Hip? Hippy? Hypocri…….

Feb 17:

Oxfam is to at least temporarily lose its access to government funding as a result of a tiny number of its staff committing acts

Feb 13:

And the result was abusive: Barclays gained from this.

But is there outrage? I have not heard it.

Has there been a call for banks to take the moral high ground, issued by ministers? No.

Has Barclays been threatened with the loss of all its public contracts? No.

Is it ‘coz Oxfam pays (or has paid) me and Barclay’s hasn’t?

8 comments on “Hip? Hippy? Hypocri…….

  1. Abusive? Up to a point. Financial Assistance is a technical matter rather than out and out abuse. Not in the same league as exploitation of poor women that you are supposed to be helping.

  2. Amazingly the only time his shown some sort of integrity – albeit vastly misguided. Eg “if you buy me I remain bought”

  3. So in Murphy’s fucked up world, tax abuse is worse than sexual abuse. Go figure. His defence of Oxfam is sickening.

  4. No, I don’t believe it is losing it’s government funding:-

    International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt said on Friday: “Oxfam has agreed to withdraw from bidding for any new UK Government funding until [the Department for International Development] is satisfied that they can meet the high standards we expect of our partners.” (h/t The Devil’s Kitchen)

    Note the word “new” in there. So all the old funding is in place, they just won’t get more for a few weeks.

    But I could be wrong because the Dick, being a socialist, is incapable of spreading fake news.

  5. Trade economists often talk of the WTO being a rules based system. He’s probably overheard the grown ups talking and although he didn’t understand it thinks it makes him sound like a wise and knowledgable grown up.

  6. What are the UK Government giving Oxfam money for anyway? Oxfam is a charity, which implies voluntarily funded. Taxes are compulsory and so you cannot both be a charity and taxpayer funded.

    If the UK Government thinks that it is a good idea for people to donate more to charity then, rather than forcing them to do it, perhaps they should reduce income taxes so that the populace can decide for themselves?

Leave a Reply

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 Your email address will not be published.