Charities

[Merging Cultures]

I am surprised there isn't a thread on what's been going on with Oxfam, and charities more generally.

 

I've worked with some of the largest international charities, and I am not surprised about the Oxfam allegations. I know some very sketchy people in the sector. Often they are the ones that rise to the top, because the majority of people I have worked with involved in the design and implementation of projects, rather than the management of the country offices, have been really honest and genuine people, who only want to make a difference.

 

I've worked in Haiti, just short term stuff, and it takes a special type of person to be there long term. Often those special people are a bit dodgy.

[leicsmac]

It's like any other organisation of any size to be honest, regardless of intent: the higher up the tree you go the more power those that are there have, and the more susceptible to corruption they become.

 

The problem is that now there are those who will use these allegations to disparage the entirely good and indeed necessary work that such organisations carry out.

[Rogstanley]

Wasn’t it just a few workers employing the services of prostitues? If legal and consensual then I don’t see it as particularly immoral never mind the scandal it has been presented as. Oldest profession in the world meets people working abroad away from home. Come on, grow up, of course a bit of that was going to happen.

[Innovindil]

13 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Wasn’t it just a few workers employing the services of prostitues? If legal and consensual then I don’t see it as particularly immoral never mind the scandal it has been presented as. Oldest profession in the world meets people working abroad away from home. Come on, grow up, of course a bit of that was going to happen.

Think it's more about the fact they should be there offering aid to a people going through bullshit, not shagging locals desperate for food and water. 

 

Throw in the "rumours" that some of these girls were underage, then you've got a pretty ****ed up situation on your hands. 

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Think it's more about the fact they should be there offering aid to a people going through bullshit, not shagging locals desperate for food and water. 

 

Throw in the "rumours" that some of these girls were underage, then you've got a pretty ****ed up situation on your hands. 

Aid workers are allowed to have free time. The idea that they should be held to higher standards than anyone else is nonsensical. They're already doing far more than most people ever will to help out.

 

Like I said it has to be legal and consensual otherwise it's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Aid workers are allowed to have free time. The idea that they should be held to higher standards than anyone else is nonsensical. They're already doing far more than most people ever will to help out.

 

Like I said it has to be legal and consensual otherwise it's a whole different kettle of fish.

It’s a bit dicey if they are spending money donated to the charity in good faith, I see your point but I’d think twice before donating to oxfam now.

[Guest Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Aid workers are allowed to have free time. The idea that they should be held to higher standards than anyone else is nonsensical. They're already doing far more than most people ever will to help out.

 

Like I said it has to be legal and consensual otherwise it's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

Prostitution is illegal in Haiti. 

 

And that ignores the new accusations of sex for aid, which if true is as abhorrent as you could be.

[Izzy]

Oxfam say that paying £300 will provide clean water for a Bangladeshi family for a year.

 

So why do those buggers at Severn Trent Water charge me £400 a year for cloudy water? 

[Jimothy]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It's like any other organisation of any size to be honest, regardless of intent: the higher up the tree you go the more power those that are there have, and the more susceptible to corruption they become.

 

The problem is that now there are those who will use these allegations to disparage the entirely good and indeed necessary work that such organisations carry out.

Yeah that's a valid point. You often see it with scandals, some people start baying for blood and won't be happy until the whole organisation or company involved is completely disbanded. Almost as though seeing justice done isn't enough, they have to cause total and utter destruction, without a second thought of the fall out, to be totally satisfied at the outcome.

[Guest]

Fact is most big charities have headquarters in London - they don't need to - and pay their corporate bods over £100k a year. 

 

That said, I think it's unfair to link the great work oxfam does with the actions of a few. 

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Fact is most big charities have headquarters in London - they don't need to - and pay their corporate bods over £100k a year. 

 

That said, I think it's unfair to link the great work oxfam does with the actions of a few. 

Not everyone can afford to work for less than market rate.  I agree about London offices though.  The RSPCA have their faults, but they for example have sensibly located their HQ near me in West Sussex.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not everyone can afford to work for less than market rate.  I agree about London offices though.  The RSPCA have their faults, but they for example have sensibly located their HQ near me in West Sussex.

That's the main point really. Why be based in London? Surely better to be based in Stoke.

[Great Boos Up]

Cynical but as in most large organisations I imagine an awful lot of money is wasted and those at the top cream off it in the name of charity. My wife and I believe that charity begins at home and every Christmas and birthday instead of a present we exchange receipts for a local charity.

Had my birthday recently and got a £25 receipt for East Midlands Air Ambulance. I really liked that as I do drive a lot.

One Christmas I secretly did some OAP community work (not a lot, just some time) and got the benefactors to sign a Christmas card to my wife. Their words would make you cry.

[Strokes]

33 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That's the main point really. Why be based in London? Surely better to be based in Stoke.

I was with you until the Stoke bit.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I was with you until the Stoke bit.

 

Stoke is more in need of charity organisations than Haiti.

[Parafox]

Corruption occurs when organisations become too powerful. Oxfam, RSPCA, Save The Children... and many others have grown to be bigger than many non-charity companies. In my opinion, only a percentage of the money they get from donations, whether it be a fiver from an online appeal or thousands from a mad cat lady, gets spent on the charity itself. I don't know how you can give money in good faith that it will be spent on the cause you give it to.

It seems charity executives  and non-execs get paid a good premium for their services and millions upon millions are given to all kinds of charities to resolve the issues they purport to support yet so much seems to be  paid to those at the top of the managerial levels. There needs to be laws in place to stop any money grabbing by the wealthy who see might  see board membership of a charity as a way of making more for themselves by creaming off money by being a "chief Executive"

Charities are as corrupt as big businesses. That's my opinion.

Edited 15 February 2018 by Parafox

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Parafox said:

Corruption occurs when organisations become too powerful. Oxfam, RSPCA, Save The Children... and many others have grown to be bigger than many non-charity companies. Only a percentage of the money they get from donations, whether it be a fiver from an online appeal or thousands from a mad cat lady, gets spent on the charity itself. I don't know how you can give money in good faith that it will be spent on the cause you give it to.

Charity executives  and non-execs get paid a good premium for their services and millions upon millions are given to all kinds of charities to resolve the issues they purport to support yet so much is paid to those at the top of the managerial levels. There needs to be laws in place to stop money grabbing by the wealthy who see board membership of a charity as a way of making more for themselves by creaming off money by being a "chief Executive"

Charities are as corrupt as big businesses

The thing that always occupies my mind, is it’s not in their interests to solve the problem. For example, cancer research uk, if they did find a cure, what do they do? Wrap up the organisation and make everyone redundant? 

[Stadt]

Interesting thread about it, obviously some generalisations but it's not difficult to believe 

https://twitter.com/robesonblogs/status/963008274193936384

 

No idea why it isn't embedding

 

 

Aghh wtf is this highlighter thing 

Edited 14 February 2018 by Wookie

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The thing that always occupies my mind, is it’s not in their interests to solve the problem. For example, cancer research uk, if they did find a cure, what do they do? Wrap up the organisation and make everyone redundant? 

This is operating on the assumption that these folks view the work they're doing now (and the money they get for it) as a higher priority than helping the people they help. Which of course begs the question of why they'd get involved in that line of work in the first place?

Edited 14 February 2018 by leicsmac

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

This is operating on the assumption that these folks view the work they're doing now (and the money they get for it) as a higher priority than helping the people they help. Which of course begs the question of why they'd get involved in that line of work in the first place?

No you’re misreading me, I’m not assuming anything, just saying it’s something that popped in my head once and now creeps in every so often It’s pure imagination at the bittersweet nature of fixing the problem but then what happens after.

I was talking to someone at the British heart foundation not long ago and they telling me of some progress they made and it ran through my mind then too.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

5 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Aid workers are allowed to have free time. The idea that they should be held to higher standards than anyone else is nonsensical. They're already doing far more than most people ever will to help out.

 

Like I said it has to be legal and consensual otherwise it's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

Come on think about it Rog - most jobs these days insert terms into employee contracts about behaviour on social media and the like because you could be seen as representing the business even if those posts are outside of work time. People have been sacked before for social media posts outside of work and completely unrelated to their jobs.

 

Additionally, in certain businesses there are higher expectations of conduct that include hours not on the jobs - the police, MP’s and you know - charity workers working abroad.

 

And that’s not unreasonable either if you consider as part of that work they represent the face of the charity; once that recognition is in place, you can’t just take it off again when you clock off for the night; you will still be primarily recognised by most as ‘that aid worker from Oxfam” rather than “The Mr who enjoys finger up bum” by the few who’s services you seek.

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Oxfam say that paying £300 will provide clean water for a Bangladeshi family for a year.

 

So why do those buggers at Severn Trent Water charge me £400 a year for cloudy water? 

 

Because the idiots as Oxfam are giving it away at cost!

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 hours ago, toddybad said:

Fact is most big charities have headquarters in London - they don't need to - and pay their corporate bods over £100k a year. 

 

That said, I think it's unfair to link the great work oxfam does with the actions of a few. 

 

• Where is the nations wealth mainly centred? 
• Where in the nation would you find most of the wealthy philanthropists? 
• Where in the nation is the greatest range of transport links, nationally and internationally.
• Where can you find a large concentration of highly skilled people in a wide range of activities / industry sector.
• If you’re an international charity, which city in this nation has the greatest name recognition?

A base in London may cost more - but there are clear reasons why any large organisation would seek to be based there.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

54 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Corruption occurs when organisations become too powerful. Oxfam, RSPCA, Save The Children... and many others have grown to be bigger than many non-charity companies. Only a percentage of the money they get from donations, whether it be a fiver from an online appeal or thousands from a mad cat lady, gets spent on the charity itself. I don't know how you can give money in good faith that it will be spent on the cause you give it to.

Charity executives  and non-execs get paid a good premium for their services and millions upon millions are given to all kinds of charities to resolve the issues they purport to support yet so much is paid to those at the top of the managerial levels. There needs to be laws in place to stop money grabbing by the wealthy who see board membership of a charity as a way of making more for themselves by creaming off money by being a "chief Executive"

Charities are as corrupt as big businesses

 

Careful, what you’ve put there is defamatory that would leave you open to libel (although any claimant would need to prove serious harm was caused, so you probably have an out there).

 

The specific defences available to you however would be ‘truth’ or ‘honest opinion’ - but the difficulty with the later is your post reads more as ‘fact’ than just simply your views on the subject. 

 

A truth defence would be tricky as well, because I understand registered charities are now legally required to provide information about the percentage of donations spent on administration (and quote in their accounts). Indeed, Oxfam have such a page here; https://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/how-we-spend-your-money

 

Of course it is perfectly ok to hold an opinion and post it on a forums board (which I believe was your intention), but in legal terms these do need to be seen to have been formed from a form of verifiable evidence; and naturally a link or two to back up the claims made would only benefit the strength of your argument, so these are things worth considering when making comment on sensitive areas.

 

Thus ends today’s legal lecture. 

(next weeks lecture: copyright infringement!)

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

No you’re misreading me, I’m not assuming anything, just saying it’s something that popped in my head once and now creeps in every so often It’s pure imagination at the bittersweet nature of fixing the problem but then what happens after.

I was talking to someone at the British heart foundation not long ago and they telling me of some progress they made and it ran through my mind then too.

Ah, right - thanks for adding a little clarity, then.

 

It certainly is a cynical possibility, but not one that I think really merits an awful lot of consideration because charities (at least at ground level) don't tend to attract people of that nature anyway.