Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE DEPUTY CHIEF executive of UK charity Oxfam resigned today over the charity’s handling of a prostitution scandal in Haiti involving its staff members and allegations of similar behaviour in Chad.
“Over the last few days, we have become aware that concerns were raised about the behaviour of staff in Chad, as well as Haiti, that we failed to adequately act upon,” Penny Lawrence said in a statement.
“It is now clear that these allegations – involving the use of prostitutes and which related to behaviour of both the country director and members of his team in Chad – were raised before he moved to Haiti.
As programme director at the time, I am ashamed that this happened on my watch and I take full responsibility.
Lawrence said that she was “desperately sorry” for the harm and distress that this had caused.
“I am desperately sorry for the harm and distress that this has caused to Oxfam’s supporters, the wider development sector and most of all the vulnerable people who trusted us,” she said.
It has been such a privilege to work for such an amazing organisation that has done and needs to continue to do such good in the world.
The charity has come under strong pressure after an investigation by The Times found young sex workers were hired by senior staff in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake which devastated the island and left up to 300,000 people dead.
Groups of young prostitutes were invited to homes and guesthouses paid for by the charity for sex parties, according to one source who claimed to have seen footage of an orgy with sex workers wearing Oxfam t-shirts.
Over the weekend UK prime minister Theresa May called for an investigation into the allegations.
“The reports of what is unacceptable behaviour by senior aid workers in Haiti are truly shocking,” a spokeswoman for Theresa May said.
“We want to see Oxfam provide all the evidence they hold of the events to the Charity Commission for a full and urgent investigation of these very serious allegations.”
With reporting from Cormac Fitzgerald
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Have they found a way to blame Sinn Féin yet?
@Niall Power: Only Monday yet
It’s not surprising Fine Gael, the party of the rich, want to increase house prices for first time buyers.
We allowed banks to self regulate then the taxpayer had to bail them out, we allowed the insurance industry to self-regulate then the taxpayer had to bail them out and we allowed the construction industry to self regulate and now the taxpayer has to bail them out. There was a cosy relationship between construction and recent governments but trust has been permanently damaged. Not just mica but fire safety. Corners cut everywhere and no one accountable. If it adds 4K to the cost of a new house to build it in a manner that means it won’t crack and crumble into the ground within ten years then that is a cost worth paying.
@Sean: how long have you had a house Sean?
@Sean: that 4k figure is an absolute myth, based on figures that nobody thought to check.
This will be a great excuse for FF to pull the rug out from under Lord Veradader before his coronation in December.
The builders will get the maximum price they can for a house. The price they get will be determined by supply and demand. So the builder or developer will be the ones paying for the levy. The suggestion that if you put a levy on concrete the builder will just add it on to the price of the house is just simplistic.
@Mick Hyland: In simple terms this is correct.
But if a developer has input costs that increase by say 1%. Then 99 houses get built instead of 100. So it’ll still affect supply.
@Paolo Fandango: Why would only 99 houses get built if the developer’s input costs increase by 1%? The developer is not operating with a fixed pot of money; as long as he’s making an attractive return on capital he will continue to build more houses.
@Mick Hyland: the 1% is being absorbed by the developer. Fixed pot or not, it’s still less net income which reduces the amount of assets they can build.
The 1% cost doesn’t just disappear
So this is to offset the cost of mica redress scheme (which I believe impacted over 7000 homes). Am I miss understanding something here, but why is the whole Country now being forced to pay and contribute to a concrete levy (which we know will be permanent)? I know they are raising funds to offset, but this seems the complete wrong way to do it! Building material costs are already excessive.
I’m simple terms this is correct.
But if a developer has input costs that increase by say 1%. Then 99 houses get built instead of 100. So it’ll still affect supply.
@Paolo Fandango: this was supposed to be a response to mick above.
have your say