite the rotten apples which exist in all organisations. We will hear similar about other charities in due course & same applies to them.
-
I feel the same way, too.
We live in a world where morality is determined by venal red-top and blue-top "newspapers", Their editors seem to regard their own offices as pulpits.
-
I think since the original issue there have been more than enough questions and further issues raised that means some form of review of the sector, the Charities Commission and govt involvement - but somehow without the politicization of it.
ETA = one of the questions is that to properly police this, it will need charities to spend more of the money raised on such scrutiny, and people will have to accept that
-
I hadn't seen the murdering babies in cots remark, and had thought Goldring was handling this reasonably well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43121833