Camila Batmanghelidjh died

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

61 is no age.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/02/kids-company-charity-founder-camila-batmanghelidjh-dies-aged-61

Yes 61 does seem young. And not to have had her public image restored by the prejudiced media / establishment that set out to destroy her.

In 2015, Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees closed Kids Company after its growing financial troubles were exacerbated by a BBC report claiming sexual abuse had taken place at the charity. This triggered a public and media backlash. Police subsequently investigated the allegations, and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

For months she was vilified in the parts of the media, despite protesting her innocence, an extraordinary reversal of her earlier popularity with the press. The official receiver launched a high-profile and expensive attempt to ban her from holding senior roles in public life, finally culminating in a 10-week court case in 2021.

The high court exonerated Batmanghelidjh, and rejected the claim that Kids Company had been mismanaged and charitable funds misspent. The judge praised her for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievement in building a successful charity that did “incredible work”.

Shame on them for unjustly accusing her.

Especially when you think of all those (white, male) personalities they cover up for.

61 is very young. How sad.

I was surprised by that article- the way she’s spoken about I assumed that bad practice had been found!
It’s often referred to as if it were true, and an example of poor safeguarding- on here, I m sure.

It’s often referred to as if it were true, and an example of poor safeguarding- on here, I m sure.

I think someone did post a link about how she had been exonerated, but some how no one really took it up.

I read a couple of her books. Her heart was in the right place.

She was absolutely not exonerated. The charity commission report was damning.

I completely agree that her heart was in the right place, but the organization she ran was a mess.

That was broadly what I got from friends in the sector.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmpubacc/504/50403.htm

I've been to a couple of lectures by her. She was great - not just passionate but well informed too. I have colleagues who are ex employees who say the same (although agree that there was disorganisation).

Why does the media love the notion of a "trans child" (hence Mermaids still exist despite safeguarding issues) but have no interest in the extremely deprived youngsters that Kids Company were reaching? Why aren't the media tearing down Stonewall for scamming buckets of cash giving out biased and incorrect equalities training?

Extremely sad news.

Give it time

I met her several times - she provided qualified therapeutic services for Primary schools - much needed and yes, her heart was in the right place. It was Kids Company that attracted all the massive funding that seemed to be so poorly managed. But they did work with some of the most hard to reach young people who other agencies had given up on.

I recon there's a number of children and young people who benefitted from her charities and that's a great legacy.

💯

I completely agree that her heart was in the right place, but the organization she ran was a mess.

I have this impression too.

But the world does need more people whose hearts are in the right place.

So I am very sorry to hear that Camila Batmanghelidjh has died.

I think that is true. Unhappily good intentions have a well-known destination if not salted with common sense. But it is sad to die at only 61.

I didn’t know her but from what I’ve read I have the same impression -well-intentioned but didn’t run the charity hugely well. A lot of celebrities seem to be dying at 50-60, it’s so young. Very sad.

I thought it was sad. Her enthusiasm and ideas about how to help those children were good.

Very sad news. I met her and heard her speak a few times. There were a few things that bothered me at the time about yet another charismatic figure seeming to ignore boundaries and good practice. I can understand the wish not to speak ill of the dead, but it isn't accurate to state that she was exonerated. It was also obvious that the services that were expecting to pick up the support needs of the children and young people Kids Company were working with were certainly not inundated after their demise. Their way of working seems to have generated demand. I understand that most of the approaches to other organisations afterwards were for cash handouts or for specific items, an approach most children's charities don't favour in their work. The most vulnerable individuals and families were mainly already known to other services, even if there were issues over engaging successfully with them.

The alarmist claims that there would be an outbreak of savagery and destruction if their work came to an end were extraordinary, and there's something similar in the claims of organisations like Mermaids and Stonewall now about potential suicides. There've been other cases where charismatic leaders have been lauded and given too much freedom and it hasn't ended well (thinking of the Quintin Kynaston 'superhead' for one and the drama teacher John Owen in Wales). I think everyone who talked Camila up and massaged her ego and didn't impose the same kinds of checks and balances on funding and safeguarding as for all other organisations have to accept some responsibility for what happened. Again, there are lots of parallels with how gullible and credulous many politicians and public servants have been over the last few years. There should be no sacred castes or privileged individuals.

A close relative knew her through work and said that she was a lovely person. A sad loss.

I agree with this. She was very charismatic but the charity was badly run and I also think that the fact that high profile individuals who lauded her and the charity would have been embarrassed by all the disclosures had some influence on the outcome of investigations.

I live locally to where the charity operated and heard some of the stories. There was much good done, but also some things happening which were not good at all.

A sad loss for her family and friends. May she RIP.

She wasn't very nice to service staff: security and wait staff and the like. Very high-handed and rude. No further details as she has passed away and it feels mean-spirited to go into it further. We all have off days I guess?

On Kids Company, it's not enough for someone's 'heart to be in the right place'. In order to run a charity one must stick to the rules and to strict ethical guideleines. Operationally, financially, health and safety - it must all be done right. Otherwise anyone could get away with anything by protesting that their heart was in the right place.

To employ another cliche: 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

She was very much at the heart of the Cameron-era Establishment (and got £££££ from the Tories) which is why KC got away with little scrutiny for a long time.

She really wasn’t the wronged angel she was made out to be. I’ve had professional dealings with her and her organisations, and they were not OK. Even if her heart were in the right place -which I’m not certain of - I witnessed first hand the harm that her organisations did to vulnerable children. There a reason you need qualifications, accountability, and to comply with best practice/legal guidelines. It’s not nice to criticise someone after they’ve died yet it’s really hard to read things which I personally know to be wrong. I wonder if it will ever all come out or whether her current organisations will fade away without her and the investigations will stop.

I think ‘do not speak ill of the dead’ is wrong. Fine at the funeral or on a personal level with friends and family. But to refuse to acknowledge and even investigate failings because someone has died means serious harms that could be prevent may occur again. We do not need to look far to see horrific crimes committed by charismatic individuals that held public court whilst they were alive. I am not saying there were horrific crimes, or indeed any crimes, here but her death is not a reason to ignore problems and let similar happen again.

Very nice tribute on BBC London News right now

I had good experiences of the organisation in terms of support for children I referred, I attended seminars of hers which were great

Referring to a previous post about trans kids though, I suspect she was/would have been all over this to be honest. Unfortunately.

Much has been said on this thread about her exoneration. The case was quite complicated and as people have said, the judge did praise CB for her achievements.

However, the judge also gave this assessment of CB (paras 99-103).

In my view this shows that she should not have received either the amount of praise or the depth of the opprobrium that she did.

'99. My overall impression was of a charismatic, persuasive person with strong views, who is well used to employing advocacy skills. There were strong beliefs in particular narratives, beliefs which were sometimes maintained in the face of contrary evidence.
100. I consider that Ms Batmanghelidjh’s evidence generally reflected her honest beliefs, but it could be selective. This could result in an incorrect impression being given. The most significant example of this related to responsibility for the charity’s finances, discussed from [634] below.
101. There were also some examples of Ms Batmanghelidjh having seemingly convinced herself of something which it should have been apparent to her was not the case, albeit that there might have been some possible basis for the view that she had formed. However, the examples of this that I saw related to relatively insignificant matters. One was whether the payment of payroll one day late in November 2014 was due to a “technical” problem as she insisted it was, rather than the reality of funds not being cleared, and another was her insistence that she had Trustee permission to give interviews on the Today programme and Newsnight on 3 July 2015 when in fact she had been given an instruction not to give interviews, albeit that there was a possible basis for her to have misunderstood the position in connection with the Today programme.
102. As a result, I have treated Ms Batmanghelidjh’s affidavit and oral evidence with particular care. However, I do not accept the Official Receiver’s submission in closing that I should entirely discount her evidence unless corroborated by a document.
103. There was also a significant amount of advocacy by Ms Batmanghelidjh from the witness box. While questions were generally answered eventually, this was often not done directly, because she wished to add her own explanation of the relevant context. This was understandable but did not generally assist the court.