(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.

It would have been better to go in 2012, to the secret location. That year they had 437 turkeys and 2000 mince pies and only 3500 people went. So they could have 2 roasties each.
www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/kids-company-christmas-the-feeding-of-the-3500-8375338.html

I remember reading an interview in about 2008 with CB about kids company and thinking "but what do you do, what are your actual outcomes?" I was working for a charity at the time that supported about 5000 people at year on a budget of £400,000 and donated premises.

SonicStamp is everyone over on this one now? I read the whole of the other one last night as a friend told me about it and I was surprised that not one worker/young person was on there. At the same time I'm not though.
I was a nervous wreck when I was interviewed and my husband tried to stop me talking to the police.
Its hard to explain but the power C has over every one is very real. I was scared of the 'oh yes but that ex worker has mental health issues' etc. I didn't let my name be used when I was interviewed, I'm still concerned about what she may do but over the next year everything will come out and then the fload gates will really open! I think a lot of the young people will come forward over time when they realise that KC ended because of C and not because of the journalists. I left years ago and still see some of the young people i key worked on a regular basis. One is in bits at the moment as they have been a client for so long and C hasn't called them.

,

The journalists peeled back the lid, but having searched around a bit, there is, in my opinion, enough publicly available information to demonstrate that clearly the numbers helped were exaggerated and the financial management of the charity was really poor. And that its CEO was a fantasist. When the Government threw a lifeline of £3m that was not used for the restructuring purpose intended and so advocacy services etc reverted to the Local Authorities (where they exist in the form of Parent Partnership Services and so on). In other words, there will be a bumpy transition for a few people but overall we are reverting to a system that will do a reasonable amount for most people most of the time, whoever they are and whatever they look like.

Some terrific and highly committed people work in Local Authorities and associated services and we need to remember that. Many of them are regularly on MN and I, for one, admire their work.

Jumping over to this thread. Fascinating , wonder how many of the people helped were laughing up their sleeve at the charity.

I think this tendency of labelling anyone who criticises CB as having 'mental health issues' needs to be met with a libel action at some stage, frankly.

Highonhope, yes, you would think she would be on the blower to her long standing 'clients' reassuring them, no?

I have no truck with 'threatening to expose abuse'. I just don't understand it.

Anyone in CB's position who had information should either have reported to police and SS or (if afraid that would go nowhere) trumpeted it to every media outlet she could think of.

This whole line of 'threatening to expose' that the tin foil hatters trot out is a nonsense: who would tip off wrongdoers that they were about to be exposed by the tipster herself? No one except a blackmailer.

The haphazard way that KC was ran means ( I presume) that the support didn't go with the child (as it does with an EHCP), so children that moved out of the area were presumably left with no support at all.

BoffinMum absolutely, there is definitely information out there and the DfE flagged it up a while ago as did some of the workers (they told Trustees avery long time ago)
How could 36,000 clients be supported by 650 full time staff. Yes there were some part time workers and volunteers but key workers would only support 5-6 young people/children. Its obvious that it doesn't add up!
The numbers jump over the years was crazy but that's always why C pushed the idea that society was collapsing and that more and more traumatised children were being ignored by social services or that social services couldn't cope.
In actual fact C often took clients away from good support that ss was giving. It happened on a very regular basis. When I read yesterday of her approaching an A grade student it didn't surprise me at all!
C worked massively long hours I'd say 8am till 11pm 6 days a week and she often saw young people on her Sunday off. She doesn't socialise or really have a life but her care is very inconsistent which is absolutely not what a lot of the young people need. Total consistency, boundaries and a push towards independence was what was needed and it wasn't happening.
Feel free to ask questions and I'll try and answer.
She can text by the way, her birthday is 31st January and her Mother passed away a couple of months ago.

Thanks for the new thread Lulu.

That's so sad about the client highonhope. Someone I know also worked with KC (peripherally) and said she's not surprised it's come to this but that she won't say much more now as she thinks the people KC helped are going to be the real victims of the fallout.

I run my own business and one thing my accountant said to me when I moved from self-employed to limited status is to remember that the business is no longer mine inasmuch as I can't just do what I want with any money it makes - I have to account for each and every penny it spends. That has really resonated with me throughout this whole sorry tale - CB has treated KC as her own personal project where she gets to decide everything. And she's been allowed to get away with all this crap for so long. The trustees have been so very negligent in their duty of care.

high really interesting to hear your perspective. Have you or any of your former colleagues been approached by journalists? There doesn't seem to be much coming out from staff.

There doesn't seem to be much coming out from staff.

Are they allowed to talk? Isn't there an "ongoing investigation" into the sexual abuse claims?

I have pretty limited faith in the DM journalists. In this article, is it really right thy the 29 year old addict (about halfway through) received £70,000 from KC last year and nicked a further £10,000. Or is that a crazy typo?
What would the typical spend for supporting an addict? He could have been to the Priory twice for that.

Its yes maybe that's it but with the sheer number of people who must have been in and out you would have thought someone would ignore instructions.
I wonder if it's also that people are afraid of C. People who are that charismatic and connected are pretty intimidating.

LyndaNotLinda yes it was totally ruled by C a lot of us used to try and suggest other ways and object to decisions that she took regarding our 'clients' it was pointless.
I'm really angry that she told all the young people that they could no longer see to their keyworkers after KC closed as the workers weren't insured. I told one of the young people I see that this is bollocks as I still see them after leaving years ago. You just become a person talking to another person and giving them support. That C would make clients believe this was impossible is horrendous and I think was used in the press to add drama to the idea that thousands upon thousands of children would be left floundering.

fastdaytears its not a typo. fastdaytears yes I've given interviews to a journalist and the police. i have been told that more and more people are speaking out now. Did you see the piece by Geraldine, a former worker? She couldn't get her article published so put it out herself, I'll find a link. C knows a lot of gang members which is what some of us fear.

Sorry Genevieve Maitland Hudson blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/how-should-we-judge-the-kinds-of-services-that-are-delivered-by-charities/

A very brave woman!

It was a group of workers or directors? that went to the Charity Commission in the end,

I read that blog, high. How terrifying that she couldn't get it published. So much for free speech :(

The person I know didn't work for KC but worked with them professionally and was very frustrated by the fueling of suspicion for LAs and state provision. That lack of willingness to integrate and in pursuing a 'them and us' agenda ultimately did the clients no favours.

You're very brave for speaking out

No, obviously in the case I cited the EHCP hasn't disappeared, but at the moment it's a rubbishy plan which doesn't provide for the therapies the child actually needs. The NHS has seized the opportunity to bring those to an end and there's no key worker to help the mother fight that decision. Fortunately the SEN charity and legal aid lawyers to whom KC referred the mother are helping with that, but it will take time to recover it through a tribunal appeal and in the meantime the child won't receive the help he needs. And, before anyone suggests that the EHCP's inadequacies are KC's fault, there is no way any charity can force a council to do its job properly and councils all over the country are routinely producing awful EHCPs.

I'm quite bemused that some people on here are so determined to disbelieve that KC helped more than a minimal number of people. Were all those dedicated people who were providing the help every day making it up, then? What about the other charities who worked with KC such as SEN and disability charities? What about the legal aid lawyers who have attested to the fact that their extremely vulnerable clients had substantial help from KC? I get it that there was a horrible financial mess which shouldn't have happened, but why be so determined to deny the facts?

It's quite significant that jeronimoh blames the disappearance of support for this child on the way KC was run rather than placing the blame where it actually lies, namely the councils that were ducking and diving to avoid complying with their statutory responsibilities. Yes, that would be the councils which the government claimed would take over and fill the gap left by KC.

Highonhope, are you saying she has the ability to mobilise gang members to do her nefarious will, or something like that?!!!!! If so she is the oddest bloody Mafia boss I have ever seen.

'It's quite significant that jeronimoh blames the disappearance of support for this child on the way KC was run rather than placing the blame where it actually lies'

That's not what I posted at all.

I made the point that if a client of KC moved out of the area the support (presumably) wouldn't go with them. I wasn't referring to the child that you had mentioned in that post.

Re key workers being able to remain in contact with clients, is that allowed when you work with children? Where I work we are not allowed to. I have just been brought up on that reality, but I can see that keeping real relationships alive for kids who might otherwise have no one is a great benefit.

It's a funny old business, working with people. In many ways, everything they say about the value of human kindness will never be able to be measured, and also the human spirit recovers in individual was and in indeterminate lengths of time, and we are wrong to try and put a price and a time limit on it. That said, CB seems to have been very foolish with money. The spending on herself is shameful and she has brought embarrassment for charities.

But I still think that you can't measure humanity in money and to me, it is just one more way that we are starting to realise this. And we need to realise it, for everyone's sake, but she has damaged that.

Very interesting read.