Chomp, chomp, chomp

Ministers have launched an investigation into claims that foreign aid officials brushed off allegations of child abuse committed by aid workers.

Priti Patel, who ran the department until November, writes in the Telegraph that the Oxfam prostitution scandal is only “the tip of the iceberg” but that her own officials had “dismissed” her concerns when she raised them.

Oxfam, one of the world’s largest charities, is facing mounting criticism over its handling of sex allegations, but has denied it tried to cover up the use of prostitutes by workers who were supposed to be helping victims of a major earthquake in Haiti in 2011.

Oooh, look, the left is eating itself.

Not thatr I actually know this but my guess so far. Save the Children told on Oxfam and the tarts in Haiti. Oxfam then told on StC and Jo Cox’s widower. So StC told on Oxfam and Chad. And someone’s now stirring further.

22 comments on “Chomp, chomp, chomp

  1. Oxfam is a branch of government. It is NOT a charity. Only 26% of its income last year came from donations and legacies. 49% came directly from the British government

  2. I will have to remind the next trendy smiling student with a smarmy introduction that stops me outside Maplins about exploiting women and child sex abuse when he wants a direct debit from me to pay for his next festival, which will eventually lead to the black child on his folder cover getting a few pennies

  3. How has it escalated so quickly from paid (adult) prostitution to child abuse? The former is easy enough to investigate: there’ll be enough aid workers who will brag about it openly, because they don’t see anything wrong with it. The latter is much harder to uncover – nobody will admit to being a nonce.

  4. Not thatr I actually know this but my guess so far. Save the Children told on Oxfam and the tarts in Haiti. Oxfam then told on StC and Jo Cox’s widower

    Yes. Well. Someone else might have come up with that theory first.

    Again, it is only a shame they both can’t lose. I look forward to hearing what dirt they both have on the RSPCA.

  5. Or as Murphy Richards might say

    “Oxfam have given me money in the past, they might do so again in the future. Therefore I have no hesitation in supporting Oxfam against what is obviously a neoliberal conspiracy to expose the truth about Oxfam workers using child prostitutes”

  6. The Left now calling for a deeper understanding of the context and for us to consider, on balance, all the good that charities do. In other words, precisely what they have denied companies caught up in so-called tax dodging scandals.

    And Morphy Richards is absolutely tearing Ritchie limb from limb.

  7. Is Oxfam still operating? At the very least it ought to have all taxpayer funding withdrawn.

    No surprise that the DFID mandarins helped with the cover up; they were probably looking forward to a few cushy fact-finding missions, with some dusky bottoms for hire thrown in.

    I suspect that most organisations that claim to be helping the 3rd world will be riddled with nonces looking to prey on the vulnerable. It’s like children’s homes and scoutmastering, only with better weather.

  8. I’m sure Murphy Richards pops on here from time to time. I was pleased to see him re-tweet Christine Brown’s exchange on secrecy which resulted in Spud defending his hypocrisy by resorting to bizarre Nazi analogies. For Christine and I are well know to each other.

  9. A good excuse to ask the question why Groper Cox was on a cosy salary at a charity before being binned for not keeping his hands to himself. No evidence of this being a one off either.

    Good to know that Hope Not Hate (sic) has such great backers.

  10. I was strangely unsurprised to see that Brendan Cox has got himself in trouble. I had never heard any of the rumours (just caught up on them via Mumsnet of all places) but from the first moment I heard about Jo Cox being murdered, and he appeared in the press, I could tell there was something odd about him.

    Apart from the attention-seeking in the press, it was something about his body language in various photos and videos with Jo that just seemed weird. Couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was exactly.

    The Oxfam stuff… well, this sort of behaviour has been a bit very well-kept secret in the ‘third sector’ for ever. I could forgive the fact that it happens; bad apples will pop up in most large institutions. But it’s the cover-up that makes it stink.

  11. from the first moment I heard about Jo Cox being murdered, and he appeared in the press, I could tell there was something odd about him.

    So you’re saying it’s unusual for a man whose wife has just been murdered to immediately exploit that fact for political gain?

  12. I mean, at least Stephen Lawrence’s parents waited for the mourning period to end before going on a paid lecture tour across the UK to tell us how racist we are.

  13. “So you’re saying it’s unusual for a man whose wife has just been murdered to immediately exploit that fact for political gain?”

    Well at first, I thought that might be some manifestation of grief. A desire to push her ideals in her memory, perhaps.

    I’m not saying that wasn’t odd, and I quickly realised there was something else going on there (although I’m not sure what he was actually trying to achieve, given AFAIK he isn’t competing for political office).

    Rather I was talking about very immediate impressions at the time.

  14. Oblong – I thought it was very odd. Possibly he was consumed by grief and maneuvered into it by cynical Labour Party or media types.

    But I don’t think that’s what happened. And from recent reports, he seems to be a narcissist or similar type of predatory personality.

    It was disgusting how Cameron and Corbyn rushed to campaign over Jo Cox’s body (while claiming campaigning was suspended). Corbyn deserves the benefit of the doubt we usually give idiots. Cameron knew exactly what he was doing.

  15. I smile at those people who retweet this from Jo Cox “we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us” but object when you suggest that Afghans, Iraqis and Somalis housed in London could more affordably and sustainably be housed in the 99.5% of the UK that is not-London because London is where their communities are and where they’ve made their homes.
    Brendan Cox is one such.
    And they think they are being entirely consistent.

  16. SS2 : “he (Cox) seems to be a narcissist or similar type of predatory personality.” It’s part & parcel for these personality traits to be evident in most people involved in public life. Esp MPs. I do remember well chasing a Remain (LibDem) canvasser down my street, he having leafleted my property during the period when referendum campaigning had been suspended.

  17. @Oblong, February 12, 2018 at 11:05 am

    Apart from the attention-seeking in the press, it was something about his [Brendan Cox] body language in various photos and videos with Jo that just seemed weird. Couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was exactly.

    His grief appeared fake to me first time I saw him interviewed. His subsequent rapid commencement of self-centred campaigning emphasised this more.

    I suspected and still do, they were married in name only and both continued this for their own financial gain promoting CM SJW interests.

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.