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.

Also, I find her woo-tasticness annoying, but her saying "it's not my fault" is hardly a masterstroke of genius is it. It's what anyone in her shoes would say. She's hardly going to say, "hmm you're right John Humphrys, I don't know my arse from my elbow and should never have been in charge".

SylvanianCaracal, lots of politicians in her position would cave in, Humphrys makes them cave in usually, but she is different, she is super confident and not 'servile' because she knows she is in the right and that they were responsibkle for boosting her, praising her and auditing her. That is why she is so confident.

Which is why I want to hear from some people who are supposed to know their arse from their elbow.

CB is not in the right, she is responsible for the mess she is right now, despite multiple attempts from the govt. to clean it up. Downing street have not covered themselves in glory - but she is the one ultimately responsible for the fact it was in a mess in the first place.

Many people are taken in by people like CB. She's not a "bad" person, she does want the best for kids, but she's just to arrogant and sure of herself to actually run a big charity properly.

I thought we agreed several threads ago you thought I was too thick for Oxgbridge?

I would be absolutely shitting myself if I were a Trustee of Kids Company. If it is all down to KB, then the Trustees should have stopped it earlier, if it isn't all down to KB what the hell were the Trustees doing?

She holds herself together well.
But I think a lot if us can see gapping holes in her arguments and I find her totally unconvincing.

I don't know. A bit of contrition, an acknowledgement that mistakes were made (and of course they were, the place is bloody shut!) would go a long way.

Right now she is coming across as dogmatic and rather entitled. For so long she has been allowed to operate outside of the parameters everyone else has had to and that has been her undoing.

She has equated need with obligation which is just not realistic. A charity CEO needs to make tough decisions about how to get best value and meet the requiremeets of the charity's with the funds they have. Expecting anything else is just fantasy.

Just as an aside the way she has spoken about fundraising is quite astonishing. It was very much as if it is below her charity and the government should just be shoring up the charity because she says so!

'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.'

There are millions of Daily Mail readers and people who for ages have felt that there are scams in charidees, it is just that the Establishment never mention it on the BBC or elsewhere and just boost up "self-referring kids" type charities. This is highly significant because it confirms the mistrust of millions of people, just like the Crystal Methodist and his Labour connections did, of how we are governed and how our taxpayer money is used. This discredits the great and the good one more time and that is why it has political implications.

The great and the good, the metroplitan elite, are like a cat, they have nine lives, they can't use up too many of them or Corbynmania will take hold and sweep the whole lot away.

But then I also find David Cameron a complete twot and conclude that he's not as clean as he likes to present.

Agree chipped - what were the trustees doing?

'I thought we agreed several threads ago you thought I was too thick for Oxbridge?'

Not if we go by some of the government ministers from Oxbridge, such as PPE Ed Balls for example. Based on him, I would say you qualify as a Don.

Claig. I'm not sure I want to engage with you much, but I have to disagree. She's not confident because she knows she is right. She sounds confident because she is unable to see that she has been in waaaaay over her head. It's the like the anomaly of not-v-clever people not being clever enough to realise how little they understand. She should never have been in operational charge of this organisation for this long.

She is most definitely not 'socking it to the man' as you seem to be trying to make out. She is (from your point of view) one of them.

It's the like the anomaly of not-v-clever people not being clever enough to realise how little they understand

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

As a charity CEO she was answerable to a Board of Trustees who were responsible for decision making about expenditure and the way the organisation was run.

I can see Trustees going to prison over this. The Charity Commission's guidelines are explicit in what a Trustee's role is.

I can understand that if you have been allowed to do something for quite some time get an expectation. But equally there is a responsibility of the charity trustees too so it would be interesting to see what comes out there.

But throwing money at an organisation that lacks documented outcomes and where you have been told there are issues is foolish in the extreme and the ministers involved should be publicly called to account. I want to know what on earth they were thinking.

...do something for quite some time it becomes an expectation.

I think she probably steamrollered the trustees - or she is so charismatic they were taken in too. Did she have a hand in picking them, I wonder?

Also, it's not her fault if the govt unwisely threw money at her (though she most definitely encouraged them to) but it is her fault that she was clearly not that good at her job – running a large organisation and making decisions to ensure it could manage its budget.

So I agree she could be admitting that she / KC have made mistakes. But I wouldn't expect her to.

As a charity CEO she was answerable to a Board of Trustees who were responsible for decision making about expenditure and the way the organisation was run

Exactly. The Trustee's are responsible for ensuring the management of the charity is in the charity's best interest and within the boundries of the law.

MarvellousCake, I think she is clever, in fact very clever. She handles herself very well in the tough position she is in. Yes, of course, she is metropolitan elite, which is why it is not surprising that Cameron and the rest of them praised her.

She is not 'socking it to the man', but what has happened is that the waste of public funds has surfaced and the people have found out about it. The metropolitan elite are in panic and are pointing the finger at her and Kids Company, but she is pointing it back at them.

The people are watching on and saying "public money wasted, metropolitan elite, charidees, luvvies, are there any PPEs? what's new? Where is Corbyn speaking next?"

Yep, that's what I was thinking of Barbarian. I think she probably believes what she's saying, and I'm not saying she's stupid, but clearly the organisation (and the accompanying narrative) had become bigger than she could adequately manage and it seems she was perhaps unwilling to let others take over the management and strategic aspects that would have been necessary to keep going.

And I agree with others the Trustees have a lot to answer for here as well.

And I agree with others the Trustees have a lot to answer for here as well.

I am certain she believes everything she says. I don't know if she has any self doubt at all and that's what worries me.

Belief is not the same as outcome.