Using Sex Workers in Haiti

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 10:56 PM

Violet1956 - 2018-02-11 9:04 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 8:52 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-11 8:08 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 4:06 PMI had to Google search to find out what news item it was you were on about.Whilst prostitutes should have a right to ply their chosen trade it seems not so in Haiti as it's illegal so that seems clear enough. Oxfam’s country director in Haiti, Roland van Hauwermeiren, who, according to the report, admitted using prostitutes at the villa rented for him by Oxfam with charitable funds, was allowed to resign. He should have been sacked.

For goodness sake this is Haiti....a third world sh1thole as lawless as it is possible to get amidst other quite civilised countries/islands.Just because Papa Doc and Baby Doc have moved on nothing has really changed there so I fail to see the relevance, or indeed newsworthiness in a report that aid workers, irrespective of appointment, used prostitutes.

As quoted in the article i linked i expect it's the fact they appear to have used (abused) the charities premises, or at least the director had. A charity which does excellent humanitarian aid work all over the world but relies on public donations. What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them.

I’d go further BG. It is not acceptable for any aid worker to go to a country and exploit some of the most vulnerable and desperate to satisfy their lust. Engaging in the most intimate of human contact with someone who treats you like a piece of meat to be used and then cast off has to be one of the most miserable and dehumanising forms of all social interaction.

It's certainly not what i'd expect from any charity aid workers. If they must have a prostitute, then there are plenty in their own country.

Now that is ridiculous.  Just for example a young fit chap who happens to be German (so yes there are plenty of prostitutes there)is working a 9 month contract in Haiti.  According to your premise if he feels in need of sexual relief and there is no girlfriend/non prostitute to, shall we say, oblige the young man he is supposed to remain celibate or jump on a jet and fly back to Germany?  

As for your other comment what you said was:

"What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".

These people are transient workers/managers who live in accommodation provided by the company or the rent is paid by the company.  For example the UN does this for all it's workers.  Therefore how can your premise of what they do outside work in their private life is their business but ceases to be when using facilities not owned by them when they clearly do not own their accommodation?

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2018-02-12 6:23 PM

 

pepe63 - 2018-02-12 5:54 PM

 

If the government is going to start withdrawing their funds from organisations that has members that use the services of prostitutes or whose members use the premises supplied to them for "sleazy" sex parties, then we may end up with a depleted overseas military and diplomatic presence......? :-S

What an indictment Pepe! Where do we go from here? Do we accept that the exploitation of people in reduced circumstances is a fact of life or do we say there should be an end to it?

 

But who was exploiting who Veronica when it came to prostitutes in Haiti ???

[pepe63xnotuse]

Violet1956 - 2018-02-12 6:23 PM

 

pepe63 - 2018-02-12 5:54 PM

 

If the government is going to start withdrawing their funds from organisations that has members that use the services of prostitutes or whose members use the premises supplied to them for "sleazy" sex parties, then we may end up with a depleted overseas military and diplomatic presence......? :-S

What an indictment Pepe! Where do we go from here? Do we accept that the exploitation of people in reduced circumstances is a fact of life or do we say there should be an end to it?

 

Sorry, you misunderstand V..

I'm not for one minute saying we should accept this sort of conduct. Those responsible should've been held to account..

It's the whole "Government withdrawing of funding" that I had a problem with. It seemed play to the "stop sending money to johnnie foreigner" lobby..

[Violet1956]

pepe63 - 2018-02-12 6:42 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2018-02-12 6:23 PM

 

pepe63 - 2018-02-12 5:54 PM

 

If the government is going to start withdrawing their funds from organisations that has members that use the services of prostitutes or whose members use the premises supplied to them for "sleazy" sex parties, then we may end up with a depleted overseas military and diplomatic presence......? :-S

What an indictment Pepe! Where do we go from here? Do we accept that the exploitation of people in reduced circumstances is a fact of life or do we say there should be an end to it?

 

Sorry, you misunderstand V..

I'm not for one minute saying we should accept this sort of conduct. Those responsible should've been held to account..

It's the whole "Government withdrawing of funding" that I had a problem with. It seemed play to the "stop sending money to johnnie foreigner" lobby..

 

I get your drift Pepe. It is way too simplistic to hold that all government funding should be withdrawn from Oxfam or any other body involved in humanitarian work just because of the behaviour of some rogue employees or volunteers.

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2018-02-12 6:59 PM

 

pepe63 - 2018-02-12 6:42 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2018-02-12 6:23 PM

 

pepe63 - 2018-02-12 5:54 PM

 

If the government is going to start withdrawing their funds from organisations that has members that use the services of prostitutes or whose members use the premises supplied to them for "sleazy" sex parties, then we may end up with a depleted overseas military and diplomatic presence......? :-S

What an indictment Pepe! Where do we go from here? Do we accept that the exploitation of people in reduced circumstances is a fact of life or do we say there should be an end to it?

 

 

 

Sorry, you misunderstand V..

I'm not for one minute saying we should accept this sort of conduct. Those responsible should've been held to account..

It's the whole "Government withdrawing of funding" that I had a problem with. It seemed play to the "stop sending money to johnnie foreigner" lobby..

 

 

 

 

I get your drift Pepe. It is way too simplistic to hold that all government funding should be withdrawn from Oxfam or any other body involved in humanitarian work just because of the behaviour of some rogue employees or volunteers.

 

 

Yes ... God forbid we have another Kids Company

[nowtelse2do]

Are we talking about Aid or Aids.....sounds like both are not far apart.

 

Dave

 

 

[antony1969]

Oxfam ... Preach to the world about POTUS Trumps supposed racism and refusal to take refugees and tell us how capitalism spreads hunger yet they cover up mass use by their workers of prostitutes with even some who were selling themselves possibly underage ... What a show a sh8t ... Bet those sacked don't lose their fat pensions

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2018-02-12 6:30 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 10:56 PM

Violet1956 - 2018-02-11 9:04 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 8:52 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-11 8:08 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 4:06 PMI had to Google search to find out what news item it was you were on about.Whilst prostitutes should have a right to ply their chosen trade it seems not so in Haiti as it's illegal so that seems clear enough. Oxfam’s country director in Haiti, Roland van Hauwermeiren, who, according to the report, admitted using prostitutes at the villa rented for him by Oxfam with charitable funds, was allowed to resign. He should have been sacked.

For goodness sake this is Haiti....a third world sh1thole as lawless as it is possible to get amidst other quite civilised countries/islands.Just because Papa Doc and Baby Doc have moved on nothing has really changed there so I fail to see the relevance, or indeed newsworthiness in a report that aid workers, irrespective of appointment, used prostitutes.

As quoted in the article i linked i expect it's the fact they appear to have used (abused) the charities premises, or at least the director had. A charity which does excellent humanitarian aid work all over the world but relies on public donations. What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them.

I’d go further BG. It is not acceptable for any aid worker to go to a country and exploit some of the most vulnerable and desperate to satisfy their lust. Engaging in the most intimate of human contact with someone who treats you like a piece of meat to be used and then cast off has to be one of the most miserable and dehumanising forms of all social interaction.

It's certainly not what i'd expect from any charity aid workers. If they must have a prostitute, then there are plenty in their own country.

Now that is ridiculous. Just for example a young fit chap who happens to be German (so yes there are plenty of prostitutes there)is working a 9 month contract in Haiti. According to your premise if he feels in need of sexual relief and there is no girlfriend/non prostitute to, shall we say, oblige the young man he is supposed to remain celibate or jump on a jet and fly back to Germany?

Oh i've no doubt as an example, our Embassy staff have 'got busy' in the past with some pay to play girls.......but very much doubt any have been daft enough to use the Embassy buildings or Ambassadors residence as a brothel. That certainly would not go down too well with UK taxpayers.

As for your other comment what you said was:"What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".These people are transient workers/managers who live in accommodation provided by the company or the rent is paid by the company. For example the UN does this for all it's workers. Therefore how can your premise of what they do outside work in their private life is their business but ceases to be when using facilities not owned by them when they clearly do not own their accommodation?

Sort of ties in with the above really Roger. I've no idea what kind of employer you had but once i'd done my allotted shift and was off their premises.....that was it, i was free to do what i liked. However if any one us fancied hooking up with a prostitute, even in our own time, we would certainly not be allowed to use company premises or facilities to entertain them.Perhaps you had a very lax employer who gave everyone carte blanche to do what the heck they liked on work premises?

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2018-02-12 9:12 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-12 6:30 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 10:56 PM

Violet1956 - 2018-02-11 9:04 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 8:52 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-11 8:08 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 4:06 PMI had to Google search to find out what news item it was you were on about.Whilst prostitutes should have a right to ply their chosen trade it seems not so in Haiti as it's illegal so that seems clear enough. Oxfam’s country director in Haiti, Roland van Hauwermeiren, who, according to the report, admitted using prostitutes at the villa rented for him by Oxfam with charitable funds, was allowed to resign. He should have been sacked.

For goodness sake this is Haiti....a third world sh1thole as lawless as it is possible to get amidst other quite civilised countries/islands.Just because Papa Doc and Baby Doc have moved on nothing has really changed there so I fail to see the relevance, or indeed newsworthiness in a report that aid workers, irrespective of appointment, used prostitutes.

As quoted in the article i linked i expect it's the fact they appear to have used (abused) the charities premises, or at least the director had. A charity which does excellent humanitarian aid work all over the world but relies on public donations. What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them.

I’d go further BG. It is not acceptable for any aid worker to go to a country and exploit some of the most vulnerable and desperate to satisfy their lust. Engaging in the most intimate of human contact with someone who treats you like a piece of meat to be used and then cast off has to be one of the most miserable and dehumanising forms of all social interaction.

It's certainly not what i'd expect from any charity aid workers. If they must have a prostitute, then there are plenty in their own country.

Now that is ridiculous. Just for example a young fit chap who happens to be German (so yes there are plenty of prostitutes there)is working a 9 month contract in Haiti. According to your premise if he feels in need of sexual relief and there is no girlfriend/non prostitute to, shall we say, oblige the young man he is supposed to remain celibate or jump on a jet and fly back to Germany?

Oh i've no doubt as an example, our Embassy staff have 'got busy' in the past with some pay to play girls.......but very much doubt any have been daft enough to use the Embassy buildings or Ambassadors residence as a brothel. That certainly would not go down too well with UK taxpayers.

As for your other comment what you said was:"What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".These people are transient workers/managers who live in accommodation provided by the company or the rent is paid by the company. For example the UN does this for all it's workers. Therefore how can your premise of what they do outside work in their private life is their business but ceases to be when using facilities not owned by them when they clearly do not own their accommodation?

Sort of ties in with the above really Roger. I've no idea what kind of employer you had but once i'd done my allotted shift and was off their premises.....that was it, i was free to do what i liked. However if any one us fancied hooking up with a prostitute, even in our own time, we would certainly not be allowed to use company premises or facilities to entertain them.Perhaps you had a very lax employer who gave everyone carte blanche to do what the heck they liked on work premises?

Bullet you are either playing devils advocate or are talking nonsense.  I never once mentioned as you put it 'company premises' and therefore your 'lax employer' comment really was not called for.  I clearly said that those working abroad are usually accommodated either by the company or receive a rent allowance from the company.  Therefore the employee, according to your assertion, when at his/her accommodation is never allowed to indulge in whatever their private life needs/desires might be because they 'do not own them'.

You said:

" What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them."

Well as the accommodation is either rented by or paid for by the company please tell me just when individuals are to have a 'private' life?

Lastly you are aware that you have altered your argument in the last paragraph to 'work premises'? because my response was to this comment:

" What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them."

I thought I would repeat it just in case you didn't understand your own change of context.  So which is it ...'outside work' or 'facilities not owned by them'?  To me there is a clearly understandable difference.

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2018-02-12 10:36 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-12 9:12 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-12 6:30 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 10:56 PM

Violet1956 - 2018-02-11 9:04 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 8:52 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-11 8:08 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 4:06 PMI had to Google search to find out what news item it was you were on about.Whilst prostitutes should have a right to ply their chosen trade it seems not so in Haiti as it's illegal so that seems clear enough. Oxfam’s country director in Haiti, Roland van Hauwermeiren, who, according to the report, admitted using prostitutes at the villa rented for him by Oxfam with charitable funds, was allowed to resign. He should have been sacked.

For goodness sake this is Haiti....a third world sh1thole as lawless as it is possible to get amidst other quite civilised countries/islands.Just because Papa Doc and Baby Doc have moved on nothing has really changed there so I fail to see the relevance, or indeed newsworthiness in a report that aid workers, irrespective of appointment, used prostitutes.

As quoted in the article i linked i expect it's the fact they appear to have used (abused) the charities premises, or at least the director had. A charity which does excellent humanitarian aid work all over the world but relies on public donations. What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them.

I’d go further BG. It is not acceptable for any aid worker to go to a country and exploit some of the most vulnerable and desperate to satisfy their lust. Engaging in the most intimate of human contact with someone who treats you like a piece of meat to be used and then cast off has to be one of the most miserable and dehumanising forms of all social interaction.

It's certainly not what i'd expect from any charity aid workers. If they must have a prostitute, then there are plenty in their own country.

Now that is ridiculous. Just for example a young fit chap who happens to be German (so yes there are plenty of prostitutes there)is working a 9 month contract in Haiti. According to your premise if he feels in need of sexual relief and there is no girlfriend/non prostitute to, shall we say, oblige the young man he is supposed to remain celibate or jump on a jet and fly back to Germany?

Oh i've no doubt as an example, our Embassy staff have 'got busy' in the past with some pay to play girls.......but very much doubt any have been daft enough to use the Embassy buildings or Ambassadors residence as a brothel. That certainly would not go down too well with UK taxpayers.

As for your other comment what you said was:"What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".These people are transient workers/managers who live in accommodation provided by the company or the rent is paid by the company. For example the UN does this for all it's workers. Therefore how can your premise of what they do outside work in their private life is their business but ceases to be when using facilities not owned by them when they clearly do not own their accommodation?

Sort of ties in with the above really Roger. I've no idea what kind of employer you had but once i'd done my allotted shift and was off their premises.....that was it, i was free to do what i liked. However if any one us fancied hooking up with a prostitute, even in our own time, we would certainly not be allowed to use company premises or facilities to entertain them.Perhaps you had a very lax employer who gave everyone carte blanche to do what the heck they liked on work premises?

Bullet you are either playing devils advocate or are talking nonsense. I never once mentioned as you put it 'company premises' and therefore your 'lax employer' comment really was not called for. I clearly said that those working abroad are usually accommodated either by the company or receive a rent allowance from the company. Therefore the employee, according to your assertion, when at his/her accommodation is never allowed to indulge in whatever their private life needs/desires might be because they 'do not own them'.So which is it ...'outside work' or 'facilities not owned by them'? To me there is a clearly understandable difference.

Facilities not owned by them. I would have though that patently obvious? Not to mention them being funded by public donations. They should have booked an Hotel room.Oh and maybe we should forget that other awkward matter of prostitution being illegal in Haiti, a bit like running a brothel is in UK, so to make matters worse, senior Oxfam officials were indulging illegal activities in a foreign country. Brilliant.

[Guest pelmetman]

Those aid workers deffo have to rough it don't they? :D .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5383251/Inside-Oxfams-Caligula-orgy-villa.html

 

Glad I ain't wasted any money by donating to Oxfam >:-) .......

 

 

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2018-02-13 8:30 AM

 

Those aid workers deffo have to rough it don't they? :D .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5383251/Inside-Oxfams-Caligula-orgy-villa.html

 

Glad I ain't wasted any money by donating to Oxfam >:-) .......

 

 

 

 

 

I have no problem with their spending their salaries on prostitutes.

Whether they should be using harrowing pictures of starving children to fund their six figure salaries and luxury villas is a differnt matter. You can look at Oxfam's accounts on the Charity Commission website. They have to make their accounts public to get their charity tax status. They don't tell us more than they have to - they are as coy about their expenses as Members of Parliament. But at least they can't disguise oxfam employees on 6 figure salaries. :-(

[Barryd999]

I would hardly call that a "Luxury Villa". Even the Mali couldn't tart it up to look much better than your average holiday apartment. Where do they expect them to stay? In tents?

[StuartO]

antony1969 - 2018-02-13 9:13 AM

StuartO - 2018-02-12 5:13 PM    ....  I haven't bothered wading through all the long nested posts by Anthony1969  and John52  so I might have missed a comment from you amongst those.....

 

Eh ????? ....."long nested posts by Antony 1969 or John 52" ..... You for real ..... Its not often I stick up for John but think you'll find most of your posts are way longer than mine or Johns put together .... If your going to insult then make sure ya get your facts right Stuart ... Too long for ya ???

 

Sorry,didn't mean to criticise your brevity, it's just than when the two of you are playing ping pong in familiar ways and covering the same sort of ground, often trying to nail each other down to re-make a point, with posts dominated by multi-nesting as the easy way to keep your argument going, even though your ping or pong this time might be concise, I tend to skip over them.

 

We all have the right to choose which posts we find interesting don't we?

 

[John52]

I should add I see no problem with their taking prostitutes back to the villa - its still costing us the same £1200 a month whether its used for prostitutes or not. Whether we should be paying so much to rent a villa there is a different question. In any case I think Oxfam should tell us the truth about where our money is really going. This is not what they tell us in their fund raising campaigns :-(

[John52]

Barryd999 - 2018-02-13 11:31 AM

 

I would hardly call that a "Luxury Villa". ?

 

I wonder what percentage of Oxfam donors have a private swimming pool - or would donate voluntarily if they knew thats where their money was going *-)

[antony1969]

StuartO - 2018-02-13 11:39 AM

antony1969 - 2018-02-13 9:13 AM

StuartO - 2018-02-12 5:13 PM    ....  I haven't bothered wading through all the long nested posts by Anthony1969  and John52  so I might have missed a comment from you amongst those.....

 

Eh ????? ....."long nested posts by Antony 1969 or John 52" ..... You for real ..... Its not often I stick up for John but think you'll find most of your posts are way longer than mine or Johns put together .... If your going to insult then make sure ya get your facts right Stuart ... Too long for ya ???

 

Sorry,didn't mean to criticise your brevity, it's just than when the two of you are playing ping pong in familiar ways and covering the same sort of ground, often trying to nail each other down to re-make a point, with posts dominated by multi-nesting as the easy way to keep your argument going, even though your ping or pong this time might be concise, I tend to skip over them.

 

We all have the right to choose which posts we find interesting don't we?

Absolutely ... I thought I discussed with John though not argued ... You do know you don't have to read the quoted pages each time don't ya :-> and you've done it again your posts longer than my posts

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2018-02-12 11:09 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-12 10:36 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-12 9:12 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-12 6:30 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 10:56 PM

Violet1956 - 2018-02-11 9:04 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 8:52 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-11 8:08 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 4:06 PMI had to Google search to find out what news item it was you were on about.Whilst prostitutes should have a right to ply their chosen trade it seems not so in Haiti as it's illegal so that seems clear enough. Oxfam’s country director in Haiti, Roland van Hauwermeiren, who, according to the report, admitted using prostitutes at the villa rented for him by Oxfam with charitable funds, was allowed to resign. He should have been sacked.

For goodness sake this is Haiti....a third world sh1thole as lawless as it is possible to get amidst other quite civilised countries/islands.Just because Papa Doc and Baby Doc have moved on nothing has really changed there so I fail to see the relevance, or indeed newsworthiness in a report that aid workers, irrespective of appointment, used prostitutes.

As quoted in the article i linked i expect it's the fact they appear to have used (abused) the charities premises, or at least the director had. A charity which does excellent humanitarian aid work all over the world but relies on public donations. What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them.

I’d go further BG. It is not acceptable for any aid worker to go to a country and exploit some of the most vulnerable and desperate to satisfy their lust. Engaging in the most intimate of human contact with someone who treats you like a piece of meat to be used and then cast off has to be one of the most miserable and dehumanising forms of all social interaction.

It's certainly not what i'd expect from any charity aid workers. If they must have a prostitute, then there are plenty in their own country.

Now that is ridiculous. Just for example a young fit chap who happens to be German (so yes there are plenty of prostitutes there)is working a 9 month contract in Haiti. According to your premise if he feels in need of sexual relief and there is no girlfriend/non prostitute to, shall we say, oblige the young man he is supposed to remain celibate or jump on a jet and fly back to Germany?

Oh i've no doubt as an example, our Embassy staff have 'got busy' in the past with some pay to play girls.......but very much doubt any have been daft enough to use the Embassy buildings or Ambassadors residence as a brothel. That certainly would not go down too well with UK taxpayers.

As for your other comment what you said was:"What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".These people are transient workers/managers who live in accommodation provided by the company or the rent is paid by the company. For example the UN does this for all it's workers. Therefore how can your premise of what they do outside work in their private life is their business but ceases to be when using facilities not owned by them when they clearly do not own their accommodation?

Sort of ties in with the above really Roger. I've no idea what kind of employer you had but once i'd done my allotted shift and was off their premises.....that was it, i was free to do what i liked. However if any one us fancied hooking up with a prostitute, even in our own time, we would certainly not be allowed to use company premises or facilities to entertain them.Perhaps you had a very lax employer who gave everyone carte blanche to do what the heck they liked on work premises?

Bullet you are either playing devils advocate or are talking nonsense. I never once mentioned as you put it 'company premises' and therefore your 'lax employer' comment really was not called for. I clearly said that those working abroad are usually accommodated either by the company or receive a rent allowance from the company. Therefore the employee, according to your assertion, when at his/her accommodation is never allowed to indulge in whatever their private life needs/desires might be because they 'do not own them'.So which is it ...'outside work' or 'facilities not owned by them'? To me there is a clearly understandable difference.

Facilities not owned by them. I would have though that patently obvious? Not to mention them being funded by public donations. They should have booked an Hotel room.Oh and maybe we should forget that other awkward matter of prostitution being illegal in Haiti, a bit like running a brothel is in UK, so to make matters worse, senior Oxfam officials were indulging illegal activities in a foreign country. Brilliant.

Ah ...facilities not owned by them. You have used so many different statements regarding 'not owned'....'work place' etc that I really think you are losing the plot.

So by your position no one working anywhere and living in rented accommodation which is paid for by the company has the right to a private life in their accommodation?

I say this because you said:

'What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".

Clearly living in rented accommodation paid for by the company is not something the employee owns now is it?

For goodness sake you're spouting like some puritanical preacher.

It is Haiti........lots of things are illegal there 'on paper' but as it is a third world country the law in reality is somewhat lax and/or corrupt.

I really think it is time you looked at things in a realistic manner rather than an idealistic armchair outlook.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2018-02-13 11:31 AM

 

I would hardly call that a "Luxury Villa". Even the Mali couldn't tart it up to look much better than your average holiday apartment. Where do they expect them to stay? In tents?

 

Why not? :-S ........

 

I don't recall us Navy folk being offered such accommodation when they were landed in such places to help the locals? ;-) .........

 

Besides it is all about....... "CHAaaaRITY"...... is it not? >:-) .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2018-02-13 2:19 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-02-13 11:31 AM

 

I would hardly call that a "Luxury Villa". Even the Mali couldn't tart it up to look much better than your average holiday apartment. Where do they expect them to stay? In tents?

 

Why not? :-S ........

 

I don't recall us Navy folk being offered such accommodation when they were landed in such places to help the locals? ;-) .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah but you probably had no choice. I never understand why some people think people who work for a big charity should have crap perks and work for nothing. Charity is like a business and as such needs to attract the right people. £1200 a month for a villa? I doubt its a villa. Probably a shared pool in an apartment. Maybe Haiti is cheep I dunno but you wont get a decent villa for £1200 a week let alone a month in most places.

 

This "appears" like the recent Presidents Club debacle to have been blown out of all proportion and could according to the lunchtime news bring Oxfam to its knees. The only losers there will be the poor that greatly needed Oxfams help. We seem to have a knee jerk reaction to just about anything these days before we know all the facts. If a few people need sacking then sack em, make a few rule changes and just sort it out.

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2018-02-13 1:16 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-12 11:09 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-12 10:36 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-12 9:12 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-12 6:30 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 10:56 PM

Violet1956 - 2018-02-11 9:04 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 8:52 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-11 8:08 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 4:06 PMI had to Google search to find out what news item it was you were on about.Whilst prostitutes should have a right to ply their chosen trade it seems not so in Haiti as it's illegal so that seems clear enough. Oxfam’s country director in Haiti, Roland van Hauwermeiren, who, according to the report, admitted using prostitutes at the villa rented for him by Oxfam with charitable funds, was allowed to resign. He should have been sacked.

For goodness sake this is Haiti....a third world sh1thole as lawless as it is possible to get amidst other quite civilised countries/islands.Just because Papa Doc and Baby Doc have moved on nothing has really changed there so I fail to see the relevance, or indeed newsworthiness in a report that aid workers, irrespective of appointment, used prostitutes.

As quoted in the article i linked i expect it's the fact they appear to have used (abused) the charities premises, or at least the director had. A charity which does excellent humanitarian aid work all over the world but relies on public donations. What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them.

I’d go further BG. It is not acceptable for any aid worker to go to a country and exploit some of the most vulnerable and desperate to satisfy their lust. Engaging in the most intimate of human contact with someone who treats you like a piece of meat to be used and then cast off has to be one of the most miserable and dehumanising forms of all social interaction.

It's certainly not what i'd expect from any charity aid workers. If they must have a prostitute, then there are plenty in their own country.

Now that is ridiculous. Just for example a young fit chap who happens to be German (so yes there are plenty of prostitutes there)is working a 9 month contract in Haiti. According to your premise if he feels in need of sexual relief and there is no girlfriend/non prostitute to, shall we say, oblige the young man he is supposed to remain celibate or jump on a jet and fly back to Germany?

Oh i've no doubt as an example, our Embassy staff have 'got busy' in the past with some pay to play girls.......but very much doubt any have been daft enough to use the Embassy buildings or Ambassadors residence as a brothel. That certainly would not go down too well with UK taxpayers.

As for your other comment what you said was:"What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".These people are transient workers/managers who live in accommodation provided by the company or the rent is paid by the company. For example the UN does this for all it's workers. Therefore how can your premise of what they do outside work in their private life is their business but ceases to be when using facilities not owned by them when they clearly do not own their accommodation?

Sort of ties in with the above really Roger. I've no idea what kind of employer you had but once i'd done my allotted shift and was off their premises.....that was it, i was free to do what i liked. However if any one us fancied hooking up with a prostitute, even in our own time, we would certainly not be allowed to use company premises or facilities to entertain them.Perhaps you had a very lax employer who gave everyone carte blanche to do what the heck they liked on work premises?

Bullet you are either playing devils advocate or are talking nonsense. I never once mentioned as you put it 'company premises' and therefore your 'lax employer' comment really was not called for. I clearly said that those working abroad are usually accommodated either by the company or receive a rent allowance from the company. Therefore the employee, according to your assertion, when at his/her accommodation is never allowed to indulge in whatever their private life needs/desires might be because they 'do not own them'.So which is it ...'outside work' or 'facilities not owned by them'? To me there is a clearly understandable difference.

Facilities not owned by them. I would have though that patently obvious? Not to mention them being funded by public donations. They should have booked an Hotel room.Oh and maybe we should forget that other awkward matter of prostitution being illegal in Haiti, a bit like running a brothel is in UK, so to make matters worse, senior Oxfam officials were indulging illegal activities in a foreign country. Brilliant.

Ah ...facilities not owned by them. You have used so many different statements regarding 'not owned'....'work place' etc that I really think you are losing the plot.So by your position no one working anywhere and living in rented accommodation which is paid for by the company has the right to a private life in their accommodation?

Given you are now re-quoting what i've clearly stated twice before i'm left thinking it's you whose not so much losing the plot but totally lost it entirely.

I say this because you said:'What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".Clearly living in rented accommodation paid for by the company is not something the employee owns now is it?

As above. No idea why you keep re-quoting what i've previously said. What point are you attempting to make?

[Bulletguy]

Barryd999 - 2018-02-13 2:50 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-02-13 2:19 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-02-13 11:31 AM

 

I would hardly call that a "Luxury Villa". Even the Mali couldn't tart it up to look much better than your average holiday apartment. Where do they expect them to stay? In tents?

 

Why not? :-S ........

 

I don't recall us Navy folk being offered such accommodation when they were landed in such places to help the locals? ;-) .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah but you probably had no choice. I never understand why some people think people who work for a big charity should have crap perks and work for nothing. Charity is like a business and as such needs to attract the right people. £1200 a month for a villa? I doubt its a villa. Probably a shared pool in an apartment. Maybe Haiti is cheep I dunno but you wont get a decent villa for £1200 a week let alone a month in most places.

 

This "appears" like the recent Presidents Club debacle to have been blown out of all proportion and could according to the lunchtime news bring Oxfam to its knees. The only losers there will be the poor that greatly needed Oxfams help. We seem to have a knee jerk reaction to just about anything these days before we know all the facts. If a few people need sacking then sack em, make a few rule changes and just sort it out.

Nice little pad here for $650k though the grounds take it up to $800k. Pool is a bit small though.

http://www.expat.com/en/housing/central-america/haiti/42-houses-for-sale/469796-house-with-pool-for-sale-in-vivy-mitchel-les-coll.html

 

Better one here with infinity pool and sea view.....$1.5m

https://www.4321property.com/haiti/ad870125/?Rental=Buy-Sell&Country=haiti&type=houses&beds=3&maxprice=1600000&minprice=800000&a1=Artibonite&a2=&a3=&a4=&cn=Bois%20Neuf&s8=

[John52]

Graph shows how much foreign aid has increased under the Tories despite rapidly increasing rough sleeping on their own doorstep.

Goes to places favoured by the Tories.

£5 billion to Ireland in advance of the Royal visit.

Corbyn points out it isn't going to Venezuala despite how bad we are told things are there.

Of course, rather than answer that awkward question, the Tory Media says that Corbyn merely asking that question makes him a rabid Communist *-)

[RogerC]

Bulletguy - 2018-02-13 3:06 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-13 1:16 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-12 11:09 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-12 10:36 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-12 9:12 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-12 6:30 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 10:56 PM

Violet1956 - 2018-02-11 9:04 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 8:52 PM

RogerC - 2018-02-11 8:08 PM

Bulletguy - 2018-02-11 4:06 PMI had to Google search to find out what news item it was you were on about.Whilst prostitutes should have a right to ply their chosen trade it seems not so in Haiti as it's illegal so that seems clear enough. Oxfam’s country director in Haiti, Roland van Hauwermeiren, who, according to the report, admitted using prostitutes at the villa rented for him by Oxfam with charitable funds, was allowed to resign. He should have been sacked.

For goodness sake this is Haiti....a third world sh1thole as lawless as it is possible to get amidst other quite civilised countries/islands.Just because Papa Doc and Baby Doc have moved on nothing has really changed there so I fail to see the relevance, or indeed newsworthiness in a report that aid workers, irrespective of appointment, used prostitutes.

As quoted in the article i linked i expect it's the fact they appear to have used (abused) the charities premises, or at least the director had. A charity which does excellent humanitarian aid work all over the world but relies on public donations. What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them.

I’d go further BG. It is not acceptable for any aid worker to go to a country and exploit some of the most vulnerable and desperate to satisfy their lust. Engaging in the most intimate of human contact with someone who treats you like a piece of meat to be used and then cast off has to be one of the most miserable and dehumanising forms of all social interaction.

It's certainly not what i'd expect from any charity aid workers. If they must have a prostitute, then there are plenty in their own country.

Now that is ridiculous. Just for example a young fit chap who happens to be German (so yes there are plenty of prostitutes there)is working a 9 month contract in Haiti. According to your premise if he feels in need of sexual relief and there is no girlfriend/non prostitute to, shall we say, oblige the young man he is supposed to remain celibate or jump on a jet and fly back to Germany?

Oh i've no doubt as an example, our Embassy staff have 'got busy' in the past with some pay to play girls.......but very much doubt any have been daft enough to use the Embassy buildings or Ambassadors residence as a brothel. That certainly would not go down too well with UK taxpayers.

As for your other comment what you said was:"What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".These people are transient workers/managers who live in accommodation provided by the company or the rent is paid by the company. For example the UN does this for all it's workers. Therefore how can your premise of what they do outside work in their private life is their business but ceases to be when using facilities not owned by them when they clearly do not own their accommodation?

Sort of ties in with the above really Roger. I've no idea what kind of employer you had but once i'd done my allotted shift and was off their premises.....that was it, i was free to do what i liked. However if any one us fancied hooking up with a prostitute, even in our own time, we would certainly not be allowed to use company premises or facilities to entertain them.Perhaps you had a very lax employer who gave everyone carte blanche to do what the heck they liked on work premises?

Bullet you are either playing devils advocate or are talking nonsense. I never once mentioned as you put it 'company premises' and therefore your 'lax employer' comment really was not called for. I clearly said that those working abroad are usually accommodated either by the company or receive a rent allowance from the company. Therefore the employee, according to your assertion, when at his/her accommodation is never allowed to indulge in whatever their private life needs/desires might be because they 'do not own them'.So which is it ...'outside work' or 'facilities not owned by them'? To me there is a clearly understandable difference.

Facilities not owned by them. I would have though that patently obvious? Not to mention them being funded by public donations. They should have booked an Hotel room.Oh and maybe we should forget that other awkward matter of prostitution being illegal in Haiti, a bit like running a brothel is in UK, so to make matters worse, senior Oxfam officials were indulging illegal activities in a foreign country. Brilliant.

Ah ...facilities not owned by them. You have used so many different statements regarding 'not owned'....'work place' etc that I really think you are losing the plot.So by your position no one working anywhere and living in rented accommodation which is paid for by the company has the right to a private life in their accommodation?

Given you are now re-quoting what i've clearly stated twice before i'm left thinking it's you whose not so much losing the plot but totally lost it entirely.

I say this because you said:'What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them".Clearly living in rented accommodation paid for by the company is not something the employee owns now is it?

As above. No idea why you keep re-quoting what i've previously said. What point are you attempting to make?

Re-quoting because you are avoiding the crux of your argument every time....and moving the goalposts.

Just answer this if you can:

If the company either rents the property or pays the individual to rent a property then it is clear that the individual 'does not own the property'. The main issue is 'does not own' which is what you said.

 You claim that:

"What they do in their private life outside of work is their business, but ceases to be once they begin using facilities not owned by them"

So when and where does the employee ever get to do anything that is 'their own business'.

Quite a simple question really but I expect you will avoid answering because your premise is entirely bonkers......IMO.

[John52]

I'm getting worried now because I find myself agreeing with Roger 8-)

It still costs Oxfam £1200 a month whether they take prostitutes there or not, so what difference does it make where they take them?