Skip to content

Kids Company hugely exaggerated the number of high-risk young people it was helping, it was claimed last night.
The failed charity publicly claimed to be helping 16,000 high-risk people, but an investigation has revealed the number may be lower than 500.

£90k a year plus chauffeur, school costs for the chauffeur”s kids, private swimming pool. That’s quite a lot to be paid to help 500 kids, isn’t it?

The charity has claimed that it helped 36,000 people, including almost 16,000 who were ‘high-risk’. But those claims were wildly out of kilter with the number of young people on its books when Kids Company passed the details of its vulnerable charges to the authorities following its collapse.
According to BBC Newsnight and Buzzfeed, Kids Company handed over the details of just 1,692 adults and children in London, including 331 designated as high-risk. Bristol City Council was given details of a further 175 clients.
Even if all the Bristol individuals were high-risk, the charity would have been in charge of only 506 high-risk clients – just 3 per cent of the 15,933 high-risk individuals Miss Batmanghelidjh identified earlier this month.
A ‘high-risk’ client is someone under the age of 21, who is from a low-income family, or at risk of abuse, neglect or psychological damage.
A senior figure who used to work at Kids Company said the discrepancy was down to timing. The charity would have looked after about 16,000 high-risk individuals over the course of a year, but the figure was much lower at the moment ‘because you can have clients who move from medium to high risk in a matter of days’, the source said.


29 thoughts on “Hmm, rilly?”

  1. “…‘because you can have clients who move from medium to high risk in a matter of days’, the source said.”

    But never the other way around?

  2. It wouldn’t be _too_ much if she had actually been looking after the kids. Call it about £3k per kid per year after all the perks are taken in to account?

    But she wasn’t, was she. Nope, much too important for actually working …

  3. “A ‘high-risk’ client is someone under the age of 21, who is from a low-income family, or at risk of abuse, neglect or psychological damage.”

    Just think about that first part, “from a low-income family”. This counts as “high risk”? High risk of what?

  4. Exactly .There are no vulnerable children in post Thatcherite Britain because the business friendly economy takes care of them wonderfully.And then crypto Communists like G,. Osborne come along and presume to force businesses to pay higher wages via an increased minimum wage and to pay a levy for apprenticeship training when British businesses are the soul of generosity and think of the general good a long way into the future .Weeks sometimes..We know your game strutting round in hi-vis jackets and talking like a horrible Statist about the march of the makers and the Northern powerhouse.We don’t need no government: its all working perfectly without.

  5. DBC Read discovers sarcasm.

    Before you sit down at the keyboard DB old lad perhaps you should meditate for a few moments on the large number of kids who never got to grow up because of socialism in its many fun-filled forms. And the others who grew up without parents and loved ones because socialism had murdered them or put them in a fucking Gulag for 25 years.

  6. Yes and those British gulags were the worst.There was one near where I lived where schoolboys were herded in and subjected to homosexual violence and other abuse.For added sadism their parents had to pay fees for this barbarity. Some took to it of course and went into Government and became active paedophiles though protected by the security services.

  7. You’re comparing a British Public school with life–and death– in a Gulag?

    It is not sarcasm you have discovered it is surrealism.

  8. There appears to be a significant flaw in the market economy as far as Mr Reed experiences it: the tinfoil he buys for his hats appears to be too thin.

    Boarding schools as gulags? Grow up, man.

  9. But these are all lies by the media.

    For it is an article of the faith of lefties that the State and its minions can never, ever make a mistake and they never, ever tell anything but the truth.

    For there is no recourse to the State and the State will never have done anything wrong, because it will use your money to hide the facts from you.

    KC was an obviously corrupt organisation. For it to receive £3million of our money against civil service advice, a few weeks before the accounts filing deadline, is proof enough for me.

    If there is a report from the insolvency guys which exonerates the management and trustees, I’ll eat my words. But nobody will put their name to that. There will just be no report.

  10. I’d say the worst thing that can happen to a young person in the UK is that they get put in a the ‘care’ of the State. In fact I’d suggest that if you took young people who needed care and gave them to random strangers on the street to look after rather than State care homes the outcomes would (overall) be far better.

  11. Jim, I think you are alluding to what I call “the Council buggery service”. Though no doubt they use the front door too.

  12. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that we didn’t have gulags in the post-war UK , the only model of socialism I have any experience of (and seemed to work).When the standard of humour on this blog is such that Mr Ecks is taken seriously ,then there was not much hope.(see Jim above: the State is the enemy: we are enemies of the state ;any state ; Welfare state especially; we are not anarchist extremists. )

  13. And you might have had a point DB if UK welfare state weak-wankery were the only version of socialism that existed.

    Unfortunately for millions it was not. Fortunately for you it is the only one you have experience of. Keep supporting Corbyn(e) tho’ and you might get a chance to make some real comparisons after all.

  14. @DBCReed

    I lived in China during the 90’s and HK in the 80’s. A relatively pure socialist and Capitalist state respectively. I can tell yoiu which was more fun and which worked better as a society. I guarantee it wasn’t the mandarin speaking one which was better in either case

  15. DBC

    That welfare state you describe, as though it were a thing of the past, relies for its funding on those capitalist businesses that you effect to despise. As is the case with any social democratic system.

    The fact that the more solidly socialist bits of this, such as council homes for children, are often such disasters tells us two things. One, that as Ecks says socialism in the raw never works and two, that humans tend not to look after the offspring of others as well as they do their own. If you detach that caring process entirely from the individual human and give it to any sort of institution, state run or otherwise, the results are never ideal and often awful.

  16. bloke (not) in spain

    You want surreal? The Islington Children’s homes scandal. And the woman ultimately responsible & who did her best to cover up the consequences being appointed Children’s Minister.
    Socialism & surrealism. Why two words when one’s quite sufficient.

  17. I very much admire Kids Company. And also Murphy, Corbyn, Obama, Hillary and all the rest.

    They all agree with me that one should never let a sucker keep his money.

    If the common man wants to support socialism, very common in the case of DBC, why should I not accept the folly of his decision? Indeed, I will revel in it and get me some of that juicy government money.

  18. As someone with countless years in this field, it’s a cast iron law (pretty much) that anyone who wails on about the chillum and goes on and on about their wonderful work (i) does absolutely sweet FA, it’s just publicity (ii) doesn’t like children especially challenging ones (iii) is lining their own pockets and mostly (iv) is using it as a defence.

    Especially the last, the message is “How DARE you question what I do I’m doing it for CHILDREN”.

    Sometimes all four.

    People who actually work with children generally just do it.

  19. There’s no need for satire when dearieme can talk about ” Council buggery ” as if its different from the public school buggery I was talking about. Yes it is different: its much more expensive . I thought you lot believed in value for money.Everybody sing along with “I’ve never met a straight Etonian” to the tune of “I’ve never seen a straight banana”.

  20. DBC Reed said “dearieme can talk about ‘Council buggery’ as if its different from the public school buggery I was talking about. Yes it is different: its much more expensive”

    I was trying to untangle your grammar to see which was the more expensive, but I couldn’t so I googled it instead.

    Turns out council “care” is vastly more expensive even than Eton – £2,500 to £3,000 per week.

  21. DBC Reed lives in a strange alternate universe where rich parents pay thousands of pounds a year to send their sons to be buggered.
    In this universe they do not.
    Maybe I should explain for the benefit of Americans that “fag” was slang for a first-year boy who as part of the learning process and to promote the hierarchy among students as a preparation the hierarchy that officer cadets would face in thje army, did menial tasks like cleaning sports kit for prefects. it had nothing whatsoever to do with the American term “faggots” describing homosexuals.
    Homosexuality at public schools has always been extremely rare because it was punishable by immediate expulsion, whereas shagging one of the local girls merited a ticking-off.

  22. DBC

    You’re taking the piss aren’t you? Bored off your bollocks on a Saturday afternoon with sod all better to do. No other rational explanation for your comments..:)

  23. John 77 has his priorities right: reassuring Americans that public school fags aren’t necessarily faggots and that homesexuality is practically unknown in British Public Schools .He has done a veritable public service by this and ,although he doesn’t believe in public service generally, one hopes that his contribution receives due recognition.

  24. @DBC Reed: you really need to do a bit more research into your cliches. It may have escaped your notice that the vast majority of private schools in the UK are now co-ed, and have been for decades, so that if there’s any shagging going on its going to be of the more hetero rather than homosexual nature. Plus in my experience of a (minor) all boys public school in the 80s the idea that there was any buggering going on was ludicrous. Rumours of all sorts used to sweep the school on a regular basis, but never once did I hear even a whisper of such activities.

    Its also interesting that you castigate public schools for being a hotbed of buggery – in this day and age of homosexuality being not only permitted but almost compulsory, such antediluvian attitudes hardly put you on the ‘progressive’ side of society now do they? You and your lefty chums should be celebrating the sterling work the public schools are doing (as you see it) to allow middle class homosexual teenagers to express their true sexual natures.

  25. I went to a bording school in the 90s and somehow we managed not to sodomise each other. Must have been a miracle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *