General Chat

Camila Batmanghelidjh has announced that Kids Company will close later today.

The charity received a £3m grant from the government last week - on the proviso that she stands down - even though there are longstanding concerns from this government and the previous one.

So she obviously has not met that criterion because if she was no longer the boss then she would not have the authority to make that kind of decision and/or announcement.

How can an organisation, of any sort, close down after just receiving a £3m injection?

In her own words: "we'd run out of every company and every charitable trust that we could potentially get money from".

hmmmmmmm

Makes you think, doesn't it?

One of the papers said some of the grant was used to pay the wages. What's happened to the rest?

it would be such a shame if they find out previous money had been used for nest-feathering

It's a crime that charities have to pick up the slack in the first place.

Camila started the charity with the best of intentions but should have employed someone else to see to the business side when it got big.

Meanwhile there are children who were receiving support who will have now have none.

The government is working to ensure that young people continue to have access to services and support.

However, Guinevere, could I ask how you know that Batmanghelidjh founded the business/charity with the best of intentions?

Do you think she's anything other than honest and sincere, Errol?

I only know what I've read about or heard her say in interviews. She's done some wonderful work for abused children and those living in poverty.

I said nothing of the sort - nor implied.

As I do not know her and have not met her personally, I cannot say whether or not she is "honest and sincere".

However, I would question how the head of a charity could accept a £3m cash injection on the proviso they leave and less than a week later, whilst still boss, close the charity.

There are a lot of people I haven't met personally that I respect or admire. I don't think personal acquaintance is essential when forming opinions about public figures

People often form opinions about public figures - Jimmy Savile, Karl Marx, Pol Pot, Ted Heath, Winston Churchill, Jean Paul Sartre etc etc

I totally agree but I still maintain that I would question how the head of a charity could accept a £3m cash injection on the proviso they leave and then less than a week later, whilst still boss, close the charity.

So would I. But I doubt she was able to make the decision alone - others must have also been involved.

That is pure supposition and conjecture.

Yes. It is. You were asking for opinions, I thought - when you asked, "Makes you think doesn't it?

And I retorted.

Indeed you did.

Just as I am now retorting to your retort as you retorted to mine.

I find it incredible that when people are very quick to jump on the bandwagon with things like the Ted Heath allegations they are all too quick to defend people like this.

I haven't jumped on any bandwagon about Heath. I have no opinion yet but do wonder when and how he would find the time and privacy. I await developments.

I don't know enough about the finances to defend Camila, I said I believed she had the best of motives in starting the charities she did. I still believe that.

I tend to think the best of people until I am convinced they are not what I thought.

So if I was given £3 million and the next day closed down my business, would you not find that ever so slightly suspicious?

You should consider why Oliver Letwin was so supportive without having her having proper financial management in place.

What on earth does that mean?

You obviously don't know the history of the funding.

I'd like to see her personal bank deposits over the last few months. It is reported that she earns approximately £90,000 a year. In my opinion that is colossal and what were the other company directors earning. I'm afraid charities begin at home.

GP