Kids Club - Camilla Batmanghelijdjh

So is ther any chance of the 3 million handed over last week being recovered now the charity is no longer functioning

Jane you have got me wrong I wasn't 'taking a pop' at the USA I just feel that over the top celebrities seem to go down well there such as Lady Gaga, Madonna, the late Joan Rivers, Little Richard, Michael Jackson.

I can see her appearing on Oprah Winfrey and they would like her style of delivery.

I have no personal feelings about CB either for or against.

Ok sorry nankate

No probs Jane.

Central to the problem is the withering away of youth services. I ran an arts outreach programme in conjunction with a youth service - I was funded by the Arts Council, but worked very closely with the LA youth service. Even at that time, some 15 years ago, the youth service was being cut to the bone, and I understand that it is now virtually non-existent. Properly funded youth centres with properly trained youth workers are what is needed - but how do you get the government to understand the importance of prevention in this and other areas? Crisis management is all that is left - it is very short-sighted.

As someone who has also spent 30+ years working with similar young people as CB and because I have heard her speak twice and met her once I feel I must speak out:-
It is very important not to believe all you read in the press or hear on the news.
The 'authorities' tried but failed to stop C when she first started, I guess because she was an embarrassment to those who should have been caring for such vulnerable kids.
C is very outspoken and very experienced in this work so she continues to embarrass.
Her own life story is fascinating as is her professional development. She has written interesting books about both.
I don't really know her and she may have made mistakes - don't we all?
I guess the kids in London and Liverpool are worse off without her.
Finally -To comment on her dress sense is judgmental, irrelevant and could be considered racist.

I worry that one line of 'defence' used is that this lady had 'caused embarrassment to the 'authorities' and that's why she is being investigated.

She has been befriended and supported by successive Prime Ministers - so hardly out of favour by powers that be.

Ester Rantzen asked a lot of awkward questions when she set up her Child Line...yet she did not become a subject of suspicion.

Its all about accountability and transparency - without it the best causes will come unstuck.

Accountability and transparency. On channel 4 news this evening we were shown an email to Kids company from Micheal Gove praising their work and commenting on their audit report.
This was sent in May this year.

So is ther any chance of the 3 million handed over last week being recovered now the charity is no longer functioning

tinaf1 I read somewhere that the money was urgently needed to pay the salaries of people employed by KC as there was nothing in the coffers and the government came forward with the money for that reason.

I think KC started out with the very best of intentions but became too large too quickly, unwieldy and cash-rich from donations. It seemed to have lost its sense of true purpose and direction.

The 'authorities' tried but failed to stop C when she first started, I guess because she was an embarrassment to those who should have been caring for such vulnerable kids.
BRedhead59 I heard an interview she gave many years ago and remember that the original purpose was to provide somewhere safe and warm where children could go to be fed - these were children from families who were 'under the radar' so to speak - I do remember it because it was Christmas time and she said they had children walking through the streets on Christmas Day who come for somewhere warm to go for Christmas dinner.

Thu 06-Aug-15 19:08:37
I agree HildaW - to the tune of £38 million I believe, and Cameron would hardly have been such a great admirer if she was an embarrassment to the Government!

I do think that there has been some really excellent work done by Kids Co. The organisations that another poster mentioned were not working with the youngsters that kids Co did. These are young people on the very edge.

I also think that the article written by a journalist who is a key player in the right wing organisation Centre for Policy Studies so not exactly coming at this from a neutral position.

CB is a big personality and I suspect people like her gain as many enemies as friends.

I am sorry that a charity that had such good intentions appears to have got itself into a difficult situation. It is far better to play by all the accountability rules and be open about processes etc. so that you are not put into a vulnerable position. I truly hope that most of the allegations are found not to be true but sadly terrible things can happen even when the original principles were admirable.

So you're saying that Harriet Sergeant's article should be disregarded/taken with a pinch of salt just because she's involved with the Centre for Policy for Studies, Penstemmon? As I understand it, she had been following the progress of Kids Co. for several years and has many first hand accounts and statements from people and children involved with the organisation.

CB herself has admitted that young people were given money in envelopes 'because middle-class parents give their children hand-outs and pocket money'.

I do think the enterprise started out with the very best of intentions and did a lot of good work, but something went terribly wrong.

Just seen the woman on the news.

I think she ate all the money.

I want to be told exactly what the £3million was spent on in one week??
That should answer all the questions surely?

[Shock]

A lot went on unpaid salary - the government was told by the charity before it received the 3 million.

I think the truth is that no-one comes out of this exactly covered in glory.

The government behaved idiotically and its policies of more and more cuts to local govern!ment child services meant more and more pressure on all childrens charities.

I frequently dealt with various charities when working and it was often clear that good housekeeping and accountancy was not their strongest point.

Some donors withdrew funding after allegations of abuse were reported. This meant some of the government's (our!) £3m had to go on salaries. This was not what the govt funding was for so KC were in breach of their conditions. Anyone who's been involved in voluntary or charity works knows this kind of thing can happen if the project gets too big for the founder to run under his or her personal control.

I think that she made two classic mistakes.

One was that she was not choosing/caring to keep too close an eye on all aspects of what was going on.

And two. That she thought that the money would just keep on rolling in from the Government.

I think that what made Kids Company different from other charities was that help was available 24/7, so a kid with nowhere to go at 1am could and would be helped. If I am right, then KC did fulfil a need not met by other more conventional charities. However, once money is involved there has to be accountability. If Camilla B couldn't do it herself then the answer would have been to delegate the financial side.
As for being able to justify every action, I feel the need for caution here. I once taught in a secondary school where every lesson had to be planned and accounted for in minute detail. Creativity, I taught English, went out of the window and I can't say results improved.
Too much time spent on paperwork can mean the service you provide is not as good as it should be.

I will repeat what I said earlier. An email from Michael Gove was read out on channel 4 news that the audit ( in May this year) was perfectly in order.

I have been appalled by the way CB has conducted herself since the scandal about KC broke. There has been no accountability on her part for what has happened to the charity and it seems that KC was also run without accountability. Prior to this I had assumed that the charity had been doing a good job but it is now clear that this is probably not the case. Apart from cash handouts, Xmas parties and warm meals I have no idea what KC does. CB keeps insisting she is mopping up cases of severe child neglect and abuse and that there is nowhere else for these young people to turn. This is clearly untrue and should be challenged by those organizations which do help young people and do some excellent work. In my view her thinking is unsound, her premises are shaky and CB could do with taking some time to reflect and take responsibility for what has happened.

One young woman who was interviewed reported that as a teenager she was sexually assaulted by a client who was 26. I was surprised that young people were more or less allowed to be clients for such a long time. Surely this young man was, by this time, able to be self-supporting even if only on benefits. When she told staff about this situation they ignored her.

Just heard that CB has said she is sure all the reports of sexual abuse will be proved to be false. Completely shocked by this! Am I wrong or was this the attitude taken by the establishment years ago? As someone working with damaged children shouldn't she at least be acknowledging there is a possibility that something went wrong?

For a highly trained psychotherapist her boundaries are questionable and not having boundaries when working in a therapeutic environment leads to unsafe practice - I think her arrogance and her need to be seen as an all rescuing mother got in the way of common sense and led to her downfall.

Trisher, I heard CB state that the reports of csa will be proved false and further, that in the many years kids company has been operational, she states there have been no cases. She disputed the claims of the young woman in the interview annodomini refers to and insisted had she been told, their child protection procedures would have been initiated. If the young woman is telling the truth, she claims to have a memo from CB stating the young man couldn't be suspended but that if the young woman went to the police, she'd be supported. Surely, some kind of strategy/planning meeting should have been initiated to discuss the allegations.

I appreciate we're hearing rumour currently but for the figure head of this charity, a trained psychotherapist as well, to be responding to the concerns as she is must raise concerns about the way the charity has been run.