-
This person, if it is the same one and I believe it is, was cited in the Spectator shit stain of an article trying to discredit them. That person couldnt get their head around the Kids Company methods so instead of accepting that they had a different idea of how youth work should be handled, they resorted to "yeah, its all shit and they're a bunch of money wasting loons". Yes Camila's charismatic and odd to some, but her practices and work ethic are sound. Any time we went past the old HQ on the bus home from a night out, Camila's office light would still be on (which it was only if she still working). KC fundamentally believe in a child's human rights (see " rights of the child) and that at a base level they need love in order for any kind of support to actually be beneficial. It's upsetting how many people start to question ideas of boundaries and appropriateness when a youth worker hugs a traumatised or upset child when they want a hug. KC also run a degree level course in how to work with vulnerable young people, something that nobody else in the UK does. It would be a shame to lose that.
-
Calling @snowy_again. Always good to get his insight into the South London charity 'scene'
-
True, but they are members of the public speaking their brains without thinking and have zero credibility as a source. Someone who used to be inside the operation does. In fact, ex-employees are generally excellent sources of information on what is really going on inside an organisation, as they have had plenty of first hand experience but are not constrained by being a current employee and all that involves.
Of course, they may also have an axe to grind...
-
Interesting. Have you read Harriet Sergeant's account from 2008 about the Friday cash handouts?
http://osca.co/2015/02/need-talk-kids-company/Were you volunteering for them in 2008?
Do you think it's OK for tax payers money to be freely handed out in 'brown envelopes'?
That's definitely an 'unconventional method'.
Or are you saying that she made this up?
-
Did you read any of the responses to that attack? KC have never denied that they gave money to people, sometimes that's what charities do, funnily enough. Sometimes people are so hard up that they need a hand out and if it's appropriate to do so I have no problem with my tax dollar being used in that way. You're making the mistake of taking what you've read at face value (I am more than happy in my belief that it wasn't just cash given out willy nilly). And what you've read has been written by someone with that old axe to grind.
-
Do you think it's OK for tax payers money to be freely handed out
Curiously enough, once it's been paid in taxes, it's no longer taxpayers' money and has magically metamorphosed into public money. :)
Obviously, the question of accountability is the same, nay, actually more important for public money.
I don't know much about the specific charity in question, but these attacks on charities stink (and I speak as a charity trustee).
Somewhat obviously, disgruntled employees sometimes also have an axe to grind.
-
I suggest from the general tone of that article that the description may have been intentionally decontextualised?
-
Nope, I'm doing the opposite. I'm not saying I even believe what Harriet Sergeant said (how do I know?) although I'm not sure if she comes across as someone with an axe to grind or someone who was disappointed by what she saw (it seems more the latter).
My point is that I don't know if the allegations of financial mismanagement are true, and I don't believe you do either, even if you volunteered for them. I worked for two charities and with at least one of them there could have been serious financial mismanagement for all I know. At the other the financial director (who was great) went to great lengths to explain everything he and his team did and how everything worked, so it seems unlikely, but even then I can't guarantee it.
Both sides have vested interests. The politicians clearly do, and Batmanghelidjh obviously does because she's been running the place for the last 20 years or so. I'm just calling for a little balance really because I feel the story has been presented in a very one sided way 'on here'.
-
Oh and this comment from her, please...
“If I went under a bus right now, Kids Company would not have any money, and I worry about that.”
What is so unique about her abilities that nobody else could raise money for the charity? Surely a professional fundraiser would be much better qualified?
I will admit I have a personal distaste for anyone who thinks they are indispensable (they aren't).
-
the story has been presented in a very one sided way 'on here'
You must be new here. :)
-
With regards to the financial allegations;
"Asked about claims that funds had not been properly accounted for and the effectiveness of the charities services was in doubt, she replied: “That’s a red herring, it’s not true. We have had audits in the last 19 years. All of them have been clear. We have raised £150m worth of money where we have had to process it and evaluate it.”
Laying the blame at the feet of the government, she added: “This is briefing to avoid the real issues which is that we repeatedly challenged governments because they are not protecting children robustly … They are attempting to discredit me so that my message is weakened.”"
Considering I can't ever know for certain without seeing the books and getting an accounting degree. I am going to leave this by saying I am more than comfortable believing someone I look up to and respect than some right wing chip wrapper that quotes disgruntled ex-employees.
Until they can cite an independent review or audit that can say otherwise, anyone involved in Camila having to step down or who doesn't see it as the nail in the coffin for thousands of vulnerable young people, can get in the fucking sea.
-
(I love that Twitter account)
She's a charity CEO being accused of financial mismanagement though. How likely is it she'd just shrug her shoulders and say: "Yep. It's all true. We pulled the wool over the eyes of the auditors for the last 19 years, and I can tell you, it was hard work! They were surprisingly thorough, but a few fake invoices sorted that out."
"So, sorry about that. It's not the governments fault at all, please don't blame them."
I'd agree that as far as I've seen so far the government have failed to provide any evidence of financial impropriety. But this isn't a simple smear campaign: if the Newsnight/Buzzfeed investigation hadn't happened the government would have kept their concerns to themselves, which seems to have been their original intention.
-
BUT
Her name contains the word Batman, and she dresses up like a pantomime dame.
Your argument is invalid. -
-
Looks like Greek pollsters are as useless as British ones.
-
Without wanting to weave conspiracy theories, but there was a concerted attempt to influence the result through the media.
Now let's see if anyone takes any notice of what the little people say.
-
Hang on, it's all a mistake. The Guardian reports:
Official projection: no side to win with 61%
stevo_com
Lebowski
Fox
bothwell
Oliver Schick
General_Strike
Kidneys
Bad_Science
efb
WillMelling-
Post a reply
About
In the news
Posted by
@Platini
Copper gets off in the Azelle Rodney murder case.
Quelle surprise.