How to handle bad behaviour in a charity?

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/916335/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Daily-Express-foreign-aid-budget-petition-Downing-Street

Oxfam has every right to a political viewpoint and, along with some other charities, it general viewpoint about the causes of poverty seems to clash with capitalist ideas.

Other people think that global poverty has been and still is being reduced because of capitalism. There is plenty of data out there to support this point of view.

I don't think it matters that the Times and other news sources are publishing this stuff about Oxfam now rather than at some other time. It seems that all the information wasn't available at the time anyway because the sackings/resignations were kept under the media radar.

The Times and any other media has every right to publish counter arguments to the world views of organisations like Oxfam any time it likes and in any way that is not illegal, just as organisations like Oxfam have every right to publish their political views about global poverty. That looks like equality to me.

its general...

Perhaps another right question to be asked is why did Oxfam keep this dreadful story under wraps at the time? I don't think fear of losing donations holds up in the long run. People might have been scared off for a while but the charity's honesty and openness about the story would have served them well in the long run.

Perhaps another right question to ask is why some people think that it was kept under wraps when it wasn't?

Can you point me to the articles that explained at the time why Oxfam let the men in question go, please?

Because this is in the news (BBC) today:

"Oxfam did not give the Charity Commission full details about the use of prostitutes by some aid workers in Haiti in 2011, the watchdog says."

And this on Twitter:

twitter.com/jjdessalines/status/962350307710849024

by Bocchit Edmond, whose Twitter profile describes him as "Chief of Mission at Embassy of the Republic of Haiti".

"The Charities Commission said on Saturday it had received a report from Oxfam in August 2011 about an ongoing internal investigation into allegations of misconduct by Haiti programme staff members, including claims of inappropriate sexual behaviour, bullying, harassment and the intimidation of staff."
This says that Oxfam had told them about it.

But is that enough dj? I understand how important Oxfam is and how vital their work is. But given that the people who work for them are going into areas where there are vulnerable people shouldn't they apply the highest standards to their staff and clearly identify wrong doers- not just to the Charity Commissioners but more widely.
Anyone even accused of such things in this country would find themselves ostrasised and unable to work with such people again. If this isn't done isn't the message being sent out- is "Look there are places where you can indulge your tastes without fear and even get paid for it".

www.thirdsector.co.uk/six-oxfam-staff-haiti-found-guilty-misconduct/management/article/1089610

2011, Oxfam did tell the third sector, i.e., charities.
Did those companies who employed them subsequently do due diligence on them?

And again, why is it news now? Nothing has happened recently, apart from Rees-Mogg wanting a reason not to give money to Osfam.
I am not excusing what these people did, but why has it resurfaced now, this weekend?

Rees-Mogg has a reason for not wanting to give taxpayers' money to charities. His reason is that he doesn't think taxpayers' money should be used for overseas aid in this way. One doesn't have to agree with him to understand this is a clear political position and he has a right to hold it.

Whether the current Oxfam debacle is being guided by him or others who share his view is not clear to me. It sounds a bit conspiracy theory ish to me, especially if in fact some journalist(s) have only just uncovered the full extent of the story. Is it known whether that is what has happened?

Either way, I think full publicity about this awful stuff is in the public interest and, ultimately, in the interest of charities like Oxfam. As trisher said, people recently have been losing their jobs on mere allegations of far less, c/f #MeToo.

From the Guardian just now:

"Roland van Hauwermeiren, who has since been embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal in Haiti, was head of Oxfam in Chad [in 2006]."
www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/10/oxfam-faces-allegations-staff-paid-prostitutes-in-chad?CMP=twt_gu

It was publicised in 2011, but the MSM didn't seem quite so interested then. There's even a link to a previous 2011 BBC article about it.
I reiterate, why now?
I think it does matter. Also, who brought the subject up now?
I don't have a link to this Times article. Who wrote it?

Even if this is a political conspiracy to push a certain agenda, the truth needs out. If the consequences for Oxfam are bad with regard to government funding it receives, then so be it. Other charities exist that can take up the slack. Oxfam isn't sacred.

Times article by Sean O'Neill and Leila Haddou.

Sean O'Neill tweeted this:

For the avoidance of doubt @BBCr4today - @ACF_France says it did contact @oxfamgb before employing Roland van Hauwermeiren. “Oxfam did not share with us any warning regarding (his) unethical conduct, the reasons of his resignation or the results of internal inquiry.”

twitter.com/timesoneill/status/962242452672385024

The point is that the truth was out.

www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-commission-statement-on-oxfam

Copied this from that statement, dj. My underlining. It is clear from this that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was not out completely at all.

"In August 2011, Oxfam made a report to the Commission about an ongoing internal investigation into allegations of misconduct by staff members involved in their Haiti programme. It explained that the misconduct related to inappropriate sexual behaviour, bullying, harassment and the intimidation of staff. The report to us stated there had been no allegations, or evidence, of any abuse of beneficiaries. It also made no mention of any potential sexual crimes involving minors. Our approach to this matter would have been different had the full details that have been reported been disclosed to us at the time

We have written to the charity as a matter of urgency to request further information regarding the events in Haiti in 2011 to establish greater clarity on this matter. This includes a timeline of events, information about when the charity was made aware of specific allegations and the detail of the investigation’s findings and conclusions. This information will be considered as part of an ongoing case regarding the charity’s approach to safeguarding."

I'd already read that several times today and presumed you had too, dj.

There is another possible explanation: that the Charity Commission is really the one in the deep shit and is now obfuscating but I think the likelihood of that is vanishingly small.

I really don't care who is pushing an agenda about this. The fact is that there was inappropriate and possibly criminal behaviour by Oxfam staff. This was not responded to with the emphasis on safeguarding the rights of some of the most disadvantaged people in the world, but on preserving the reputation of Oxfam, which is contrary to their own safeguarding policies.

policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/blog/2016/03/safeguarding-getting-our-own-house-in-order

I'm really surprised that anyone would be questioning why this has been publicised now, or in which newspaper or whether their reasons for doing so were connected to links with JRM. Any charity that works with some of the most vulnerable and deprived people in the world should strive for transparency and accountability of its staff and volunteers and not be seeking obfuscation where they've clearly taken advantage of those they're supposed to be helping. scratches head in puzzlement

I have been a volunteer abroad in Africa and I have a great admiration for Oxfam.
No matter where I have worked abroad there was always volunteers who where Paedophiles or sexual predators and unfortunately this work attracts them. Some are highly professional and Senior management. You could never tell in advance that is what their intention are because they hide behind the veneer of respectability until the are found out. They should be punished in the country in which they have committed a crime if it is against the law there or in the UK on their return.
It is extremely difficult to catch these sexual predators before they arrive in a country because they have no criminal record and a clean DBS.
There are millions of volunteers around the world and a large group of sexual predators as well.
The Large Charities will not know who is a sexual predator until they have abused someone.

The Observer has joined in, is this paper supporting Rees Mogg

I am a bit confused. The charity is discredited because some of its people went to a prostitute? I bet there isn't an organisation in existence where someone didn't go to a prostitute or some similar yucky enjoyment some time.