Charity Kids Co. director asked to step down.

Charity Kids Co. director asked to step down.

Author
Discussion

drivin_me_nuts

Original Poster:

17,949 posts

210 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Can anyone here decipher the words written here and actually work out what the real issue is here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33356304

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
The Government is concerned about how the charity is managed, especially as it receives public funds. This in turn raises a question as to whether the Government should leave charity regulation to the Charity Commission. The latter point is my comment, not a paraphrase of the news report.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
It is a bit cryptic and vague!
It appears the government is not happy how the charity is being run and are blaming her.
I just don't get the 'packets of cash' thing. It suggests that cash was being given out to all that came, and those that came may have been gang members?

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The Government is concerned about how the charity is managed, especially as it receives public funds. This in turn raises a question as to whether the Government should leave charity regulation to the Charity Commission. The latter point is my comment, not a paraphrase of the news report.
Good point about the Charity Commission. I'm not sure exactly what they are for as all they seem to concentrate on is ensuring charities submit forms and accounts - with no actual proper monitoring.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Or smackheads?

jogon

2,971 posts

157 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Interesting article from the Spectator back in February this year..

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9437932/the-tr...

Batstmental how this woman has won awards for Businesswomen of the year and Entrepreneur and a CBE too.

Amazing how far these talentless gobstes can get through positive discrimination and dressing like a fruit basket.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Cameron over ruling a Departmental decision to cease funding is a striking thing.

drivin_me_nuts

Original Poster:

17,949 posts

210 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
This is a curious thing, in so far as is this about the running of the charity or the woman herself? or both?

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
jogon said:
Interesting article from the Spectator back in February this year..

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9437932/the-tr...
Sounds dodgy as fk to be fair.

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
jogon said:
Interesting article from the Spectator back in February this year..

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9437932/the-tr...

Batstmental how this woman has won awards for Businesswomen of the year and Entrepreneur and a CBE too.

Amazing how far these talentless gobstes can get through positive discrimination and dressing like a fruit basket.
The charity was one of Cameron's 'big society' initiatives. When the BS (and how!) stopped, all interest in it waned.

The right of the party were not happy with the suggestion to hug a hoody and the Spectator, always willing to go with the flow, has used the comments from a 76-year-old donor as a base to an article. Beyond her specific complaints, there's not a lot of evidence against this women. Much in the way of suggestions of course.

The old biddy's major complaint seems to be that she didn't receive a letter of thanks.

It is a matter for the charity commissioners.

Whilst the woman does dress oddly, who cares?

She would appear to have dedicated her life, at least since 1996, to the welfare of troubled children. One of the major criticisms that has arisen since the revelations of endemic child abuse of those in care is that so few of us care. It would appear that she is one of those who does.

She was an idiot to tie herself to politicians. But beyond that, she would appear, even going by the Spectator article, to be as deserving as many. I might think that had she not gone all political, she would have been just one of the deserving ignored. She was an idiot to criticise the government. What did she expect them to do, other than pull funding?

My lad works with deprived children and those, he reckons, whose needs are ignored by the state. His stories are eye-opening, not only for the individual tragedies but the fact that lack of care is, apparently, a state target, and has been for years.

In the old days they used to put the nutters in institutions in order to keep them out of the way of proper people. The same goes for the difficult kids nowadays it seems. I had no idea of the mechanics of the situation until my lad started to explain things to me. Really quite shocking.


supersingle

3,205 posts

218 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
If they're taking large amounts of government cash then they're no longer a charity. It's a trap lots of charities fall into, the money is too tempting. Once worthwhile operations that were responsive to their users needs just become another arm of the state.

Gecko1978

9,600 posts

156 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
if cash was handed out then something is very wrong there. Also sounds like figures are not reconcilable which again should raise red flags...what did they do with the money who were they paying etc.

Sounds like they paid salaries to folk for doing nothing etc so they did not turn to crime but kids co did not ghelp them long term just funded there life choices

ChemicalChaos

10,360 posts

159 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
They had her on Radio 4 this morning to talk about it.

All she did was avoid every single question by constantly whining that it was a government plot to discredit her because she'd complained to them that children's mental health "wasnt being robustly protected enough".

Mental woman......

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
drivin_me_nuts said:
This is a curious thing, in so far as is this about the running of the charity or the woman herself? or both?
I suspect as with many of the issues surrounding charities with a charismatic head , the problem is to do with a cult of personality surrounding her... (Happens in private business as well e.g. R Branson and S Jobs )

it may also depend on the exact naute of the charities registered Objectives etc.

being a Charity or CIC is not an easy regulatory ride

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
The old biddy's major complaint seems to be that she didn't receive a letter of thanks.
Reading the article it seems she was more concerned with where the money went.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
hornetrider said:
Derek Smith said:
The old biddy's major complaint seems to be that she didn't receive a letter of thanks.
Reading the article it seems she was more concerned with where the money went.
Of course, if it was a simple thankyou she wanted then they'd have just given her it, they wouldn't have attempted to quantify what was spent where and then questioned her mental health. She took offence to the wishy-washy response she got, and I like the Spectator comment that, if they had real concerns about her mental health, should they think about returning her money?


Hooli

32,278 posts

199 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I couldn't agree more.

Cheese Mechanic

3,157 posts

168 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Seems that money/vouchers are being doled out willy nilly with little or no control over to whome and where the cash/vouchers are actually going, or what same is actually being used on , what its purchasing, etc.

Spalding Guardian, here: http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/i-...

dandarez

13,244 posts

282 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Cheese Mechanic said:
Seems that money/vouchers are being doled out willy nilly with little or no control over to whome and where the cash/vouchers are actually going, or what same is actually being used on , what its purchasing, etc.

Spalding Guardian, here: http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/i-...
So, Mrs Woolard gave 200 grand to the 'charity' and wanted her donation spent on food for the kids in need.

She was told by chief exec Ms Batman******** that it has been. (Note past tense!)

200 grand ON FOOD for the kids?

Ms Batman******* says the charity has copies of receipts and their thank-you letter to Mrs Woolard. The kids apparently even made her an art-piece plus an item appeared in the charity's newsletter.

And I wonder why I gave up giving to charities (with one exception) about 15 years ago.

hornet

6,333 posts

249 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
No mention of Common Purpose yet? Standards are clearly slipping here.