Who guards the moral guardians?

The repercussions of the British scandal over the behavioural standards of senior charity workers have gone international. With the resignation of the deputy leader of Unicef, Justin Forsyth, a reshuffle will now take place in staffing one of the biggest UN agencies. Draw back from the immediate details and there is an issue of principle: bodies set up to do good should themselves be bound by clear moral concepts. Charities, non-government organisations and even those private firms described as the third sector, fall into this category.

There are obvious restraints on any organisation. Governments are accountable to their citizens according to usually quite clear traditions. Private firms thrive or die on the basis of their reputation. The third sector groupings have expanded massively for decades, often since the 1960s in the West, with much less defined boundaries. The laws of various lands provide the context for most of their activities but it is undeniable their global footprint is not clearly defined.

Many entities are based in London or New York. Even those that are not registered in those centres are often in practice operated from the cities. Who guards the moral guardians? From a British vantage point that is the real question to hold in focus.

Distracted by the messy process of Brexit, this is a long overdue debate that Britain appears incapable of handling. Given London’s world-leading position as a base for these entities, the country should exercise global leadership through a radical overhaul of its rules and regulations.

Lax supervision of charities results in senior executives with a Narcissus complex harassing junior employees. Or, indeed, totally incongruous situations like front line aid workers putting in eight-hour days before using the evenings and nights for high jinx. It has also seen movements like the Muslim Brotherhood wantonly exploit the lucrative tax exemptions and special status of charities to further their agenda. Without the British charity scene, the group would not have been able to promote its ideology and establish its influence across a broad global swathe.

Tackling this problem is now a massive challenge. Groups with hidden agendas like the Muslim Brotherhood are deeply embedded at all levels of the charity and voluntary sectors in British society. Faiza Shaheen, the director of the Centre for Labour and Social Studies thinktank, worked in Cox’s department at Save the Children between 2014 and 2016. When questioned on Thursday about her time at the charity, she told the BBC’s Daily Politics: “A lot of people knew about these rumours, and for the most part, people knew them to be true. It was majority women working there, and you did feel like there was predatory behaviour about, and that you had to keep safe.

“It was atrocious what happened to Jo Cox, of course, but that isn’t a free pass for Brendan, or anyone else, for abusing their power and assaulting women.” On Sunday, the charity’s current chief executive, Kevin Watkins, announced a “root and branch review” of Save the Children’s organisational culture, including measures to preserve staff safety and any behavioural challenges among senior leadership.

The charity said the review would start by the end of this week, and aimed to report its findings in June. The final report will be shared with the Charity Commission, and made available to the government and all members of staff, Save the Children said. The headline-making cases about Muslim Brotherhood-linked charities that funnel aid to boost and sustain extremist groups in war zones are constant. What is publicised is the tip of the iceberg. When extremists are killed on the battlefield or prosecuted in the British courts it is proven charities that have provided access to the region for ISIL or Al Qaeda followers.

A study published last week found that only a quarter of professional auditors that examined problematic accounts had alerted the Charity Commission, as they are required to do by law. Many of the reasons for modifying these accounts relate to poor documentation and an inability to account for the disposal of the charities funds.

    The writer is a British journalist

Without cooperation and feedback from the accountants, the charities wrongdoing escapes the supervisors, they could be blackballed from the contracts that represent their single biggest source of funding.

Withholding power of patronage is the ultimate fall back when things go wrong. After series of scandals among the so-called “aid barons”, a group of private consultancies that grew rich on government contracts, Whitehall banned some of the firms from new bids for up to a year.

All this amounts to a piecemeal and adhoc approach to government spending but wider social concerns. An active and radical government would go back to the start. Why not set out charters to establish operating standards, clarify a regime of auditing and regulation, plus vigilantly prosecute any wrongdoing? Ultimately the poorest and most vulnerable would benefit.

 

 

Who guards the moral guardians?

The repercussions of the British scandal over the behavioural standards of senior charity workers have gone international. With the resignation of the deputy leader of Unicef, Justin Forsyth, a reshuffle will now take place in staffing one of the biggest UN agencies. Draw back from the immediate details and there is an issue of principle: bodies set up to do good should themselves be bound by clear moral concepts. Charities, non-government organisations and even those private firms described as the third sector, fall into this category. There are obvious restraints on any organisation. Governments are accountable to their citizens according to usually quite clear traditions. Private firms thrive or die on the basis of their reputation. The third sector groupings have expanded massively for decades, often since the 1960s in the West, with much less defined boundaries. The laws of various lands provide the context for most of their activities but it is undeniable their global footprint is not clearly defined. Many entities are based in London or New York. Even those that are not registered in those centres are often in practice operated from the cities. Who guards the moral guardians? From a British vantage point that is the real question to hold in focus. Distracted by the messy process of Brexit, this is a long overdue debate that Britain appears incapable of handling. Given Londons world-leading position as a base for these entities, the country should exercise global leadership through a radical overhaul of its rules and regulations. Lax supervision of charities results in senior executives with a Narcissus complex harassing junior employees. Or, indeed, totally incongruous situations like front line aid workers putting in eight-hour days before using the evenings and nights for high jinx. It has also seen movements like the Muslim Brotherhood wantonly exploit the lucrative tax exemptions and special status of charities to further their agenda. Without the British charity scene, the group would not have been able to promote its ideology and establish its influence across a broad global swathe. Tackling this problem is now a massive challenge. Groups with hidden agendas like the Muslim Brotherhood are deeply embedded at all levels of the charity and voluntary sectors in British society. Faiza Shaheen, the director of the Centre for Labour and Social Studies thinktank, worked in Coxs department at Save the Children between 2014 and 2016. When questioned on Thursday about her time at the charity, she told the BBCs Daily Politics: A lot of people knew about these rumours, and for the most part, people knew them to be true. It was majority women working there, and you did feel like there was predatory behaviour about, and that you had to keep safe. It was atrocious what happened to Jo Cox, of course, but that isnt a free pass for Brendan, or anyone else, for abusing their power and assaulting women. On Sunday, the charitys current chief executive, Kevin Watkins, announced a root and branch review of Save the Childrens organisational culture, including measures to preserve staff safety and any behavioural challenges among senior leadership. The charity said the review would start by the end of this week, and aimed to report its findings in June. The final report will be shared with the Charity Commission, and made available to the government and all members of staff, Save the Children said. The headline-making cases about Muslim Brotherhood-linked charities that funnel aid to boost and sustain extremist groups in war zones are constant. What is publicised is the tip of the iceberg. When extremists are killed on the battlefield or prosecuted in the British courts it is proven charities that have provided access to the region for ISIL or Al Qaeda followers. A study published last week found that only a quarter of professional auditors that examined problematic accounts had alerted the Charity Commission, as they are required to do by law. Many of the reasons for modifying these accounts relate to poor documentation and an inability to account for the disposal of the charities funds. The writer is a British journalist Without cooperation and feedback from the accountants, the charities wrongdoing escapes the supervisors, they could be blackballed from the contracts that represent their single biggest source of funding. Withholding power of patronage is the ultimate fall back when things go wrong. After series of scandals among the so-called aid barons, a group of private consultancies that grew rich on government contracts, Whitehall banned some of the firms from new bids for up to a year. All this amounts to a piecemeal and adhoc approach to government spending but wider social concerns. An active and radical government would go back to the start. Why not set out charters to establish operating standards, clarify a regime of auditing and regulation, plus vigilantly prosecute any wrongdoing? Ultimately the poorest and most vulnerable would benefit.