Pretty interesting post from Northwind. Thank you.
I read Batmanghelidjh's book. It's recommended reading in some NHS professions. While it sounds like she does want to genuinely help people it's mixed with a hearty dose of incompetence and puffery. I don't give a shit if she gets a bit of self promotion in there while helping people, but it also seems like she wants to build a cult around herself for self affirmation more than anything else. Still, small potatoes.
Not surprised someone like her leading an organisation would leave the accountability out. She doesn't seem like a numbers person whose thoughts are on how to most efficiently help people. More someone who'll go out of her way to help you if you display a willingness to be helped. Those are the stories her book has and those are the people you'll get the most return on when helped.
I guess the flip side is there are some people who can't be helped. Ultimately, a few senior figures getting fat off the cash is not a problem for me. As a nation we can afford it, and like Northwind states, the country has done much more for people who've done much less for us.
Some of the recent stuff doesn't impress on either side. If there's a possible issue with a charity, there's ways to deal with that which it doesn't seem have been fully deployed- and for all Batmanghelidjh's blustery confrontational responses are offputting, I'm not sure she's wrong. It does feel like they've been under attack lately and that's just not how these things should ever work.
I recommend you read Miles Goslett's piece in the Spectator, [url= http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/milesgoslett/2015/08/the-inside-story-of-how-the-spectator-broke-the-kids-company-scandal/ ]which is here[/url]. I think it is more the case once there was a fissure in the dam, the water burst through as people had the confidence to air their stories.
Crooks will find something untouchable to hide behind. Like a kids charity.
One may smile and smile and be a villain.
Did I imagine it or did CMC suggest if Batmanghelidjh stepped down the funding may continue? If that is the case, then surely she would have done just that to ensure the charity stayed afloat?
Crooks will find something untouchable to hide behind. Like a kids charity.
One may smile and smile and be a villain.
Cancer charities are good for that.
The charity’s accounts were frozen by the courts after it emerged that it had spent only £70,000 of the £3m it had raised on its beneficiaries.
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/boss-audited-own-charity-repays-part-fee/finance/article/766028
More than £13m had been donated but only £1.5m had been passed on to good causes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5382608.stm
Did I imagine it or did CMC suggest if Batmanghelidjh stepped down the funding may continue?
That was a condition of the most recent £3 donation from the taxpayer. The charity went bust when a large private benefactor withdrew following child abuse allegations.
Coldplay donated millions. I guess there is some justice in the world, then.
The powers that be are very strict on the criteria for providing funding. Particularly when it comes to finances/reserves.
It looks like they were cut a lot more slack than anyone else would have been given due to their poster boy status. I suspect a lower profile organisation would have had the plug pulled a long time ago. In fact, theres no two ways about it, they'd have been shut down when the irregularities first began to emerge.
With regard to charities trustees being warned? Hmmmmmmm - a lot of the time charity trustees are well meaning but useless. A lot of the time they're not even well-meaning. They're just useless.
A lot of the 'Great and the Good' like to be charity trustees. For no other reason than they like the reflected glory of being associated with high profile good causes. I could give you plenty of examples of, for instance, local MP's or councillors who sit as trustees on charities, who's responsibilities seem to amount to turning up a few times a year, coincidentally when there some high profile event, where there will be a lot of press photographers for them to grin at while looking earnest. They'll then disappear for another six months, and won't have the remotest interest in how the charity is functioning, day to day
Its an affliction of most charities to have these self-serving parasites attach themselves to them (for 2 or 3 photo opportunities a year) as trustees. I'd imagine that someone as hight profile as Kids Company would be particularly susceptible to this. In this case right the way up to the PM
What amazed me about all this is the salary Yentob takes for working for a charity.
Should people working for charity be badly paid?
Should people working for charity be badly paid?
I think the issue is wheter the workers for the charity should be paid, be it operational, support staff or management. They have a job and should be paid the going rate. It is whether high profile trustees, who are already in very well paid jobs, should be paid for work they do overseeing a charity. An analogy is a school and school governors. The staff get paid, the governors are not and should not be paid, I believe someone called it big society.
Should do this...
Should do that...
Big society? More like central planning
We shall see whether Yentob deserved his money - the angry interview suggest....
Binners - what responsibility do trustees have, other than looking photogenic a few times a year?
What amazed me about all this is the salary Yentob takes for working for a charity.
Not seen this. Source? Everything I've seen has him as a trustee, wasn't aware he'd also done paid work for them?
Edit - should have said whether Yentob fulfilled his responsibilities above
Still if understanding the role and importance of reserves is beyond you, then being a trustee might not be a good idea. Do something else, I don't know, like work at Auntie.... 😉
There's layer upon layer of stink around every aspect of this story, and it seems to be coming from every direction, the government, the media, the charity itself..
Government stinky fail: Up until five minutes ago this was clearly a pet project that prime ministers of various colour liked to be able to rock up and be photographed with. A charismatic CEO was helpful, clearly. Nothing wrong with that per se, where it stops being okay is the appearance that normal procurement and oversight processes were ignored as a result and therefore serious concerns being raised, up to ministerial level, were ignored. As someone working in the same sector who has to jump through varying hoops to provide assurance when we take any public money, that is a bit of a wee boiler.
That, by the way, is not to presuppose that any of the concerns and allegations had substance. That concerns were there, but seemingly ignored due to pressure to keep a 'big society' good news story rolling is the stinky bit.
BTW, from the media reporting (and that's a big caveat, since a lot of said coverage has a lot of stink attached), it seems that it was politicians on both sides of the argument calling the shots, all of which stinks. If there were governance concerns, they should have been referred for proper and objective, independent investigation. That's one of the things the Charity Commission is there for. They do this routinely, they remove and replace trustees, either individually or collectively, where necessary, they require improvements in practice where the need is identified. They shut down charities too.
To be fair, again based on what has emerged in part through some very shady looking media coverage, there seems to have been a fair amount of stink emanating from the charity itself. Not the first, and almost certainly not the last charity to get into a pickle seemingly due to a dominant founder gripping the reins too tightly and a dazzled group of trustees going along with them. Not the first charity to close at short notice due to not having the reserves to core with unexpected funding changes, but, if true, basic governance fails that should not have happened.
Perhaps if those with these concerns had referred them to the CC they might have been addressed before they led to the whole thing collapsing, rather than using it as political ammunition...
And as for that media coverage? There a lot of stink, isn't there? All these little sniping allegations. Any organisation of that size, in any sector, will have stuff going wrong somewhere at some time. Even sex abuse. And perhaps there's a car to answer that these were sometimes pushed under the carrier rather than properly dealt with. If true, that's serious, serious fail, way worse than foolishly not building prudent reserves, but to me there's something really of going on...
Picture the scene, as reported in a number of 'news' sources: You're a worker at Kids' Company, some time ago, when you become aware of some dodgy behaviour. Really dodgy. Like, sexual abuse level of dodgy. Being a right thinking person, you report this up the line. However, amazingly, you find that nothing is done, and the allegations are swept under the carpet to avoid embarrassment. Do you
a) do something else with it, go to the local safeguarding team at the council, maybe the police, maybe the charity commission, maybe if all else fails, directly to the media?
Or
b) sit on the allegations, do nothing, until the organisation is in the poo and all over the media for all the wrong reasons and then, only then, you contact the news desk at the Daily Mail?
Something doesn't add up for me. And it stinks.
And what really stinks, for me, is that this story is all about Yentob, Camilla Batshitmental, Cameron, Brown and political games. The ones paying the price for all this stinky is the kids Northwind mentioned earlier.
edlong
What amazed me about all this is the salary Yentob takes for working for a charity.
Not seen this. Source? Everything I've seen has him as a trustee, wasn't aware he'd also done paid work for them?
It's in their finance reports published on their website.
£30k for auditing the books I suspect.
I think the issue is wheter the workers for the charity should be paid, be it operational, support staff or management. They have a job and should be paid the going rate. It is whether high profile trustees, who are already in very well paid jobs, should be paid for work they do overseeing a charity. An analogy is a school and school governors. The staff get paid, the governors are not and should not be paid, I believe someone called it big society.
Trustees of charities are not paid for the work they do overseeing a charity, it's generally not legal for them to be. Trustees are sometimes paid if they also do something separately for the same charity, although for obvious reasons it's best avoided, and doesn't happen commonly. I'm not aware that KC were paying trustees? Again, can someone provide a source?
Reimbursing trustees for expenses they incur in performing their duties is common, and totally different..
It's in their finance reports published on their website.
Ta. Off to have a look..
EDIT: I'm wondering if the stinky extends to misinformation being deliberately disseminated in mountain biking forums? I'm sounding like jivehoneyjive aren't I? Still, can't find 2014, but latest set of accounts on their website, from 2013, say the following on the subject
13. TRUSTEES
During the year, no member of the Board of Trustees received any remuneration (2012 - £NIL). No member of the
Board of Trustees received reimbursement of expenses (2012 - £NIL).
So, unless their policies and practices changed a lot last year, Yentob and co. didn't even claim for their taxis. Like I said earlier, there's a lot of stinky around this story. People making statements that appear to be blatantly false don't help clear the air.
£30k for auditing the books I suspect.
Don't want to flog a dead horse, but do you know who Alan Yentob is and what he does? Do you understand how the audit process for limited companies work? Just to put this one to bed, Alan Yentob is not a registered auditor and even if he was, he wouldn't be able to audit a charity of which he was a trustee. The audit fee was paid to the auditors, Kingston Smith LLP.
Wage bill for 2013 was, give or take, £12m. Yet everyone interviewed so far have been volunteers.
I don't know this Batman woman and have never seen her in action but the big personality/big style thing is so often used as a smokescreen for an incompetent individual or dodgy cultish organisation. And when you get the same shady fringe people involved who are normally involved in local government in inner city boroughs, it's never going to turn out right. Most people like Boris Johnson because he's a charismatic Big Man but read the Wiki entry on him and there's a lot of questionable history. How long before the media dig up something unsavoury about Batman's past?
Firstly, two apologies:
1) I was using a touchscreen earlier and there's some shocking autocorrects in an earlier post which I missed.
2) Sorry if I'm turning into TJ. I will stop at some point. This story has really wound me up though, before some very ill-informed and downright false statements on here wound me up a bit more.
That said, I've got a couple more things to get off my chest:
[u]Reserves
[/u]
I agree with the reporting, if true, that there was a major governance fail if trustees were made aware that running a 23 million pound per annum charity without building up prudent reserves to deal with the kind of thing that just sank them overnight was not a good idea, and they were "over-ruled" by the founder.
I am reminded, however, of the recurring posts every time we have a charity-bashing thread on here (and I'm not saying that this one is, but we've had a few in the past) bemoaning that such-and-such charity is asking for a monthly direct debit when they've got x million reserves sat in the bank. Hopefully, this case illustrates why that might be. Reserves policies have to be justified, and the Charity Commission can and does intervene if it thinks the balance is off.
By the way, it's not easy asking, whether you're asking passers by for spare change outside the supermarket, or the government for millions, it can be a difficult conversation that some of that money isn't going to go directly on medicine for fluffy rabbits, it's going into reserves to suport the sustainability of the charity in the long term.
[u]Professionalism [/u]
So we've had comment about charities getting too big for the founders to still have the right skillset (perhaps rightly), we've had comment about the apparently monumental fail of not putting enough aside to be able to cope with stormy weather (probably very rightly), we had, and this did make me smile, comment in the same post bemoaning both the above fail and the fact that the charity was willing to spend significant amounts on senior salaries.
This case is surprisingly not as rare as you'd think, with a dominant founder perhaps holding the reins too tightly, for too long and getting out of their depth. It happens surprisingly often, in charities of all sizes and areas of work.
However, if you want to have, say, a 23 million pound per annum charity run professionally, it is a bit strange to expect that that will happen without paying the sorts of salaries that people with the skills to run 23 million pound per annum companies have.
What you will generally find, in fact is that salaries in the third sector are generally lower for professional jobs of all types than the equivalent in the commercial sector. People don't make the cchoice to work for charities to get rich, believe me. People take susbstantial pay cuts in fact.
[u]Stinky, Stinky, Stink[/u]
In my ire to post my previous lengthy tirade, I somehow missed one of the stinkiest aspects of this whioel sorry saga, that bit where Cameron, or his ministers, or someone at or around the top of government apparently said the KC - you can have this big wad of cash that you desperately need to keep thw wolves from the door, on the condition that the CEO goes.
THe whole point of having the third sector doing its stuff is its independence. Via its trustees, a charity is ultimately accountable to its beneficiaries. As i sadi earlier, the Charity Commission, can and does insist where necessary that a charity's officer or officers be removed, and it does this in an accountable way, where people have a right of response, and of appeal. For the top of government to effectively blackmail the trustees of a supposedly independent charity in this way is, if true, disgusting.
Wage bill for 2013 was, give or take, £12m. Yet everyone interviewed so far have been volunteers.
The paid staff might be busy trying to work out how they're going to pay the rent next month.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/06/the-guardian-view-on-charity-trustees-no-role-for-amateurs ]interesting artcle on the role of trustees[/url]
From the KC's annual report
As explained more fully in the Trustees’ Responsibilities Statement, [b]the trustees (who are also the directors of the charitable company for the purposes of company law) are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view.[/b]Our responsibility is to audit and express an opinion on the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require us to comply with the Auditing Practices Board’s Ethical Standards for Auditors.
Responsibilities seem pretty clear to me....
Yes, it's clear - the trustees are responsible for the preparation of the accounts. Note that it doesn't say, nor does that imply, that the trustees actually perform the task themselves.
The trustees of the charity I work for are also reponsible for the preparation of the financial statements, but I can assure you that they don't actually do it themselves, because I do.
The auditors are then responsible for auditing the accounts. Hence the name.
the auditors made their responsibility clear....
Can you explain exactly what point you're trying to make, because I suspect you've fundamentally misunderstood something, but I'm not yet quite sure what?
Yes, it's a simple one, to repeat
whether Yentob fulfilled his responsibilities above
@thm
Well, er, clearly yes
are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view.
The accounts were prepared, audited and filed on time (shockingly, lots of charities file their accounts late, KC didn't). The auditors were happy that they were true and fair, etc etc. and gave them a clean audit report. The standard test for "going concern" is twelve months ahead, so on their year ending 2013 accounts that was okay. Year ending 2014 not been done yet, somewhat overtaken by events...
EDIT: I'm still finding this line a bit weird since
a) there do seem to have been clear governance failings, which do sit at the door of the trustees ultimately
but
b) in terms of the narrowly defined specific company law responsibilities which trustees have regarding their statutory accounts, to which you keep referring, there seems to be no suggestion of any failings that I've come across?
The mismanagement, nepotism,corruption,profligacy ,largesse and downright criminality in parts of the £80 billion+ UK charity industry would not be tolerated in the public sector nor in most of the private sector.I'm surprised that people are still surprised.
Really, I'm pretty sure that there have been, and continue to be, cases of all of those things in both the private and public sectors, based on having read about them in newspapers and the like.
There was a bloke from the private sector got 14 years last week for criminality. Cash for questions, the Guinness takeover, Chris Huhne, Enron, Poulson, phone hacking, the Lavender List, Bhopal disaster, Hillsborough cover-up, Bloody Sunday, cover up of Bloody Sunday, police complicity in loyalist murders, Blair Peach, Orgreave, Stephen Lawrence, cash for access, Jeffrey Archer and brown evelopes on railway platforms, most of the cabinet having gone to the same school as each other, the prime minister being related to the queen, not heard of any of these?
hora - Member
What amazed me about all this is the salary Yentob takes for working for a charity.
How much? I cannot find the numbers on interweb ... 😯
cynic-al - Member
Should people working for charity be badly paid?
Yes or not paid at all.
If people want to get paid go somewhere else coz this is not a career.
I have always considered people working for charity and getting paid, especially salary, is completely wrong. If charity starts paying high/salary then crooks will slowly move in as the temptation and opportunity are too good to be missed ... money is involved crooks are about. Simple.
Free money and getting paid do not go hand in hand ...
Jesus, I've read some shite on here but youve really just upped the ante there to a whole other level
Mrs Binners works for a charity, and has worked for charities for years. She took a big pay cut (from a private sector job) to move into a more rewarding job. She works her arse off. So do all the people she works with. For lower salaries than equivalent private sector jobs
Can you just explain why...
A) she, and her colleagues, shouldn't be paid?
B) how charities are meant to function, any more than any other business, without paid staff?
C) why a charity would be any more attractive to crooks than a private business?
Seeing as you've obviously thought this all through, off you go. I'm all ears.
hora - Member
What amazed me about all this is the salary Yentob takes for working for a charity.
How much? I cannot find the numbers on interweb ...
He's not paid a penny, we covered it earlier.
cynic-al - Member
Should people working for charity be badly paid?
Yes or not paid at all.If people want to get paid go somewhere else coz this is not a career.
I have always considered people working for charity and getting paid, especially salary, is completely wrong. Once people get paid salary then the crooks will slowly move in ... money is involved crooks are about. Simple.
Okay, you know those MacMillan nurses? The ones that everyone seems to think are fantastic at doing what to me seems the most heartbreaking of jobs? The ones for whom loads of people are happy to jump out of planes, dress up and do fun runs and generally annoy colleagues after they've been immensely and amazingly valuable to families going through hell? How are they supposed to house themselves, feed their children and generally support themselves if they can't receive a salary? Go out at night and streetwalk?
And to be less emotive (because it's exactly the same principle with less heartstrings) how does the person that coordinates the rota and makes sure the staff are safely back from appointments pay their bills?
edlong - Member
Okay, you know those MacMillan nurses?
Never heard of them in my life. Really. But odinary hospital nurses yes.
Based on what you said here they are Not really fantastic because they are professionals, I assume them to be, just like any other salaried nurses. i.e. that is their job and you do shite job you get fired.
Therefore, based on your arguments no salary no fantastic people. Good salary good fantastic people.
No wonder the bloody world revolves around money and plenty of it.
binners - MemberMrs Binners works for a charity, and has worked for charities for years. She took a big pay cut (from a private sector job) to move into a more rewarding job. She works her arse off. So do all the people she works with. For lower salaries than equivalent private sector jobs
Stress? The evil of competitive money grabbing in the private sector? You get paid good salary but they want your soul? The back stabbing evil ZMs that wanted to cause her stress so they could benefit themselves etc etc. All these come into mind.
Can you just explain why...
A) she, and her colleagues, shouldn't be paid?
If they have [u]volunteered[/u] their lives for the greater good etc ...
Hey if you volunteer to work for a charity you know you should not get paid ya? I mean volunteer ...
If you get paid in charity organisation/company etc then you are merely hiding the fact that it is an easy money to grab then competitive private sector. The aspect of working for a charity also makes people perceive that you are doing volunteering work hence should be rewarded and naturally angelic. Which also means less stress and good money (good in the sense of not too much competition) ...
B) how charities are meant to function, any more than any other business, without paid staff?
You can still function like any other organisation if you really want to and have the heart to be really who you are (volunteers). Getting paid etc ... nahhh ... that's just good easy money. I don't buy that.
C) why a charity would be any more attractive to crooks than a private business?
People are less likely to scrutinise them until something happens ...
😯
What's it like, being you?
.I have always considered people working for charity and getting paid, especially salary, is completely wrong. Once people get paid salary then the crooks will slowly move in ... money is involved crooks are about. Simple.
I am a crook then, having spent half my working life working for a charity...
binners - MemberWhat's it like, being you?
I am just being honest to myself by looking into the true nature of human beings. 😯
Hence, my catch phrase ...
matt_outandabout - Member
.I have always considered people working for charity and getting paid, especially salary, is completely wrong. Once people get paid salary then the crooks will slowly move in ... money is involved crooks are about. Simple.I am a crook then, having spent half my working life working for a charity...
I don't know, not saying you are, but you need to ask yourself these questions:
1. Why are you there? Compassionate? Less stressful work?
2. Why do you think you should get paid? You have done a good job? Because you deserve pay? You can justify your value for work done?
3. Easier than joining the rat race?
I mean if the charity company outsource some of their functions away then I can understand. i.e. you are NOT the employee of the charity.
But if you are directly paid then you are an employee.
😮
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but. so. hard. to. ignore. such. moronic. idiocy......
edlong - Member
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but. so. hard. to. ignore. such. moronic. idiocy......
Hey, do as you wish ...
If you think you are doing a good job and happy with it then so be it ...
I am merely seeing some of the true nature of human beings that's all.
😛
You're not gonna get a bite here, might as well move on...
I'm finding it hard to form a proper response that sums up my thoughts on the utter crap chewkw is spouting.
You really have taken your stupidity to a whole new level.
That is without doubt the dumbest pile of shit I've ever seen posted on here.
Mind boggled.
edlong - Member
You're not gonna get a bite here, might as well move on...
😀
nealglover - Member
I'm finding it hard to form a proper response that sums up my thoughts on the utter crap chewkw is spouting.
Likewise I am finding plenty of shite about people who try to justify their positions ... i.e. they got their cakes, they ate them, everyone could see that but could not be bothered with it.
You win! But try to stop portraying yourself as some sort of a saint with keys to the pearly gates. 🙄
I mean I can see you coming ... 😮
Not sure it was reasonable for Batwoman to have a chauffeur and register his daughter as a client so some private school expenses could be paid. As claimed by former staff.
http://www.timworstall.com/2015/08/09/you-what-44/
An insider's story.
. On Fridays little packages of cash were handed out to every young person through a small window in reception. It was always tense. There were tears. There was shouting. There were threats. There were fights. There would have been even more of all these things if it hadn’t been for the presence of Kids Company’s security.
http://osca.co/2015/02/need-talk-kids-company/
