I usually quite like Emma Barnett, she can be very good at holding to account those politicians who like to answer the questions they wish they were asked, and repeat their favourite “sound bite” mantra’s, rather than answer the actual question. Or answer it with meaningless waffle which leaves everyone a bit baffled. I haven’t listened to this interview so can’t judge. I cannot say I’ve noticed that she is racist.
On the matter of CB/Kid’s Company- it’s not quite as straight forward as saying CB was exonerated and praised. The judge did say CB had done a lot of good work and it is also true she was found not guilty/not prevented from being a director in the future. However, she was not exactly “completely exonerated”. I have read that judgement and a complete exoneration it was not. Kid’s Company did not declare bankruptcy due to completely unexpected circumstances and bad luck. It was badly mismanaged.
I don’t doubt CB did some good work, helped many children and in all probability started out with the best of intentions. I suspect she then began to believe rather too much in her own hype and the semi-celebrity status she started to cultivate, and I wonder if that’s where things started going wrong.
Some of her practices and the fact she would not listen to any views which did chime with her own- which was why so many of the trustees left- were troubling. There was a history of favouritism/profligate spending was questionable (at best). You also have to take a look at what the official receivers had to say. It does not pain a picture of a competently run organisation.
That is not the same thing as saying Kid’s Company did not do good. They did. And it was important. She did a lot of good highlighting the problems of deprivation and poor social care and lack of support etc.
But the very significant mismanagement of Kid’s Company and the mess that was left behind due to it’s bankruptcy can’t be put aside because of the good work of the past. Kid’s Company wasted a LOT of public money which could have been spent on helping disadvantaged children but was not as Kid’s Company was terribly mismanaged. CB is lucky she got off so easily (as was Alan Yentob) and that was largely due to the tactics by the receivers etc. If you look at the technicalities, part of the reason there was no serious outcomes for both Alan Yentob and CB were down to that.
There was also the issue that a number of smaller organisations were also doing good work, with outcomes as good as Kid’s Company (or better than) but on significantly smaller budgets- I have a very good friend working in the sector and this really was an issue. She said many working in the sector could see both the success in terms of the good done for children and the success in publicising the problems/gaining some prominent figures as supporters for both KC and the “cause” as a whole. But they could also see the issues too, and wondered at value for money given the outcomes expected of them for public funding which did not seem to tally with those expected by KC, especially towards the end. I remember before it all blew up, my friend had mentioned some issues with KC and CB- such as money going on what some felt were vanity projects- and there were whispering re some “interesting” practices including some on CB’s part (often relating to having to have her own way and not liking even one iota of challenge/dissention).
At the end of the day a lot of public funding was being sucked up by Kid’s Company, money which could have been just as useful to other organisation. The fact so much was directed towards Kid’s Company would have been one thing if that money was used to maximum effect, it’s quite another when that funding is then used to support an organisation which was badly mismanaged and failing.