Bit of a mix-up
Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of the recently closed Kids Company charity, reportedly has plans to open a food bank for up to 3,000 children and young people.
Less than two weeks after the charity’s collapse, its former chief executive is set to open Kids Dining Room beneath a railway arch in Lambeth, south London, this week, the Sunday Times reported.
Why did it collapse? Well…
Kids Company shut down at the start of August after the government pulled an annual grant of £3m following allegations of financial mismanagement at the charity, which had no funding reserves. The government has had to find alternative support for 6,000 vulnerable children as a result of its closure.
Batmanghelidjh agreed to stand aside from her position in order to secure a £3m emergency restructuring grant, part of which was spent on overdue staff wages. Immediately after the charity’s closure she blamed “rumour-mongering civil servants”, ministers and the media for having “put the nail” in its coffin.
As central government, local authorities and charities pick up the pieces of Kids Company, the charity which collapsed insolvent in early August, new details are emerging of the discussions that preceded the Cabinet Office paying a controversial £3m grant to the charity in late July – just days before it closed its doors.
BBC Newsnight and BuzzFeed News have learned of a document, emailed to civil servants in the name of Alan Yentob, chair of the charity’s trustees, on 2 June. It warned that a sudden closure of the charity would mean a “high risk of arson attacks on government buildings”.
The document also warned of a high risk of “looting” and “rioting”, and cautioned that the “communities” served by Kids Company could “descend into savagery”. The document was written in language that civil servants across government described as “absurd”, “hysterical” and “extraordinary”.
Erm…Alan Yentob…that name is familiar.
Oh yes.
Today, Mr Yentob, also the BBC’s creative director, said: “It’s widely acknowledged that Kids Company has done vital work with vulnerable children and young adults. The document… was an appendix written by the Safeguarding Team, who set out all the potential risks to be taken into account in the event of closure.”
Such as arson attacks on government buildings. Is that setting out potential risks…or is it a threat?
After explaining the potential trauma for clients, the document then went on to list “risks posed to the public”, saying there was a “high risk” of looting, rioting and arson attacks on government buildings. The same section also listed “increases” in knife and gun crime, neglect, starvation and modern-day slavery as possible dangers.
The document also says: “We are… concerned that these children and families will be left without services in situations of sexual, psychological or emotional abuse, neglect and malnutrition and facing homelessness and further destitution.”
…
“Without a functioning space for hope, positivity and genuine care, these communities will descend into savagery due to sheer desperation for basic needs to be met.”
Local authority officials and councillors have expressed anger and bemusement at this claim, in particular.
I can see why.
But the charity helped a lot of people, yes?
Officials in central and local government have also told BBC Newsnight and BuzzFeed News that they have been taken aback by the difficulty in establishing how much work the charity actually did. The organisation had claimed to “intensively” help 18,000 young people and to “reach” 36,000.
The charity also said that its records showed that it supported 15,933 young people. Speaking to Radio 4’s The Report on August 5, Ms Batmanghelidjh had said that the figure of 15,933 represented “the most high-risk group of kids, that’s what’s sucking up all our money”. All of these clients, she said, had “keyworkers” allocated to them.
However, the charity has handed over records to local government relating to just 1,692 clients in London, of which the charity had designated 331 as “high-risk”. Officials in Bristol have been given details of a further 175 clients. Ms Batmanghelidjh has told The Sunday Times that she has kept back some records of clients who are at risk of deportation.
Hoo-boy.
“Erm…Alan Yentob…that name is familiar.”
Yep, pretty familiar. TV presenter, Head of BBC programming on and off for years, writer, speaker, etc.
One of the most familiar and influential people in British public life, in fact.
Threat or just the facts, ma’am? Reminded me of the old SNL Texxon ad.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/82/82ntexxon.phtml
Voice-over: A new community center for senior citizens. A lifesaving clinic for treating athsmatic children. A free job training program for unemployed veterans. What do they all have in common?
(Texxon logo shown on screen)
Texxon oil. Grants from the Texxon foundation paid for them all.
(shows news magazines with front-page stories about extravangant oil company profits)
So when we hear a lot of loose talk about “price fixing” and “windfall profits,” it worries us. We want to go on helping the needy.
(cut to scene of protesters in front of Capitol Hill, demanding regulations and taxes on oil companies)
So the next time you take an irresponsible swipe at an oil company, remember, who’s going to feel the pinch first?
Elderly man: If anything happens to the oil depletion allowance, I’m as good as dead.
Unemployed Veteran: If these dudes don’t get some offshore oil leases, I’ll be back on the streets. And I’ll be mad.
Athsmatic Little Girl: Please don’t pull the plug on me. Support the deregulation of natural gas.
(background music turns dramatic, logo and motto appear on screen)
Voice-over: Texxon. Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt.
I have this vague memory of someone like Paul Harvey talking about “those people on welfare” and intoning “If you keep giving them everything they need, don’t be surprised if some day they decide they can take anything they want.” I can’t Google it up, though. Anyone? Beuller?
It’s a mess. My impression is one of well-meaning (Batmanghelidjh has “Batman” built right into it, for goodness sake) but wildly incompetent with a sprinkle of messiah complex thrown in for bad measure.