All very fishy. Why did KC close up shop themselves when they were OK to continue given a change of leadership ? Scared of someone else coming on and finding out what had been going on ?
The truth will come out over time, I fear it will be ugly.
allthepies - MemberAll very fishy. Why did KC close up shop themselves when they were OK to continue given a change of leadership ?
This seems pretty well reported tbh, they weren't OK to continue- they received the government funding but lost other significant donors, and didn't have sufficient cash reserves to weather that. (no doubt uncertainty from batmanghelidjh leaving wouldn't help any of this)
That article reads like some hopelessly naive bleeding heart liberal who's just encountered the reality of life at the pointier end of society for the first time, and is shocked to find it's not all roses and kittens?
You go to work in one of the most deprived areas, with some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised kids, and you're surprised to discover that some of them are violent, and some smoke weed? Who'd have thunk it Eh?
You go to work in one of the most deprived areas, with some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised kids, and you're surprised to discover that some of them are violent, and some smoke weed? Who'd have thunk it Eh?
Perhaps. Though if the centres are that violent maybe they aren't doing much good. I've seen disadvantaged kids being dealt with in a few environments and there are usually ground rules about behaviour enforced which mean the violence is to a large extent kept on the street and not in the centre.
By crikey.
Re-reading this thread hasn't changed my opinion that this place is beyond hope - the tedious, insistent, relentless dickheadery drowns out the good posters on here.
Anyway, back on topic: way back a couple of pages before the idiots overran the thread, there was a discussion about it being a bit suspicious that the final nail in the coffin, the coup de grace, the death knell for Kids Company, was the loss of private funding as a direct result of police investigations into allegations of abuse (including sexual abuse).
It seemed fishy that someone aware of such activity and concerned enough to have supposedly reported it at the time (but it being swept under the carpet), then sat on the information until the time it became a strategic weapon when deployed via the "news" desk of the Daily Mail.
Anyway, I see this in the news today:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35429630 ]Makes you think...[/url]
Very interesting - was never a fan of CB (too much ego), but the allegation of trial by media has an interesting ring to it.
In light of this it would be good to see a comprehensive review to assess whether it was objectively any better or worse run that a charity of similar size and how much of a causal link there was between the allegations and its collapse.
