Can we talk about Camilla Batmanghedjh?

[HarveySpectre]

Everywhere I look, she is getting totally crucified. Including on MN chat.
I don't get it. Even if she has been bad at financial accounts, she has still done amazing work for kids, for the last 19 years.

People are saying the money could have been 'better spent'. What the fuck do they know about what those kids need??

People are calling for measurable benefits I.e. Improved exam results, employment, reduction in offending/criminal activity. You cant link those things to whether a child should be fed! There is no 'measure of improvement' to providing basic need

To my mind KC thought outside the box and catered for those that absolutely needed help the most. You cant always do that effectively, by conventional methods

I'm not here to defend complementary therapies, except as part of emotional/psychological development. And I do defend them for that. I just thought it worth mentioning the 'crystals in the toes' thing is real - I don't happen to go with the rest of reflexology's claims but, hey. A lot of ailments are provoked by stress; do what works, etc.

I appreciate completely that some (if not most) of the children who attend/attended Kids Company are difficult/violent/unappealing in many ways, and I certainly don't think they should be written off or just locked up. But for all this hippy woo bollocks unconditional love and aromatherapy how the fuck are they keeping their attendees safe from EACH OTHER?

Both Camilla B and Erin P self-represented as being able to calm and cure traumatized, aggressive, acting-out teenagers with the magical power of their wonderfulness but, even if there were some truth in that (some people do have a real knack for being able to calm aggression) the sheer scale of numbers claimed to be passing through the organisation means there have to be other procedures in place to deal with a kid wielding a knife or hurling the furniture around for the sake of the other kids.

I'm really amazed that the only people on MN defending what Kids' Company have done are the feminist section.

We have reports on the other thread from people with experience of the place saying how badly run it was, how children were at risk from each other, how girls who made complaints about harassment and threats from boys on the premises were called slags by the staff and a link to the person who set up the organisation telling a parliamentary committee the following about black women:

Ms Batmanghelidjh told the MPs: "I actually think the mothers are hugely responsible because they have created a culture where they can get rid of the adolescent boy."

"They can get rid of the male partner, they can survive on their own.

"Often people think it's the males who are the culprits, the irresponsible people who actually come along and make these girls pregnant and walk off.

"And they underestimate the level of rejection and cruelty from the females towards the males."

All I can say in response to this thread is WTF? Why on earth are feminists defending lack of basic safeguarding of young people, including young girls? Organisations like this that don't protect women and girls are exactly the sort of thing I would expect FWR to be glad were being exposed.

Hmm. Think I need to go and read the other thread. I got put off before because it seemed v reactionary and not very informed but it sounds like it's moved on now.

And yes the BBC article is shocking, I hadn't appreciated she was saying things like that. And what SGB says about safeguarding these children from each other is really important and I think the point about curing with their wonderfulness is spot on and why the EP/CB comparisons are being made.

I think the point about curing with their wonderfulness is spot on and why the EP/CB comparisons are being made. - Me too.

I'm just not interested in vilifying people for being less wonderful than they think. I tend to save that for folks who deliberately cause harm. I also don't like throwing babies out with bathwater, which is likely to happen if all of CB's work is belittled in consequence of her fall from grace. She shouldn't have been 'in grace' to start with.

So I won't be on the other thread, and I'll be hiding this one.

I don't think it is about vilifying her. I don't think most discussion is about her at all; it is about the organisation.

It is about what has happened within that organisation, how it got funding and why. That mostly isn't about her; it is about the failings of the Government in thinking through service provision and the Big Society, how safeguarding goes wrong and so on and what has gone wrong there.

Glad I did a sneaky unhide to see that post, almond. Yes to your second paragraph.