Kids company - what a cock up!

[Northernlurker]

So I understand from the bbc that kc got the three million they were waiting for and which was given to support restructuring of the charity and promptly spent 800 grand of it on the months salary bill! What on earth were they thinking? Looks like it's totally done for now.

All I heard was the adult equivalent of 'waah everyone hates me but its all everyone else's fault'

Just like every politician of every ilk you get these days. Don't say what you can do just criticise what has been done. Side step all accountability and go on the attack

BYOSnowman, you are right, but the bad news for the political class who used public money for this, is that CB is right that they are to blame if they are unsatisfied because they praised her and audited the charity and kept funding it. They even sent 2 civil servants, paid for by us, for a whole year to work with them. How many organisations would wish they could have that amount of help from the Establishment?

She said she is not 'servile' and that is probably why the metropolitan elite hope that the whole thing goes quiet before everyone realises exactly who is to blame. It all now depends on what the Daily Mail does about it, they are the only ones who could shine a light on the whole fiasco because there is no political opposition worthy of the name.

That interview was a total car crash. I was quite sympathetic before but I found CB to be almost petulant in her attitude. She kept saying they went under because there were just too many children to help and it was everyone else's fault for not giving more money that they have gone under. The whole time I wanted JH to say "well you're not helping any children now you're closed are you?".

What a bloody mess.

claig just because humphreys couldn't get any sense out of her because she refused to engage with the issues and just complained petulantly, does not mean she "ran rings around him".

It means he couldn't get any sense out of her but he gave her enough rope so everyone could see how childish and self-pitying and irresponsible she is.

I think KC & CB were useful idiots to help cover for Cameron's huge & damaging cuts

KC were feted to the skies, and heavily funded, by Labour as well. This is hardly a new thing.

'The whole time I wanted JH to say "well you're not helping any children now you're closed are you?".'

But CB would then just have said that was because all of the government types who funded her had now cut off funding and had left the "self-referring youngsters" without adequate support and the "case load" would not be addressed.

CB is right that they are to blame if they are unsatisfied because they praised her and audited the charity and kept funding it.

That's bollocks. If money is being misspent, the first responsible party is the people misspending it. Claiming "Daddy, I didn't realise that if I spent all my pocket money on sweeties I wouldn't be able to save for a new My Little Pony" is convincing when you're six, but not for a large charity. Are you saying that if I give money to a charity and they spend it on hookers and blow then it's my fault in the first instance for not auditing them myself? That's all charitable giving everywhere just killed, isn't it?

Certainly, Botney's presence in this makes my sympathy for the BBC rather less than it was. If he's so profligate with state money when a trustee for a charity, why do we think he's any less profligate with the BBC's money?

'It means he couldn't get any sense out of her but he gave her enough rope so everyone could see how childish and self-pitying and irresponsible she is.'

I agree, but I expect better of Humphrys. He failed to win a single substantive point against her. She was rightly able to point the finger at the Establishment everytime because they are up to here in funding it over years. She knows that and so do they.

As Harriet Sergeant said

'Even the Government was in on it. It continued to lavish money on a charity despite the misgivings of civil servants and some ministers.'

When the dust settles and if they keep allowing her to run rings around them and not be "servile" on TV and radio, the public are going to start pointing the finger at who is really responsible for wasting hard-earned public taxpayer money and that is the entire political class of luvvies who lavished our money on this.

He failed to win a single substantive point against her.

Yes but you can't win a point against a 6yo who just cries and says it's everyone else's fault. You can only win a point against someone who's playing the same game - taking part in a sensible, intelligent debate.

I'm not a huge fan of Humphrys but what's he supposed to do? If someone won't engage all he can do is keep trying and let them show themselves for what they are.

I agree giving her a roasting is not really going to get anyone very far and all this is ultimately the fault of those in power over the period concerned. If you hand vast amounts of money to a self-serving, ego-driven guru type who can't run a tight ship, then get them up to answer for it, you can't expect much, after all they're not up to much which is the whole point.

'Are you saying that if I give money to a charity and they spend it on hookers and blow then it's my fault in the first instance for not auditing them myself? '

No, if you give money to a charity run by someone who is mates with the political class, such as Labour's pal, the Crystal Methodist, then you haven't got the time or resources to know where it is going, you rely on the great and the good and the Charities Commission, staffed by the great and the good, to monitor and audit and make sure that everything is fully accountable. You don't expect to have to wait for the only political opposition in the country, Daily Mail journalists, to discover what the Crystal Methodist is up to.

'That's all charitable giving everywhere just killed, isn't it?'

The lavish use of public money and the unaccounatbilityand negligence of the metropolitan elite has led to a distrust of some charities which will impact good charities. It is their fault. They are supposed to regulate this stuff, just as they are supposed to regulate the banks. That is what they are paid for out of public money.

I've been fascinated with this story (well, pretty horrified too) because Kids Company - and by extension CB - have been SO high profile and SO lauded and yet... no one knew what the fuck they were up to. Did the Government, plus the big celebrity donors, have any IDEA about the woo bollocks "therapies" that were probably never carried out at the core of the charity's ethos?

To me, that is bad enough - so much money thrown at so much nonsense - but when you start looking below KC's veneer of Helping The Kids and realise it was all basically a front... wow.

This is going to run and run, isn't it?

Are you saying that if I give money to a charity and they spend it on hookers and blow then it's my fault in the first instance for not auditing them myself?

Absolutely, if you are spending government money, particularly when you have been advised against further funding, to the point where a civil servant has asked for a ministerial directive.

'I'm not a huge fan of Humphrys but what's he supposed to do?'

The BBC is paid for by us, the public, and rather generously too in terms of salary, to question and hold the political class to account, particularly where the expenditure of public money is concerned. I expect their PPEs to research any questions they wish to ask CB before they do so and to anticipate what answers she will give (since they are similar to all her other interviews) and to come up with a convincing refutation of her position, which is to blame the auditors etc. The reason the BBC can't do so is because CB is right that the auditors and great and the good are responsible.

Metacentric - you're probably right. She was so good at self promotion I think politicians thought they would be swept along with her.

But to be fair Humphrys is hardly known for giving the great and the good an easy time of it either. I hope and expect he will be roasting a good number of them about this shortly.

'But to be fair Humphrys is hardly known for giving the great and the good an easy time of it either. I hope and expect he will be roasting a good number of them about this shortly.'

Absolutely, which is why his interview with her was so disappointing. I like Humphrys very much, along with Andrew Neil, he is our best political interviewer. He missed an opportunity to grill her and she did brilliantly in pointing the finger back at the great and the good.

I am no fan of her or Kids Company, I am not like the 'philanthropists', pop stars and Cameron, I don't buy the "self-referring kids case loads" bit, but there is no doubt that she is not 'servile' and is so far running rings around them because she is right.

I thought JH was quite gentle on her and he was very, very careful to try to prevent the potentially slanderous statement about the Telegraph journalist. I think on balance JH was right to conduct the interview as he did. If he had been hard it leaves him open to accusations of bullying but, more importantly, it gives CB a get out. By being quite gentle he allowed the audience to listen to what she was actually saying. Which to paraphrase another poster was pretty much just 'waaah, it's all someone else's fault!'.

I suspect that CB honestly believes everything she says and it is so obvious to her that why would you want or need to have robust evidence? 'You can just look at those people right there and see' is very much her attitude and 'they haven't sat next to me' is what she said repeatedly. Which is fine for someone body working at a low level under close direction but not ok for the CEO of a large charity who needs to be responsible and accountable.

It just another example of where popular opinion/celebrity status has been allowed to sway government policy rather than robust, scientific evidence. It happens all the time whether it's educational policy, public health policy, drug policy etc etc. Popular opinion is more important to politicians than scientific evidence and that's wrong.

CB did not do brilliantly. She came off very badly in that interview and has lost a lot of sympathy.

'It happens all the time whether it's educational policy, public health policy, drug policy etc etc. Popular opinion is more important to politicians than scientific evidence and that's wrong.'

Sadly this does seem to be the case.

'She came off very badly in that interview and has lost a lot of sympathy.'

Possibly, but if she carries on like this, the political class is going to lose a lot of sleep as the finger starts to point at who was in charge of public money and who authorised its use for Kids Company and the "self-referring kids" while disabled people have had their benefits cut and poor people have been moved out of their homes as a result of the bedroom tax.

While they have been carrying out austerity, the fact that David Cameron was by some reports "mesmerised" by CB and Kids Company is not going to go down well with the people. Ordimnary people are not "mesmerised" by CB and the "self-referring kids" so why was Cameron?

Answers on a postcard, but try and keep them polite.

We already know who authorised it, Oliver Letwin and Mike Hancock.

I was taken in by CB - saw her on a program once and thought she was fab. She was great at self promotion and many people on MN and elsewhere were taken in.

It's because Cameron wants to "buy" street cred and this is provided by an "edgy" charity. There's also the bonus effect of using support of KC to bolster the empty Big Society story.

Possibly, but if she carries on like this, the political class is going to lose a lot of sleep

Hardly. It's a summer scandal involving a small amount of money; it's the budget of a school, and school accounting scandals are hardly new or unusual. The idea that this presents an existential threat to the establishment is somewhat over dramatic.

One could also argue that if there are thousands of charities in receipt of government funding, there is a cost/compliance tradeoff which means that the occasional one going bad is actually cheaper.

'We already know who authorised it, Oliver Letwin and Mike Hancock.'

No, it goes back way further than that. As Harriet Sergeant said

"When Michael Gove was Education Secretary, he and the then children’s minister Tim Loughton are said to have opposed giving grants to the charity. But Downing Street was in favour of the funding."

'I was taken in by CB - saw her on a program once and thought she was fab.'

I'm not surprised. You haven't got one of these degrees from Oxford that everyone is talking about have you?

nauticant, you are right, but it's not just Cameron, it is Labour too. They are all the same, they are "all in it together" and the public pays for the lot of them.