Charity Kids Co. director asked to step down.
Discussion
Transmitter Man said:
Eric Mc said:
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.
Charity Kids Co has AFAIK been audited several times.It's kosher.
Phil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals
I just waded through the Accounts and there is no way to assess any right or wrong from the minimal and high level financial/numerical information within.The Accounts seem a PR exercise, not an effort in transparency.
Mark Benson said:
Derek Smith said:
The old biddy's major complaint seems to be that she didn't receive a letter of thanks.
What a disingenuous comment.The 'old biddy' asked for some idea of where Kids Company had spent the proceeds of her house sale - £200k
She noted that there were few children in the centres, which was backed up by investigation that found that the numbers of children the charity claimed to help included their carers, parents and teachers.
It prompts questions which Camila Batmanghelidjh either avoids or insults the questioner, going so far to question the 'biddys' menatal health (while of course keeping the money, odd for a charity that claims to be on the side of the mentally ill).
All the while, they're receiving public funding.
If the accounts made sense and the claims were true, I seriously doubt the government would pull the funding, but as usual Batmanghelidjh makes it all about her, claiming a personal vendetta by David Cameron - this is typical of the woman whose vanity project was more vanity than project it seems.
Derek Smith said:
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.
Now it seems, the nutters are running the institutions.Edited by Mark Benson on Friday 3rd July 14:55
‘Contrary to what she claims, I never received a personal letter from Camila thanking me for making my donation. I had a few meetings with her in the 15 months before I made my donation but it’s not correct to say I “worked” with her.’
She agrees though that she was involved in meetings before the money was handed over. Isn't worked with a reasonable description?
Post not receiving the personal letter, she then asked to be told what had happened to 'her' money. Does she assume that the money is somehow kept separate from all the rest? The article reads as if she gave the money freely and, because she received no personal letter of thanks - although one assumes she'd have been thanked during one of the pre-donation meetings - she wants it back.
The Spectator is a political organ, The New Statesman of the right. I believe neither without support. This article is light on facts, and it criticises by innuendo. Poor journalism. It is making a political point.
I have no idea whether this charity is good for those it purports to help. I give regularly to two charities, and they are very helpful in saying what they do. One has certain religious aspects that I disagree with, and with some energy, but on balance, the good they do outweighs the silly stuff. I could write an expose of the nature of this charity, pointing out where, in my opinion, it wastes money. Not only that, I could point to those who left the charity rather volubly. However, if it didn't exist, those it helps without judgment, would be abandoned.
No one forces me to make these donations, I choose to. I make donations to collecting tins as well in addition. I have yet to ask to what use my £1 coin will be put to, nor have I ever received a signed letter from the head of either charity to thank me personally for my donations. They are charities: I give to both for my own reasons. My eldest lad worked for Scope for a couple of years. He did so for his own reasons. He got nothing back for working for them other than, I hope, the realisation of how proud he made his father, and a considerable degree of self-satisfaction.
This old biddy gave the money. Good for her. But she, like me, deserves no special consideration.
Eric Mc said:
I am the treasurer of a charity and can assure you we are not a bunch of thieving xxxxs(What an awful word to use).
Eric,How involved is the charity commission in watching over registered charities and do they have powers to access accounts?
Do they make regular inspections?
Phil
Transmitter Man said:
Eric Mc said:
I am the treasurer of a charity and can assure you we are not a bunch of thieving xxxxs(What an awful word to use).
Eric,How involved is the charity commission in watching over registered charities and do they have powers to access accounts?
Do they make regular inspections?
Phil
the other reason is a complaint that designated funds are not used for the designated purpose or that the charity is operating outside it;s registered aims and objectives ... ( which is where a lot of the anger directed at the RSPCA is coming from - especially combined with the Walter Mitty behaviour of the 'Inspectorate' )
technodup said:
I have no particular interest in the story but if a charity takes £30m from government over a few years at what point does it cease to be a charity?
Do we not end up with a merry go round of government funding charities to lobby government to make policy changes?
useful vehicles for employing the thicker kids from the establishment in what are seen to be worthy occupations, bit like consulate employees and various ngo,s.Do we not end up with a merry go round of government funding charities to lobby government to make policy changes?
Transmitter Man said:
Eric Mc said:
I am the treasurer of a charity and can assure you we are not a bunch of thieving xxxxs(What an awful word to use).
Eric,How involved is the charity commission in watching over registered charities and do they have powers to access accounts?
Do they make regular inspections?
Phil
submit a set of annual accounts
submit an annual return
The detail shown in the accounts is based on the size of the charity - the larger the charity, the more the detail.
As regards to checking or querying the accounts, I would say that over 95% of accounts submitted are filed without any queries arising. As mentioned above, failure to submit accounts or returns on time is the prime reason the Commissioners will launch an investigation.
Derek Smith said:
Mark Benson said:
Derek Smith said:
The old biddy's major complaint seems to be that she didn't receive a letter of thanks.
What a disingenuous comment.The 'old biddy' asked for some idea of where Kids Company had spent the proceeds of her house sale - £200k
She noted that there were few children in the centres, which was backed up by investigation that found that the numbers of children the charity claimed to help included their carers, parents and teachers.
It prompts questions which Camila Batmanghelidjh either avoids or insults the questioner, going so far to question the 'biddys' menatal health (while of course keeping the money, odd for a charity that claims to be on the side of the mentally ill).
All the while, they're receiving public funding.
If the accounts made sense and the claims were true, I seriously doubt the government would pull the funding, but as usual Batmanghelidjh makes it all about her, claiming a personal vendetta by David Cameron - this is typical of the woman whose vanity project was more vanity than project it seems.
Derek Smith said:
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.
Now it seems, the nutters are running the institutions.Edited by Mark Benson on Friday 3rd July 14:55
‘Contrary to what she claims, I never received a personal letter from Camila thanking me for making my donation. I had a few meetings with her in the 15 months before I made my donation but it’s not correct to say I “worked” with her.’
She agrees though that she was involved in meetings before the money was handed over. Isn't worked with a reasonable description?
Post not receiving the personal letter, she then asked to be told what had happened to 'her' money. Does she assume that the money is somehow kept separate from all the rest? The article reads as if she gave the money freely and, because she received no personal letter of thanks - although one assumes she'd have been thanked during one of the pre-donation meetings - she wants it back.
The Spectator is a political organ, The New Statesman of the right. I believe neither without support. This article is light on facts, and it criticises by innuendo. Poor journalism. It is making a political point.
I have no idea whether this charity is good for those it purports to help. I give regularly to two charities, and they are very helpful in saying what they do. One has certain religious aspects that I disagree with, and with some energy, but on balance, the good they do outweighs the silly stuff. I could write an expose of the nature of this charity, pointing out where, in my opinion, it wastes money. Not only that, I could point to those who left the charity rather volubly. However, if it didn't exist, those it helps without judgment, would be abandoned.
No one forces me to make these donations, I choose to. I make donations to collecting tins as well in addition. I have yet to ask to what use my £1 coin will be put to, nor have I ever received a signed letter from the head of either charity to thank me personally for my donations. They are charities: I give to both for my own reasons. My eldest lad worked for Scope for a couple of years. He did so for his own reasons. He got nothing back for working for them other than, I hope, the realisation of how proud he made his father, and a considerable degree of self-satisfaction.
This old biddy gave the money. Good for her. But she, like me, deserves no special consideration.
Re your point about special consideration.... she sold her house and gave them £200k. Surely she has the right to ask what it was used for and a right to an answer as well? Whether you ask where your £1 has gone is neither here nor there but for their biggest ever donor not to know how her money was spent stinks!
technodup said:
I have no particular interest in the story but if a charity takes £30m from government over a few years at what point does it cease to be a charity?
Do we not end up with a merry go round of government funding charities to lobby government to make policy changes?
What are the chances that the government could even do the work this charity does at 2x the cost?Do we not end up with a merry go round of government funding charities to lobby government to make policy changes?
At the very least she bit the hand that feeds her, at worse there's the failure to manage a multi million pound organisation (through lack of competence, financial mismanagement or exaggerating the number of beneficiaries).
I've seen far worse than 30 million pounds fleeced from the tax payer by government approved contractors that are still government approved contractors.
People are applying the wrong burden of proof here.
There is no burden for the state to say there has been any wrongdoing, or even just poor management of money. All the state needs to say is: "we can think of better ways to spend £4m".
There are such things as good charities and less good charities. I'd say to get £4m of state funding you should be a bloody brilliant charity; it seems the Cabinet Office decided Kids Company no longer fell into that bucket.
There is no burden for the state to say there has been any wrongdoing, or even just poor management of money. All the state needs to say is: "we can think of better ways to spend £4m".
There are such things as good charities and less good charities. I'd say to get £4m of state funding you should be a bloody brilliant charity; it seems the Cabinet Office decided Kids Company no longer fell into that bucket.
My ex worked for Camilla directly at the Kids Co. I met her a few times, my ex saw and worked with her every day for several years. (and no, not on megabucks). I can't think if anyone else more dedicated to the welfare of vulnerable children than her. She may dress like a fruitcake - quite literally - but I cannot believe she is anything but a pawn in a political game. Personally, I feel awful for her. The work she has done throughout her life is pretty amazing. An exceptionally selfless and inspirational woman.
Derek Smith said:
This old biddy gave the money. Good for her. But she, like me, deserves no special consideration.
Pathetic nasty attempt to smear the messenger. Something is afoot, and as said those "accounts" have more holes than a collander. As transparent as the back of my head. Fact is, there is no smoke without fire , concerns have been raised before and the doubts were overruled, this time they have been enforced.
Unless anyone is literally on the inside , its unlikely the real facts will be known, but the entire scenario comes across as very dubious indeed.
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Saturday 4th July 06:37
OpulentBob said:
My ex worked for Camilla directly at the Kids Co. I met her a few times, my ex saw and worked with her every day for several years. (and no, not on megabucks). I can't think if anyone else more dedicated to the welfare of vulnerable children than her. She may dress like a fruitcake - quite literally - but I cannot believe she is anything but a pawn in a political game. Personally, I feel awful for her. The work she has done throughout her life is pretty amazing. An exceptionally selfless and inspirational woman.
Did she shriek at your ex like a dolphin in peril when she required her assistance? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/im-...
Sounds a delightful women.
Cheese Mechanic said:
Pathetic nasty attempt to smear the messenger.
Something is afoot, and as said those "accounts" have more holes than a collander. As transparent as the back of my head. Fact is, there is no smoke without fire , concerns have been raised before and the doubts were overruled, this time they have been enforced.
Unless anyone is literally on the inside , its unlikely the real facts will be known, but the entire scenario comes across as very dubious indeed.
(I have to say I thought I might be missing some ironic base to this comment - the attack on the messenger at the start in a criticism of attacking the messenger being a pointer - but checking with previous posts of CM, I think this unlikely.)Something is afoot, and as said those "accounts" have more holes than a collander. As transparent as the back of my head. Fact is, there is no smoke without fire , concerns have been raised before and the doubts were overruled, this time they have been enforced.
Unless anyone is literally on the inside , its unlikely the real facts will be known, but the entire scenario comes across as very dubious indeed.
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Saturday 4th July 06:37
GloverMart said:
Derek, your point would be slightly more valid if you didn't call the woman "an old biddy".
Re your point about special consideration.... she sold her house and gave them £200k. Surely she has the right to ask what it was used for and a right to an answer as well? Whether you ask where your £1 has gone is neither here nor there but for their biggest ever donor not to know how her money was spent stinks!
I accept the criticism of 'old biddy'.Re your point about special consideration.... she sold her house and gave them £200k. Surely she has the right to ask what it was used for and a right to an answer as well? Whether you ask where your £1 has gone is neither here nor there but for their biggest ever donor not to know how her money was spent stinks!
Sorry not to be clear on my point. I'm not sure how else to put it but:
The money goes where all the other money goes. 'Her' money does nothing that the rest of the money does.
My argument was not against her, but the article. It was poor journalism. It says nothing other than this donor is upset about the way she was treated. She expected special treatment it seems. I'm not sure that's the way charity works.
One specific complaint is:
“According to a special report prepared for me it appeared the bulk of my donation went on food vouchers without any receipts to show what food was bought with them. I regard this as a complete betrayal of my trust and have asked for my money back.”
I said I was not told what happens to my money I give to charities, but I was wrong. Every month I get an update come through on one and when there's a major event that the charity contributes to or works on, I get another special update. I've no 'right' to that, it's just something they do, presumably to ensure that I don't end the DD. It is my money but they don't come back and say Colin got an extra cup of water due to my generosity.
You then say it, the charity I assume, stinks. The word you use goes beyond a suggestion of mere incompetence. You are casting doubts on the integrity of this woman, presumably solely on what is in the article. Yet there is no substance in it. If the charity commissioners are concerned, one would have thought it would have been mentioned. It would appear that the charity has been approached by the charity commissioners, presumably following the complaint, and left satisfied.
We find that when the woman first approached the charity to donate her house it was refused. When she returned, after selling her house they accepted the £200,000 cheque.
The article can be summed up in a sentence. "Donor gives all her money to a charity, leaving her homeless, then has second thoughts."
There are suggestions, insinuations and innuendo about the way the charity is run, but no facts.
Unless a charity acts dishonestly or manages its funds poorly, then we have no say, despite the concessions they are allowed. The money is given freely. If a government splurges money on a charity for its own reasons, as often happens and not only by the previous one, then it is the government that needs to be criticised if the money is being used ineffectively.
Here's a woman who, on the surface at least, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, gives her time to help the needy. A journalist does a hatchet job, but brings no evidence, and we get words like 'stinks'. It is a bit off.
Then we get:
'Something is afoot . . . those "accounts" have more holes than a collander. As transparent as the back of my head . . . there is no smoke without fire . . concerns have been raised before and the doubts were overruled, this time they have been enforced [confused by that phrase] . . . the entire scenario comes across as very dubious indeed.'
And this based on a Spectator article, short on facts, high on feelings. The 'doubts' of one woman have not been 'overruled' but it would seem checked by those whose job it is to check them.
A charity is given money. Unless there is a firm agreement on how it is to be used - and in the case, by the donor's own statements we can see that there was none - then the money is for the charity to use as it thinks fit.
'No smoke without fire': do people really say that?
I apologise for the old biddy jibe: it was uncalled for and rude. I should not have made it.
So now concentrate on the article, and the points raised in it. Oh, and the facts if you can find any.
OpulentBob said:
My ex worked for Camilla directly at the Kids Co. I met her a few times, my ex saw and worked with her every day for several years. (and no, not on megabucks). I can't think if anyone else more dedicated to the welfare of vulnerable children than her. She may dress like a fruitcake - quite literally - but I cannot believe she is anything but a pawn in a political game. Personally, I feel awful for her. The work she has done throughout her life is pretty amazing. An exceptionally selfless and inspirational woman.
Subject to their being no evidence to the contrary, and there's none in the article, I'm willing to accept the opinion of someone who has some connection with the woman and who has not got the requirement to fill a space once a week with something that will gain links and mentions on FB.I find it bewildering when someone dedicates their lives to a charity. When in the City of London, I used to see the Sally Ann caravans turn up, helping those no one else gave a damn about. The accommodation they supplied saved the lives of any number of vagrants, abandoned by everyone else. All weathers, all temperatures, all comers. The Big Society write large.
I can't be the only person who is uncomfortable meeting these people, who are willing to help those who smelled, who were diseased and difficult to deal with. They are easy to dismiss when you see their bands playing in the high street, then in their silly clothes, with their purported silly religious beliefs. But these people do such brilliantly good work. Why? Who knows, but it is not for the praise they get from the general public evidently.
If you see one of their tins being held by someone on a street corner, stick a pound in and walk away knowing that you will have helped someone that society has abandoned.
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 4th July 09:33
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Which is your right so to do. Good on you.I actually had to approach the Sally Ann to go on DD.
'My' other charity has a bit of self interest in it as it is fighting, and to an extent losing, the battle against TB in Africa. But again, I approached them, at least via their website.
(My wife used to do a bit for the Red Cross and we still contribute mildly via DD to them I've just found out.)
Whether this charity is the best way to help such people is another subject. I have no ideas on the matter but one does get the impression that judgment of her fiscal abilities is based in the main on the way she dresses. She might well look like a demented parrot but that has no bearing on her effectiveness.
My office manager did a stint with VSO, going to West Africa and somewhere out east. She said that the best thing they did was to supply camping refrigerators. Everything else was transient. I think that is the problem with a lot of charity work. It is just sticking plaster.
Mind you, when the fridge in my caravan stopped working she told me to turn it upside down for 15 minutes then right it and start it immediately. And it worked. So not so transient.
Derek Smith said:
.......
Subject to their being no evidence to the contrary, and there's none in the article
.......
hang on, what do you call this? If you want 'evidential' evidence, then we would need the independent authorities involved because this woman or her charity will provide none. Subject to their being no evidence to the contrary, and there's none in the article
.......
Edited by Derek Smith on Saturday 4th July 09:33
'This all sounds very professional, but it turns out it is not just children who are included in the much-touted 36,000. In an email to me the charity wrote: ‘When we refer to clients they include children, young people, young adults with special needs, carers, i.e. foster parents or parents who predominantly have mental health difficulties, and school staff.’ Strange to include parents and school staff in the number of those helped.
On to Joan’s next concern, which she heard from staff in Kids Company HQ. Some employees are former ‘clients’ — people helped by the charity itself when younger — and the complaint from regular staff was that some of these former clients did not bother turning up to work. Joan told me: ‘One girl had apparently swanned off for the whole summer, to the obvious annoyance of colleagues. I was also told that others who visit the charity are given cash allowances to supplement their Jobseekers’ Allowances and to prevent them from stealing or dealing drugs. I don’t think private donors or the government give Kids Company money so that it can be handed out to young people in cash?’
And the other thing about charities - the donors can claim the gift back against highest band tax, so effect, the potential to rob the the taxpayer.
So, we all have an interest in these 'charities'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff