Oxfam

I will never, ever give a single penny to Oxfam. Many years ago I was involved through the local council in Oxfam holding a big event in our city in the north. They travelled up and down by train, all in first class carriages, they booked out blocks of rooms and suites in the best hotels, many of which were unused, they booked and paid for conference venues in many hotels and conference centres. again many not used. They booked and paid for caterers who were not used and much food was wasted. The total waste of money was sickening but so was their ‘so what?’ attitude and no attempt made to save any money by being more careful and organised. I was totally ashamed to even be involved with them and they’ve not had anything from me since, nor will they.

For well over a year my dd was working for an NGO in post-earthquake Haiti, when the ‘abuse’ was going on. I have used inverted commas because she was quite convinced that what it virtually always amounted to, was the use of adult prostitutes, which she said were ‘everywhere’ and were only too keen to get the money. Even before the earthquake, unemployment (she told me) was running at 60%. But although it was rife, prostitution was officially illegal in Haiti.

She was not at all sure why Oxfam was singled out, since she said workers from every NGO - including the most supposedly holy and virtuous - were using prostitutes. A friend of hers, working for a household-name NGO (not Oxfam) had complained to her immediate managers that male co-workers who shared her accommodation, were bringing prostitutes in.

The response was, ‘If you don’t like it, find somewhere else to stay.’

I might add that she’s worked in post-disaster zones in various different countries, and has said that among male NGO workers, often of every nationality under the sun, use of local prostitution is not at all uncommon, and in most countries is not illegal. Anyone inclined to deplore such use, she said, might do well to remember that the men are working far from home, often for very long periods, and frequently in extremely difficult conditions, which people sitting comfortably at home probably can’t begin to imagine.

Like another poster upthread I do not donate to any of the "big" charities and their tasteless national appeals. I do donate through the DEC if there is a big disaster somewhere like the earthquake in Turkey. The one exception is that I do donate to St Dunstans (a charity to help disabled veterans which is part of the British Legion) as they helped my parents a lot.

When Oxfam began it was the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, based in Oxford, started by Quakers. All well and very good
That was back in 1942 to address the famine in Greece caused by the blockade by Axis and to persuade the British government to allow food through.
It was successful and grew. Other charities followed suit and became even bigger.
The charity turned business became the way forward

Our local Oxfam shop was the last in Scotland to remain entirely run by volunteers. It no longer is. There's a manager now
You make more money if you run a charity as a business than you do by relying on local goodwill.
Spend more to make more.
I support our local branch. It's the best and only department store in our town!
I donate and buy. I buy greetings cards, knitting wool and needles, curtains, toys,

This whole PC thing sounds demented though.

The vocabulary thing is laughable and Oxfam deserves to be derided for that and many other reasons. I no longer give to any of the big charities as I don’t trust any of them, though I will donate through DEC in the wake of terrible disasters. Nor do I ever donate to just giving pages. I support our local hospice whose income slumped to dangerous lows during the pandemic.

92 full colour pages of stuff any normal person already knows. I stopped buying from Oxfam years ago when living in a third world country where they paid workers 10p for rugs selling at 39.99 in their high street shops. Their overheads are the highest in the UK and this also makes you think: Oxfam spends 25% of its funds on wages and running costs: Charity spent £103m last year including £700,000 on pay and benefits for seven top staff.
Even more shocking : Only £298m from its £401.4m income was used for ‘charitable expenditure’
Oxfam rewards senior executives with banker-sized salaries and benefits
Benefits include contributions towards school fees for executives' children
Charities under intense pressure over questionable fundraising practices

I have all but given up on charitable donations as so many of them seem to employ management on excessively high salaries rather than the money go where it really neded.
The exception being our local Hospice. Having been on the recieving end of their exceptional care for family members and cancer treatment - I'd rather my money went where I can see it actually working for the benefit of the local community.

That’s what I’ve decided to do.
I’ve recently cancelled my subscription to UNICEF and given a lump sum to a voluntary organisation that looks after our local parkland

I have long regarded them as a totally corrupt organization. I prefer to donate to small local causes.

I was warned of donating to Oxfam by a priest over 40 yrs ago.
He informed me of the abuse perpetrated by people working in vulnerable communities.

I've never donated to Oxfam and probably never will. Spending so much money on cancelling words like mother and father when there are people starving in Africa feels like they have their priorities very wrong.

Haven't seen the advert. Sorry.

Colonisation! I had no idea that ‘canalisation’ was an actual word!

Thanks KB
Here’s another link below

It’s being criticised by Maya Forstater and others because they aren’t keen on the word ‘mother’.

Oxfam are conflating lots of different issues including sex and gender; ‘the language of canalisation’; and disability (you are advised not to use the phrase ‘make a stand’ in case someone is unable to take to their feet)

It seems an absolute dream come true for The Daily Mail (and LBC who have been banging on about it all morning)

amp.lbc.co.uk/news/oxfam-bizarre-language-guide-sorry-for-using-english/

X post. Kircubbin😊

FannyCornforth

So, in the nicest possible way, (please don’t be offended Kircubbin) it seems that the opening post was ill informed

Speaking for the op, perhaps 'ad' was short for admin, and not advert?

FannyCornforth

So, in the nicest possible way, (please don’t be offended Kircubbin) it seems that the opening post was ill informed

I can't find the pic now but it consisted of rainbow stripes and included they,them ect. It may have been the intro to the language guide.A team were well paid to produce it.

Oh no! 🙀

FannyCornforth

GrannyGravy13

I saw one of Oxfam’s head honchos interviewed on the news this morning, I found it cringe worthy.

I assume that they were being interviewed about the ‘Inclusivity Guide’
I can’t find the ad to which Kircubbin refers

Yes it was about the inclusivity guide.

I haven’t seen the advert, or any of todays newspapers too busy clearing up after DH who is allegedly mending things 🤣

So, in the nicest possible way, (please don’t be offended Kircubbin) it seems that the opening post was ill informed

I couldn't find an advert either Fanny

NotSpaghetti

So what is it about if not the language information thingy?

An ad? The only one I can find is called 75 Years of Style which is rather nice

GrannyGravy13

I saw one of Oxfam’s head honchos interviewed on the news this morning, I found it cringe worthy.

I assume that they were being interviewed about the ‘Inclusivity Guide’
I can’t find the ad to which Kircubbin refers

So what is it about if not the language information thingy?

I can't remember the exact word used on the radio but Oxfam did say it was not a directive but intended to be helpful if people weren't sure.
I haven't seen anything in print or on TV about it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11869961/amp/Oxfams-new-92-page-inclusivity-guide-calls-English-language-colonising-nation.html