Charity Kids Co. director asked to step down.
Discussion
REALIST123 said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
What's on the BBC page at the moment is the flip side of the financial debate; the children that we as a society fail to look after.
It makes for interesting reading. You could argue it's the response of an angry woman who has lost what she believed in. You could argue that she's not taking responsibility for her personal and the charity failings.
Or perhaps the truth is a mixture of all things.
Taken from the BBC page,
"It's not about bad management on our part, it's about trying to sort out something that society isn't dealing with," she said.
Personally, I think she is wrong - it is about the management and in that, if there are failings they should be highlighted now... But the second part, I think she's absolutely spot on. We should not have to leave it to 'charity' to look after children who are the bottom of the heap in terms of everything worth measuring. The failings of children in this society are well documented and profuse. We, the bigger society fail them and that needs to addressed.
I understand what you're saying but the kids are failed, primarily and in the main, by their families, not society.It makes for interesting reading. You could argue it's the response of an angry woman who has lost what she believed in. You could argue that she's not taking responsibility for her personal and the charity failings.
Or perhaps the truth is a mixture of all things.
Taken from the BBC page,
"It's not about bad management on our part, it's about trying to sort out something that society isn't dealing with," she said.
Personally, I think she is wrong - it is about the management and in that, if there are failings they should be highlighted now... But the second part, I think she's absolutely spot on. We should not have to leave it to 'charity' to look after children who are the bottom of the heap in terms of everything worth measuring. The failings of children in this society are well documented and profuse. We, the bigger society fail them and that needs to addressed.
Some focus on family responsibility might not go amiss.
We fail them. Regularly and in fundamental ways. Saville was the pinnace abuser, but the system failings that we just cannot or will not address leave too many of our most vulnerable minors exposed to ultra-predators.
The question raised on R4 this morning is key for me.
Why weren't they carrying 3-6 months reserves? Why did the non-executive directors / trustees allow the charity board to move into a position where they could not pay their staff? How did the governance fail so badly?
Sounds like a dysfunctional board, a dominating CEO and a failure of trustees. Probably not helped by successive govts bailing them out.
Why weren't they carrying 3-6 months reserves? Why did the non-executive directors / trustees allow the charity board to move into a position where they could not pay their staff? How did the governance fail so badly?
Sounds like a dysfunctional board, a dominating CEO and a failure of trustees. Probably not helped by successive govts bailing them out.
Vaud said:
The question raised on R4 this morning is key for me.
Why weren't they carrying 3-6 months reserves? Why did the non-executive directors / trustees allow the charity board to move into a position where they could not pay their staff? How did the governance fail so badly?
Sounds like a dysfunctional board, a dominating CEO and a failure of trustees. Probably not helped by successive govts bailing them out.
Have the 2014 accounts been prepared? Why weren't they carrying 3-6 months reserves? Why did the non-executive directors / trustees allow the charity board to move into a position where they could not pay their staff? How did the governance fail so badly?
Sounds like a dysfunctional board, a dominating CEO and a failure of trustees. Probably not helped by successive govts bailing them out.
What do the most recent figures look like?
Why was there an apparently catastrophic collapse compared to the December 2013 situation?
Eric Mc said:
Have the 2014 accounts been prepared?
What do the most recent figures look like?
Why was there an apparently catastrophic collapse compared to the December 2013 situation?
All good questions. But regardless of any drop in income, why did the charity allow itself to run down reserves to such an extent? What do the most recent figures look like?
Why was there an apparently catastrophic collapse compared to the December 2013 situation?
Some charities get criticism for holding too much in reserve - but at the other end of the spectrum the board has a duty not just to it's charitable purpose - but also to the employees - and to adjust the size of the charity accordingly?
Sheepshanks said:
Children are society's children.
As Thatcher so heartlessly put it:"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987
We are still collecting the debris from her car crash...
Can't understand how they ever thought giving children "raw" cash, to spend on what they wanted, was a good idea. Even if it only happened very occasionally, it's an absolute no-no for most charities and organisations which work with children.
There is stuff in one of their recent newsletters on their website, about Uniqlo having given them a load of clothing vouchers, that's what they should have been doing more of ... either outright donated vouchers, or coming to some arrangement with some stores to get a bit more for their money by converting to vouchers at a rate of 2:1 or something. Perhaps the problem was the charity's "clients" did not want store vouchers no matter what they were worth?
The Daily Mail "weed heaven" story has been updated to include a footnote about a 28 year old who was given £3000 when he was 24 to buy a van and start a removal business ... 24! What age did their remit cover and aren't their proper small enterprise schemes and funding available for things like that. It also says that he was supported by them since the age of 15, so that's 9 years he was taking or needing handouts and "help to escape gang life" so their help and support cannot have been very effective if he needed it for so long?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186754/Gi...
Feeling sorry for some of the more genuine and better run children's charities (not thinking NSPCC or Barnardos here, smaller than them) who are truly short of cash, they may well find it even harder to raise funds now as (a) the public become suspicious of all children's charities (b) they assume that all children's charities are getting the massive government monies that BatManCo got.
There is stuff in one of their recent newsletters on their website, about Uniqlo having given them a load of clothing vouchers, that's what they should have been doing more of ... either outright donated vouchers, or coming to some arrangement with some stores to get a bit more for their money by converting to vouchers at a rate of 2:1 or something. Perhaps the problem was the charity's "clients" did not want store vouchers no matter what they were worth?
The Daily Mail "weed heaven" story has been updated to include a footnote about a 28 year old who was given £3000 when he was 24 to buy a van and start a removal business ... 24! What age did their remit cover and aren't their proper small enterprise schemes and funding available for things like that. It also says that he was supported by them since the age of 15, so that's 9 years he was taking or needing handouts and "help to escape gang life" so their help and support cannot have been very effective if he needed it for so long?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186754/Gi...
Feeling sorry for some of the more genuine and better run children's charities (not thinking NSPCC or Barnardos here, smaller than them) who are truly short of cash, they may well find it even harder to raise funds now as (a) the public become suspicious of all children's charities (b) they assume that all children's charities are getting the massive government monies that BatManCo got.
Eric Mc said:
Maybe governments should re-examine their willingness to support charities directly. I think taxpayers' money should be for the jobs undertaken by the state. Charities should depend on public support from personal or corporate charitable donation - not government hand outs.
Sadly, politicians, whilst announcing cuts and restrictions on the things THEY should be responsible for, are only too willing to give away taxpayers' money to organisations which they feel will make them appear in a glowing light.
It was this attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile to carry on the way he did. Politicians always love to bask in the reflected glory of others - even if it turns out that the "glory" was perhaps, at the very least, misplaced - and in some cases, masking downright evil.
Spot on, but being fair, these professional charity grandees can orchestrate a huge media sSadly, politicians, whilst announcing cuts and restrictions on the things THEY should be responsible for, are only too willing to give away taxpayers' money to organisations which they feel will make them appear in a glowing light.
It was this attitude that allowed Jimmy Savile to carry on the way he did. Politicians always love to bask in the reflected glory of others - even if it turns out that the "glory" was perhaps, at the very least, misplaced - and in some cases, masking downright evil.
tstorm if their pet projects are threatened.NicD said:
Spot on, but being fair, these professional charity grandees can orchestrate a huge media ststorm if their pet projects are threatened.
Yes - they can be experts in media manipulation and make politicians look like rank amateurs. The more I look at old episodes of "Yes Minister" the more realistic it looks. Jim Hacker would do absolutely ANYTHING to look good in the evening news or in the papers.tstorm if their pet projects are threatened.Sheepshanks said:
REALIST123 said:
I understand what you're saying but the kids are failed, primarily and in the main, by their families, not society.
Children are society's children.Eric Mc said:
NicD said:
Spot on, but being fair, these professional charity grandees can orchestrate a huge media ststorm if their pet projects are threatened.
Yes - they can be experts in media manipulation and make politicians look like rank amateurs. The more I look at old episodes of "Yes Minister" the more realistic it looks. Jim Hacker would do absolutely ANYTHING to look good in the evening news or in the papers.tstorm if their pet projects are threatened.On Radio 2 at this moment. If she says "think of the children" one more time I'm going to throw the radio out of the fking window. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, IMHO. She is either complicit in some shady financial dealings or else not fit to run such a business with access to such large funds.
king window. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, IMHO. She is either complicit in some shady financial dealings or else not fit to run such a business with access to such large funds.crossle said:
Sheepshanks said:
Children are society's children.
As Thatcher so heartlessly put it:"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987
We are still collecting the debris from her car crash...
I wonder if anyone will end up in the dock for this? Beginning to look like there was no fiscal organisation whatsoever.
Cannot help but wonder if anything has been syphoned off, and to who its gone.
Trouble is though, there are good, small charities out there that will suffer for this. The charity sector has already taken a big reputational hit from Blairs interference allowing them to campaign politically , and from the huge salaries some of its staff are paid. Before we even statrt to mention the fake charites, funded entirely by public money.
I've never known for trust in charity be so low, some even viewed with contempt in some quarters . Its a great shame.
P/S Three great charities?
RNLI
Blind veterans (Formerly St Dunstans)
PDSA. An animal charity that does that, care for animals. Not self appointed vigilantes (RSPCA)
https://www.pdsa.org.uk/ Support 'em, good people.
Cannot help but wonder if anything has been syphoned off, and to who its gone.
Trouble is though, there are good, small charities out there that will suffer for this. The charity sector has already taken a big reputational hit from Blairs interference allowing them to campaign politically , and from the huge salaries some of its staff are paid. Before we even statrt to mention the fake charites, funded entirely by public money.
I've never known for trust in charity be so low, some even viewed with contempt in some quarters . Its a great shame.
P/S Three great charities?
RNLI
Blind veterans (Formerly St Dunstans)
PDSA. An animal charity that does that, care for animals. Not self appointed vigilantes (RSPCA)
https://www.pdsa.org.uk/ Support 'em, good people.
Cheese Mechanic said:
I wonder if anyone will end up in the dock for this? Beginning to look like there was no fiscal organisation whatsoever.
Cannot help but wonder if anything has been syphoned off, and to who its gone.
Trouble is though, there are good, small charities out there that will suffer for this. The charity sector has already taken a big reputational hit from Blairs interference allowing them to campaign politically , and from the huge salaries some of its staff are paid. Before we even statrt to mention the fake charites, funded entirely by public money.
I've never known for trust in charity be so low, some even viewed with contempt in some quarters . Its a great shame.
P/S Three great charities?
RNLI
Blind veterans (Formerly St Dunstans)
PDSA. An animal charity that does that, care for animals. Not self appointed vigilantes (RSPCA)
https://www.pdsa.org.uk/ Support 'em, good people.
I'd add Macmillan personally and the Salvation ArmyCannot help but wonder if anything has been syphoned off, and to who its gone.
Trouble is though, there are good, small charities out there that will suffer for this. The charity sector has already taken a big reputational hit from Blairs interference allowing them to campaign politically , and from the huge salaries some of its staff are paid. Before we even statrt to mention the fake charites, funded entirely by public money.
I've never known for trust in charity be so low, some even viewed with contempt in some quarters . Its a great shame.
P/S Three great charities?
RNLI
Blind veterans (Formerly St Dunstans)
PDSA. An animal charity that does that, care for animals. Not self appointed vigilantes (RSPCA)
https://www.pdsa.org.uk/ Support 'em, good people.
It looks like (from limited information) that Kids Co were operating hand to mouth - spending all funds on people costs with no reserves, so no headroom to find other donors when the grants were withheld.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff