(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.

The reporting of the Xmas dinners was a real mixture of clients: undoubtedly there will have been some there for whom it was a better alternative than spending the day with their family. But the examples quoted in one article (John and Mary, there with their two children, money was tight after John had lost his job) weren't the sort of difficult, costly, hard to reach clients that CB banged on about all the time. They weren't in danger of becoming involved in serious or organized crime, or gang membership, or rioting. They didn't appear to need therapeutic intervention, or their brains re-wiring, or unconditional love. Once upon a time they would have had their Xmas meal at their local church, or the Sally Army, rather than notching up the head count at a KC event.

high - it's good to have you on the thread

Werk - the Oval says that they used the whole stand for Xmas lunch.

3000 taxi journeys??!!!

I think what pisses me off so much about CB is that I used to work within a disabled children's team, and we were for ever scabbling around for money and shoving children on waiting lists - what we could have done with just a fraction of the money that woman was pissing away - Not just the taxis and trainers and cash in envelopes, buy Hundreds and of thousands of pounds on research to prove her pet theory for (and as far as I can tell, the results were inconclusive)

Christine ...

"The party was staged throughout the OCS Stand, with the England and Ashes Suites – more often used to stage conferences and other events – in particularly heavy use as children unwrapped presents and ate their Christmas Dinner."

It seems from the Guardian piece that the England suite was used for the "dining room" and the Ashes suite used as "a games room". No-one was actually eating in the Stand. I doubt the Oval would allow plated meals in the Stand.

And I don't buy some of the other details either: cooking 437 turkeys in 48 hours, along with 7000 roast potatoes and 14,000 Brussels Sprouts?

Where exactly was this cooking done? You are looking at about 3 and a half hours for a turkey about 4.5 kg, assuming it is at room temp. So, at this weight, in 48 hours, you can cook 16 turkeys in an oven large enough for a 4.5kg turkey. To cook 437 turkeys in 48 hours, you would be looking at an oven capacity that was equal to 27 larger than average ovens. And these ovens would be continuously roasting for 48 hours, with people there to process 27 turkeys every three and a half hours.

This is industrial facility size food production. So where did it occur? How was all these turkeys transported to the venue? How the hell was it kept warm? We are talking about 437 turkeys here, for crying out loud. Turkeys that not only need cooking but slicing as well.

It's just unbelievable.

I find it all somewhat fantastical too Werk

Re: the Christmas Party, here is a comment posted on the February Spectator Article -" I have got experience of working at Kids Company and there is no doubt in my mind that they help kids to build better lives. However it seems a chaotic place with very few management structures in place, I found the staff more challenging than the children!

Having spent time working in some of the poorest slums of Africa where there was no running water or sanitation....people living in mud huts with one rug per family to share and often days without food....I was put off Kids Company after attending the Christmas day party....yes there were some very deserving kids/families there but I was left feeling very cynical afterwards.
Free taxis anywhere you wished with a bag of goodies ....people loading up black bags with food (whilst dressed in new designer clothes) and the general feeling that it was a free for all and certainly a way to save money so a good bet.

When i asked another Kids Company employee what this was about they said it was cultural....Having witnessed hungry kids in African slums I actually just saw it as greed. People can get benefits in most cases and have clothes and shoes and most roofs over their heads.

I know that the most deprived of Kids Companies clients have very little but i really feel that they need to find someway to separate the most needy from the free wheelers ....because i didn't feel everyone was so in need at this event it wasn't what i had expected in any shape or form, it did not match up to the appeal they made for funding.

Camila sat in a tent giving out money....again this felt uncomfortable very Svengali and more about her needs I felt.

The slum dwellers i worked with in Africa were not grabbing all they could like they were at the Christmas party in South London they seemed to have more dignity, they teetered on the edge of existence on a daily basis.

I am sure that Kids Company do great work and help to support some of societies most vulnerable...I salute Camila but think someone needs to have a look at who they work with....and separate the wheat from the chaff....they say they turn nobody away which is great but people really take advantage of this.

And 3000 taxi journeys? Even if one cab driver does six journeys there and back, it is still 500 cabs.

500 cabs in South East London on Xmas day solely to get people to and from the Oval?

I just can't see it. I really can't.

CB said in one interview that she spent ages trying to track down Muslim taxi drivers who would be willing and able to work on Xmas day - nope, still not convincing me...

Here is info confirming the number of clients in Bristol

www.voscur.org/content/arrangements-made-managed-closure-former-kids-company-facility-bristol

The past three weeks have seen CYN employ former Kids Company staff to assess the needs of young people aged under 18 who had used the facility, and many over 18s where they have given permission for their details to be shared. This process has clarified the number of users, their ages and their needs:
Kids Company had 213 total children and young people on its books at The Island
Of these, 110 were actively using the service over the past few months
Of these 110, 28 were aged under-18, of whom 12 were already known to the Council as children in care or care leavers
Of the 110, 77 were making use of The Island at a frequency of once a fortnight or more
Since 10 August, there have been an average of 25 visits per day to The Island

I am so impressed with all the insight and comment on this thread.

I worked for an organisation with similar aims to KC in a very lowly position and the leader of it was charismatic, fame hungry, had clear favourites, twisted the truth, exaggerated their own role in helping needy people, often claiming they themselves were the only person to be able to make the difference. The parallels with this person and all that is being said about cb has really resonated with me. It was absolutely toxic with bullying rife and I left having been systematically bullied by a number of the senior management. I questioned the entire set up, and rumours were spread that I had mental health issues. This organisation was in receipt of around £1m of public money each year but it was never clear to me what on earth it was being spent on.

Could I raise my concerns with anyone about it now, do people think, in light of all of this? And if so, who? I have shared my concerns with a trade union associated with it who said nothing could be done unless I was willing to waive anonymity which I am still too scared to do.

I am very impresses ed workers are voicing on here. I'm too afraid to even give a clue as to the identity of the comparatively small fry organisation I'm talking about, as I am still afraid of what this person would do in terms of damaging my professional reputation. In fact I'm a bit scared to post this, but feel I should.

And you know what else struck me as being exceptionally far-fetched.

This comment from CB in the Standard about the previous Xmas party: "There are children who literally don’t know when they are going to eat. At least 18 per cent have never had a pair of pants."

I accept the first statement because I know from my time as an LA primary school governor in Tottenham that we had children who would not really be fed at weekends or after school, but ... 18 percent have never had a pair of pants?

Nothing in my experience as a primary school governor in a very deprived area of London (possibly worse than Southwark, to be fair), or working as a teacher, or working within local government policy issues, or through research into the living conditions of deprived families have I ever come across anything that suggested 18 percent of low income children in a deprived area have never had a pair of pants.

I come across mothers borrowing nappies for a day. I've come across children that haven't had clean underwear every day. I have come across a few children here and there that have come to school wearing no underpants or knickers because there were none clean that morning ... but I have never heard about, nor come across, a child that has had never had any underwear bought for them or given to them whatsoever in their life so far.

Now I am not saying it doesn't happen, but 18 percent of a selection of deprived children in a specific area? A child never having had any underwear ever in their lives is a Baby P situation (even Daniel Pelka and Victoria Climbie had both been supplied with underwear in their lives). This would be a child whose hygiene needs were being utterly disregarded, who would noticeably smell, who would possibly develop hygiene-related problems in the genital and anal area, whose clothes would be, no doubt, be rarely washed and probably soiled internally ... this would be picked up in any child over five that attended school, particularly in PE classes.

And this sort of statement appears to be a CB habit. It is as thought she is channeling the world of 19th century ragged children or the tribal children of Sub-Saharan Africa. It is just, to my mind, completely made up.

Fandangola - in your position I would either go to the Charity Commission or contact the press. You could do so anonymously (set up a new email account just for this purpose) in the first instance if you felt happier this way.

This article unpicks KC and CB quite extensively from a practitioner's point of view and an insider's experience of the organisation. It confirms many of the things that have been mooted on this thread. Excellent read, really thought-provokng and talks about the wider context of the de-regulation of public services into charity services and the risks and laxity of the system.

osca.co/2015/02/need-talk-kids-company/

From what I have heard CB encouraged clients away from statutory services rather than trying to work in partnership.

I've seen this kind of 'ownership' of clients in quite a few charities. Their clients are their cash cows so they want to hold into them, not 'share' them, even to the clients detriment.

Skyeblue 'Camila sat in a tent giving out money'

I am going to bite my lip and not make an obvious and plain rude remark and instead interpret tent as a proper tent. Do tell us more about this? Was it a green waterproof low-lying tent for two or one set up like an arab sheik's desert tent in 1920s films, or what? I am fascinated by the image.

It is awful-just awful- as are all the descriptions of this Christmas party. Waste, greed and self-satisfaction for CB outweighing people in real need being helped.

If, as reported upthread, CB told clients they could no lnger see their keyworkers when KC closed as they were no l ger insured, I actually think that was the right thing to say.

From a safeguarding point of view, without the umbrella of an organisation and the insurance cover, both clients and ex-key workers would be putting themselves at risk. No protection at all. The keyworker would just be a member of the public meeting aother member of the public. It goes against all safeguarding good practice.

Fandangola, your MP is another option, as is HMRC if there is potential tax fraud (which I bet there will be as well).

It seems to be a tried and tested technique for these charismatic heads of charities to effectively gaslight their critics with talk of 'mental health issues' whenever an individual raises concerns. And people accept that! Now I have had to face professional criticism from people who are utterly irrational and so on, but I can't imagine a scenario where I would be allowed to sweep this aside on such a basis.

I have worked as a CPN in Southwark since 1999. A friend of mine who's a psychologist in CAHMS told me years ago that she thought KC's methods were downright dangerous and she was very dubious about her qualifications. CB seemed to believe that unconditional love equates to letting clients do whatever they like and never imposing any boundaries. One of my friend's patients used to boast to her about how she regularly nicked money from younger clients in full view of staff and was never challenged. Firm boundaries are crucial when working with people who are emotionally damaged to protect both the service user and the professional.
I have a very vulnerable client who attended KC briefly in her late teens. She would fit their profile - deeply disturbed upbringing, sexual abuse, self harm with a serious suicide attempt at 16, went through countless foster homes etc. I asked her about her experience there when all the news coverage was happening and she told me that she was sexually assaulted by 2 service users and 'touched up' by a maths tutor as well as having numerous things stolen.
I simply cannot get over how unaccountable charities seem to be. In the NHS, we are under constant pressure to demonstrate that what we do is effective - if someone is taken on for therapy with a psychologist, they have an interview prior to starting and complete various questionnaires/rating scales. They complete a very brief rating scale before every session and then have an interview a month after finishing therapy. It seems that charities don't have to demonstrate that what they're doing actually works.
It sickens me to think what that money could have been spent on if it was channelled properly. Our budget has been cut to the bone, there is a constant shortage of beds with people being discharged too early or waiting up to 24 hours in A&E. I run a carers group and have been told that we no longer have money to provide tea and coffee but CB gets money thrown at her to buy X boxes and hand out money for drugs.
It makes me feel ill. We absolutely have to make sure that this is not just brushed under the carpet.

Blimey. Thanks for sharing MHC. You're right, an unconditional parental type of love includes setting boundaries and expectations - and these weren't at all enforced. It seems that any kid/ young person/adult who wanted it turned up for their Friday afternoon cash handout, no questions asked. Charities must be challenged on their actual outcomes if they are to receive government money.

It seems to be a tried and tested technique for these charismatic heads of charities to effectively gaslight their critics

And their clients. Taken at face value, KC's approach appears to have been to have convinced their clients that they (or their children) were damaged in a way which only KC could understand or treat, and there was no point in going to statutory services because those services were incompetent, ignorant, impossible to access or otherwise at least useless and probably actively dangerous. That's the behaviour of a cult, and the "without our services there will be arson all over south London" is, aside from the overtones of Ali G, evidence that the staff were cult-like as well. People who believe themselves to be unique saviours of people who are uniquely broken are very dangerous, because even if well-intentioned they rapidly descend into cults of personality.

MissHoiesCardigan, the interesting thing is how the NHS and local authorities have their funding slashed, then are unable to provide a full spectrum service, and criticised for not being able to do so. Meanwhile a total amateur is thrown pots of cash so they can do as they please, and they are held up as successful in comparison. No wonder you feel sick. It is very wrong.

"the tribal children of Sub-Saharan Africa"

Please, don't use 'tribal' as some kind of negative. It has no relevance in that sentence except as some kind of disparagement. And generalising children in Sub-Saharan Africa as the paradigm example of deprivation and neglect is not on. It is the kind of sweeping inaccuracy that CB goes in for.

I don't want to sound eager to take offence, but as a child of sub-Saharan Africa, with a strong tribal identity, I didn't feel I could let that go.

How was all these turkeys transported to the venue?

In taxis Werk

Would that be the notional 500 Muslim taxi drivers prepared to work on Christmas Day CB phoned up?

Personally I don't know many Muslims prepared to forego a decent Christmas Day knees up, followed by slumping in front of the telly with too many chocolates, like everyone else, but maybe that's just around here.