Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Canal World is funded by our loyal members. Please feel free do donate to us by clicking here. Thank you 

mizpah2

overseas aid

Featured Posts

As my wife and I are recently retired we have time to look into and question things we did not before . With this latest charity revelation we had a look at this countries overseas aid payments . The first was India who recently were in the news for their involvement in space exploration , in 2015 , the figures via BBC , we gave them £180 million , why ? It also seems the guy who runs the Salvation Army , a charity we have witnessed at first hand , is the lowest paid of all some wages are unreal .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oxfam have some very well paid directors.  Some years ago (probably about 20 now) someone I knew raised a substantial amount (close to £50K) and wanted to present a cheque to a director to get maximum coverage for her ongoing fund-raising.  Oxfam's response was along the lines of "our directors don't do cheque presentations for less than £80k".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you need to consider is that this overseas aid isn't comprised of food parcels to the poor. Some of the 'aid' that went to India was for technical assistance (£30 million) and development capital investment (£40 million). The Department for International Development see their purpose as,".... strengthen strategic partnerships that facilitate trade, boost business and combat poverty..." you may notice that combating poverty is third in the list, a lot of the aid given out is with the intention of generating trade.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mizpah2 said:

As my wife and I are recently retired we have time to look into and question things we did not before . With this latest charity revelation we had a look at this countries overseas aid payments . The first was India who recently were in the news for their involvement in space exploration , in 2015 , the figures via BBC , we gave them £180 million , why ? It also seems the guy who runs the Salvation Army , a charity we have witnessed at first hand , is the lowest paid of all some wages are unreal .

It can seem odd at first glance. First I think there is a difference between State Aid and charity work.  State Aid can be for all kinds of purposes and one could say good for business. 

I agree that some charity senior management (large charities in particular) are paid a great deal and that is troubling. they seem to justify this by saying it is the only way to get the quality of candidate to run a large organisation. This still seems wrong and especially so with the revelations about OXfam that seems to have a management structure that allows abuse to be carried out on the most disadvantaged.

Edited by churchward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mizpah2 said:

As my wife and I are recently retired we have time to look into and question things we did not before . With this latest charity revelation we had a look at this countries overseas aid payments . The first was India who recently were in the news for their involvement in space exploration , in 2015 , the figures via BBC , we gave them £180 million , why ? It also seems the guy who runs the Salvation Army , a charity we have witnessed at first hand , is the lowest paid of all some wages are unreal .

Just checked the Salvation Army ceo gets £15k , the Oxfam ceo gets £130k and has 5000 paid staff . ok Oxfam may be a lot bigger but I bet the £15k guy could run Oxfam .

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mizpah2 said:

Just checked the Salvation Army ceo gets £15k , the Oxfam ceo gets £130k and has 5000 paid staff . ok Oxfam may be a lot bigger but I bet the £15k guy could run Oxfam .

Re the SA, they are a right shower, I had a bit of a problem getting paid for some maintenance on a house they own, so I said I would maybe think about a bit of local publicity [the director had  just threatened me with some sort of restraining order lol]. I got the money in my bank account within 60 minutes: this was about two/three months after the work was done,  invoiced etc etc.

 The house is still empty, why do they own empty houses? ........ ask their accountant.....

 

 

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lady phoned into the radio this afternoon and pointed out that the prostitutes in Haiti were not raped, and that sex working in many countries (outside U.K.) is considered quite normal. They weren’t forced, so do we think they would have preferred their income denied and children starved in order to satisfy the sensibilities of the British, or to have been able to carry out their work as normal albeit probably for enhanced pay. Putting foreign values onto a local situation is always a recipe for disaster.

That said, clearly Oxfam haven’t come out of it well because they tried to cover it up. But the original “crime” was pretty minor and does not justify the deaths of thousands of people who might otherwise be helped by Oxfam - should funding be removed and donations dry up.

  • Greenie 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nicknorman said:

A lady phoned into the radio this afternoon and pointed out that the prostitutes in Haiti were not raped, and that sex working in many countries (outside U.K.) is considered quite normal. They weren’t forced, so do we think they would have preferred their income denied and children starved in order to satisfy the sensibilities of the British, or to have been able to carry out their work as normal albeit probably for enhanced pay. Putting foreign values onto a local situation is always a recipe for disaster.

That said, clearly Oxfam haven’t come out of it well because they tried to cover it up. But the original “crime” was pretty minor and does not justify the deaths of thousands of people who might otherwise be helped by Oxfam - should funding be removed and donations dry up.

The lady is wrong Nick. Sex work and poverty go hand in hand and the aim of Oxfam is surely that women can expect their children not to starve without resorting to such practices, there shouldn't be a mutually exclusive choice so it's a disingenuous question. In that sense the Oxfam employers were acting counter to the aims of their employer and almost certainly in breach of internal codes of conduct.

No one is enforcing foreign values on anyone. The failure was simply at the level of personal morals and ethics.

JP

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

The lady is wrong Nick. Sex work and poverty go hand in hand and the aim of Oxfam is surely that women can expect their children not to starve without resorting to such practices, there shouldn't be a mutually exclusive choice so it's a disingenuous question. In that sense the Oxfam employers were acting counter to the aims of their employer and almost certainly in breach of internal codes of conduct.

No one is enforcing foreign values on anyone. The failure was simply at the level of personal morals and ethics.

JP

This is a load of woolly logic:

"Sex work and poverty go hand in hand" - what exactly are you saying here?

"the aim of Oxfam is surely that women can expect their children not to starve without resorting to such practices" - ok, so the woman in question can console herself with the thought that though this guy has the money to stop my children going hungry NOW, he should keep it to himself until this organisation is able to deliver on its noble aims in full?

"there shouldn't be a mutually exclusive choice" - it must be nice when the woman is in a difficult situation to know that this situation shouldn't exist.

If the oxfam guy is taking advantage of his position to not pay (Weinstein?) or not pay the market rate then that would be reprehensible. 

Sending young males for long periods to places where they cannot obtain sex is as daft as having celibate catholic priests.  

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood that the guy had prostitutes working out of a house rented by Oxfam, i.e. he was profiting from their plight.  Perhaps that puts a slightly different slant on it.

Anyway, the issue is not really about the harm done in Haiti (or not), it is about perceived reputation and the taxpayers' reaction to the matter. 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I wouldn't give a penny to Oxfam, but for different reasons.  During the Nigerian civil war and the Biafran crisis my school ran a huge fundraising campaign on behalf of Oxfam - a few years later I was working on the Christmas mails at Reading Station where a parcels van that had been apparently abandoned in a siding was opened - it was full of crates marked OXFAM - donated by Reading School.   

Oxfam management and administration was rubbish then and is rubbish now.  I watched the BBC2 Newsnight interview of a retired Oxfam director who was working for them in 2011 and who made the excuse that the perpetrator was allowed to go quietly 'because they hoped he would blow the whistle on others'.   Instead he went on to work for another charity.

Edited by Murflynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

This is a load of woolly logic:

"Sex work and poverty go hand in hand" - what exactly are you saying here?

"the aim of Oxfam is surely that women can expect their children not to starve without resorting to such practices" - ok, so the woman in question can console herself with the thought that though this guy has the money to stop my children going hungry NOW, he should keep it to himself until this organisation is able to deliver on its noble aims in full?

"there shouldn't be a mutually exclusive choice" - it must be nice when the woman is in a difficult situation to know that this situation shouldn't exist.

If the oxfam guy is taking advantage of his position to not pay (Weinstein?) or not pay the market rate then that would be reprehensible. 

Sending young males for long periods to places where they cannot obtain sex is as daft as having celibate catholic priests.  

The point about poverty and prostitution is that more women are forced to do it in areas of poverty. It isn't a natural free choice. I am not saying we shouldn't be realistic about the situation of individual women in impoverished countries but if we accept it as being OK it will be the way things are for generation after generation. That's what an organisation like Oxfam is trying to avoid. You are viewing it from the perspective of the woman. The issue is about Oxfam and it's employees. Collectively they failed.

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, churchward said:

I agree that some charity senior management (large charities in particular) are paid a great deal and that is troubling. they seem to justify this by saying it is the only way to get the quality of candidate to run a large organisation.

Seems to me that is the same excuse as used by the boards of many larger companies, financial institutions and even public institutions . Experience over the years seems to indicate this is not the case and it may well be the very opposite.  Just an excuse for personal greed in my view.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The point about poverty and prostitution is that more women are forced to do it in areas of poverty. It isn't a natural free choice. I am not saying we shouldn't be realistic about the situation of individual women in impoverished countries but if we accept it as being OK it will be the way things are for generation after generation. That's what an organisation like Oxfam is trying to avoid. You are viewing it from the perspective of the woman. The issue is about Oxfam and it's employees. Collectively they failed.

JP

All very noble but the FACTS are that prostitution occurs everywhere, rich countries, poor countries. Yes even in your home town. The oldest profession etc. You want to deprive some people of their livelihood because it doesn’t sit well with your middle class English values. It is rather like the darts walk-on ladies now out of a job because some snowflake felt they shouldn’t be objectified - they are now out of a job, and rather angry about it!

In Thailand they are called commercial sex workers, which seems rather less distasteful to the delicate, than “prostitute”.

But yes, Oxfam has messed up in its handling of the problem. I wonder how many people will starve to death or die from disease in order to protect the sensibilities of the delicate middle class English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nicknorman said:

A lady phoned into the radio this afternoon and pointed out that the prostitutes in Haiti were not raped, and that sex working in many countries (outside U.K.) is considered quite normal. They weren’t forced, so do we think they would have preferred their income denied and children starved in order to satisfy the sensibilities of the British, or to have been able to carry out their work as normal albeit probably for enhanced pay. Putting foreign values onto a local situation is always a recipe for disaster.

That said, clearly Oxfam haven’t come out of it well because they tried to cover it up. But the original “crime” was pretty minor and does not justify the deaths of thousands of people who might otherwise be helped by Oxfam - should funding be removed and donations dry up.

As I understand it prostitution in Haiti is illegal? therefore its not the best form of recreation for aid workers to engage in. Prostitution in the UK is of course completely legal and therein lies the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mrsmelly said:

As I understand it prostitution in Haiti is illegal? therefore its not the best form of recreation for aid workers to engage in. Prostitution in the UK is of course completely legal and therein lies the difference.

A typical policeman’s comment! Every one else knows that the law is an ass!

Anyway, I am not saying they acted well, I am just saying the issue itself is being blown out of proportion and threatening the very existence of Oxfam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

A typical policeman’s comment! Every one else knows that the law is an ass!

Anyway, I am not saying they acted well, I am just saying the issue itself is being blown out of proportion and threatening the very existence of Oxfam.

I am agreeing with you, its well overblown. I was only stating a fact that prostitution is perfectly legal in the uk and it oft amazes me that many people do not understand that basic fact as its not a new law by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I am agreeing with you, its well overblown. I was only stating a fact that prostitution is perfectly legal in the uk and it oft amazes me that many people do not understand that basic fact as its not a new law by any means.

I think you should perhaps clarify the point. Is it not the case that using a prostitute is legal (although the snowflakes are on to that one) whereas soliciting as a prostitute is still illegal? Or am I out of date (never having tried one, obviously!)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I think you should perhaps clarify the point. Is it not the case that using a prostitute is legal (although the snowflakes are on to that one) whereas soliciting as a prostitute is still illegal? Or am I out of date (never having tried one, obviously!)?

Odd that, though, that you think it's obvious you've never used one when you appear to accept that it's a perfectly normal career choice for a woman (and presumably a man).  You wouldn't jib at accepting your letters from a female postie, so why not just have sex with the nearest attractive pro?

It's pretty rare that a well off woman with a nice house and money in the bank chooses to be a prostitute, which to me indicates that it's a situation forced on those with few or no other options.  Whether it's part of an aid workers duty to keep the local economy going by paying for sex is, i think, a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Odd that, though, that you think it's obvious you've never used one when you appear to accept that it's a perfectly normal career choice for a woman (and presumably a man).  You wouldn't jib at accepting your letters from a female postie, so why not just have sex with the nearest attractive pro?

It's pretty rare that a well off woman with a nice house and money in the bank chooses to be a prostitute, which to me indicates that it's a situation forced on those with few or no other options.  Whether it's part of an aid workers duty to keep the local economy going by paying for sex is, i think, a moot point.

Actually you raise an interesting point about whether the same fuss is made about female prostitutes, as male ones. I suspect the former are seen by the snowflakes as “victims” whereas the latter are just “naughty randy boys” or something like that!

But anyway, I mostly agree with your point, however the first step needs to be eliminating poverty and inequality, the prostitute “problem” will mostly go away. But it would be wrong to try to eliminate prostitutes first, leaving the CSWs destitute and in poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I think you should perhaps clarify the point. Is it not the case that using a prostitute is legal (although the snowflakes are on to that one) whereas soliciting as a prostitute is still illegal? Or am I out of date (never having tried one, obviously!)?

There are many offences connected with prostitution such as running a brothel ( 2 or more pros in one place ) making money from prostituting others and many others including ( soliciting ) ie parading out in the street with a skirt up yer arse pulling bloke up in cars but any female aged over 18 can sell herself o long as its of her own volition and not via a pimp etc. Indeed advertising ontinternet which is what they do now is also legal. So as a for instance girl in own flat behind closed doors absolutely zero offence. I think its one of those things were making it an offence would be impossible to police and make matters worse much like the yanks found out with prohibition. When I worked in Leeds we all knew a hell of a lot of girls on the game and whilst some where very sad cases indeed wether people want to believe it or not a lot of the girls liked it and were choosey and made a hell of  a lot more money than just about anyone else in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

A typical policeman’s comment! Every one else knows that the law is an ass!

Anyway, I am not saying they acted well, I am just saying the issue itself is being blown out of proportion and threatening the very existence of Oxfam.

I havent followed the story, but, it will shake up a few nests. Caeser's Wife should be quoted.

I would imagine folks will just change their charities, overall the Charity GDP should work out about the same.

Edited by LadyG
  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nicknorman said:

A lady phoned into the radio this afternoon and pointed out that the prostitutes in Haiti were not raped, and that sex working in many countries (outside U.K.) is considered quite normal. They weren’t forced, so do we think they would have preferred their income denied and children starved in order to satisfy the sensibilities of the British, or to have been able to carry out their work as normal albeit probably for enhanced pay. Putting foreign values onto a local situation is always a recipe for disaster.

That said, clearly Oxfam haven’t come out of it well because they tried to cover it up. But the original “crime” was pretty minor and does not justify the deaths of thousands of people who might otherwise be helped by Oxfam - should funding be removed and donations dry up.

I stand to be corrected and I will happily withdraw if wrong, but when this all blew up I thought I heard a news report saying an 8 year old girl was involved.

If that is the case, it is far from minor.

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I stand to be corrected and I will happily withdraw if wrong, but when this all blew up I thought I heard a news report saying an 8 year old girl was involved.

If that is the case, it is far from minor

In view of the delicacy of the subject I shall refrain from making the obvious comment.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I stand to be corrected and I will happily withdraw if wrong, but when this all blew up I thought I heard a news report saying an 8 year old girl was involved.

If that is the case, it is far from minor.

George

I wouldn't like to say whether you are right or wrong, not having followed the story much, but if you are going to make an assertion such as this perhaps a link to something might give it credence otherwise it just becomes like the 'a bloke in a pub once told me' sketch with little or no credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I wouldn't like to say whether you are right or wrong, not having followed the story much, but if you are going to make an assertion such as this perhaps a link to something might give it credence otherwise it just becomes like the 'a bloke in a pub once told me' sketch with little or no credibility.

Which is why I was cagey and a bit hesitant about bringing it up.  When you are sitting watching the evening news and you catch something like this,it is difficult to provide a link days later.

George

A quick search finds this item, the end of which mentions "alleged under age" prostitutes".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/12/oxfam-scandal-deepens-allegations-sex-aid-abuse-charity-shops/

I'll see if I can find more, but as I said, I believe aged 8 was mentioned once on the TV before apparently being omitted from later bulletins.

Edited by furnessvale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×