To not understand the 'kids company' closure

[LunchpackOfNotreDame]

The news is saying the government fully supported the charity and handed over £3million to them, yet on the news tonight the protesters were blaming Cameron.

I thought it was financial irregularities that created the issues?

Apparently she was saying on R4 this morning that there was no problem with the way they operated financially and that they simply needed more money because they help so many children. But she can't give any evidence that is the case.

I also think the way she is handling the sex abuse allegations (implying they are false and part of a conspiracy) is appalling.

In her position she should know that accusations of lying against people claiming to be victims are inappropriate and often cruel and damaging. For that alone I question her suitability to be working with abused children.

With allegations of fraud, theft and abuse, it's not surprising that despite a lifeline the plug had been pulled. The charity has been well regarded by many but who knows what has gone on. Charities do need to able to sustain themselves as well as getting grants and funds. It's quite apparent something has gone badly wrong it's a shame for those who were being helped. Hopefully if there has been impropriety or illegal goings on the perpetrators will be brought to justice although with many friends in high places for the leadership of this organisation i expect a whitewash, particularly if it transpired millions in public funds had simply gone "missing".

I'm not surprised CB has turned nasty and is making threats, I used to have the misfortune of working for the charity's bankers and she was positively vile to me every time she didn't get her own way. It has always made me chuckle when people talk about how charismatic she is, because that's what it is, an act to get people to give her what she wants.

Maybe it's been put to good use, but there has been increasing evidence that there hasn't been anywhere near as much good done as she would have us believe.

The whole dressing like a magical fairy godmother is also all part of the act too isn't it. Designed to impress/intimidate.

Something very fishy is going on here. How can £3m disappear into thin air. And I think it was immoral to accept the £3m and then close the doors a week later.

I've absolutely no time for CB. Far better to have been a tad humble and admit that yes, they could have managed the organisation better and that she, as the figurehead, realises this. Shutting up shop overnight and then playing the victim cuts no ice with me.

As for 'conspiracy theories' and looking to lay the blame elsewhere, it occurs to me that the only 'conspiracy' is the one that has seen KC funded to the tune of £37m without the need to show any accountability. So yes, there have indeed been shenanigans. Most of which are to do with how she's been protected by 10 Downing Street and allowed to think of herself as untouchable.

Shutting down the way KC has done is simply more evidence that the whole fucking thing was always about CB's ego. That's why there was little or no transparency: much of the 'help' was magic beans and woo and keeping accurate financial records would be 'dull' and 'uninspiring' and 'part of the wicked capitalist system'. It's also blindingly obvious that something run along such hippy woowoo bollocks lines was going to have persistent problems with violence and abuse at the centres - there doesn't seem to have been anything in place to protect the children from each other. And the unquestioning doling out of cash would have been wide open to abuse - not just a few teenage chancers getting themselves a new Xbox but organised groups getting their children (quite possibly pimps turning out the poor little sods they were trafficking) to roll in for an envelope of cash and then taking it off them...

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that isn't taken in by her. Indeed how could anybody be. She is just all bluff and bluster. At least that is how she is coming over at the moment. Everyone is to blame but her. The one in charge of the whole show.

Lets say she is correct and this is due to her knowing stuff an not being silenced

Why the hell wouldn't they have just given her the money quietly six mobths ago and not ended up in this bloody high profile mess?

She's clutching at straws

Did anyone here the sycophantic way she was interviewed on radio two at lunchtime
If you can get it on iplayer take a listen

I suspect the thing about her knowing stuff might have some truth to it, but she's known things and didn't report it, that doesn't improve my opinion of her.

I'm sure she knows a lot through innuendo and rumour which will prove to be correct

I doubt she has any facts that will help prove/prosecute

Listening to the today interview, sounds like kids would rock up on the doorstep of kids company get a brown envelope with 30 quid and a travel card and go out and buy weed. Great use of government funds no wonder they pulled the plug!

800k on salaries?! How many people did KC employ fgs and on what kind of remuneration?!

600ish employees. CB was on 90K as CEO.

According to the latest accounts on their website (dec 2013) the annual salaries bill is nearly £12m, there are just under 500 staff (calculated as full-time equivalents) and one of staff member of staff is paid in the £70-80k band and one in the £90-100k band.

I was surprised not to see at least one a lot higher TBH, but that makes an average of about £24k for a f-t job, mostly in London.

I read in the comments under the second spectator piece where the 36000 figure comes from. If 1 kid goes to kc once a week, they reckon they are helping his/her class of 30. So you have to divide 'number of kids helped' by 30.

This sort of thing puts me off donating to charity. People on £90K a year. Chuggers. It's all gone wrong.

I think there's all sorts gone on here that should have been stopped sooner, but £90k to run an organisation and budget of this size isn't excessive.

I don't have a problem with somebody being paid £90k a year to do a £90k a year job.

Quite merrymouse, in fact it could probably be argued that the trustees should have appointed at least one person on more than that to get the FD/CEO roles done properly, by a person strong enough to stand up to CB

How much of the 'staff wages' was going to untrained, unqualified, self-claimed woo-peddlers, though? That wouldn't be a good use of money.

To be honest, I think there are a fair number of trained and qualified woo-pedlars out there.