to think Camila Batmanghelidjh is fucking awesome?

[bejeezus]

I saw her talk on a news programme last night...

shes so composed and articulate, and clear-sighted and insightful and compassionate and calm and stylish and unique...

and the work she does/ what she acheives is OUTSTANDING..

heres a link to her wiki page...but it doesnt do her any justice

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camila_Batmanghelidjh

I found it fascinating to reflect on Childline, and what a brilliant job Esther Rantzen did in getting it started.

Even Childline got very close to going bust if it had not been taken over by NSPCC.

It seems that it is a skilled, and tough, business running a large, effective charity.

I met someone in RL similar to his. She was full of energy and a great initiator but had a lot of other people doing all the donkey work in the background and never gave them any credit. She had no eye for detail and was very autocratic. She was constantly in the papers getting awards and honours.
I have to admire her as she got things done and this was of benefit to many children. However she sometimes didn't listen and actually hurt some individual families.
I think its possible to be taken in by charisma-so I have mixed feelings.

This kind of hero worship is why KC is in the mess it is and ultimately has failed every child it was trying to help.

I'm astounded that people who've met her think so highly of her. I used to manage the charity's bank account and she was probably the most obnoxious customer I ever had (and there were a few!). I had some influence, so she reigned it in a bit with me, but she was completely vile to my staff- the little people.

She is undoubtedly driven and has many talents but people like her need a strong CEO and Finance Director. She would never stand for having less than full control herself. Yes, the charity did some great work, but why did it have to be so much about her and with that budget, they should have done lots of great work!

Perhaps, as she claims, the charity got into trouble because it tried to do more than it had the budget for, but all charities have that problem, which is why they need strong financial management.

..and she should be signposting where the people who were being helped by Kids Company are supposed to go now.

They will be panicking and she has done nothing to stop that, in fact she has ramped it up with some of the interviews she has given in the past few days.

Practically many people are going to need guidance about where to go for support now. I would be more impressed with a measured response from her about what is going to happen next.

Unpacking what went wrong can come later, she has let down the people she is supposed to be committed to helping.

Agree with meercat

And Furthersupport

The was a joke current when Ken Livingstone was leader of the GLC in the 1980s. It required footnotes for younger readers even then, relying as it did on knowledge of the V1 flying bombs that did a lot of damage to London in 1944. A V1 that you can hear won't do you any harm, as it's flying over you. It's when the engine cuts out that you need to start worrying, because then it's going to explode when it hits the ground, presumably reasonably close to you.

What, the joke asks, is the difference between Ken and a V1?

With Ken, you need to take cover when the whining starts.

One cannot help thinking that this would be most apposite of CB if anyone under about 80 would understand it.

She came to give a talk at my work and everyone went crazy for her. She's so articulate and down to earth and funny and insightful.

I find it terrifying that a charity that was apparently doing so much good work with vulnerable young people can close overnight. Much talk by KC of these children being let down and abandoned.

I work for a charity - a handful of paid hours alongside a load of voluntary hours. If the chart I work for was to close I sure as hell wouldn't abandon the families I support. I'd continue doing what I could until they could recurve support from other agencies.

Go to The Spectator blog, there's some very interesting reading there, she comes over as spiteful and determined to smear anyone who disagreed with her.

I've been seething all day after listening to her being interviewed on the Today programme this morning. She was taking on kids that NOBODY else wanted to touch and not being paid for the support. She wasn't even allowed to finish one of her points without being interrupted and I certainly wouldn't have kept my calm with all the stress she must be under. All credit to her IMO.

I just think that the government want to see charities working in the way that the private sector does; they have really no concept of how much time and resource each of these children require if you really are to turn things around for them. Instant results are just not going to happen after a lifetime of abuse and neglect.

The sad fact is that the money that KC was costing the tax payer is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of prison sentences and social care when things go badly wrong for these young people

It's okay Metacentric I understand the joke.

My mum used to talk about V1s and V2s and doodlebugs. Never worked out which was which. I should have paid more attention.

Much like Camila and the accounts.

I have no idea about her effectiveness or otherwise, but my personal experience of her is that she spoke at a conference I was at a few years ago. The CEO introduced her in the most fawning way possible. She ranted at the audience for 20 min - along the lines of " you lot should be ashamed of yourselves if I don't leave here with thousands in donations" type of thing. The crowd sat like this . It ruined the event.

i have no personal experience of the woman or any opinion of her.
but bloody hell, i wouldn't ever dream of such a onesided fawning viewpoint of a person unless i watched them turn water into wine and farted rainbows.
all humans are flawed and unless i have missed a mahoosive pisstake (it is possible, i am knackered right now) i am a little worried about this idolatry

I don't know much about her at all. I retrospect I realise it was her I heard interviewed in the radio a few months ago when my husband and I had a discussion about how objectionable and unprepared she sounded. I've not been impressed with any more recent interviews I've heard either.

She was taking on kids that NOBODY else wanted to touch

Or so she says, anyway. Actually finding them is proving rather harder.

Her ability to attract such huge sums of funding and then work through millions of pounds without a tad of accountability is certainly awesome. Especially if you then try and extract yourself from the resultant muck heap smelling of roses.

"She was taking on kids that NOBODY else wanted to touch and not being paid for the support. "

They do seem to be rather shy now, to be honest...........

This thread says a lot about the mn demographic. Takes me back to the good old champagne socialists of the 70s and 80.

Canola has just presided over one of the great charity failures of the decade. Millions have disappeared and also lots of talk of her not passing on allegations of inappropriate behaviour.

The jury is still out but I suspect that she won't come out of it smelling of roses. But, well spoken, well connected and compassionate, what's there for a champagne socialist not to like.

itsnothing I don't agree with you on your analysis of how government wants charities to work.

Ime all parts of government are well-aware of the differences between private, public and charity work. But the books always need to balance and the goal is to direct taxpayers money at the places where it will do the most good based on robust evidence and risk assessment.

Having received substantial support in respect of my DS/our family from teachers and NHS professionals, I have been overwhelmed by the level of expertise, compassion and skill that we have benefited from. It is not just charities run by high-profile public figures who dedicate themselves to helping children and families who are struggling.

Her ability to attract such huge sums of funding and then work through millions of pounds without a tad of accountability is certainly awesome

Well according to some comments as reported in the media the David Cameron problem was that she was very charismatic and he was swayed by the cult of personality. It's interesting how so people who have met her are all "we're not worthy. she's so awesome." Some of the earlier comments on this thread are exactly like this.

The fact some people can persuade other people to part with their money - and lots of money - is a certain type of skill that doesn't necessary coincide with the best characteristics of humans - L Ron Hubard for example. Don't forget Jimmy Savile was a massive fundraiser too.

Just to be clear - I am NOT saying Camila Batman is anything like either of them in any way. I'm just saying a great ability to get people to part with their cash, whilst being a useful skill, does not necessarily = a nice person. It often is found in people who have a cult style persona.

The fawning attitude to her seems really odd.

She was taking on kids that NOBODY else wanted to touch
Or so she says, anyway. Actually finding them is proving rather harder.

Not so. I used to work in an organisation that worked with KC, and can vouch for the fact that they were constantly working with children who seemed to have been abandoned by the system, and did some absolutely fantastic work for them. It bothers me that the plug has been pulled without anyone apparently putting in place alternative arrangements for those children and families.

I'm quite concerned that everyone seems to see this in such black and white terms. If CB has messed up with the accounting I condone nothing, but that doesn't mean we all have to decide instantly that she was swanning around spending all the money on herself and that KC was doing nothing whatsoever to help really vulnerable people.

Metacemtric, my mum and dad lived through WW2. Dad was a desert rat abroad so wasnt around for the doddlebugs / V 1s but mum was and said they were the most scariest part of the London bombings she endured. She was 14 when ww2 broke out. So i got the joke!
Anyway, heard the lady a little bit on radio two today. Have heard her being interviewed other times too. She has done lots, theres little doubt over that, but it appears giving pocket money to the people wasnt such a good idea. There is something going on. She said they passed all the audits and mentioned her team too. Not sure what to think on this one really, but its all really really odd.

I was thinking that Bertrand. If KC has been so invaluable to so many children, where are they? It was established in 1996. Some of them must have turned into articulate, successful adults, keen to support the person who saved them...surely?

It does sound like some good work has been done, but it's extremely dubious that it's been enough for the budgets involved and also, it sounds like they might have done a lot of harm too by putting vulnerable children in dangerous situations and not protecting them.

I will also never forget one Christmas...in the run up...sitting on a bus from Peckham into town and two little girls of about 13 sitting at the front singing a song about KidsCompany to the tune of some Christmas carol.

They were discussing the vouchers they'd been given for Christmas...TopShop, Claires, New Look and what they'd buy. I think she's a bloody saint and so Realistic. Those kids were so excited and happy.

That has made me cry.

I love her and can't help but wonder what the motivation is behind the witch hunt. If they need to send accountants in to sort out the mess, then do that. But don't close them down.

It bothers me that the plug has been pulled without anyone apparently putting in place alternative arrangements for those children and families.

If CB has messed up with the accounting I condone nothing, but that doesn't mean we all have to decide instantly that she was swanning around spending all the money on herself and that KC was doing nothing whatsoever to help really vulnerable people.

If you are talking about the charity as a whole, it's not just accounting allegations is it. Reports say it is being investigated by police officers specialising in sexual offences, exploitation and child abuse.

It maybe (if there is any substance in these allegations) that the kids being helped were not really being helped but actively being damaged. It's obviously too early to say - but I don't think it follows that at this stage anyone can vouch for the fact that this is something that needs alternative arrangements being put in place.