Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Da Luv Doc

White chick begging African Culture scammed the government via a charity...

35 posts in this topic

Kids Company is the latest victim and all up in the news.

£40pm got dashed out.

Discuss...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno about scam, she had some juju over David clearly...

 

If it wasn't for the 3m in August, I'd suggest they thought it would be bad for business for it to shutdown during an election.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camilla is the definition of culture vulture

Where is she even from

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Batmanghelidjh was reportedly born in Iran. Her mother was a Belgian Roman Catholic, while her father was the Iranian doctor Fereydoon Batmanghelidj.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always find it amusing when I see her name. Sounds made up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i knew about Kids company from when there were using a dusty small office on Walworth road

 

that area had a number of small scale charities, majority were run by afro-carribeans with quite good links in the community

 

she seized upon an opportunity as it was around the time when about 38(advertised) young people were murdered in london 08/09 i think

 

and most of the london deaths were in southwark... so all this Fatmanjellyfish woman did was get on the podium and cuss out black parents

 

she got noticed by southwark who at the time and probably still are such a racist LGA ..back then they had about 60-70% non white residents but the council had 97% senior staff as white and 99% of their councillors were as well. 

 

she got recognition in their LGA meetings to "find a solution to the youth crime" ..got given a huge grant by the council... money that would have inevitably been taken away from the other black run grassroute charities and thats how she got popular as being the go-to person to talk about youth crime.

 

her figure of the amount of kids she's helped is rubbish.. its just the amount of kids theyve probably seen over 10 years.

 

from her local prominence she was bets placed after the riots to get larger prominence hence the massive grant of £10m raised. 

 

she has made foolish promises as i know people that used their services..and its all hush hush..shes a control freak and i wouldn't be surprised if they ran a grooming scheme to supply corporate and govt officials.

 

of course shes gonna have done some good but it was inevitable to fail whoever it was tbh to come under such heavy scrutiny she was not prepared for ..as these schemes are just tick boxes for whatever govt is in power...they dont really give a toss about developing young black men.. so they will give such charities a chance for a few years then pull the plug. 

 

still ..Fuck her.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

because they develop young white men

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing I remember hearing about this that stuck in my mind was that they built a big swimming pool at her house/centre but didn't allow any of the kids to use it. Funded her own lifestyle, nothing more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

because they develop young white men

They develop people of a certain class but don't know about them developing a whole race

This fat women has been dodgy from way back, surprised they only just exposing her scams now but true the lefty brigade have always backed her

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

because they develop young white men

 

 

Explain.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

because they develop young white men

 

 

because their dad's can't be bothered too is the correct answer

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She needs to be put to death!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She made a buck of the young black man. Black's are easy to make money off of.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these 'saviours' are megalomaniac who want power control money and facetime

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

because they develop young white men

 

 

because their dad's can't be bothered too is the correct answer

 

this is a major factor but can still be linked to institutionalised racism which unless you have a strong family unit would be difficult to overcome or manage. 

 

Yoshie, they develop young white men because these YWM are able to access all areas of working/developmental life in this country with the right skills... NOTE i said with the right skills... because i know some here will go and drag out some stupid article that claims working class white men are the most marginalised...

 

these are kids who dropped out of school (a school system that does not institutionally discriminate against them)..or finished with little or no qualifications..it was already going to be tough to get ahead or by without a job and no motivation to do anything about it because of the dole. 

 

but for the ethnic minorities..  ones who even with all their degrees and success still have a daily battle no matter how suttle with racism institutionally and personally. talk less of those without good qualifications academically owed largely to a school system that discriminates them by default

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

because they develop young white men

because their dad's can't be bothered too is the correct answer

this is a major factor but can still be linked to institutionalised racism which unless you have a strong family unit would be difficult to overcome or manage.

Yoshie, they develop young white men because these YWM are able to access all areas of working/developmental life in this country with the right skills... NOTE i said with the right skills... because i know some here will go and drag out some stupid article that claims working class white men are the most marginalised...

these are kids who dropped out of school (a school system that does not institutionally discriminate against them)..or finished with little or no qualifications..it was already going to be tough to get ahead or by without a job and no motivation to do anything about it because of the dole.

but for the ethnic minorities.. these are ones who even with all their degrees and success still have a daily battle no matter how suttle with racism institutionally and personally.

Boo hoo

Go with your begging bowl elsewhere

Playing the race card is tired now, think of some better excuses

-6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For want of a better expression you're such a black and white thinking Thun.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

because they develop young white men
because their dad's can't be bothered too is the correct answer
this is a major factor but can still be linked to institutionalised racism which unless you have a strong family unit would be difficult to overcome or manage.

Yoshie, they develop young white men because these YWM are able to access all areas of working/developmental life in this country with the right skills... NOTE i said with the right skills... because i know some here will go and drag out some stupid article that claims working class white men are the most marginalised...

these are kids who dropped out of school (a school system that does not institutionally discriminate against them)..or finished with little or no qualifications..it was already going to be tough to get ahead or by without a job and no motivation to do anything about it because of the dole.

but for the ethnic minorities.. these are ones who even with all their degrees and success still have a daily battle no matter how suttle with racism institutionally and personally.

Boo hoo

Go with your begging bowl elsewhere

Playing the race card is tired now, think of some better excuses

 

tired for who? btw the race card is always first played by whitey. non whites are playing their race game and if you know it well enough you will win. i have nothing to fear from their game as i see right through it. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone give a brother a few cliff notes about this whole thing i aint really followed it.

A white lady who ran a charity for black youths commited fraud ??

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collapsed charity Kids Company received at least £46m of public money despite repeated concerns about how it was run, the National Audit Office has found.

 

There was a "consistent pattern" of the charity receiving grants after claiming it would close without them, it said.

 

Kids Company got more Department for Education money than any other charity in 2011, and officials relied on its own performance reviews, the NAO said.

 

Former bosses at the charity have denied it was financially mismanaged.

 

Ex-children's minister Tim Loughton said he warned the Department for Education against giving a "very sizeable" grant to Kids Company in 2012.

 

But he said he was "overruled" by Downing Street, after the charity's founder Camila Batmanghelidjh wrote a "Dear David letter" to Number 10.

 

The charity appeared able to "mesmerise" people into giving it "special treatment", Mr Loughton, a Conservative, added.

 

_86385304_chart-16.png

 

The charity - which provided support to deprived and vulnerable children in London, Liverpool and Bristol - closed in August.

 

The NAO found it received public funding for at least 15 years, with at least £42m provided in government grants, including £28m from the Department for Education (DfE) and its predecessors.

 

It also received about £2m from councils and £2m from the National Lottery.

 

Key findings

    In 2008, Kids Company received 20% of the Department for Education's grant programme

    From 2011-2013 it received twice as much in grants than national children's charity Barnardo's

    Kids Company had not been required to compete for its annual grant since 2013

    Until 2013, the government relied "heavily" on the charity's own self-assessments to monitor its performance

    Inland Revenue wrote off the charity's tax debts of £590,000 in 2003

 

The NAO, an independent body which audits government departments, found that despite "repeatedly expressed concerns" from officials, the government "continued to respond to the charity's requests for funding".

 

What was Kids Company?

    Founded in 1996 in south London

    Provided support to inner-city children and ran youth centres in London, Bristol and Liverpool

    Relied on donations and government money, and was backed by Prime Minister David Cameron

    Financial difficulties first reported to councils in June

    Ministers approve £3m grant on 26 June

    In July, police say specialist child abuse investigators are looking into charity

    Cabinet Office tries to reclaim the £3m and the charity confirms it has closed on 5 August

 

What went wrong at Kids Company?

BBC's Chris Cook: How ministers were 'bullied'

 

Do Kid Company's sums add up?

The NAO report said civil servants had noted that other organisations "appeared to offer better value for money" than Kids Company.

 

It found "a consistent pattern of behaviour" of the charity writing to ministers to express fears of redundancies and the impact of service closures, while raising the same concerns in the media.

 

This meant that from 2013 it did not have to compete for grants, the NAO found.

 

When were concerns raised?

_86385301_kidsco_grants_warnings_624_v3.

2002: Officials criticised Kids Company's record of financial management and said other similar organisations were more effective

2003: Kids Company had not complied with conditions attached to a previous emergency grant, debts at the charity were mounting, and its long-term financial viability needed to be evaluated, officials said

2008: Officials raised concerns Kids Company's dependency on government funding was being prolonged and the government could be accused of favouritism

2013: Kids Company grants were significantly higher than those to similar charities, yet it had limited reserves and consistent cash flow difficulties, officials said

March 2015: Cash flow problems were persisting and officials were concerned that the charity would continue to rely on public funding

June 2015: Officials cast doubt on the financial figures produced by Kids Company, and said they had limited confidence in the charity's willingness or ability to change. They advised ministers not to provide emergency funds - but were overruled

 

Ashley McDougall, from the NAO, said it was not clear why government had continued to fund Kids Company "year after year" when concerns were known.

 

Labour MP Meg Hillier, who chairs the Commons Public Accounts Committee which will question officials on Monday, said it was "unbelievable" so much was given to the charity with "little focus" on its achievements.

 

Downing Street did not respond to Mr Loughton's claims. However, a spokesman again defended its decision to award the £3m grant days before Kids Company closed.

 

"The government ministers who approved this funding thought it was the right thing to do to give this charity one last chance of restructuring to try to make sure it could continue its excellent work," a spokesman said.

 

Ms Batmanghelidjh has previously said there had been a "malicious discrediting campaign" against the charity, while Alan Yentob, who was charity chairman, and is the BBC's creative director, said suggestions of financial mismanagement were "complete rubbish".

 

 

 

The bully strategy

 

The document provides some evidence that the answer to this question is that the charity followed what Ms Batmanghelidjh referred to in an internal 2002 strategy document as a "bully strategy" to get money: threatening ministers "with the outcomes of failing to deliver care to children".

 

The NAO says that the charity "followed a consistent pattern of behaviour that we observed in 2002, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2015, each time Kids Company approached the end of a grant term... Kids Company [would] lobby the government for a new funding commitment."

It continues: "If officials resisted, the charity would write to ministers expressing fears of redundancies and the impact of service closures.

 

"Around the same time, Kids Company would express the same concerns in the media.

"Ministers [would] ask officials to review options for funding Kids Company. Officials would award grants to Kids Company."

 

The document includes concerns noted by officials which recurred in part or in full throughout its life: officials told ministers in 2002 that Kids Company had been weakly managed, was not well regarded at a local level, that government funds would be put at risk if the charity failed, that a bail-out would set an unhelpful precedent and that there were other investments that could offer better value for money.

The NAO published a large table setting out which of these and other concerns were subsequently raised by officials in 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2015.

 

Meg Hillier, chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: "It is unbelievable that over 13 years taxpayers' money has been given to Kids Company with little focus on what it was actually achieving for the children it was supporting.

"Government repeatedly raised concerns about Kids Company's finances but little action was taken. Despite this, government gave it further grants - funded by the taxpayer."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why is it the governments job to "develop young black men?"

because they develop young white men

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3296103/Poor-white-boys-fall-badly-class-bleak-job-prospects-report-finds.html#article-3296103

 

 

like i said.. trust someone like you to drag out some dumb article about the failing white boys. the article is based purely on GCSE grade attainment which if they fail to achieve will be the sole reason why they would be unemployed,..,. but what has prevented them for achieving? they do not have the school/education system discriminate against them, coupled with the youth justice and other powerful institutions that systematically attack the black family directly and indirectly..

 

at least if the lazy fuckers could get off their arses and GET good grades they would most likely get a job... unlike the situation for QUALIFIED afro carribeans who DO have the grades still facing prejudice in employment

A REPORT compiled by Joseph Rowntree Foundation for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has made recommendations following the revelation that Black African graduates top the list as the most overqualified in jobs suggesting that they face greater discrimination.

According to the report, 40.8 per cent of black African graduates are currently overqualified for the roles that they work, the largest proportion of any group, followed by Bangladeshi graduates (39 per cent).

The paper lays out two challenges for ethnic minority young people, unemployment and underemployment.

Despite the increases in the number of aspirational ethnic minority students pursuing higher education, the results have failed to prove a direct correlation between educational attainment and job prospects.

 

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/black-african-graduates-most-overqualified

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U know what one of the most heart breaking things about being over qualified for your position?

The amount u have to fight to get the measley job in the first place. Convincing people with less qualifications than yourself that you are here to stay, that you absolutely love customer service

And then when you get the job..."why are you here?"

I applied for a position where i am now 5 times. When i finally got in to the company at the lowest grade (even tho i had been workin a grade higher for a year somewhere similar) i was promoted within 6 months and again after 18 months.

My manager in my last role in leaving told me that she remembered when i applied for this role but felt i was more of the lower grade (shocking since i moved up quicker than people who were there before me. Also y did she feel the need to tell me)

On applying for my current role my managee and his manager were talking to me.like i failed before i even got the result

When i got it i had cunts asking me if i blagged it

An the second gutting thing is being praised for work that is piss easy (really really patronising)

My current head of team labelled me as someone who does the bare minimum in front of senior partners when thats a total fuckin lie. I jus dont shout about everything i do but im the only one who doesnt agree with the "let's not give ourselves too much work" principle. I will gladly open a can of worms.

Personally im coasting cos I know im capable of more but im not lazy and definitely not the laziest

I'm tired man

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swear certain people on vip2 convince themselves it's cause their black everytime someone does something they don't like

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0