(part 2) to think that Camila Batmanghelidgh must be lying when she says she has done nothing wrong in her spending of Kids' Company 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.

Seriously, why is Alan Yentob still employed by the BBC?

The BBC manager is the home of the second-rate. What was most depressing about the select committee inquiry into the Digital Media Initiative was just how second-rate the BBC's senior management were. Mark Thompson was like Yentob: shifty, evasive and just a little bit thick. It would be interesting to see if someone could point to a BBC manager who is clearly and unambiguously first rate.

I doubt anything will ever happen to her. If there ever is an investigation, it will probably take as long as the Iraq report and be as conclusive!!

saved her dress sense
ha ha ha. Now THAT made me laugh.

Just

" In 2013, after Kids Company failed to win government grants through competitive tender, the Department for Education drew up a special “public interest” case to enable a £4.5m grant partly on the basis that the government would suffer “reputational damage” if it stopped funding the charity."

Had to screenshot this as soon as I saw it this morning, to add to this thread.

The £100k Yentob spent on a bit of KC propaganda is absolutely astonishing. The story about him standing behind the cameras during CB's Newsnight interview was bad enough. He is as corrupt as she is.

More gobsmacking details of "random flamboyant largesse" in last night's Newsnight report

It's also clear that CB lied to the parliamentary committee and Yentob was, at best, economical with the truth.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34668157

I've said it for a while now. I am shocked that this wasn't a criminal investigation from the day they became insolvent.

I am shocked that this wasn't a criminal investigation from the day they became insolvent.

It's hard to see how a hammer won't be dropped on her for misleading parliament.

Bear in mind the famed £46m was over 14+ years and included rent for several properties, wages for hundreds of employees and payment for therapists, psychologists etc for very damaged children.

Bear in mind the famed £46m was over 14+ years and included rent for several properties, wages for hundreds of employees and payment for therapists, psychologists etc for very damaged children.

Or so they say, anyway. No-one appears able to find these famed "very damaged children". And the employees' wages increasingly look like a major "cash in hand" tax fiddle.

They can however find an Iranian diplomat's daughter having their PhD funded and a receipt for a £300 pair of shoes. You're welcome to defend that, of course, as being part of their charitable purposes.

In addition to the Savile comparison, the CB persona also reminds me of those genius Ali G interviews, where hardly anyone dares to call him out for his outrageous behaviour, for fear of appearing out of touch/prejudiced etc. (Notable exceptions included Tony Benn).

'Is it because I is black (Iranian)/large/female/have learning disabilities/am wearing something you can't compute?'

'Is it because I is black (Iranian)/large/female/have learning disabilities/am wearing something you can't compute?'

God, why didn't I see that? Fantastic comparison.

She'll probably turn out to be a butcher's daughter from Purley, and the whole elaborate scam was an act from the off.

GruntledOne, I think making the mistake there of assuming that the £46 million was all of Kid's Company's funding over it's entire life. That isn't the case, it also received substantial private donations including £10 million from Coldplay alone. I also know that they did not pay rent on several properties because they were owned by benefactors (the Treehouse for one being owned outright by Coldplay).

Plus, if you're going to cast this as reasonable amounts of funding given their activities consider this: In 2008 Kid's Company received 20% of the department of education's charitable grants. In 2011 they received double the amount the NSPCC did.

This is a charity which covers incredibly limited areas, two London Boroughs and low levels of activity in Bristol and Liverpool. If they were claiming for reasonable operating costs you would expect them to have a very small proportion of the claim that national charities had. But they had far, far more.

It makes me sick that children involved with KC were buying £335 pairs of shoes with public funds when there are children in this country who are living on the breadline. I know in my area £335 could have taken a relatively large group of deprived children on a pretty local camping holiday which would have provided them with useful lifeskills and been a lot of their first holiday away and a rare opportunity to eat some decent food.

It makes me sick that children involved with KC were buying £335 pairs of shoes

£305, I think. Which is, we might all agree, far more reasonable.

I hope the CB fanclub think funding the PhD studies of a diplomat's daughter is a worthwhile use of charitable donations. The whole thing appears to have been a scheme to rip off the government while channeling money to an unqualified charlatan and her friends.

Sorry, £305. So it would probably just have bought a decent set of school/interview shoes for 10 rather than 11 children if spent by a reputable charity.

She went to a very exclusive private girls school who used to love bleating on about her in their pr. Ha ha.

One of the really striking things about this whole mess is how, even now, when even Camila (despite her bravado) must know she is in the deepest shit, we are still not hearing the success stories from the many thousands she claims to have helped, we are still not hearing the "other side". That in itself is deeply suspicious.

I know the current focus is on taxpayer funds, as that is what the Government is investigating (and rightly so), but what about all the ordinary people who donated thinking this was a good cause, and one that was effectively endorsed by successive Governments. That, for me, is one of the worst aspects of this. They must feel like they've been scammed.

what about all the ordinary people who donated thinking this was a good cause

It would be interesting to know how many people were that credulous. I mean, the whole think looked dodgy from the off not because it looked fraudulent, necessarily, but because it looked crazy. Lots of completely unhinged woo-talk about brains being rewired and genetic damage, obviously exaggerated claims as to the levels of violent and sexual crime in south London and at the centre of it a woman dressed like the back of a pantomime horse, clearly getting off on the messianic adulation. Their fund-raising appeared to consist of shaking down the government and shaking down large businesses with guilty consciences and singers in popular beat combos who went to the same school as her. Did ordinary people give money? How was it raised?

Did ordinary people give money? How was it raised?

2013 Annual return [https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.accountancylive.com/sites/default/files/Kids%2520company%2520Annual_Report_2013.compressed.pdf]] (triggers download)

Nearly £5million from individuals
£6.5 trusts
£2 corporate
£1.3 gifts in kind

Uni placement fees (?) £98 thousand
£1.8million from corporate events
Kids co enterprises income £148 thousand

£4.6 million central government
£500 thou local government
£500/thou school s

Sorry <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.accountancylive.com/sites/default/files/Kids%2520company%2520Annual_Report_2013.compressed.pdf&ved=0CCYQFjADahUKEwi5-qLd3OzIAhWGOBoKHZKxBlc&usg=AFQjCNFjRobg0CSyBsHCZEiYg9SjwPb8SA&sig2=vba7CIdcaSaEvtBrT-ulhw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link again

That's interesting. I assume the uni placement fees are because they received payment for taking on students during placements as part of their course (?). The £6.5m trusts could also include bequests from people's wills, possibly?

I know Camila made some very scathing remarks about low-level fundraising such as bake sales, which won't have helped her profile with the public (if they knew about those comments). But there was also that high-profile case of the elderly woman who sold her house to donate the proceeds to KC, and then wanted to know how the money was spent, which they were unable to demonstrate. God knows how that woman must feel now.

Joan Woolard was the woman who sold her house and donated the £200,000 proceeds to KC. When she had the temerity to request evidence of how it was spent, CB told journalists that she was concerned about Mrs Woolard's mental health.

new.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/the-trouble-with-kids-company/

Rather unethical behaviour from a self-styled Mental Health professional. And why on earth would any organisation accept such donation from someone they had such concerns about?

From what I've read about Joan Woolard, she may be a little eccentric but is sharp as a tack. She asked awkward questions and didn't accept CB's bullshit, so CB got nasty.

BoreOfWhabylon - from what has some out since, that seems to be her usual modus operandi.

The Joan Woolard case is appalling.

Yes Mouse - she's one nasty piece of work when the smug smile slips and she takes her fingerless gloves off...