Charity Kids Co. director asked to step down.

[drivin_me_nuts]

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

[drivin_me_nuts]

This is a curious thing, in so far as is this about the running of the charity or the woman herself? or both?

[drivin_me_nuts]

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

If that is the case and for there side, all is well, is this more a case of grand politicing?

[drivin_me_nuts]

And as with all of these accounts, where are the ones from those whose life has been changed by this charity?

Anyone can find fault, anyone can pick up an account and write a 'story' about it. It's not hard. There's enough of it on this thread itself. Newspapers have to offer no balance. Their story sells and satisfies the needs, prejudices, agenda and beliefs of their share of the morass that is the newspaper consumer.

I'm not saying any of those things being reported are factually incorrect. But there is another side. But funnily enough, it's less interesting for them to report.

[drivin_me_nuts]

rich1231 said:

OpulentBob said:

Hugely sad and worrying. As said before, CB is in my opinion (actually having met the woman and having had a partner who (still) works for her) an inspiration when it comes to the care of vulnerable children, and for her organisation which she has put her entire life's work in to to be subject to this, must be destroying her inside. In my experience, KC is a very worthwhile charity and is just about the last organisation I would have expected this to happen to.

Its quite possible to be charismatic and totally incompetent at heading a large organisation. This recent thing with funds being used for payroll is astounding.

It is a great shame that her skills and her ability to draw money was not extended and ring fenced away from the day-to-day running of the charity. Organisations such as this do better with charismatic leaders. But if this shows anything, it is that they should a) not steer the ship b) hold the purse strings c) employ those who can.

I have no doubt that at a personal level she will be more than upset that what what she created with her best intentions and hard work has come to this. That's a hard thing for a person to come to terms with.

[drivin_me_nuts]

REALIST123 said:

You seem quite trusting. Time will tell, but the level of incompetence (at best) or deliberate mishandling (at worst) implied by the rumours and reports is very worrying. To spend £800K of £3M 'desperately needed' funds on staff salaries is difficult to understand. Especially when it's not a true donation but taxpayers' cash.

As for CB, again time will tell. But however good her fundraising has been, it will be more difficult from now on. She wouldn't get a penny from me.

Edited by REALIST123 on Wednesday 5th August 09:37

For now, I prefer to hold a view that she screwed up (big time..), rather than there be a more subversive agenda to her actions. Time and investigative process will tell. I certainly prefer that approach to the idea of trial by media who also have their own self serving agenda.

[drivin_me_nuts]

REALIST123 said:

.....and you may very well be correct in your view but it will still be more difficult for her to be taken seriously in the future, IMO.

It will no doubt be thrown at her, both in malice by those who enjoy such behaviours, but also by those with more serious and legitimate concerns.

[drivin_me_nuts]

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.

[drivin_me_nuts]

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.

Some focus on family responsibility might not go amiss.

Agreed. But that will never address the many peoples who cannot, for what ever reasons be 'caring / responsible parents'.

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.

[drivin_me_nuts]

living in a bubble of their own belief?

If it a failing of all the above, then the fallout from this may well be more than a slag-fest.

[drivin_me_nuts]

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.

No matter what the colour tie, I do think that MP's look at YM and YPM as the user manual for a political career.

[drivin_me_nuts]

hornetrider said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

Sheepshanks said:

Central and Local Government give many £Billions to charities every year.

I think rather than "make them appear in a glowing light" it's done to provide services on the (hopefully) cheap that the Government would otherwise have to fully fund itself.

She was saying this morning that the charity should have been funded by the tax payer because of the services it was providing.

Sounds like she doesn't understand the conceptual difference between a charity and a government department.

I think she does...

But I think she wants to be able to run it without the political intervention and meddling that goes with it.

The trouble is, if you shake the hand of politics, be prepared to pick up the infections that come with it.

[drivin_me_nuts]

That's an interesting question - how much 'should' a head of a charity be paid?

[drivin_me_nuts]

johnfm said:

Pretty clear where most of the money has gone - she eats 15,000 calories a day!!

Before you start insulting her for her size, or clothing style, care to post up a picture of yourself. There is even a PH thread you can add it to. No? Don't feel like it? Thought not.