Clamidya Batty-Telly,can we have our money back ?

[Franks Wild Years]

I thinks she's an easy target to have a pop at but her heart is deffinately in the right place, just a pity their accountancy and organisational skills weren't up to the challenge.
Those having a go at her should ask themselves what they have done lately to try and help those less fortunate.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As for Cameron, this may be his undoing. The minister responsible for disbursement of cash a couple of years ago (a tory) said on R5 yesterday he recommended back then not to continue funding due to irregularities, but he was overruled by 'the prime minister's office'. Cameron backed this charity for political purposes, and then did so againrecently with even more cash - FFS!.

A core conservative belief is that the state should not 'provide' where charity suffices. So this was for Cameron the flagship example of how to shrink the state by leaving things to charity. Cameron is so doctrinaire, however, that he gave a blind eye to the absurdity that the charity was saving tax payers money only because it was being bankrolled by tax payers money. After being told that the charity was rotten, he carried on throwing money at them. That was unbelievably stupid, and if his fingerprints haven't yet been wiped from the tiller, Cameron is seriously in for it.

Mind you, the tory press will sow confusion, and all attention will be directed at the 'tragedy of the kids who have lost the support' and probably a character assassination of the CEO, and slippery Dave will probably slither to safety, again.

I'm just hoping it can all be pinned on Gideon. . . . .

 

[portlock seagull]

She's definitely been hanging out with politicians too long. Didn't answer any of the questions during radio five interview! The fruity doeth protest too much...

 

[portlock seagull]

I thinks she's an easy target to have a pop at but her heart is deffinately in the right place, just a pity their accountancy and organisational skills weren't up to the challenge.
Those having a go at her should ask themselves what they have done lately to try and help those less fortunate.

What, like donating to her charity?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

What a programme that was. Collaterlie Sisters financial updates being a particlar favourite.

And now over to economics correspondent Peter O'Hanrahanrahan...

 

[BLOCK F]

As for Cameron, this may be his undoing. The minister responsible for disbursement of cash a couple of years ago (a tory) said on R5 yesterday he recommended back then not to continue funding due to irregularities, but he was overruled by 'the prime minister's office'. Cameron backed this charity for political purposes, and then did so againrecently with even more cash - FFS!.

A core conservative belief is that the state should not 'provide' where charity suffices. So this was for Cameron the flagship example of how to shrink the state by leaving things to charity. Cameron is so doctrinaire, however, that he gave a blind eye to the absurdity that the charity was saving tax payers money only because it was being bankrolled by tax payers money. After being told that the charity was rotten, he carried on throwing money at them. That was unbelievably stupid, and if his fingerprints haven't yet been wiped from the tiller, Cameron is seriously in for it.

Mind you, the tory press will sow confusion, and all attention will be directed at the 'tragedy of the kids who have lost the support' and probably a character assassination of the CEO, and slippery Dave will probably slither to safety, again.

I'm just hoping it can all be pinned on Gideon. . . . .

What a shame you have felt the need to grind your particular political axe over this business.

 

[alfredmizen]

As for Cameron, this may be his undoing. The minister responsible for disbursement of cash a couple of years ago (a tory) said on R5 yesterday he recommended back then not to continue funding due to irregularities, but he was overruled by 'the prime minister's office'. Cameron backed this charity for political purposes, and then did so againrecently with even more cash - FFS!.

A core conservative belief is that the state should not 'provide' where charity suffices. So this was for Cameron the flagship example of how to shrink the state by leaving things to charity. Cameron is so doctrinaire, however, that he gave a blind eye to the absurdity that the charity was saving tax payers money only because it was being bankrolled by tax payers money. After being told that the charity was rotten, he carried on throwing money at them. That was unbelievably stupid, and if his fingerprints haven't yet been wiped from the tiller, Cameron is seriously in for it.

Mind you, the tory press will sow confusion, and all attention will be directed at the 'tragedy of the kids who have lost the support' and probably a character assassination of the CEO, and slippery Dave will probably slither to safety, again.

I'm just hoping it can all be pinned on Gideon. . . . .

and if cameron had turned the taps off you can bet your life the left would've slaughtered him for being ''uncaring''face of the ''nasty party''

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

What a shame you have felt the need to grind your particular political axe over this business.

Difficult to take politics out of it.

 

[BLOCK F]

and if cameron had turned the taps off you can bet your life the left would've slaughtered him for being ''uncaring''face of the ''nasty party''

Correct.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

and if cameron had turned the taps off you can bet your life the left would've slaughtered him for being ''uncaring''.

Not when the facts are aired. He would have put Osborne up and he does not care about being shown as uncaring.

 

[carlzeiss]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ut-flats-and-piles-of-money-to-teenagers.html

Concerns have been raised about Kids Company, the charity under government pressure to ditch its high-profile chief executive, Camila Batmanghelidjh, for the way it manages rented accommodation for 16 year-olds.

Children can legally live by themselves at the age of 16, but there were concerns that some vulnerable teenagers were not being properly supported in the charity’s accommodation.

“There were serious child safeguarding concerns with the accommodation,” said one former staff member. “They were just saying, here’s a flat, and the kids were doing the things you’d expect unsupervised teenagers to do. Some of the kids’ families were unhappy about it.”

Ms Batmanghelidjh has been at the heart of the Government’s “Big Society” programme, earning the personal backing of the Prime Minister and celebrity supporters, including J K Rowling, Sir Richard Branson and Coldplay.

However, Whitehall, which pays almost £5 million a year to Kids Company, has now said it will suspend the funding unless Ms Batmanghelidjh steps back from the day-to-day running of the organisation.

After initially promising to comply, Ms Batmanghelidjh appears to have reversed her position. In a defiant interview to the BBC, she said she was being “blackmailed for no good reason,” called accusations against her “fabrications” and vowed to stay until at least next year.

“There’s nothing wrong with me being in the job,” she said.

“Those who work there have been told she is definitely not going,” said one person with close knowledge of the charity’s affairs. “A lot of people don’t want to talk while she’s still there. She’s got a number of nasty characters on the payroll.”

Harriet Sergeant, author of a book on gangs who has visited the project, said she had witnessed sums of between £50 and £200 in cash being regularly handed out in brown envelopes to children who came in only to receive the money, then left again.

In an interview on Friday, Ms Batmanghelidjh said that Kids Company had helped 36,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults, but the figure appears to include the parents and even school staff of those helped. The real number, a former Kids Company worker says, is about half this.

Relationships with some local social services departments and other children’s charities in the area have often broken down, the former worker said.

Sources close to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said City Hall had repeatedly refused funding requests from the charity because of serious questions – known in private for years – about what it does with donors’ money.

Workers and others with close knowledge of the charity’s affairs said Ms Batmanghelidjh had “a group of favourites” – around 30 staff and children. It is claimed that she handed out “piles of money” to her favourite children. Some of her staff are former child clients.

Last week Whitehall, Kids Company’s biggest single funder, said it would end its £4.7 million-a-year grant unless Ms Batmanghelidjh stepped back from day-to-day control.

Ms Batmanghelidjh has accused ministers of trying to “silence” her criticisms of government policy in “ugly games” of “shooting the messenger,” but others in the charity sector said Kids Company – an early recruit to the Government’s “Big Society” initiative and a favourite of the Prime Minister, David Cameron – was for a long time politically protected from criticism.

Senior figures in the charity world and government said concerns about Kids Company had been mounting for “a very long time” and had come to a head two years ago, with a raft of new managers appointed to “regularise” and “professionalise” its operations.

Most of the new managers – including Diane Hamilton, the finance director, Adrian Stones, the head of human resources and a director of development, Mandy Lloyd – have resigned, in some cases after only a few months.

The head of another London-based children’s charity said that Kids Company did “really valuable work” but added: “We live in a world now where it’s not enough to say I am a good cause and I own the moral argument, so fund me. What’s happened at Kids Company is a symptom of how the ‘Big Society’ charities have to wake up and change if they are really serious about delivering solutions.”

Kids Company did not return calls but says all its spending has been professionally audited and evaluated. Ms Batmanghelidjh said: “If we were engaged in any kind of malpractice, why has the Government given us money repeatedly, most recently in April? They audit our grant on a quarterly basis, so we can’t get the next quarter until we’ve passed the first.

“I will step down when it’s the right time for the children, the organisation and the staff and in discussion with the trustees. I will do an orderly handover in 2016.”

 

[BLOCK F]

Difficult to take politics out of it.

Only so far as the 'spot on' response Alfred Mizen gave to Harry Wilson's Tackle.

 

[BLOCK F]

Not when the facts are aired. He would have put Osborne up and he does not care about being shown as uncaring.

http://www.northstandchat.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7022355


Oh, for Pete's sake!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Only so far as the 'spot on' response Alfred Mizen gave to Harry Wilson's Tackle.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Difficult to take politics out of it.

Exactly. Getting charities to do the job of the state. Who'da thunk it etc etc.

 

[BLOCK F]

View attachment 67574

Well?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Well?

Difficult to take the politics out of it.

 

[alfredmizen]

Well?

she dresses like something out of a quality street tin

 

[BLOCK F]

Whilst we are on subject of charities, I understand that there are 620 registered cancer charities in the UK and more than 200 charities dealing with homelessness.
Room for some rationalisation, perhaps?

 

[BLOCK F]

she dresses like something out of a quality street tin

Think she ate the contents of same tin.
Oh dear, wait for all the 'outraged' accusing me of fattist remarks!