What a weird thing to fire people for

One of Britain’s biggest charities last night denied claims it had covered up the reasons behind the departure of senior aid workers, some of whom were accused of using prostitutes in Haiti during relief efforts.

​Oxfam is facing calls to review reports that it let three men resign while four men were sacked over allegations which have emerged about their time in the country in the aftermath of a major earthquake, according to an investigation by The Times.

Sure, they say they’ll pay and they don’t, that would be bad. They’ve taken pledges not to have sex except with those they’re married to, might be a moral case there but employment? Kiddie fiddlers, criminal offence under UK law – even in Haiti.

But willing and paid sex between two consenting adults?

Paying for sex is against Oxfam’s staff code of conduct and in breach of United Nations statements on the behaviour of aid workers, which the charity supported. Prostitution is illegal in Haiti.

Why are they all against private enterprise as a manner of alleviating poverty?

28 comments on “What a weird thing to fire people for

  1. “…executives at the time avoided sacking one of them over fears it could have “serious implications” for the charity’s work.”

    ‘Save The Children’ clearly didn’t have the same policy….

  2. This is one of those areas where the theory is fine (ownership of your own body and freedom to contract with another) but the reality is a long way from the theory…

    And lets be honest, at best it is incredibly tawdry to head out as an aid worker purporting to have some great moral purpose and then spending the evening having sex with a desperate local in exchange for some shiny beads.

  3. Some below the age of consent.

    Just as with priests being moved to a different parish rather than being reported to the police – that would harm the reputation of the organisation.

  4. Amusingly, I was privy to some on-the -ground reporting from Haiti in the earthquake aftermath. Hooker prices had about quadrupled & you couldn’t get a table in a decent restaurant for love nor money. Aid boys hit town & flooded it with money.

  5. Mary Wakefield in the Speccie has an excellent piece on this.

    I disagree strongly with Tim – the behaviour is reprehensible and yet another argument for taxpayer funding to be withdrawn from Oxfam.

  6. Are they being punished for sleeping with prostitutes or for being caught?

    I think Oxfam has a right to expect some discretion from its employees. They will bring the company into disrepute if caught. As they have been.

    The UN soldiers extorting sex for food aid is much worse.

  7. Nothing on the BBC about it (apart from a reference to the Times headline in an article about what newspapers are saying). Currently their top headline on the Latin America section is a story about a miniskirt protest by students (no really):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-42996996

    The BBC protecting their own, going after this story with all the enthusiasm of a five-year old being taken to the dentist.

  8. Why are they all against private enterprise as a manner of alleviating poverty?

    Because it isn’t private enterprise if it isn’t legal? I feel like being “enterprising” in the form of breaking into your house and making off with your television set. True, I smashed your window to do it, but I feel I’ve assisted the economy in the process by expanding demand for glass.

    I also rationalise the loss of the original window on the grounds I watch more TV than you do, so I feel I am subsequently making better use of the asset, freeing up my own capital in the form of the TV set I now no longer need to work to acquire in an act of inefficient econommic duplication. Using the principle of consolidated accountancy, I feel the overall benefit to “us as a society” is worth it. Got to speculate to accumulate, right?

  9. Privileged white man in west end of London asking young lady being paid 150 quid to smile nicely if she is a prostitute while putting arm round waist – front page scoop in major financial newspaper, wall to wall coverage on BBC, statements in parliament, questions to the Prime Minister. Privileged white man in Haiti asking young lady who has never earned 150 quid in her whole life to bring her underage sister round for a Caligula style orgy and they might give out some of the meagre rations that the unwitting good people of Great Britain have given their savings towards ? Nothing. Male boss of London Charity that raised money? Resign you bastard. Female boss of charity that spent money and covered the whole sordid affair up? Again, nothing. Remind me. Which one was left wing?

  10. Overheard at Oxfan, “I didn’t want to be a damn senior aid worker anyway!”

    ‘Oxfam is facing calls to review reports that it let three men resign.’

    Wut? How can you stop them? “YOU CAN’T QUIT! YOU’RE FIRED (in three months, depending on what we find in this investigation).”

    Ex post facto discharge?

  11. Never been with a black prostitute…the lads must have been desperate over there.

    Keep going lads you will soon be home.

  12. It is depressing that the BBC thinks a miniskirt protest in Colombia is more important than the thousands of Venezuelans fleeing there.

  13. Bringing the organisation into disrepute?

    One place I worked actually had a policy against sleeping with the customers.

  14. If they are using their own wages to pay ordinary prossies that is their business.

    On Oxfam premises is more iffy but it has to happen somewhere and if they have finished a 12 hour shift of helping work then they can’t be said to be abusing their employer.

    Of course:
    -if they are paying with actual charity contribution money–wrong
    -If they don’t work/help but screw around all day instead –wrong
    -if they are denying food/help unless paid for by sex–wrong
    -if they are trying to pressure ordinary women in reduced circs to become prossies out of need–wrong

    But merely paying for sex is what most do one way or another. If the women were already professional ladies then there is no harm. PoxFam can stuff their virtue signalling.

  15. If screwing prostitutes is against Oxfat’s (sic) rules, and also against the law in the country in which its staff are operating, then Oxfat was right to sack them.

    As for Oxfat’s reputation, it’s pretty low in my book — a PC, leftist, fake charity sponging £300m pa off the taxpayer.

  16. And lets be honest, at best it is incredibly tawdry to head out as an aid worker purporting to have some great moral purpose and then spending the evening having sex with a desperate local in exchange for some shiny beads.

    This.

    And am I the only one cynical enough to think Save the Children is looking to hobble a major competitor here?

  17. “But merely paying for sex is what most do one way or another. If the women were already professional ladies then there is no harm. PoxFam can stuff their virtue signalling.”

    Problem is that Oxfam has rules against this, it is illegal in Haiti, children are alleged to have been involved.

    All in all it sounds utterly creepy for several of these puritan cunts that delight in lecturing us and spending our money to be heading out to an utterly backward place like Haiti and using it as an opportunity for orgies and debauchery.

    If you want to do that then do it on your own time, somewhere legal, don’t involve kids, and don’t make a living being a prod nose cunt bullying and leeching off other people. I guess it is the hypocrisy more than anything else..

  18. “I used to be into sadistic bestial necrophilia, until I realised it was simply flogging a dead horse.”

  19. “And lets be honest, at best it is incredibly tawdry to head out as an aid worker purporting to have some great moral purpose”

    It’s just a job.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.