to think Camila Batmanghelidjh must be lying when she says she has done nothing wrong in her spending of Kid's Company Charity Funding?

[LuluJakey1]

She is like Jimmy Saville in that what she has been doing has been under all of all our noses and we have refused to speak up about it or believe it.

It is not just the luvvies who have been up close and personal with her- involved with the charity and CB at a very close level, some even Trustees. It is also the employees and the parents of children, the children themselves, the volunteers. We are not talking about a hidden mis-use of funding. We are talking aout a whole culture of open waste and self-indulgence.

I know it is from The Daily Mail but it is actually an interview with het.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3199527/My-heart-clear-says-Kids-Company-boss-Batmanghelidjh-admits-charity-paid-school-fees-employees-children-denies-wrongdoing.html

£5000 a month rent on an Art Deco House with private swimming pool - which houses a member of staff, and the swimming pool is used by CB but hot by any children- they are 'not allowed' (her words)

£40,000 chauffeur- now a specialist worker (according to CB). also has private school and therapist funding for his 2 children.

Staff( how many?) have their children sent to private schools because the job is stressful and it is part of a 'staff well-being package'

The Chauffeur's sister is also employed - now as a 'brilliant accountant', last summer as 'the woman who does my sewing' (mind you that would be a full-time job in itself, but it does imply the charity pays for those vile outfits much as I suspected)

25 young people given £769,000 a year funding - £31,000 a year each, to do nothing. They are CB's specially selected young people- many of whom have received funding for many years. She describes them as 'like a family, hanging round the house'. She deals with their funding herself.

Yet STILL CB complains staff should not have spoken up about any of this and implies those who have will suffer for it.

In my view this woman and her behaviours are corrupt, dishonest and immoral.

Are my views unreasonable? I feel this could be jus the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is yet to emerge and prosecutions will be very likely.

I think there should be a down- to the -bone, in-depth investigation of every aspect of the work of this charity and of CB. Not simply any concerns that have now been raised but a complete trawl of the spending, the practices and the behaviours of CB herself.

I think MNHQ is quite wrong here. This is one of the interesting threads in a long while.

I'm not sure why Lago is getting it in the neck when it is me that has made some of the comments attributed to her.

Is it because I have explained my points?

Fwiw I didn't report the thread.

Apologies if I'm rude. But surely you can see that seeing similarities between two situations does not mean everything is identical?
I have similar issues about perception of risk. Any risk is bad. Risk must be 0% else we don't do it.

I thought it interesting too. But it is potentially libellous to CB so I can see why it has to go.

" The comparison is about how a cult of personality can get a person into a position where the rules don't apply to them. "

exactly ,a dn it that way, it is a fair comparison.
It would be a pity if this thread were zapped as there is certainly no need for MN HQ to be afraid of litigation.

Fwiw I disagree with mnhq on this one. But ultimately it's their judgement call. They run the show. A bit like cb ran kc.
See what I did there? An analogy. In general there are many differences, I believe mn is very well run. Or I wouldn't be here.

Ok I didn't expect that last one to see the light of day :o

The police have stated on the record they are investigating allegations connected to sexual offences involving children.

Of course it it premature to speculate on the outcome before those enquiries are complete. Until then, it is just as wrong to say that KC had no connection to offences as it is to say that they had.

I didn't say they had to be identical to be a comparison. But they have to be similar enough and I don't think they are for reasons stated above. They're not even close.

If the thread had been about how certain people are feted by the establishment and get away with terrible things because of it then I would agree the comparison with JS and CB and also others like the bankers, Nick Leeson etc etc.

But that wasn't the premise of the thread.

Why are you removing this thread. The comparision I drew between her and Jimmy Saville was that

She is like Jimmy Saville in that what she has been doing has been under all of all our noses and we have refused to speak up about it or believe it.

I then illustrated the points of comparison as:

Both are someone who was:
A high profile public figure
Feted by luvvies
Rewarded for charity work with honours and public awards
Patently and obviously odd
Allowed free reign to do as they wish involving young people, working outside of rules and regulations and without scrutiny
Funded and fund-rased for by luvvies and the government
Had influence at high levels in government and society
Many people who knew what was going on did not speak up
Concerns raised about them were dismissed/ignored by those who should have listened
They were defended by said 'luvvies'
They continued to behave in the same ways and justify their behaviour as being 'all about children'
It all tumbled down and all kinds of disturbing things emerged

What is 'beyond the pale' about that?

Or are we not to have freedom of speech any more incase we offend? I have said nothing that is not true and have not implied she is like Saville in any other way than above.

Why are you removing the thread?

I have no idea why she would hold on to that information Whataweekend.

Absolutely nothing about her suggests to me that she would be the type of person to use that information to blackmail the-powers-that-be into ignoring her own gross misuse of public funds.

Nope. Nothing corrupt there.

Completely agree Lulu.

Actually, we will leave this thread to run for now. However, please be mindful of speculation and do report posts that you feel break our Talk guidelines.

Many thanks

I agree, Lulu.

Thanks Rebecca.

it really annoys me when people can't understand that comparing two things does not mean you are saying they are identical.

This ^^ in spades.

And now a perfectly interesting thread is going to be removed, just because people can't seem to understand that

The difference is that CB has not acted alone. She is not solely responsible (there are trustees, auditors, staff etc etc) and her intention has not been to harm. She was incompetent not malicious.

JS's intention was sexual gratification.

Completely different.

Ahh good call Rebecca

Here is the BBC article on the Met investigation into KC

It says: "The inquiry is being led by the complex case team of the Sexual Offences, Exploitation and Child Abuse Command."

(for avoidance of doubt, I hope, in my previous post I meant 'wrong' in the sense of inaccurate, not to mean anything about legal/moral guilt)

Moving - it appears very likely that CB's motivation was personal emotional gratification. Not so different.

Oh good :) If the lawyers aren't worried about it staying then I'm not.

I still think it's an abhorrent comparison and nothing posted so far has persuaded me otherwise. Not even the ones that patronisingly explain what a comparison is

I'm waiting for the police to pursue fraud convictions. I do think it's only a matter of time.

CB's excuses for KC's lavish spending sounds so weak. I get the impression she feels if she says "very disturbed children; very very disturbed minds" enough times, people will back off because, well, it sounds a bit shitty to denigrate a charity doing such difficult work.

Except, it's looking increasingly likely that a large proportion of KC's biggest clients (and by biggest I mean had the most money spent on them) weren't even children, FFS.

Well done MNHQ. It's an interesting thread, it shouldn't be deleted.

Thank you Rebecca. I don't want the point of the tread to be derailed by the comaprison.

The point of the thread is about CB's behaviours and her lack of acceptance that they are in any way questionable.

I hae re- posted the article in which more, including her reactions in an interview when challenged, are demonstrated.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3199527/My-heart-clear-says-Kids-Company-boss-Batmanghelidjh-admits-charity-paid-school-fees-employees-children-denies-wrongdoing.html

I don't think we know enough yet to say BoboChic

What we do know is that she was not acting alone because with charity regulations mean there are multiple culpable people. What were they doing?