Kids Company scamming charity? Or just incompetent management?

Greebo said:
Oliver Letwin and Matthew Hancock - they should be sacked for incompetence.

Officials now expect to recover only £1.8m - a loss of £1.2m which, according to internal emails from the charity, prolonged the life of the charity by just five working days.

they blew £1.2m in 5 days? wow. And they had 4.3m in APril.

And I cant beleive that although she claims they supported 15k at risk kids the offical figures are just 1692 kids.

I thought it was bad enough that at £20m per year this "charity" only helped 15k kids which is £2,000 per child but at 1692 kids that £20k per child per year! :O
Click to expand...

Some was used to pay wages wasn't it?
 
Yeah mainly wages butting still stands. At 20k per child that doesn't seem a good use of money imo. May as well not employ anybody and just give 20k per year direct to the child
 
OldCoals said:
Some was used to pay wages wasn't it?
Click to expand...
£800k was used to pay wages. None of the £3m was for wages in any way. It was all to pay for a restructuring so none of the £3m should have been spent on wages or clients.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33788415

What was the government's £3m grant for?

The grant had been intended for a "transformation and downsizing plan" that would support the charity as it reformed itself, but the BBC understands £800,000 used to pay its monthly wage bill.
It is not clear what conditions the charity understood were attached to the grant.
The Cabinet Office's lead official, Richard Heaton, wrote to ministers on 26 June asking for a "ministerial direction" before making the payment.
He said he thought the grant would be poor value for money, and sought written confirmation that they wanted him to go ahead anyway.
Ministers Matthew Hancock and Oliver Letwin said the funding should be given after the leadership changes, as the charity had a "realistic prospect of long-term viability".
Click to expand...
 
Wasn't the money specifically not supposed to be for wages anyway?

I'd like to see the outcome from all this when the dust settles, I think it will be difficult to find a source that actually goes into detail that isn't either "all charity is an evil loony left campaign to prevent people from bettering themselves, I'm glad it shut down" or "evil people broke a charity that was staffed entirely by Jesuses (Jesii?)".

Whatever happened at the charity, we deserve to know why people who had doubts about the funding and raised these objects had their opinions ignored, and who them steamrollered the money through anyway. If it goes up as far as Cameron then he should answer for it.

Edit: Got there in the end. Can we maybe run whatever process hammers the database every day at 4am instead of midnight?
 
Last edited:
I liked the fact that the Batman lady said "well we sent the Government an e-mail saying that we were going to use some of the money for wages and they didn't reply back so we thought it was OK" after being explicitly told that the money could *NOT* be used for that as one of the terms for the payment being agreed in the first place.

The sooner all these gravy trains are exposed the better as they make it much harder for all the genuine small charities.
 
£800k for the wage bill?
Was that just a month or two or a year?

It certainly sounds like at the very least senior members of the charity were completely incompetent or just living on another planet.
 
estebanrey said:
Do you know how burden of proof works.
Click to expand...

How about, they want our money, so the onus is on them to prove they deserve it?

My opinion is the same as his. Most large/well known charities are run like big business. Money is wasted on massive salaries for the CEOs, money is wasted on lawyers, advertising and other crap, very little goes where the donors were expecting.

There are numerous horror stories of how bent the RSPCA is, for example. You can easily dig up dirt on most of them.

Small, local charities may be more deserving of support.
 
Tom0 said:
Another one is wages, the Dogs Trust for example the top brass is being paid around £250,000 a year. How can they justify using peoples donations for that.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how people think Charities would be able to attract decent CEO's for free... £250k for someone to run a charity of that size isn't much. Put it this way, middle management in back office services like accounting in a FTSE 100 can easily earn £70k+.

How much would you expect them to pay?
 
2z6rwup.jpg


That's a keeper! ******* fruit bowl!

£1.1m on security, how!?

hs2bmr.jpg


That's her office! How did she get to this position!?
 
Last edited:
Ticks all the political boxes, thats why. MP's were falling over themselves to be seen with her and supporting her
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom