MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, February 17th 2018 - 23:35 UTC
The deputy head of Oxfam has resigned over what she said was the British charity's failure to adequately respond to past allegations of sexual misconduct by some of its staff in Haiti and Chad. Read full article
Oxfam, MSF, the American Red Cross, the. Clinton Foundation and others have all been guilty in grossly misappropriating funds for Haiti to corrupt individuals. It saddens me that the poor get cheated.
The worry is that people here will stop donating to charities if they think that they are basically corrupt. Regardless of sexual misconduct, aid is still getting to the people who need it.
The same corrupt, criminal, clueless, dishonest Oxfam
The article was about sexual misconduct, Chicureo and Marti. There's nothing about misappropriating funds. Do you have any evidence that Oxfam has done that, in Haiti or elsewhere?
The burdon of truth now lies with Oxfam, as we already know part of their organization is rotten. The American Red Cross, another saintly charity received a half a billion dollars to build housing... They built only six...
It really doesn't. Taking advantage of desperate people in a disaster zone, who they were supposed to be helping, is ultra sleazy, and it's worrying those people got away with it until now, but that's not at all the same thing as grossly misappropriating funds. Let's not jump to conclusions.
That's your opinion, but all organizations need to be carefully monitored, including MSF, UNICEF, Oxfam, Red Cross...
Sure they should be monitored, but not accused of stealing just because some other charity did.
You'll notice the new article: Another blow for Oxfam: chairman Fuentes arrested for his time as Guatemala finance minister ... like I said, they need to be carefully monitored.
Prostitution is probably one of the oldest professions. If you want sex and are prepared to pay for it. Why not? Some women prefer to have sex with a person they love, some just want sex because they like sex, or money.
Yes, but with children? I believe it is unlawful for any UK citizen to have underage sex anywhere in the world.
Yes, I saw it. It said the arrest was nothing to do with his work at Oxfam, but they might want to double check anything he's been involved with...
Sure, if it's a choice. But taking advantage of women (and children?) who are desperate and possibly starving is a different matter, especially when it's men who were sent there by a charity to help them for free.
Besides the fact that Oxfam needs a thorough investigation, I think we all have a responsibility to demand strict accounting standards to all charities, including the salaries of their executives.
Out of interest, do you think we should demand the same of private companies and government organisations?
By the way, you might already know but the Daily Mail is not exactly the most reliable paper in Britain.
Yes, of course we should expect the same of government organizations, but it seems to be particularly hurtful when money is not used for the starving masses.
Are you suggesting that the Daily Mail is not reporting accurately the allegations?
Would you prefer the Morning Star or the Daily Mirror?
Yes, it does seem worse when charities do it. How about companies? Should we demand strict accounting standards from them, including the salaries of their executives?
And that was an opinion piece, it's not a question of the facts but of the slant put on them. Those other papers are no better, try something that's not a tabloid.
As long as a woman has a fanny, men will go there, paying for it or not.I watched a program the other day about sex dolls. The American running the company says that sex dolls which interact with humans is possible. Maybe that is the way to go as you will not have sexual harassment cases and rapes frequenting the courts.After all a sex doll cannot object.
I think you have your pantyhose all twisted up on this subject. Despite what you read in the Morning Star, private owned companies have far more independence from charitable and government organizations.
Whether you care to believe it or not, this Oxfam scandal is seriously impacting its support base. Perhaps you'll find the BBC another unreliable news source...
Are you replying to me or a figment of your imagination? The Morning Star, seriously? Or are you just joking again, it's hard to tell online.
I was asking your own opinion, not what the law is or what other people think. I'm sure it is seriously affecting Oxfam's support base, but I think it would be sad if people dismissed all charities because of the misbehaviour of a few, and I don't like people making unjustified accusations.
What a very insulting view you have of men.
@demon tree, don't worry they are making men dolls too.Well endowed of course.I am sure the ladies will approve.
I dont believe any right thinking person will deny donations to Oxfam on the basis of this scandal. The only people to lose will be recipients of aid. Its yet another example of a press feeding frenzy like the current #metoo campaign which most mature females seem to have become heartily sick of.
Its, a bit like the Scouts the organisers have to do more extensive careful vetting especially of senior managers
I'm inclined to agree with you that the press are blowing this up into something it's not. Stories feed on themselves and the original point is lost. Of course we should keep an eye on how charities are spending the money we give them, that is common sense, but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What's the point? They already sell vibrators for women.
Well you did ridiculously question me if businesses should be under the same scrutiny as charitable organizations, which would be typically an inquiry from a subscriber of The Morning Star....
If you read the BBC article above, you see that the scandals are already seriously affecting Oxfam's support base.
You should change your brand of underwear, because what you're currently wearing is making you cranky...
Have you never heard of boycotting a business because of their unethical practices? It's a very common thing in this country. You have a choice where you spend your money as well as where you donate it, so businesses need to be under some degree of scrutiny.
...businesses need to be under some degree of scrutiny...
No, they don't! You're completely ignorant that as matter of fundamental principle, philanthropic organizations should adhere to the highest ethical standards because it is the right thing to do. I'll still buy an automobile from General Motors if they pay their top executives several million dollars a year and use private jets, but I won't donate to a charity that allows their leadership to misuse the public trust.
Cálmate, Chicureo. Perhaps different underwear would help? ;)
My same advice for you. You woke up this morning and probably put your pantyhose on backwards.
The difference is that when you give money to a company, you receive goods and services in return. The CEO's remuneration does not affect your purchase.
If you have a pension fund which is invested inslave labour workshops”, you have right to complain at the annual director's meeting.
With a charity you are giving money because you believe it is morally correct. You get nothing physical in return but presumably a salve for your conscience. If an executive of this charity is either pocketing some largesse or behaving in a manner unbefitting to the organisations ethics, then you have right to be outraged.
Shows what you know, those things don't even have a front and back. Have you ever tried wearing them? They're bloody uncomfortable!
businesses should be under the same scrutiny as charitable organizations - this is a snowflake behavior pattern. Instead of getting out there and contributing to society in some way you just sit on your sofa playing aint it awful about anything and everything. A demo is in their view doing something. Running a sick old person to their hospital appointment doesnt figure.
No, I never had the need to use them, but I do not wish to judge your opinion.
I never said businesses should be under the same scrutiny as charitable organisations, only that they should be under some scrutiny. I remember when I was younger people were boycotting Nestle because they pushed infant formula in countries where the water was not safe to drink, and boycotting certain tuna companies because they caught dolphins in their nets. Both of those caused the companies to change their practices. If people want to avoid buying from companies that use slave labour workshops, they should have enough information to do so.
Of course it's much worse when charities do it, and it has always been hard to know where best to give your money so it won't be wasted. I'm not sure all these headlines help much though, since it's just what happens to come out, and not some kind of general audit.
Very tactful. ;)
Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment.
Login with Facebook
Get our news on your inbox!