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.

So if it's not fraud, what would it be? Is it a specific crime to misspend charity money? I assume it is

Good call on not removing the thread. I think it was perfectly clear how the OP was making the comparison and it'd be hard to argue that she's wrong.

Is there to be some kind of enquiry into this whole sordid affair or are we just waiting for the media dripfeed for the next year or so?

Well by the looks of it they were all friends of camilla and basking in her sunshine so were blinded and were to busy patting each other on the back to notice or care much.it looks very good when somebody works for or is on charity comittees sometimes. I know a few management comittee members who have not a clue what goes on within the charity its for the kiddies is all they need to hear to boost some egos and make them feel pleased for themselves

Who has said it isn't fraud?

Actually I might have implied that it isn't fraud when I said she was incompetent not malicious

I think it's too early to say. I can well imagine all this went through the books and was endorsed by the trustees but we won't know until it all comes out.

It was a little dumb to begin a sentence with the words "CB is like Jimmy Saville.."

That was the point at which I stopped taking you seriously, OP.

I just meant if no one had pursued fraud charges yet then what are the other options.

Also the sources you are citing seem to be exclusively Daily Mail ones. Seriously?

I suspect she was incompetent and ... malicious us too strong a word... but in some way influenced by her own power.

Camila blinded people with her big clothes and personality . However she was no miracle worker, just distributing largesse of her own personal fiefdom . I did suspect this for a while but couldn't quite believe it and hated myself for being suspicious . But something didn't smell right . It appears like she bought people's approval and silence with money.

She's very flawed, and Kids Company was a mess. I'd be aggrieved if I'd donated to it.

I think that the comparisons with JS are valid; no one is suggesting that she's a nonce, simply that her profile allowed her to get away with a great deal, and that anyone who criticised her would be accused of small-minded prejudice against an "eccentric".

Pepperpot It is one source, not sources. I did say apologetically it was the Daily Mail but it is an interview with her rather than an editorial.
There are times the Mail gets its teeth into something and gets results - the pursuance of the Stephen Lawrence murderers for example.
The Guardian has similar articles about her. The Mail does contain some right-wing drivel but I was careful about including this one. Many of the points are her direct responses to direct questions ad she seems to change her responses when an outright denial is questioned.
I would suspect the Mail has more evidence that it is sitting on until the time is right for optimum publicity. They are after her, no doubt of that, but if she has done wrong, she deserves it. She should be accountable as should anyone who works with children.

I think arrogant probably sums it up.

I think she genuinely believed all her hype which is quite dangerous. Self doubt is what keeps us in check and seeking validation.

Although in CB's case the validation was being given without the proof of brilliance. People wanted to believe it and political policy is not based on evidence - it is based on what people believe. Otherwise our drug policy would be very different.

I think she is more similar to others who have committed financial frauds/misleading schemes, like Nick Leeson as said up thread- reminded me of Colleen McCabe en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_McCabe
The JS comparison is of course valid for lots of reasons already listed, but is controversial and provocative because he is primarily (now) known for child abuse, and CB is not. A bit like if someone was compared to Hitler for being a Jewish leader with a moustache it would be valid, but people would automatically think of violent anti-semitism.

Yes I always thought they were helping kids not paying 20 and 30 year olds clients. 30k a year

SORRY Huge error in my last post- I obviously meant a "German leader"

honestly it just sounds as though some friends and favourites were having their lives subsidised, and not much else.
Never trust a woman who wears a table cloth.

I didnt read the link i dont have the app there a few other articles i read instead they probably said the same thing though

Arrogant, yes

It is our old friend narcissism. These people build a cult around themselves and vilify people who question them. Some poor woman gave the proceeds of her house sale to KC and then questioned what happened to the money.
CB then 'allegedly' called her insane.
Nobody really thinks the OP is suggesting that CB committed the same crimes as JS.

The thing is, it's not theoretically fraudulent to pay yourself a massive salary and the school fees of your employees (albeit unusual in the NFP sector), providing it's disclosed in the accounts. The issue is that very few funders do enough proper due diligence to really dig into these things, and if they do, they just decline to fund, and that's the end of it. It's considered bad form in funding circles to go around bad mouthing charities unless specifically asked your opinion (there isn't a funder's blacklist or anything). I also agree with what has been said upthread about trustees. Far too many "big name" trustees in the sector and not enough that can be bothered to , or know enough to, consistently challenge management. However, when you get a charity which is a cult of the personality/ founder's fiefdom, it's very difficult to create an effective board.

From what I have read and learned from others in the sector, KC was financially mismanaged and ineffective in addressing the issues it was supposed to address- in many instances the "support" given was inappropriate and there were safeguarding problems (for both staff an service users). The charity had no impartial impact data which made it a ticking time bomb in respect of funding- despite what I say above, funders are getting more savvy and "won't somebody think of the children?" doesn't wash anymore- when a funder is weighing up 3 proposals and can only fund one, they need impact data.

Re the fraud claims, it's difficult to conclude. Whilst they may have spent the money wastefully, (too many black cabs etc), that's not fraud. Nor is giving wads of cash to disadvantaged youth if they're your target group. It may be fraud if they gave itemised accounts to funders which did not disclose those payouts, but on what has been made public to date, I'm not sure it's at all clear cut.

It is a charity's auditors responsibility to sign off the annual accounts and confirm that expenditure was in accordance with the charity's stated purpose. Who are KC's auditors?

Somebody gave her the proceeds of a house sale what ?

Sorry if this has been posted before.

She's either lying, very incompetent or both. Surely everyone who has ever worked in the care profession knows that ALL incidents should be logged, reported and acted upon?

bobo That's what I'm saying though. CB could pay herself 8 million a year, and the accounts would be correct assuming that was disclosed under the highest paid employee note. The auditors don't have to say that the charity spent the money sensibly or stand in judgement of whether the salaries are appropriate- just that the accounts are correct. It's not entirely unusual for charities to make small disbursements to service users, nor is it always inappropriate, so what type of expenditure falls under "charitable expenditure" is very broad.