To defend Oxfam

And does he really think the world would have been a better place without the work development agencies have done, including the lobbying that has, for example, resulted in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and country-by-country reporting that are designed to hold the world’s multinational corporations to account when no one else has been able to make that demand?

Kiddie fiddling’s not so bad when the people doing it support the idea of mine. Invented by me.

68 comments on “To defend Oxfam

  1. The world is also a better place because of all the money raised by the Lord President’s lot, but they are not “of the tribe” and Oxfam are, so their money doesn’t count.

    Given that socialists are OK with a death toll of 100 million to reach their goal, a few foreign women exploited by the caring empaths is small beer indeed.

  2. It’s impressive that he can show himself such unstinting loyalty. Can he have been revisiting Dachau recently, I wonder?

  3. The other issue here is half of oxfams money comes from the taxpayer. Why are they getting that money given the mission drift to producing left wing propaganda and away from actual aid related work. Though at least the london based report writing jobs keeps them away from temptation.

  4. Oxfam should be there to relieve famine, not to lobby government about taxation.

    I wouldn’t object to them lobbying about famine relief, nearly as much.

    As an aside, some well-meaning person asked me to sign an Amnesty International petition about equal marriage in Nor’n Ireland. WTFF does gay rights have to do with Amnesty’s purpose? Or are they all being assimilated in to one SJW / bien pensant Borg?

  5. I wonder if Ritchie is angling for some work here? Do Oxfam pay tax experts for research? If they do he’s out of luck.

  6. I heard on the radio some Oxfam person saying “this is because of our political work, that we are being attacked”, completely shameless.

  7. To which the response should be, why are you doing political work? When you doorstep people to raise money that is not the basis on which the donations are solicited.

  8. Did he really invent country by country reporting or are you giving him too much credit there? Is that the same type of ‘invention’ that Apple did with the portable music player etc?

  9. @The Mole

    The idea of CbyC reporting was first discussed for the extractive industries around 1999. There was a lot of development work leading to a paper around September 2002. In October 2002 Murphy had a ‘discussion’ with Prem whatsisname which led to the “invention” of CbyC reporting by Spud the following year.

    Spud will endlessly repeat the bit starting “in October 2002”. I’ve commented on this on here before.

  10. Compare the reaction to this Oxfam thing to the The President’s Club thing.

    The left, never short of hypocrisy.

  11. I can’t see what the problem is here. Oxfam’s whole raison d’etre is the exploitation of the poor, the homeless and the starving.

  12. David Cameron was handed a golden opportunity to clip the BBC’s wings when it turned out they were enabling kiddy fiddling.

    A sworn enemy of conservatives, normally protected by its pretend neutrality and the popularity of The Great British Bake Off, suddenly in crisis? He could’ve slashed their budget, privatised it, or closed the whole thing down.

    So naturally, he did nothing.

    Like the Beeb, Oxfam is an enemy with its teeth clamped to the state’s nipple.

    I wonder what Theresa May will do.

  13. @SE

    I recall similar protestations, also by Amnesty iirc, about abortion laws – something which reasonable people in democratic countries can produce reasonable arguments for both sides of (in fact more than two sides since it isn’t a binary yes/no debate). Their argument was that they were very much in favour of human rights and best practice in human rights is that they begin at birth, hence they were opposed to granting “rights” to a fetus. Which struck me as odd – unlike fundamentalist followers of scriptural religion, even the most earnest defenders of human rights admit they are just something that people have made up, and have been subject to various rewritings and reassignments. The ECHR has gone from being completely compatible with the death penalty in its early days, to having the death penalty marked out as an especially egregious violation. At what stage in life rights get assigned is not written in stone, and even if you back a rights-based approach to laws (which not everyone does) then “at birth” is far from the only arguable timepoint. Yet now it seems if your views are not perfectly aligned with theirs over abortion issues, then you can’t be their true ally over political prisoners being tortured and executed by nasty regimes.

    What Give called The Blob in educational establishment terms seems to have a counterpart in charity and campaign work. There’s little scope for “agree to disagree” on issues of political and moral ambiguity – you have to get with the Like-Mind on tax and socialism or you can’t be a friend on saving people from famine, get with it who-can-use-which-loo before you can have a valid opinion on child marriage or sexual slavery…

    I don’t even disagree with all the stances they’re taking, I can be quite the right-on person myself if the mood strikes. But I disagree strenuously that they are the appropriate organisations to be taking those stances and I don’t like hiveminds which render unacceptable the expression of legal, valid, arguable but uncomfortable opinions. Some perspectives seem to have been expunged entirely from public debate.

  14. Surreptitious Evil – “WTFF does gay rights have to do with Amnesty’s purpose? Or are they all being assimilated in to one SJW / bien pensant Borg?”

    Amnesty has endorsed abortion as well and now criticises countries that have any sort of restrictions on it.

    So yes, they have been absorbed by the SJW Borg

  15. AndrewC, is there evidence that it was around pre-Oct 2002?

    If so, wouldn’t it be dead easy to prick the balloon once and for all?

    He may have come up with the idea independently, but it doesn’t seem too big a deal. OK, do your financial reports according to what you do by country. Or you could do it by product. Or hair colour of employee. Whatever. Doesn’t sound like invention of the telephone, does it?

    I’ve got a mate who is on an Asperger’s spectrum. Constantly rearranging his household bills by colour, date, etc. into different files. If I am over there, he proudly shows me. I bet he could have come up with country by country reporting.

  16. So, after 76 years of Oxfam and a mission statement to reduce tariffs, there is still a tariff on oranges imported from third world countries but not from italy.

    Why has Oxfam done nothing about this? Why are they in favour of poor people in UK not being able to buy oranges cheaply form poor farmers in poor countries?

  17. I thought Oxfam etc. were all about creating high-status, highly-paid, high-profile jobs in the humanitarian industry, with quite a bit of travel thrown in. Nice work if you can get it.

  18. Compare the reaction to this Oxfam thing to the The President’s Club thing.

    And compare with the reaction had another charity, a less political charity such as the Salvation Army, has done this.

  19. When this came up I researched grants by DiFID.

    Turns out the top 10 are all secular. And two population control charities are in there.

    I only give to Christian overseas charities which are partnered with local churches. Always a chance for local corruption, given we’re all sinners, but just less right on guff, promotion of abortion, climate change and general progressive nonsense. And I’m a card carrying member of the Labour Party!
    Local churches are much more likely to ensure the money goes somewhere useful and is properly accountable. So, Christian Aid, yes, Oxfam no. Tear Fund and Caritas and Open Doors and Barnabas Fund and Sally Army, but no to Amnesty. That was a shame, as I used to support this when it was about Prisoners of conscience. Stopped when it became the same as all the other secular charities.

  20. @SS2:SotP “Like the Beeb, Oxfam is an enemy with its teeth clamped to the state’s nipple.

    I wonder what Theresa May will do.”

    Offer them the other one as well?

  21. For an encore can we also have donors look into “facilitation payments” made by oxfam. The likes of oxfam have campaigned for some pretty stringent laws against those over the years and I don’t believe they exempted themselves.

  22. @ The Mole
    Under UK GAAP, prior to the introduction of IFRS, all companies were required to report separately all non-trivial results for individual countries [i.e. if a country accounted for 10% of anyone of either turnover, or profit, or loss, or capital employed or net assets, then all of these details had to be shown in notes to the accounts]. If a group of countries met the 10% level on one criterion when none of the individuals in that group did so, then data for the group must be shown. So sensible country-by-country information as if 186 countries jointly do not comprise 10% of turnover then the individual data for each one provides negligible *and no useful* information.
    Murphy did not invent CbyC – he distorted it.
    Companies often did, and still do,provide information in excess of statutory, GAAP, or IFRS requirements if they get a big export order or land a big contract although profit margins are seldom reported as that would be contrary to shareholders’ interests because it would give an advantage to foreign competitors when bidding for the next order/contract,.

  23. JuliaM – God, can you imagine if she was PM during WW2 or the Falklands? If she’d been in charge during the Cod War we’d all be speaking Iceland and listening to Bjork right now.

    TMB – You never know, she might have one of her whizzer ideas.

    Oxfam: “We’ve been using British taxpayer money to molest Third World kids.”

    May: “TODAY I AM PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THAT STATE FUNDED CHARITIES WILL ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO BRITISH CHILDREN”

  24. “I heard on the radio some Oxfam person saying “this is because of our political work, that we are being attacked”, completely shameless.”

    Let’s hope the Charity Comission was listening.

  25. Did he really invent country by country reporting or are you giving him too much credit there?

    Of course he didn’t. The idea had been floating around for a couple of decades before he latched onto it.

    And let’s be clear here: Country-By-Country reporting will not provide you any useful information regarding taxes paid or tax rates for individual corporations doing business in any particular country. Even if one assumes familiarity with the corporate tax system of a given country (and with Murphy it is safe to assume complete ignorance), the financial statements are not tax basis… They are prepared using IFRS/GAAP. And, irrespective of what Murphy claims, you cannot get from IFRS/GAAP to tax basis without a ton of information that is not in the public domain.

  26. Julia M: “@SS2:SotP “Like the Beeb, Oxfam is an enemy with its teeth clamped to the state’s nipple.

    I wonder what Theresa May will do.”

    Offer them the other one as well?”

    Lets hope they like bitter gall.

    Solid Steve: “David Cameron was handed a golden opportunity to clip the BBC’s wings when it turned out they were enabling kiddy fiddling. ”

    If you mean the supposed Jimmy Savile “Sex–King of The BBC” capers I would have to disagree.

    I do so as one who likes the BBC so much I am on here daily calling for them to be gone in 24 hours despite my having to against battle tag-teams of the terminally staid and conventional telling me how “impossible” such aspirations are.

    In short while I fucking hate the CM scum of the BBC the one set of crimes they are very likely entirely innocent of is the fantasy marx-femm narrative of Jimmy Savile as Sex-Crime Lord and Master of the BBC. I doubt very strongly that any of that –Dame Dimwit report notwithstanding –ever happened.

    You remain right Steve in your overall point. That Camoron was a CM jellyfish and slime-bloat who–had the BBC been found to be running (say) a Circus esp for kiddie fiddlers to meet fresh victims- still would not have lifted a finger against his CM Anti-Brexit allies.

    The BBC needs to go because of the wrong it does daily. Not for the one set of alleged capers it is likely innocent of.

  27. @Mr Ecks
    I was told that even in the 70s the BBC were telling staff to be careful of Saville – second hand so I can not prove it.

  28. The police investigated Jimmy Saville numerous times. Not a shred of evidence turned up on wrong doing. It is highly unlikely that he was guilty of anything.

    Off topic – but it seems that Barclays is in big trouble over their deal with the Gulf Arabs. You do deals with Qatari carpet salesmen, you should expect some other people to raise an eyebrow.

  29. @ Dennis
    Tax due on profits for the year is a much more relevant comparison to profits earned in the year than tax paid during the year.
    Murphy, of course, wants tax paid during the year so that he can contrast tax paid on a bad previous year with profits earned in a good year. The intricacies of tax rates and allowances don’t matter one iota to him – he wants to juxtapose low tax with high profit during the upswing of the commodity cycle to “prove” (no such thing) that all the multi-nationals are getting away with murder. You seem to be overestimating Murphy’s intellectual integrity.

  30. Re: Savile Truthery…

    Who cares? We’re not debating in the Oxford Union here, there’s no reward for fair play or good form or being a good loser.

    The progressive Left wants you humiliated, broke and dead and your kids raped and brainwashed. And they think it’s funny.

    And this isn’t just a Momentum thing. I dunno if you remember Tony Blair’s “forces of conservatism” speech, but I do, and it was a declaration of war.

    Any rhetorical stick that can be used to beat our enemies is a good weapon. They don’t hesitate to use the power of the state against us.

  31. @D the P

    What Murphy really wants is the tax returns of companies published so that he can distort what they mean.

    The C by C reporting he wants is a proxy for that.

    Except as John77 points out, they will be meaningless to the average punter and so Murphy will be able to make up anything that suits his agenda.

  32. SS2–From a practical POV I agree.

    But this particular marxist-femminist “stick” is as dangerous to the hitter as the hit.

    Remember how the Weinstein caper started as two-faced leftist men getting it in the neck–great!–but was rapidly morphed in too ” MeToo-all-men-are-rape-pigs” by the marxfemms. Followed up by the Grand Prix girls and and the President’s Club and business-types sacred to be in the same room with females.

    Attack the left –yes for Christ’s sake. But not on ground useful to them or in a manner that serves to further sharpen the weapons they have already crafted for use against us.

  33. “Oxfam should be there to relieve famine, not to lobby government about taxation.”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Seriously, if there was no more poverty, there would be no more Oxfam, and why would they want that?

  34. I’d love to meet a Lily Allen type who thinks the DfID budget should be raised
    Them “I think foreign aid should be 0.8% of UK national income”
    Me “Why do you want to cut UK help to foreigners?”
    The fact they won’t be able to compute the question would be delicious.

  35. Adrian said:
    “He [Murphy] may have come up with the idea [country-by-country reporting] independently”

    Wouldn’t surprise me; he’s so ignorant of what anyone else has written on any subject that he frequently proposes “new” ideas that have actually been written about, examined and usually dismissed for good reasons decades before.

  36. Returning to Spud…
    Like most leftists, his view of the world is Manichean: progressives are angels, rightists are demons. If progressives do bad things, then either this is rightist propaganda or rightists are worse. If rightists do bad things, then that’s because they are evil….

  37. And, FFS, defending Savile?
    Why? He’s dead.
    And the available evidence suggests the creep was vile.
    So don’t align yourself with his cause.
    Can we now focus on the present injustices perpetrated by the feminazis?

  38. Steve: “Any rhetorical stick that can be used to beat our enemies is a good weapon. They don’t hesitate to use the power of the state against us“

    But who will wield such a stick? Nobody with the means is stepping forward. Which tells us quite a bit about the feasibility of a political solution to this mess.

  39. Theo: “And, FFS, defending Savile?
    Why? He’s dead.
    And the available evidence suggests the creep was vile.
    So don’t align yourself with his cause.
    Can we now focus on the present injustices perpetrated by the feminazis?”

    Because Theo the Savile horseshit was the very foundation of the exercise in the abuse of the Justice system known as Operation Yewtree. Abuse that is still underway as more and more deservedly collapsed trials are showing.

    Todays femmi-injustices are being got-away-with on the back of several successful bullshit femmi-created panics–like a multi-stage rocket take-off to orbit around Planet Marxist tyranny.

    MeToo is the latest booster but a big stage was the titanic load of inflammable shite that is the Savile farrago.

    I’m not going into it all now. It would require a book– so ponderous is the accumulated load of allegation, evidence and actual fact. I have thought about it but I am ill-equipped to be an author and no bugger would publish it at present anyway. Others like Moor Larkin and the,sadly, late Anna Racoon are far more deserving to be the authors of such a tome. In 20-25 years I have little doubt Savile will be exonerated. But only after the deliberately stoked emotion has cooled. As with the various Satanic Panics which took 20-25 years to be finally and definitively exposed as absolute shite.

  40. Someone calling himself John Adams, which I suspect could be an assumed name, says

    The attack on Oxfam has nothing to do with the abuse of young women. That has never been a Government or media priority.
    The attack on Oxfam has everything to do with its stance on wealth and income inequality and its support for tax reform.
    Richard, this attack on Oxfam therefore is primarily an attack on you and your colleagues thirst for tax justice. Of course, for the Government to admit that and attack you directly would be bad PR. A more circumspect way must be found. An easier target sought. If a sex angle can be produced – perfect.

    Richard you are winning all the arguments. The Government at the behest of their lobbyists are seeking to drive a wedge between the Charity and Tax Justice sector with the aim of derailing reform. They will fail.

    The unargued equivalence between charity and tax justice is a gorgeous fallacy. The way he claims that an attack on Oxfam is an attack on Snippa is sublime.

  41. For once I agree with Ecks. The Salem witch trials. Despite never being taken to trial and found guilty, all of Saville’s wealth has been taken by lawyers. What good has come of that?

  42. @Bongo, February 12, 2018 at 6:38 pm

    I’d love to meet a Lily Allen type who thinks the DfID budget should be raised
    Them “I think foreign aid should be 0.8% of UK national income”
    Me “Why do you want to cut UK help to foreigners?”
    The fact they won’t be able to compute the question would be delicious.

    I’ve tried, but can’t see the point you are making.

    Please explain.

    .
    Re: May & taxpayer extorted money “donated” to Oxfam.

    Until the 0.7% GDP Law is abolished it’s irrelevant as it will simply be “donated” to another corrupt self-serving SJW NGO or even less accountable International entity like EU, UN.

  43. Foreign aid has been a huge net negative for everyone except the Tarquins and Jocastas with which it’s infested. So Spud can go fuck himself.

  44. I agree totally with BiCR above. Except the government is now threatening to prosecute the people involved in Haiti.

    I am not sure of the logic of this. By what right does the British government choose to prosecute a Belgian national – a country where prostitution is legal – for paying for sex in Haiti – where prostitution sure as hell looks legal? Especially as prostitution is legal in the UK.

    The f*ckers who run our government are so awful they may drive me to defend the f*ckers who work for that f**king awful Oxfam.

  45. Watching the Tarquins and Jocastas circle the wagon this morning and cloak themselves in Victimhood is utterly as vile as the kiddy fiddlers.

  46. @MrEcks “Because Theo the Savile horseshit was the very foundation of the exercise in the abuse of the Justice system known as Operation Yewtree.”

    Not quite, it more shifted it. Prior to this (and for about 20 years) the same game has been played with Residential Care ; 50 year old men magically remembering abuse at the same time that cheques were waved in front of them.

    Solicitor aquaintance of mine who is an expert in this said he thought the target would move to Old People’s Homes, but Savile shifted it into a old ex-Celeb witch hunt.

    Whether Savile did anything is a moot point. I’m inclined to think he probably did ; just only maybe 10% of what is actually claimed.

  47. @Diogenes “What good has come of that?”

    Well, the Lawyers have done well out of it, and the Police can ponce about in front of Cameras rather than stop actual crime. It’s skiving ; just like monitoring twitter.

  48. “Because Theo the Savile horseshit was the very foundation of the exercise in the abuse of the Justice system known as Operation Yewtree.”

    Focussing on the origin of something, rather than the thing itself, is not a good strategy, Ecksy. Rightly or wrongly, Savile is judged to be guilty. In time, that may change; but defending Savile now is backward-looking and bad PR.

  49. Theophrastus – “Rightly or wrongly, Savile is judged to be guilty. In time, that may change; but defending Savile now is backward-looking and bad PR.”

    Funny but my heroes are always the people who say that perhaps the Scotsboro boys are not guilty, that perhaps the Jews do not slaughter Christian children to make their bread.

    Not the people who say that the mob has spoken and we should go along with it.

    Jimmy Savile was investigated by the police on numerous occasions. Not a single credible accusation was made. He never stood trial. He was never convicted of anything. That the mob thinks that he is guilty is irrelevant. It is precisely against the mob that decent men should stand.

    And likewise the people convicted of killing Stephen Lawrence are almost certainly innocent.

  50. Only 3 months ago Oxfam made a video accusing the multi-nationals of being child abusers/killers
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAdpodJkB9c
    You could not make this shit up.

    @Pcar – apologias, I was trying to be too cryptic. Including remittances, voluntary donations, round numbers, UK residents give about 2-2.5% of national income to foreign. Some people don’t acknowledge people are generous and that the market has got this covered. They think good can only come from government, so the government share must rise.

  51. Paul–I don’t agree with you about Savile but you are entirely right about children’s Homes.

    Perhaps any book would have to be about the general lies and evil of CM feminism. Both the Homes and Savile would be very long chapters in what would have to be a colossal book.

    I wish I were a brilliant, dogged researcher and expert author that I could write such a tome. Rather than the lazy and otherwise occupied fellow I actually am.

  52. I’m reasonably convinced that Saville (and others) did not check the birth certificates of pretty young things that were hurling themselves at him. Consensual but illegal stuff may then have happened.

    I’m ready to believe that he indulged in “unfit for the modern workplace” flirting. It was the 70s and he was a DJ not a lawyer. This may have included stuff which would now be prosecutable as sexual harassment or even assault.

    I do not believe any of this should make him the hate figure he has now become.

    C.f. Polanski. Who now, thankfully, appears to be being deserted by at least some of his leftist fans.

  53. Candidly, we need country-by-country sex reporting, supplemented by unitary sexation, to fully understand the extent of Oxfam’s crimes.

  54. Amnesty has endorsed abortion as well and now criticises countries that have any sort of restrictions on it.

    My Dad recently told me my late mother used to donate to Amnesty, but stopped when they started promoting abortion. So she switched her donations to some other charity dealing with prisoners of conscience. My Dad then told me he stopped that some years later because he found the money was being used, in part at least, to house some Afghan woman in Croydon who was afraid to go back home because she was a lesbian. Not quite what Mum had signed up for, I think…

  55. SMFS

    “Funny but my heroes are always the people who say that perhaps the Scotsboro boys are not guilty, that perhaps the Jews do not slaughter Christian children to make their bread.”

    The issue of Savile is unresolvable, one way or the other, in the current climate – indeed, it may never be resolvable – and, whatever the truth, it would make no material difference; so there’s no point in campaigning about Savile. However, Rolf Harris, the Scotsboro boys, the men convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence or whether Jews murdered Christian children are all issues that deserve to be resolved because their resolution would make a material difference.

Leave a Reply

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