Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
It is very very common in investigations to find that before recruitment or at an early stage during their employment there were warning signs about the individual. And, even more commonly, that these warning signs were ignored.
If you recruit people and ignore such warning signs, however minor, don’t be surprised if this comes back to bite you later.
Oxfam are also giving a master class in how to make a bad situation very very much worse.
Its CEO was stating on the news tonight that in 2011 it was not contrary to its Code of Conduct for its staff to use prostitutes, seemingly unaware of how such a statement came across. The question he should have asked himself when these allegations first surfaced and he was being advised that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct was: “ Would I be happy for this story and my response to be published on the front page of the newspaper?”
I was aghast when he said that. He has to go and go quickly
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
It is very very common in investigations to find that before recruitment or at an early stage during their employment there were warning signs about the individual. And, even more commonly, that these warning signs were ignored.
If you recruit people and ignore such warning signs, however minor, don’t be surprised if this comes back to bite you later.
Oxfam are also giving a master class in how to make a bad situation very very much worse.
Its CEO was stating on the news tonight that in 2011 it was not contrary to its Code of Conduct for its staff to use prostitutes, seemingly unaware of how such a statement came across. The question he should have asked himself when these allegations first surfaced and he was being advised that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct was: “ Would I be happy for this story and my response to be published on the front page of the newspaper?”
Ms Cyclefree - congratulations on your new venture. I hope it goes well.
It occurred to me that you should get in touch with the main PR agencies who deal with PR for large firms and other organisations. They are the ones who will be called in by a company if/when a scandal erupts, and they'll want to be able to craft a narrative along the lines of 'mistakes have been made, we deeply regret them, and we are taking all possible steps blah blah' - that will be much more convincing if they are able to back this up by saying they've hired you to sort out the corporate culture.
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
It is very very common in investigations to find that before recruitment or at an early stage during their employment there were warning signs about the individual. And, even more commonly, that these warning signs were ignored.
If you recruit people and ignore such warning signs, however minor, don’t be surprised if this comes back to bite you later.
Oxfam are also giving a master class in how to make a bad situation very very much worse.
Its CEO was stating on the news tonight that in 2011 it was not contrary to its Code of Conduct for its staff to use prostitutes, seemingly unaware of how such a statement came across. The question he should have asked himself when these allegations first surfaced and he was being advised that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct was: “ Would I be happy for this story and my response to be published on the front page of the newspaper?”
Ms Cyclefree - congratulations on your new venture. I hope it goes well.
It occurred to me that you should get in touch with the main PR agencies who deal with PR for large firms and other organisations. They are the ones who will be called in by a company if/when a scandal erupts, and they'll want to be able to craft a narrative along the lines of 'mistakes have been made, we deeply regret them, and we are taking all possible steps blah blah' - that will be much more convincing if they are able to back this up by saying they've hired you to sort out the corporate culture.
Bit of a poison chalice for Oxfam - but well done Cyclefree on your new venture. I wish you all the success in the World
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Radio Daily Mirror will be really struggling with their spin line of it is just the nasty evil Daily Mail pursuing their anti-overseas aid outlook.
Didn't you think Florence was going to be SM/CU too?
Edit: also, we wouldn't need a trade agreement if it were - so it isn't...
What I said about Florence is that May rejected every realistic outcome for Brexit, including the undesirable ones. They are all undesirable, that's the point.The speech was a blueprint for something that cannot exist.
I also noted May reached out to her European partners in Florence. She should have done that a year earlier when it might have made a difference.
Remainer thinks leaving is undesirable shocker?
More seriously, I am very grateful for Remainers continually Playing down expectations. Providing Brexit isn't on par with the opening of Pandora's Box, May is going to look like a titan.
What I think is neither here nor there. It's remarkable that Mrs May thinks all the realistic Leave outcomes are undesirable, hence she rejected them all in her Florence speech.
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
It is very very common in investigations to find that before recruitment or at an early stage during their employment there were warning signs about the individual. And, even more commonly, that these warning signs were ignored.
If you recruit people and ignore such warning signs, however minor, don’t be surprised if this comes back to bite you later.
Oxfam are also giving a master class in how to make a bad situation very very much worse.
Its CEO was stating on the news tonight that in 2011 it was not contrary to its Code of Conduct for its staff to use prostitutes, seemingly unaware of how such a statement came across. The question he should have asked himself when these allegations first surfaced and he was being advised that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct was: “ Would I be happy for this story and my response to be published on the front page of the newspaper?”
Ms Cyclefree - congratulations on your new venture. I hope it goes well.
It occurred to me that you should get in touch with the main PR agencies who deal with PR for large firms and other organisations. They are the ones who will be called in by a company if/when a scandal erupts, and they'll want to be able to craft a narrative along the lines of 'mistakes have been made, we deeply regret them, and we are taking all possible steps blah blah' - that will be much more convincing if they are able to back this up by saying they've hired you to sort out the corporate culture.
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
I'm more inclined to do so at the moment - I dislike the lynch mob approach of the press, and I think Oxfam do a good job which is being quite frivolously undermined to sell papers. Gave the Red Cross £1K last year, will probably make it Oxfam this time.
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
I'm more inclined to do so at the moment - I dislike the lynch mob approach of the press, and I think Oxfam do a good job which is being quite frivolously undermined to sell papers. Gave the Red Cross £1K last year, will probably make it Oxfam this time.
It is not frivolous to expose the illegal activities of Oxfam employees who have sought to exploit the very people they were there to help.
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
I'm more inclined to do so at the moment - I dislike the lynch mob approach of the press, and I think Oxfam do a good job which is being quite frivolously undermined to sell papers. Gave the Red Cross £1K last year, will probably make it Oxfam this time.
Given your anti-lynch mob stand (and think of the kids), perhaps make it £500 to things the Presidents Club used to support and £500 to Oxfam.
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
I'm more inclined to do so at the moment - I dislike the lynch mob approach of the press, and I think Oxfam do a good job which is being quite frivolously undermined to sell papers. Gave the Red Cross £1K last year, will probably make it Oxfam this time.
It is not frivolous to expose the illegal activities of Oxfam employees who have sought to exploit the very people they were there to help.
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
Oxfam have failed on all these key areas.
The most shocking thing for me isn't that a large organization has hired some wrong'uns, but when they found out there were they didn't think it was necessary to write references in such a manner / inform the authorities and other charities, that under no costs should you be letting a sex offender near you organization. And of course what happens, they go on to work again elsewhere in the charity sector.
It is not frivolous to expose the illegal activities of Oxfam employees who have sought to exploit the very people they were there to help.
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
Oxfam have failed on all these key areas.
I agree that the spotlight is showing misjudgments, but they mostly don't affect the primary mission that donors like me would want to support. You asked why anyone would donate to them now - the answer is because they generally help people in desperate need, even if they also occasionally make bad personnel decisions.
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
I'm more inclined to do so at the moment - I dislike the lynch mob approach of the press, and I think Oxfam do a good job which is being quite frivolously undermined to sell papers. Gave the Red Cross £1K last year, will probably make it Oxfam this time.
It is not frivolous to expose the illegal activities of Oxfam employees who have sought to exploit the very people they were there to help.
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
Oxfam have failed on all these key areas.
The most shocking thing for me isn't that a large organization has hired some wrong'uns, but when they found out there were they didn't think it was necessary to write references in such a manner / inform the authorities and other charities, that under no costs should you be letting a sex offender near you organization. And of course what happens, they go on to work again elsewhere in the charity sector.
It is the management/oversight failures that is driving the continued investigation. And it will take more than today's one resignation to draw a line under it. They need to accept the need for wholesale change and for all key trustees/board members/senior staff to step aside (without accepting any severance package) and for clean brooms to start rebuilding Oxfam.
The idea of any of them accepting a severance package is just revolting. This money would come from donations or from government support. Any move to pay off these people has to be resisted.
I don't care what their contracts say. They cannot be seen to be accepting cash given their clear failings.
Certainly doesn't look like one resignation is enough.
The brand is under serious threat if any of these allegations are proven and many more resignations will be demanded and in some cases the police need to be involved
Today's actions have certainly not been enough. And tonight's new revelations are particularly damaging.
Why would anyone now donate to Oxfam?
I'm more inclined to do so at the moment - I dislike the lynch mob approach of the press, and I think Oxfam do a good job which is being quite frivolously undermined to sell papers. Gave the Red Cross £1K last year, will probably make it Oxfam this time.
It is not frivolous to expose the illegal activities of Oxfam employees who have sought to exploit the very people they were there to help.
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
The point is that numerous allegations seem to have been made internally, and basically ignored. Whatever the truth of any particular individual allegation, systems to prevent abuse at the very least were insufficiently robust, and at worst utterly ineffective.
The relationship between aid workers and those receiving aid is one of very great power imbalance - in many respects greater than that between for example a teacher and a primary school child. Oxfam's apparent attitide towards safeguarding falls way below what would be accepted in a school.
It is not frivolous to expose the illegal activities of Oxfam employees who have sought to exploit the very people they were there to help.
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
Oxfam have failed on all these key areas.
I agree that the spotlight is showing misjudgments, but they mostly don't affect the primary mission that donors like me would want to support. You asked why anyone would donate to them now - the answer is because they generally help people in desperate need, even if they also occasionally make bad personnel decisions.
Of course it affects the 'primary mission' if they do not have systems in place that ensure those distributing aid so not abuse their power. That goes way beyond a few 'bad personnel decisions'. I think the comparison with a school is quite valid - safeguarding lies at the core of their activities, and appears not to have been taken seriously at all. It calls into question whether they are capable of properly fulfilling their primary mission. I think their are many who do not question the necessity of delivering aid who would agree with me. (edit - I quite understand the desire to push back against the Daily Mail narrative, but in this case, I think it is leading you to quite the wrong conclusions.)
It is not frivolous to expose the illegal activities of Oxfam employees who have sought to exploit the very people they were there to help.
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
Oxfam have failed on all these key areas.
I agree that the spotlight is showing misjudgments, but they mostly don't affect the primary mission that donors like me would want to support. You asked why anyone would donate to them now - the answer is because they generally help people in desperate need, even if they also occasionally make bad personnel decisions.
With the greatest respect, you are missing the point. If you are helping people in desperate need it is incumbent on you not to abuse your power or the desperation of those in need. Women and girls, in particular, who are desperate often feel they have no option but to prostitute themselves to survive. Ignoring that because other good things are done is really very frivolous and somewhat contemptuous of the misery those women have to endure.
This is not about an occasional bad personnel decision but about an organisation turning a blind eye to behaviour which both mocked and exploited the misery of the people it was claiming to help.
I am sure you mean well but you could maybe give your money to others who will achieve the ends you care about.
I'm more inclined to do so at the moment - I dislike the lynch mob approach of the press, and I think Oxfam do a good job which is being quite frivolously undermined to sell papers. Gave the Red Cross £1K last year, will probably make it Oxfam this time.
'Like'
I wouldn't want to say for sure whether we would make a move back into the EU in the long term or even medium term. One thing those banking on younger people turning more eurosceptic as they get older might be missing though is the waning power of the newspapers, the sources of information younger people use are more friendly / less hostile to the EU.
Although status quo presents a pretty powerful argument to stay out once we leave.
There was no great pro-European feeling in Britain before the referendum. Very few remainers believed in the utopian project of a United States of Europe. If we thought about the matter at all, we thought Britain already had a ‘bespoke’ deal with our opt-outs and rebates. The extremism of the pro-Brexit camp, its decision to turn EU withdrawal into a culture war, has created a pro-European sentiment where none existed before. Many millions of native-born British citizens have had their belief that Britain was a sensible, empirical nation, which did not engage in wanton acts of self-harm, shaken. They too are losing their bearings. Their sense of who they are and their previously secure national identity are wavering. Auclair notices the same process among what I suppose we will soon start calling ‘British Europeans’ (however absurd the label is). Brexit has made them care more deeply about the EU than they did before.
There was no great pro-European feeling in Britain before the referendum. Very few remainers believed in the utopian project of a United States of Europe. If we thought about the matter at all, we thought Britain already had a ‘bespoke’ deal with our opt-outs and rebates. The extremism of the pro-Brexit camp, its decision to turn EU withdrawal into a culture war, has created a pro-European sentiment where none existed before. Many millions of native-born British citizens have had their belief that Britain was a sensible, empirical nation, which did not engage in wanton acts of self-harm, shaken. They too are losing their bearings. Their sense of who they are and their previously secure national identity are wavering. Auclair notices the same process among what I suppose we will soon start calling ‘British Europeans’ (however absurd the label is). Brexit has made them care more deeply about the EU than they did before.
There was no great pro-European feeling in Britain before the referendum. Very few remainers believed in the utopian project of a United States of Europe. If we thought about the matter at all, we thought Britain already had a ‘bespoke’ deal with our opt-outs and rebates. The extremism of the pro-Brexit camp, its decision to turn EU withdrawal into a culture war, has created a pro-European sentiment where none existed before. Many millions of native-born British citizens have had their belief that Britain was a sensible, empirical nation, which did not engage in wanton acts of self-harm, shaken. They too are losing their bearings. Their sense of who they are and their previously secure national identity are wavering. Auclair notices the same process among what I suppose we will soon start calling ‘British Europeans’ (however absurd the label is). Brexit has made them care more deeply about the EU than they did before.
File under wishful thinking.
If it was true why is the only nationwide Pro EU party on single figures in the polls ?
It is not frivolous to expose the illegal activities of Oxfam employees who have sought to exploit the very people they were there to help.
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
Oxfam have failed on all these key areas.
I agree that the spotlight is showing misjudgments, but they mostly don't affect the primary mission that donors like me would want to support. You asked why anyone would donate to them now - the answer is because they generally help people in desperate need, even if they also occasionally make bad personnel decisions.
I await the next time a member of the government makes a “misjudgement* that doesn’t affect the primary mission.”
Am sure it will be brushed off similarly.
Oxfam have messed up here - their supporters should be the first ones calling for the stables to be deep cleansed - rathe than ongoing denial.
*lets not even start on calling covering up paedophilia a “misjudgement”.
Interesting. What's afoot? Clearly Eire can't make unilateral trade deals with us without leaving the EU, and that's not going to happen. I wonder if we're talking some kind of EU-endorsed special status for the UK within the EU here. If correctly spun ('a historic settlement for a sustained and prosperous peace') then the likes of Rees-Mogg couldn't rain on the parade without appearing churlish and irresponsible. (I think Boris would come on board if the choice of words didn't make him appear a sell-out.) Theresa might be playing a blinder here.
Or they are going to do what they say, and work towards a free trade agreement.
But EU membership precludes member states from unilaterally making trade agreements with non-EU states. That, we were told, was the whole point of Brexit. No, Britain, Eire and the EU must have agreed to something significant, and they're deciding on the presentation. But what?
I don't think the EU have agreed to anything. Ireland would like a solution - why would they not? However, Ireland is also a convenient stick for EU negotiators.
Going on what Varadkar was saying this evening it sounds like UK wide SM+CU but let's not call it that.
Remember the golden rule of Brexit....
Didn't you think Florence was going to be SM/CU too?
Edit: also, we wouldn't need a trade agreement if it were - so it isn't...
What I said about Florence is that May rejected every realistic outcome for Brexit, including the undesirable ones. They are all undesirable, that's the point.The speech was a blueprint for something that cannot exist.
I also noted May reached out to her European partners in Florence. She should have done that a year earlier when it might have made a difference.
Remainer thinks leaving is undesirable shocker?
More seriously, I am very grateful for Remainers continually Playing down expectations. Providing Brexit isn't on par with the opening of Pandora's Box, May is going to look like a titan.
Comments
It occurred to me that you should get in touch with the main PR agencies who deal with PR for large firms and other organisations. They are the ones who will be called in by a company if/when a scandal erupts, and they'll want to be able to craft a narrative along the lines of 'mistakes have been made, we deeply regret them, and we are taking all possible steps blah blah' - that will be much more convincing if they are able to back this up by saying they've hired you to sort out the corporate culture.
' Tata Steel will invest £75m to repair a blast furnace at Port Talbot steelworks, industry sources have claimed.
The move would extend its life by seven years and ease concerns about Tata's commitment to Europe's steel sector, sources told Reuters news agency. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-43037047
It is not frivolous to expose the mishandling of the serious issue of sexual abuse by senior management.
It is not frivolous to ensure that the charities people are supporting are upholding the moral standards in private that they claim to uphold in public.
Oxfam have failed on all these key areas.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
The idea of any of them accepting a severance package is just revolting. This money would come from donations or from government support. Any move to pay off these people has to be resisted.
I don't care what their contracts say. They cannot be seen to be accepting cash given their clear failings.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/12/haiti-demands-oxfam-identify-workers-who-used-prostitutes
The point is that numerous allegations seem to have been made internally, and basically ignored. Whatever the truth of any particular individual allegation, systems to prevent abuse at the very least were insufficiently robust, and at worst utterly ineffective.
The relationship between aid workers and those receiving aid is one of very great power imbalance - in many respects greater than that between for example a teacher and a primary school child. Oxfam's apparent attitide towards safeguarding falls way below what would be accepted in a school.
I think the comparison with a school is quite valid - safeguarding lies at the core of their activities, and appears not to have been taken seriously at all. It calls into question whether they are capable of properly fulfilling their primary mission.
I think their are many who do not question the necessity of delivering aid who would agree with me.
(edit - I quite understand the desire to push back against the Daily Mail narrative, but in this case, I think it is leading you to quite the wrong conclusions.)
This is not about an occasional bad personnel decision but about an organisation turning a blind eye to behaviour which both mocked and exploited the misery of the people it was claiming to help.
I am sure you mean well but you could maybe give your money to others who will achieve the ends you care about.
I wouldn't want to say for sure whether we would make a move back into the EU in the long term or even medium term. One thing those banking on younger people turning more eurosceptic as they get older might be missing though is the waning power of the newspapers, the sources of information younger people use are more friendly / less hostile to the EU.
Although status quo presents a pretty powerful argument to stay out once we leave.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11993433
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/europeans-are-britains-new-minority-group/
There was no great pro-European feeling in Britain before the referendum. Very few remainers believed in the utopian project of a United States of Europe. If we thought about the matter at all, we thought Britain already had a ‘bespoke’ deal with our opt-outs and rebates. The extremism of the pro-Brexit camp, its decision to turn EU withdrawal into a culture war, has created a pro-European sentiment where none existed before. Many millions of native-born British citizens have had their belief that Britain was a sensible, empirical nation, which did not engage in wanton acts of self-harm, shaken. They too are losing their bearings. Their sense of who they are and their previously secure national identity are wavering. Auclair notices the same process among what I suppose we will soon start calling ‘British Europeans’ (however absurd the label is). Brexit has made them care more deeply about the EU than they did before.
If it was true why is the only nationwide Pro EU party on single figures in the polls ?
Am sure it will be brushed off similarly.
Oxfam have messed up here - their supporters should be the first ones calling for the stables to be deep cleansed - rathe than ongoing denial.
*lets not even start on calling covering up paedophilia a “misjudgement”.