It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*
C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community. You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
The benchmark for public spending in Scotland is the 'Spin Doctor'.
Does Prestwick cost more or less than Sturgeon's little helpers?
Less , it costs peanuts, they spend more renaming hospitals
Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.
How? Is this just like the thefts govts did in the past?
In the specific case of the UK Railways, the private operators own NOTHING. The rolling stock is not owned by them, the infrastructure is not owned by them. Re-nationalisation of UK Railways is probably the most trivial nationalisation I could imagine because it can be done costlessly every time a franchise expires.
So even if he was to become PM in 2020, the policy wouldn’t come into effect for up to ten years later.......
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*
C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community. You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
The benchmark for public spending in Scotland is the 'Spin Doctor'.
Does Prestwick cost more or less than Sturgeon's little helpers?
Less , it costs peanuts, they spend more renaming hospitals
They still need hospitals in Scotland? Surely the laying on of hands by Wee Eck cures all ills?
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
I'm actually with MalcolmG on this. If somebody breaks conditions for one tranche of money, and then turns up for more cash, you don't impose conditions for the simple reason that you assume they will be broken (as these have been, very publicly, instantly). To all intents and purposes, that money might as well have been a free gift. Even so, it clearly made no difference to the essential situation, which is that the charity is obviously insolvent. So it was wasted, as well.
Much better to take it into some form of administration and govern it yourself for the time being. This is an absolutely appalling piece of work by Letwin and Hancock, and they will be lucky to come out of it with their jobs.
Prestwick has seen passenger numbers fall from 2.4 million to 900,000. Glasgow has almost 8 million passengers a year. Prestwick has a grand total of 1 passenger company using it. Glasgow has 25 if seasonal schedules are included.
It is easy to run an airport cheaply when no one uses it.
It gives somewhere for Trump to land his private jet when he wants to visit Turnberry.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
Yes and they closed down a few days later with no money , that worked did it not. Must have been very strict conditions if they could burn the £3M in that short timescale.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
But not the normal method of such tied provision - where the funds are released in tranches with clear, identifiable goals which need to be met to release further tranches.
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
There's a significant "head and heart" section of the party (including me) who are tossing up between supporting Corbyn because we like his style and many of his policies, and supporting Burnham or Cooper because we think them more electable. The question for the latter is "What's the point?" since we've felt for some time that the party didn't stand for sufficient change in society. Burnham is clearly bidding for that group - and his "rolling nationalisation as franchises expire" proposal avoids the direct cost of compensation, as Dair says.
This sort of move makes sense for the selectorate involved. In the same way, Corbyn should be reinforcing his "open dialogue, it's not all about me" approach to get second prefs from people thinking about giving him a try.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
I'm actually with MalcolmG on this. If somebody breaks conditions for one tranche of money, and then turns up for more cash, you don't impose conditions for the simple reason that you assume they will be broken (as these have been, very publicly, instantly). To all intents and purposes, that money might as well have been a free gift. Even so, it clearly made no difference to the essential situation, which is that the charity is obviously insolvent. So it was wasted, as well.
Much better to take it into some form of administration and govern it yourself for the time being. This is an absolutely appalling piece of work by Letwin and Hancock, and they will be lucky to come out of it with their jobs.
Letwin and Hancock should be tendering their resignations right now.
In the absence of any credible Opposition, the Media should be hounding the government until they do.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too!
No they weren't. They were bleedin' awful, with never-ending strikes, violent intimidation, power cuts, companies going bankrupt because of arbitrary exercise of bully power by the dockers or the power workers, the UK declining very fast relative to other similar economies, business paralysed by absurd red tape, management and workers in a permanent state of war, draconian exchange controls, not to mention the ever-present threat of the IRA blowing up innocent civilians, and all the attendant disruption from bomb scares.
The 70s were undoubtedly the worst decade since WWII, by a long chalk. Even at this distance I'm gobsmacked at the transformation achieved by Maggie in just a few years. It really was a different, and not very pleasant, country before her premiership.
Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.
How? Is this just like the thefts govts did in the past?
In the specific case of the UK Railways, the private operators own NOTHING. The rolling stock is not owned by them, the infrastructure is not owned by them. Re-nationalisation of UK Railways is probably the most trivial nationalisation I could imagine because it can be done costlessly every time a franchise expires.
So even if he was to become PM in 2020, the policy wouldn’t come into effect for up to ten years later.......
And your point is what?
That good government with workable and cost-effective time scales should be replaced with short-term reactionary policy making?
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*
C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community. You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
Prestwick has seen passenger numbers fall from 2.4 million to 900,000. Glasgow has almost 8 million passengers a year. Prestwick has a grand total of 1 passenger company using it. Glasgow has 25 if seasonal schedules are included.
It is easy to run an airport cheaply when no one uses it.
Richard , there is a lot more to it than the passenger part , the key was to save all the engineering, cargo , etc jobs tied to it. It would have cost many many times what has been spent to let it close in an area that the Tories have wrecked completely already.
Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.
Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.
If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.
Andy Burnham is trying to win a few more first preferences from those who would otherwise choose Jeremy Corbyn. If we work on the basis that the current running order for first preferences is roughly:
1. Jeremy Corbyn 2= Andy Burnham 2= Yvette Cooper 4 Liz Kendall
Andy Burnham is in serious danger of going out on the second round as Yvette Cooper scoops up most of Liz Kendall's second preferences. If Andy Burnham can get a few more first preferences from Jeremy Corbyn, he increases his chances of seeing off Yvette Cooper before getting into the head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn, while making the gap between Jeremy Corbyn and himself to overcome in the final round that much smaller.
Undoubtedly my experience can only be generalised so far, being as it is derived mostly from social media, but the division that has developed between JC and "anyone but Corbyn" makes me think the numbers prepared to switch at this point will be minimal.
Is it possible to bet on the order of elimination (rather than 1st prefs)?
I've seen 1st place on 1st prefs and last place markets, think that's it.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
I'm actually with MalcolmG on this. If somebody breaks conditions for one tranche of money, and then turns up for more cash, you don't impose conditions for the simple reason that you assume they will be broken (as these have been, very publicly, instantly). To all intents and purposes, that money might as well have been a free gift. Even so, it clearly made no difference to the essential situation, which is that the charity is obviously insolvent. So it was wasted, as well.
Much better to take it into some form of administration and govern it yourself for the time being. This is an absolutely appalling piece of work by Letwin and Hancock, and they will be lucky to come out of it with their jobs.
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
If you still can, look at Dan Cruickshank's Civilisation under Attack documentary on BBC iPlayer. Today is the last day. There is an interview with AC which is chilling. He says that he is happy to see all the antiquities in Iraq and Syria and elsewhere where IS operates destroyed and that this should happen everywhere else in the world. I would have thought that museums and other cultural centres in Europe would be at risk from IS fanatics. I certainly hope that they are taking proper precautions.
What that documentary also shows is that IS is also selling the antiquities it is not destroying in order to fund their campaign. By showing films of their destruction they raise the prices of what remains which they are trading.
That puts the civilized world in a bind: if we don't trade in order to at least cut off some of the money flow the art is destroyed. But if we pay they are strengthened.
They are truly evil people who must be utterly defeated and eliminated.
BBC R4 Wato on now spent 17+ mins already on Kids Company. Finally had a brief mention of its Chairman Alan Yentob "who is not available". Anyone know why? Instead its all about the £3m issue, nothing about its Board and oversight. If the issue is the charity's management and oversight why no focus on the Chairman etc? Why is Yentob not "harrassed" by the BBC with doorstep reporters?
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too!
No they weren't. They were bleedin' awful, with never-ending strikes, violent intimidation, power cuts, companies going bankrupt because of arbitrary exercise of bully power by the dockers or the power workers, the UK declining very fast relative to other similar economies, business paralysed by absurd red tape, management and workers in a permanent state of war, draconian exchange controls, not to mention the ever-present threat of the IRA blowing up innocent civilians, and all the attendant disruption from bomb scares.
The 70s were undoubtedly the worst decade since WWII, by a long chalk. Even at this distance I'm gobsmacked at the transformation achieved by Maggie in just a few years. It really was a different, and not very pleasant, country before her premiership.
Rubbish , the 70's were the best ever. Monthly pay rises , cheap beer , 78 World Cup , life was great.
PS: Maggie made the changes by wrecking Scotland and using all our money to fund the changes down south.
If it was ohhhh I don't know a scandal of mismanagement at a bank, do you think they would have gone and doorstepped the Chairman? Like if he had been called Lord Green, rather than Alan Yentob?
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
I'm actually with MalcolmG on this. If somebody breaks conditions for one tranche of money, and then turns up for more cash, you don't impose conditions for the simple reason that you assume they will be broken (as these have been, very publicly, instantly). To all intents and purposes, that money might as well have been a free gift. Even so, it clearly made no difference to the essential situation, which is that the charity is obviously insolvent. So it was wasted, as well.
Much better to take it into some form of administration and govern it yourself for the time being. This is an absolutely appalling piece of work by Letwin and Hancock, and they will be lucky to come out of it with their jobs.
Letwin and Hancock should be tendering their resignations right now.
In the absence of any credible Opposition, the Media should be hounding the government until they do.
I wonder who else knew about or was involved in or signed off on their decision to issue the Ministerial direction. That's another question I'd be asking.
Prestwick has seen passenger numbers fall from 2.4 million to 900,000. Glasgow has almost 8 million passengers a year. Prestwick has a grand total of 1 passenger company using it. Glasgow has 25 if seasonal schedules are included.
It is easy to run an airport cheaply when no one uses it.
It gives somewhere for Trump to land his private jet when he wants to visit Turnberry.
No wonder the SNP think it's good value.
He is paying top dollar for the privilege, thought you Tories liked free enterprise.
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
There's a significant "head and heart" section of the party (including me) who are tossing up between supporting Corbyn because we like his style and many of his policies, and supporting Burnham or Cooper because we think them more electable.
Really Nick? I find it difficult to understand how anyone can "like the style and policies of Corbyn" having enthusiastically backed Blair in the past. I know times are different, but that's quite a stretch.
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
I dare say if Batmanghelidjh and the others involved faced criminal charges over the £3m or previous funding, it would not help those who would defend KC to the last (of which there seem to be many).
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
I'm actually with MalcolmG on this. If somebody breaks conditions for one tranche of money, and then turns up for more cash, you don't impose conditions for the simple reason that you assume they will be broken (as these have been, very publicly, instantly). To all intents and purposes, that money might as well have been a free gift. Even so, it clearly made no difference to the essential situation, which is that the charity is obviously insolvent. So it was wasted, as well.
Much better to take it into some form of administration and govern it yourself for the time being. This is an absolutely appalling piece of work by Letwin and Hancock, and they will be lucky to come out of it with their jobs.
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
The directors of a company which traded while insolvent would be personally liable and may well have committed criminal offences. If you can't pay your wage bill when it is due, that is usually a pretty good sign that you are insolvent.
This was a charity, of course, and subject to different laws than to those that apply to companies. But there are rules/laws which do apply and it is curious that - so far - there seems to be silence from the Charity Commission, which is meant to police such matters. Maybe things are happening behind the scenes.........
If it was ohhhh I don't know a scandal of mismanagement at a bank, do you think they would have gone and doorstepped the Chairman? Like if he had been called Lord Green, rather than Alan Yentob?
BBC News reporters probably don't have access to the Executive floor at Broadcasting House.
If it was ohhhh I don't know a scandal of mismanagement at a bank, do you think they would have gone and doorstepped the Chairman? Like if he had been called Lord Green, rather than Alan Yentob?
BBC News reporters probably don't have access to the Executive floor at Broadcasting House.
Given how much the BBC pay him to do very little, I am sure they will find him at lunch or dinner at a top restaurant most days of the week.
I feel sorry for the Ministers who signed this off.
Yes, it's easy with hindsight to say they should not have given the money, but then Kids Company would have closed and blamed the gov. The howls from the Guardian would have been stunning.
Rubbish , the 70's were the best ever. Monthly pay rises , cheap beer , 78 World Cup , life was great.
PS: Maggie made the changes by wrecking Scotland and using all our money to fund the changes down south.
70s beer? You drank what they called 'beer' in the 1970s? OK, it might have been cheap, but it tasted like industrial dishwater with a bit of alcohol. It took CAMRA a long time to get decent stuff back into pubs.
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
I'm actually with MalcolmG on this. If somebody breaks conditions for one tranche of money, and then turns up for more cash, you don't impose conditions for the simple reason that you assume they will be broken (as these have been, very publicly, instantly). To all intents and purposes, that money might as well have been a free gift. Even so, it clearly made no difference to the essential situation, which is that the charity is obviously insolvent. So it was wasted, as well....
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
The directors of a company which traded while insolvent would be personally liable and may well have committed criminal offences. If you can't pay your wage bill when it is due, that is usually a pretty good sign that you are insolvent.
This was a charity, of course, and subject to different laws than to those that apply to companies. But there are rules/laws which do apply and it is curious that - so far - there seems to be silence from the Charity Commission, which is meant to police such matters. Maybe things are happening behind the scenes.........
Now there's an interesting question. If a company gets a grant (let's suppose it is) from the government, are they maximising the return for creditors? Potentially yes. (I doubt the charity commission would be best pleased though.)
Which is why I think it will be statements made to the government by KC and its directors in the course of securing the £3m which are likely to give rise to criminal charges, if at all. But such a short window is pretty damning - unless today's announcement is effectively a rejection of the £3m? Doesn't sound like it.
Camila Batmanghelidjh was born to a wealthy family in Iran. In a Guardian interview last year she said that because she was premature it was thought that she would die, and so was sent home without her birth being registered. She told the paper: "I don't know my birthday. My mother can't remember."
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.
I'm actually with MalcolmG on this. If somebody breaks conditions for one tranche of money, and then turns up for more cash, you don't impose conditions for the simple reason that you assume they will be broken (as these have been, very publicly, instantly). To all intents and purposes, that money might as well have been a free gift. Even so, it clearly made no difference to the essential situation, which is that the charity is obviously insolvent. So it was wasted, as well.
Much better to take it into some form of administration and govern it yourself for the time being. This is an absolutely appalling piece of work by Letwin and Hancock, and they will be lucky to come out of it with their jobs.
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
The directors of a company which traded while insolvent would be personally liable and may well have committed criminal offences. If you can't pay your wage bill when it is due, that is usually a pretty good sign that you are insolvent.
This was a charity, of course, and subject to different laws than to those that apply to companies. But there are rules/laws which do apply and it is curious that - so far - there seems to be silence from the Charity Commission, which is meant to police such matters. Maybe things are happening behind the scenes.........
Behind the scenes? The Leftie Chatterati and anyone else involved will be desperately trying to ensure that they don't go down with the ship. I'd be surprised if the whole debacle wasn't simply brushed under the carpet.
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
There's a significant "head and heart" section of the party (including me) who are tossing up between supporting Corbyn because we like his style and many of his policies, and supporting Burnham or Cooper because we think them more electable. The question for the latter is "What's the point?" since we've felt for some time that the party didn't stand for sufficient change in society. Burnham is clearly bidding for that group - and his "rolling nationalisation as franchises expire" proposal avoids the direct cost of compensation, as Dair says.
This sort of move makes sense for the selectorate involved. In the same way, Corbyn should be reinforcing his "open dialogue, it's not all about me" approach to get second prefs from people thinking about giving him a try.
Intriguing, thank you. But there is one key question I would put to you. What is the point of being for changes, including radical changes in society and therefore never getting the chance to implement it? Is it not better to stand for incremental change and have some chance to put it into operation?
OK, so Blair made a bit of a mess of the second part. At the same time, he is the only Labour leader in the last fifty years to have polled over 40% of the vote. In that time, the Tories have managed it under three somewhat different leaders. Therefore, by 2020 unless something drastic happens Labour have been in power for 19 of those 50 years and the Tories for 31 (26 as sole party in power). Therefore, they have had far more influence on the shape of Britain's society and economy than Labour have.
If I were voting for the leadership of a political party - I'm not - I would first ask (1) how do we get back into power? And only then would I consider what needed to be done when we got there. If I were voting for the chairman of a lobby group, or the moderator of the General Assembly, it would be different. But if parties don't win power, then it doesn't matter what they promise.
As you yourself note, Corbyn isn't electable. Therefore, in voting for him, you and any other member would be accepting that his policies, however attractive, will make no difference to peoples' lives.
I think it's this dichotomy that has handicapped Labour all along. The Conservatives want to win power. Labour want to win it on their terms. Therefore, the Conservatives win power a lot more often.
Your other problem is, of course, that Burnham et al are not exactly stellar candidates themselves - so I can see why you may feel it doesn't make a lot of difference!
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
To me this is a huge wake up call not to equate spending with output. We see this mistake a lot with the left, but recently from voices on the right too (2% defence spending), and it needs to be stopped. Pledges should relate to output - ships and planes, kids getting a good meal, patients being successfully treated etc. If we can get to the desired output and make a cost saving, this is a good thing not a bad one.
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
< Now there's an interesting question. If a company gets a grant (let's suppose it is) from the government, are they maximising the return for creditors? Potentially yes. (I doubt the charity commission would be best pleased though.)
Which is why I think it will be statements made to the government by KC and its directors in the course of securing the £3m which are likely to give rise to criminal charges, if at all. But such a short window is pretty damning - unless today's announcement is effectively a rejection of the £3m? Doesn't sound like it.
If they paid the wage bill as a direct result of receiving the cash, it sounds as if that was cause and effect. In other words, that was the money they used (certainly that seems to be what the Treasury thinks). In which case, they are not turning down the money - it's too late for that.
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
There's a significant "head and heart" section of the party (including me) who are tossing up between supporting Corbyn because we like his style and many of his policies, and supporting Burnham or Cooper because we think them more electable.
Really Nick? I find it difficult to understand how anyone can "like the style and policies of Corbyn" having enthusiastically backed Blair in the past. I know times are different, but that's quite a stretch.
It's interesting to see Nick flirting with Corbymania. Like you I'm surprised.
It's yet another small straw in the wind, pointing to a Corbyn victory. No one straw would tell you very much, but they all seem to be floating in the same direction.
I feel sorry for the Ministers who signed this off.
Yes, it's easy with hindsight to say they should not have given the money, but then Kids Company would have closed and blamed the gov. The howls from the Guardian would have been stunning.
Heads you lose. Tails you get blamed.
That would have been fair comment until a Ministerial Direction had been officially sought. From that point on the ministers could have hidden behind civil service advice. They should have taken advantage of that opportunity.
I feel sorry for the Ministers who signed this off.
Yes, it's easy with hindsight to say they should not have given the money, but then Kids Company would have closed and blamed the gov. The howls from the Guardian would have been stunning.
Heads you lose. Tails you get blamed.
I am not sure that the Guardian forced David Cameron to get so close to Camilla.
I feel sorry for the Ministers who signed this off.
Yes, it's easy with hindsight to say they should not have given the money, but then Kids Company would have closed and blamed the gov. The howls from the Guardian would have been stunning.
Heads you lose. Tails you get blamed.
Come off it. That's what civil servants are there for. To provide cover.
All the Ministers needed was a bit of courage. They should have said (as they said a few weeks ago when they refused money until the Batman women left) that they were concerned about financial management/proper accountability for the taxpayer etc, that they were acting on advice and that no matter how many celebrity backers it had they were not going to be held to ransom by any charity, however winsome, and that they were putting in resources in place to help the children if the charity upped sticks and left or fell down. But that if the celebrity backers and/or the Guardian were that concerned, they were free to put their own money in, of course.
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
Rubbish , the 70's were the best ever. Monthly pay rises , cheap beer , 78 World Cup , life was great.
PS: Maggie made the changes by wrecking Scotland and using all our money to fund the changes down south.
70s beer? You drank what they called 'beer' in the 1970s? OK, it might have been cheap, but it tasted like industrial dishwater with a bit of alcohol. It took CAMRA a long time to get decent stuff back into pubs.
It could be developed into a sort of a Scandal Bingo Card - possibly developed into a sort of updated Monopoly game for our time.
Mrs Free, You are being generous in your list. You say "Greed" but omit its twin, "Dishonesty". Fraud investigators should be crawling all over this case. They won't of course because, and with all respect to yourself, fraud investigation in the UK is, and has been for many years, a joke.
This was a charity, of course, and subject to different laws than to those that apply to companies. But there are rules/laws which do apply and it is curious that - so far - there seems to be silence from the Charity Commission, which is meant to police such matters. Maybe things are happening behind the scenes.........
The Charity Commission does have rather a reputation as a very small and very tame right-on paper tiger, so I am not holding my breathe.
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
There's a significant "head and heart" section of the party (including me) who are tossing up between supporting Corbyn because we like his style and many of his policies, and supporting Burnham or Cooper because we think them more electable.
Really Nick? I find it difficult to understand how anyone can "like the style and policies of Corbyn" having enthusiastically backed Blair in the past. I know times are different, but that's quite a stretch.
It's interesting to see Nick flirting with Corbymania. Like you I'm surprised.
It's yet another small straw in the wind, pointing to a Corbyn victory. No one straw would tell you very much, but they all seem to be floating in the same direction.
As a Labour voter in May, thank God Labour lost is all I can say. If that is how one of its supposedly moderate prospective MPs actually thinks, then it is a blessing for the country and for the future of the centre-left here that Labour did not get anywhere near power. I always laughed at your doom-ridden predictions, but maybe you were right.
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one: If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
The political IQ of the Govt would improve if these two went.
Camila Batmanghelidjh was born to a wealthy family in Iran. In a Guardian interview last year she said that because she was premature it was thought that she would die, and so was sent home without her birth being registered. She told the paper: "I don't know my birthday. My mother can't remember."
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
And deservedly so. What a plonker. And questions need to be asked of the Charity Commissioners too.
The whole sector is a racket, and is crying out for some serious investigation and reform. Any organisation on the receiving end of state i.e. our money should be subjected to extreme scrutiny and auditing.
I wonder how many other 'charities' are hoping the spotlight doesn't fall on them this afternoon?
I feel sorry for the Ministers who signed this off.
Yes, it's easy with hindsight to say they should not have given the money, but then Kids Company would have closed and blamed the gov. The howls from the Guardian would have been stunning.
Heads you lose. Tails you get blamed.
That would have been fair comment until a Ministerial Direction had been officially sought. From that point on the ministers could have hidden behind civil service advice. They should have taken advantage of that opportunity.
"Police 'only investigate attempted burglaries at even-numbered homes' A trial scheme in Leicestershire meant that people living in odd-numbered homes were treated differently to their neighbours"
However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?
There's a significant "head and heart" section of the party (including me) who are tossing up between supporting Corbyn because we like his style and many of his policies, and supporting Burnham or Cooper because we think them more electable.
Really Nick? I find it difficult to understand how anyone can "like the style and policies of Corbyn" having enthusiastically backed Blair in the past. I know times are different, but that's quite a stretch.
It's interesting to see Nick flirting with Corbymania. Like you I'm surprised.
It's yet another small straw in the wind, pointing to a Corbyn victory. No one straw would tell you very much, but they all seem to be floating in the same direction.
As a Labour voter in May, thank God Labour lost is all I can say. If that is how one of its supposedly moderate prospective MPs actually thinks, then it is a blessing for the country and for the future of the centre-left here that Labour did not get anywhere near power. I always laughed at your doom-ridden predictions, but maybe you were right.
Although if Labour had won, maybe it would not be embarking on this strange orgy of self-destruction. I didn't foresee anything like this being the result of a defeat, still less a victory. But as you imply, their reaction doesn't exactly indicate a party fit and ready to take power.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too!
No they weren't. They were bleedin' awful, with never-ending strikes, violent intimidation, power cuts, companies going bankrupt because of arbitrary exercise of bully power by the dockers or the power workers, the UK declining very fast relative to other similar economies, business paralysed by absurd red tape, management and workers in a permanent state of war, draconian exchange controls, not to mention the ever-present threat of the IRA blowing up innocent civilians, and all the attendant disruption from bomb scares.
The 70s were undoubtedly the worst decade since WWII, by a long chalk. Even at this distance I'm gobsmacked at the transformation achieved by Maggie in just a few years. It really was a different, and not very pleasant, country before her premiership.
Yes, you are completely correct in all the things you say. Nonetheless, for a great many people, certainly a substantial minority if not the majority, the 1970s were also a very good time for them personally and their immediate families.
As for England (I'll not speak for the other places) not being a very nice place in the 1970s, even with rose tinted spectacles off, it had a lot going for it and I am not sure, if such a thing were possible, that I would not prefer to live in London in, say, 1975 than London 2015.
As someone said earlier where you chose to stand decides what view you have.
"Police 'only investigate attempted burglaries at even-numbered homes' A trial scheme in Leicestershire meant that people living in odd-numbered homes were treated differently to their neighbours"
I was surprised by that - but when I looked into it the headline I found it was a bit misleading. Ordinary officers attended all burglaries, but forensic officers/SOCOs only attended the even numbered houses to see if it made a difference to (a) the emotional well-being of victims and (b) detection rates.
Apparently it made no difference at all to either. I could have guessed that in advance, but it's useful to have hard data to back it up.
The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.
Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools
Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?
LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.
I have written earlier that Letwin and Hancock are less than useful. But the "trustees" of this charity should be questioned on their role.
It could be developed into a sort of a Scandal Bingo Card - possibly developed into a sort of updated Monopoly game for our time.
Mrs Free, You are being generous in your list. You say "Greed" but omit its twin, "Dishonesty". Fraud investigators should be crawling all over this case. They won't of course because, and with all respect to yourself, fraud investigation in the UK is, and has been for many years, a joke.
That's because Dishonesy is a consequence of Greed and Stupidity, at the very least.
That is my list - for work purposes - of the behaviours I often see in cases of fraud and other dishonesty. And they are behaviours which are carried out not just by the bad guys but by the others who could have done or said things which could have stopped the bad guys.
I don't disagree with you re fraud investigation.
Still, if anyone from government is reading PB, they should be grateful fro the pro bono advice I am giving on what they should be doing now. (Mr Gove, please take note.) They certainly need sensible advice.
Almost certainly they are considering what to do to stop this looking bad. And therein lies the reason why we have so many problems. Because rather than try and solve them, we try and manage how they look.
' and I think the role particularly people like Oliver Letwin and Matt Hancock are playing - there's a great sense of teamwork across the Government and people all know if they're not sure which approach to take it's all in the good book, the manifesto, rather than having to make it up as they go along.'
Rubbish , the 70's were the best ever. Monthly pay rises , cheap beer , 78 World Cup , life was great.
PS: Maggie made the changes by wrecking Scotland and using all our money to fund the changes down south.
70s beer? You drank what they called 'beer' in the 1970s? OK, it might have been cheap, but it tasted like industrial dishwater with a bit of alcohol. It took CAMRA a long time to get decent stuff back into pubs.
Richard , I drank anything, and had a whale of a time
Mind you, £3 million is pennies in the grand scheme of things. It's more indicative of a ministerial state of mind than of intrinsic concern.
It was Sir Stanley Unwin who said (although he may have been quoting someone): 'If you take care of the pennies, pounds will take care of themselves.'
£3 million would pay the annual wages of over a hundred experienced teachers, who might teach around 3000 children between them. Although I agree about the 'state of mind', I think the cash is of significance too in this case, especially if it came out of the education budget.
EDITED - I said monthly, I meant annual. Sadly we don't earn 30k a month!
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*
C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community. You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
The benchmark for public spending in Scotland is the 'Spin Doctor'.
Does Prestwick cost more or less than Sturgeon's little helpers?
Less , it costs peanuts, they spend more renaming hospitals
I've seen a fair bit of fraud in a work environment - and it's also been about maintaining face when personal performance hasn't met the required standard. So whilst personally benefiting from it directly was most common, in a substantial minority - it was covering up failure. The money was almost incidental.
It could be developed into a sort of a Scandal Bingo Card - possibly developed into a sort of updated Monopoly game for our time.
Mrs Free, You are being generous in your list. You say "Greed" but omit its twin, "Dishonesty". Fraud investigators should be crawling all over this case. They won't of course because, and with all respect to yourself, fraud investigation in the UK is, and has been for many years, a joke.
That's because Dishonesy is a consequence of Greed and Stupidity, at the very least.
That is my list - for work purposes - of the behaviours I often see in cases of fraud and other dishonesty. And they are behaviours which are carried out not just by the bad guys but by the others who could have done or said things which could have stopped the bad guys.
I don't disagree with you re fraud investigation.
Still, if anyone from government is reading PB, they should be grateful fro the pro bono advice I am giving on what they should be doing now. (Mr Gove, please take note.) They certainly need sensible advice.
Almost certainly they are considering what to do to stop this looking bad. And therein lies the reason why we have so many problems. Because rather than try and solve them, we try and manage how they look.
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
And deservedly so. What a plonker. And questions need to be asked of the Charity Commissioners too.
The whole sector is a racket, and is crying out for some serious investigation and reform. Any organisation on the receiving end of state i.e. our money should be subjected to extreme scrutiny and auditing.
I wonder how many other 'charities' are hoping the spotlight doesn't fall on them this afternoon?
Its just a trough for all the ones that cannot get the direct political / government trough appointments.
Rubbish , the 70's were the best ever. Monthly pay rises , cheap beer , 78 World Cup , life was great.
PS: Maggie made the changes by wrecking Scotland and using all our money to fund the changes down south.
70s beer? You drank what they called 'beer' in the 1970s? OK, it might have been cheap, but it tasted like industrial dishwater with a bit of alcohol. It took CAMRA a long time to get decent stuff back into pubs.
Richard , I drank anything, and had a whale of a time
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
And deservedly so. What a plonker. And questions need to be asked of the Charity Commissioners too.
The whole sector is a racket, and is crying out for some serious investigation and reform. Any organisation on the receiving end of state i.e. our money should be subjected to extreme scrutiny and auditing.
I wonder how many other 'charities' are hoping the spotlight doesn't fall on them this afternoon?
Its just a trough for all the ones that cannot get the direct political / government trough appointments.
I'm surprised Salmond hasn't picked up any juicy roles in that sector. GolfAid, 'Save the Trump', Curry Company - they'd be perfect, if they existed.
I've seen a fair bit of fraud in a work environment - and it's also been about maintaining face when personal performance hasn't met the required standard. So whilst personally benefiting from it directly was most common, in a substantial minority - it was covering up failure. The money was almost incidental.
It could be developed into a sort of a Scandal Bingo Card - possibly developed into a sort of updated Monopoly game for our time.
Mrs Free, You are being generous in your list. You say "Greed" but omit its twin, "Dishonesty". Fraud investigators should be crawling all over this case. They won't of course because, and with all respect to yourself, fraud investigation in the UK is, and has been for many years, a joke.
That's because Dishonesy is a consequence of Greed and Stupidity, at the very least.
That is my list - for work purposes - of the behaviours I often see in cases of fraud and other dishonesty. And they are behaviours which are carried out not just by the bad guys but by the others who could have done or said things which could have stopped the bad guys.
I don't disagree with you re fraud investigation.
Still, if anyone from government is reading PB, they should be grateful fro the pro bono advice I am giving on what they should be doing now. (Mr Gove, please take note.) They certainly need sensible advice.
Almost certainly they are considering what to do to stop this looking bad. And therein lies the reason why we have so many problems. Because rather than try and solve them, we try and manage how they look.
It's Potemkin Politics.
The ego seems to be behind most problems and crimes. E.g. people think...
"I deserve more money"
"I cannot be seen to make a mistake"
"I don't make mistakes therefore I couldn't have"
"This makes me look good so it must be right"
"I only have to tell this one small lie and everything will be all right"
Mind you, £3 million is pennies in the grand scheme of things. It's more indicative of a ministerial state of mind than of intrinsic concern.
It was Sir Stanley Unwin who said (although he may have been quoting someone): 'If you take care of the pennies, pounds will take care of themselves.'
£3 million would pay the annual wages of over a hundred experienced teachers, who might teach around 3000 children between them. Although I agree about the 'state of mind', I think the cash is of significance too in this case, especially if it came out of the education budget.
EDITED - I said monthly, I meant annual. Sadly we don't earn 30k a month!
Camila Batmanghelidjh was born to a wealthy family in Iran. In a Guardian interview last year she said that because she was premature it was thought that she would die, and so was sent home without her birth being registered. She told the paper: "I don't know my birthday. My mother can't remember."
Hmmmm....that sounds like the "20 year old" footballer Chancel Mbemba, otherwise known as Four Birthday Fred.
If her birth was not registered, how did she get a passport? How did she open a bank account? How did she get a visa to come to this country? This does not smell right.
It is also quite convenient because it helps bat away questions about some, ahem, irregularities about the age she was when she was studying for various qualifications and when she was at the various colleges she says she was at.
I feel sorry for the Ministers who signed this off.
Yes, it's easy with hindsight to say they should not have given the money, but then Kids Company would have closed and blamed the gov. The howls from the Guardian would have been stunning.
Heads you lose. Tails you get blamed.
That would have been fair comment until a Ministerial Direction had been officially sought. From that point on the ministers could have hidden behind civil service advice. They should have taken advantage of that opportunity.
Exactly. Stupidity.
Given how rarely such direction is sought, apparently, it really should have been a giant red flag right there. It seems like very few people are getting out of this one without a few hits - the charity's problems seem quite alarming, the ministers took risks they shouldn't have, but even many of those who are in a position to upbraid the ministers (among the commentariat at the least) may be hard pressed to do so if they had previously been outraged at the delay in providing the latest tranche of public monies to KC.
Camila Batmanghelidjh was born to a wealthy family in Iran. In a Guardian interview last year she said that because she was premature it was thought that she would die, and so was sent home without her birth being registered. She told the paper: "I don't know my birthday. My mother can't remember."
Hmmmm....that sounds like the "20 year old" footballer Chancel Mbemba, otherwise known as Four Birthday Fred.
If her birth was not registered, how did she get a passport? How did she open a bank account? How did she get a visa to come to this country? This does not smell right.
It is also quite convenient because it helps bat away questions about some, ahem, irregularities about the age she was when she was studying for various qualifications and when she was at the various colleges she says she was at.
Sherborne School for Girls will probably have a record of her DoB.
"Police 'only investigate attempted burglaries at even-numbered homes' A trial scheme in Leicestershire meant that people living in odd-numbered homes were treated differently to their neighbours"
I was surprised by that - but when I looked into it the headline I found it was a bit misleading. Ordinary officers attended all burglaries, but forensic officers/SOCOs only attended the even numbered houses to see if it made a difference to (a) the emotional well-being of victims and (b) detection rates.
Apparently it made no difference at all to either. I could have guessed that in advance, but it's useful to have hard data to back it up.
How many dwellings were there in the sample? If there were sufficient to be statistically worthwhile then the inference would seem to be that the attendance of SOCOs is a waste of time.
However, without forensic evidence, convictions for burglary would be very few and far between. So without sending the SOCOs in, burglars would get a free pass. Want some cash? Just go and burgle a few houses, the Old Bill don't even bother to investigate the basics. The police in the UK have already withdrawn from investigating white-collar fraud, they have withdrawn from the streets (save so-called public order matters), if they are now to withdraw from investigating domestic burglaries as well then I think we need a fresh look at what they are for, how they are organised and how much we should be paying them.
Camila Batmanghelidjh was born to a wealthy family in Iran. In a Guardian interview last year she said that because she was premature it was thought that she would die, and so was sent home without her birth being registered. She told the paper: "I don't know my birthday. My mother can't remember."
Hmmmm....that sounds like the "20 year old" footballer Chancel Mbemba, otherwise known as Four Birthday Fred.
If her birth was not registered, how did she get a passport? How did she open a bank account? How did she get a visa to come to this country? This does not smell right.
It is also quite convenient because it helps bat away questions about some, ahem, irregularities about the age she was when she was studying for various qualifications and when she was at the various colleges she says she was at.
Four Birthday Fred is going to get a work visa, has a passport, has played in Europe for several years, despite openly admitting that his registered birthday on all official documents isn't correct.
The directors of a company which traded while insolvent would be personally liable and may well have committed criminal offences. If you can't pay your wage bill when it is due, that is usually a pretty good sign that you are insolvent.
This was a charity, of course, and subject to different laws than to those that apply to companies. But there are rules/laws which do apply and it is curious that - so far - there seems to be silence from the Charity Commission, which is meant to police such matters. Maybe things are happening behind the scenes.........
As well as being a registered charity, Kids Company is a company limited by guarantee (no. 03442083 at Companies House). Where a charity has legal personality, the presumption is that any charitable gift is a gift to the company beneficially, rather than a public purpose trust. Should the company enter liquidation, its assets will go to its general creditors rather than being applied cy-près (Re Arms (Multiple Sclerosis Research) Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 877)...
Spain's transformation is one of the most extraordinary stories of the late 20th century. I first went there in 1978 (to Madrid) and that country is almost entirely unrecognisable today. Back then the drive from the airport to the city centre was through open country - now it is built up just about all the way. I have a little collection of travel books written about the country in the late 60s and early 70s, and they describe a country that is endemically poor, where nothing works and in which many people in the countryside still get about on mules and in horse drawn carts.
Who would have thought that 40 years later:
- Spain would be the second largest maker of cars in Europe, making 50% more per year than the French, Italians or Brits - Spain would have two world leading tech companies (Amadeus, which does backends the entire airline industry, and Indra, which is number one in air traffic software) - Spain would be home to the biggest clothing retailer in the world - Spanish banks and telecoms companies would dominate South America, and would have great positions in the UK and other places
You should also check out Fractus, based in Barcelona.
I miss the old Spain very much, but I doubt many Spaniards do.
The point about Spanish car industry is well made. SEAT produces cheaper better value VWs. The French are only now trying to solve their over manning and inefficiencies. Sunderland makes more cars than Italy. You have to wonder where production will go if we leave the EU. Re Spain - and Corbyn supporters please take note - the FT says, '' Car executives and union leaders point out that the shift towards wage moderation and flexible working practices was enshrined in a series of collective deals in the early years of the crisis. Ford, for example, struck a five-year deal with its unions in 2009 that Mr Machado believes was instrumental in luring more production to Valencia'
As for French Renault its plant in Spain manufactured 124,944 cars and 1,247,579 engines in 2013 (wiki). It's likely more by now. I'm sure they would like a lot more. And to think that some think its safe and easy to leave the EU.
It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.
*cough*Prestwick*cough*
C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community. You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.
The benchmark for public spending in Scotland is the 'Spin Doctor'.
Does Prestwick cost more or less than Sturgeon's little helpers?
Less , it costs peanuts, they spend more renaming hospitals
I'm reserving judgment until we know whether the government will get its money back.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
Well, fair enough, can't fault you for waiting for the full facts. But the warning signs have been there for a while that things were very far from well in this one:
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
And deservedly so. What a plonker. And questions need to be asked of the Charity Commissioners too.
The whole sector is a racket, and is crying out for some serious investigation and reform. Any organisation on the receiving end of state i.e. our money should be subjected to extreme scrutiny and auditing.
I wonder how many other 'charities' are hoping the spotlight doesn't fall on them this afternoon?
Its just a trough for all the ones that cannot get the direct political / government trough appointments.
I'm surprised Salmond hasn't picked up any juicy roles in that sector. GolfAid, 'Save the Trump', Curry Company - they'd be perfect, if they existed.
Only a crooked person would be surprised. If you thought like an honest Joe you would get it.
Despite popular conceptions, the 70's were actually quite a good decade for most Brits, with rising incomes and consumerism, reductions in inequality etc. That is not to say that there weren't a few problems too!
No they weren't. They were bleedin' awful, with never-ending strikes, violent intimidation, power cuts, companies going bankrupt because of arbitrary exercise of bully power by the dockers or the power workers, the UK declining very fast relative to other similar economies, business paralysed by absurd red tape, management and workers in a permanent state of war, draconian exchange controls, not to mention the ever-present threat of the IRA blowing up innocent civilians, and all the attendant disruption from bomb scares.
The 70s were undoubtedly the worst decade since WWII, by a long chalk. Even at this distance I'm gobsmacked at the transformation achieved by Maggie in just a few years. It really was a different, and not very pleasant, country before her premiership.
And I am often amazed looking back at how much better things were in the seventies and just how much damage the Thatcher experiment did. No doubt the difference in our perceptions is subjective and might be down to our personalities. But the numbers are on my side. As Richard says, living standards grew substantially.
Comments
Much better to take it into some form of administration and govern it yourself for the time being. This is an absolutely appalling piece of work by Letwin and Hancock, and they will be lucky to come out of it with their jobs.
No wonder the SNP think it's good value.
It's a typically Tory balls up.
This sort of move makes sense for the selectorate involved. In the same way, Corbyn should be reinforcing his "open dialogue, it's not all about me" approach to get second prefs from people thinking about giving him a try.
In the absence of any credible Opposition, the Media should be hounding the government until they do.
The 70s were undoubtedly the worst decade since WWII, by a long chalk. Even at this distance I'm gobsmacked at the transformation achieved by Maggie in just a few years. It really was a different, and not very pleasant, country before her premiership.
That good government with workable and cost-effective time scales should be replaced with short-term reactionary policy making?
Utter turnipacy.
If they took the money knowing they were going to close a week later, then they may well have committed fraud.
What that documentary also shows is that IS is also selling the antiquities it is not destroying in order to fund their campaign. By showing films of their destruction they raise the prices of what remains which they are trading.
That puts the civilized world in a bind: if we don't trade in order to at least cut off some of the money flow the art is destroyed. But if we pay they are strengthened.
They are truly evil people who must be utterly defeated and eliminated.
PS: Maggie made the changes by wrecking Scotland and using all our money to fund the changes down south.
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/19044/spectator_magazine_attacks_kids_company_as_a_drain_on_donations
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/19218/three_kids_company_directors_quit_over_conditions_of_extreme_stress
If this has been paid out in wages, it also seems most unlikely that we will get the money back, or at any rate, all of it. Even if there is a case of fraud brought, I doubt if we will recoup it.
So Letwin and Hancock at the very least are facing some very awkward questions.
But anything for a mate of Eck...
This was a charity, of course, and subject to different laws than to those that apply to companies. But there are rules/laws which do apply and it is curious that - so far - there seems to be silence from the Charity Commission, which is meant to police such matters. Maybe things are happening behind the scenes.........
Yes, it's easy with hindsight to say they should not have given the money, but then Kids Company would have closed and blamed the gov. The howls from the Guardian would have been stunning.
Heads you lose. Tails you get blamed.
1. Greed.
2. Stupidity.
3. Complacency.
4. Hubris.
5. Cowardice.
It could be developed into a sort of a Scandal Bingo Card - possibly developed into a sort of updated Monopoly game for our time.
Which is why I think it will be statements made to the government by KC and its directors in the course of securing the £3m which are likely to give rise to criminal charges, if at all. But such a short window is pretty damning - unless today's announcement is effectively a rejection of the £3m? Doesn't sound like it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33785018
Hmmmm....that sounds like the "20 year old" footballer Chancel Mbemba, otherwise known as Four Birthday Fred.
OK, so Blair made a bit of a mess of the second part. At the same time, he is the only Labour leader in the last fifty years to have polled over 40% of the vote. In that time, the Tories have managed it under three somewhat different leaders. Therefore, by 2020 unless something drastic happens Labour have been in power for 19 of those 50 years and the Tories for 31 (26 as sole party in power). Therefore, they have had far more influence on the shape of Britain's society and economy than Labour have.
If I were voting for the leadership of a political party - I'm not - I would first ask (1) how do we get back into power? And only then would I consider what needed to be done when we got there. If I were voting for the chairman of a lobby group, or the moderator of the General Assembly, it would be different. But if parties don't win power, then it doesn't matter what they promise.
As you yourself note, Corbyn isn't electable. Therefore, in voting for him, you and any other member would be accepting that his policies, however attractive, will make no difference to peoples' lives.
I think it's this dichotomy that has handicapped Labour all along. The Conservatives want to win power. Labour want to win it on their terms. Therefore, the Conservatives win power a lot more often.
Your other problem is, of course, that Burnham et al are not exactly stellar candidates themselves - so I can see why you may feel it doesn't make a lot of difference!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33787201
It's yet another small straw in the wind, pointing to a Corbyn victory. No one straw would tell you very much, but they all seem to be floating in the same direction.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9437932/the-trouble-with-kids-company/
That was his decision alone. And a perfectly understandable one, I should hasten to add.
All the Ministers needed was a bit of courage. They should have said (as they said a few weeks ago when they refused money until the Batman women left) that they were concerned about financial management/proper accountability for the taxpayer etc, that they were acting on advice and that no matter how many celebrity backers it had they were not going to be held to ransom by any charity, however winsome, and that they were putting in resources in place to help the children if the charity upped sticks and left or fell down. But that if the celebrity backers and/or the Guardian were that concerned, they were free to put their own money in, of course.
Really, how hard is this stuff?
http://kenelmgrayson.com/beercans/5liter/IMAGES/12PageIMG3-3.jpg
What a lot of amnesia there is in Iran.
The whole sector is a racket, and is crying out for some serious investigation and reform. Any organisation on the receiving end of state i.e. our money should be subjected to extreme scrutiny and auditing.
I wonder how many other 'charities' are hoping the spotlight doesn't fall on them this afternoon?
A trial scheme in Leicestershire meant that people living in odd-numbered homes were treated differently to their neighbours"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11784254/Police-only-investigate-burglaries-at-even-numbered-homes.html
As for England (I'll not speak for the other places) not being a very nice place in the 1970s, even with rose tinted spectacles off, it had a lot going for it and I am not sure, if such a thing were possible, that I would not prefer to live in London in, say, 1975 than London 2015.
As someone said earlier where you chose to stand decides what view you have.
Apparently it made no difference at all to either. I could have guessed that in advance, but it's useful to have hard data to back it up.
That is my list - for work purposes - of the behaviours I often see in cases of fraud and other dishonesty. And they are behaviours which are carried out not just by the bad guys but by the others who could have done or said things which could have stopped the bad guys.
I don't disagree with you re fraud investigation.
Still, if anyone from government is reading PB, they should be grateful fro the pro bono advice I am giving on what they should be doing now. (Mr Gove, please take note.) They certainly need sensible advice.
Almost certainly they are considering what to do to stop this looking bad. And therein lies the reason why we have so many problems. Because rather than try and solve them, we try and manage how they look.
It's Potemkin Politics.
Mr Cameron said...
' and I think the role particularly people like Oliver Letwin and Matt Hancock are playing - there's a great sense of teamwork across the Government and people all know if they're not sure which approach to take it's all in the good book, the manifesto, rather than having to make it up as they go along.'
£3 million would pay the annual wages of over a hundred experienced teachers, who might teach around 3000 children between them. Although I agree about the 'state of mind', I think the cash is of significance too in this case, especially if it came out of the education budget.
EDITED - I said monthly, I meant annual. Sadly we don't earn 30k a month!
The airport, which was bought by Scottish ministers for £1 in November 2013, returned a loss of £4.1m in 2014/15.
Hoisted by your own turnip, Malc ?
I've seen a fair bit of fraud in a work environment - and it's also been about maintaining face when personal performance hasn't met the required standard. So whilst personally benefiting from it directly was most common, in a substantial minority - it was covering up failure. The money was almost incidental.
New thread
"I deserve more money"
"I cannot be seen to make a mistake"
"I don't make mistakes therefore I couldn't have"
"This makes me look good so it must be right"
"I only have to tell this one small lie and everything will be all right"
The rest comes from one of these.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY-PEeX5xYY
Yup, that's the problem
It is also quite convenient because it helps bat away questions about some, ahem, irregularities about the age she was when she was studying for various qualifications and when she was at the various colleges she says she was at.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33787201
1 Tory MEP
15 Tory MSPs
115 Tory councillors
However, without forensic evidence, convictions for burglary would be very few and far between. So without sending the SOCOs in, burglars would get a free pass. Want some cash? Just go and burgle a few houses, the Old Bill don't even bother to investigate the basics. The police in the UK have already withdrawn from investigating white-collar fraud, they have withdrawn from the streets (save so-called public order matters), if they are now to withdraw from investigating domestic burglaries as well then I think we need a fresh look at what they are for, how they are organised and how much we should be paying them.
The French are only now trying to solve their over manning and inefficiencies. Sunderland makes more cars than Italy. You have to wonder where production will go if we leave the EU.
Re Spain - and Corbyn supporters please take note - the FT says, '' Car executives and union leaders point out that the shift towards wage moderation and flexible working practices was enshrined in a series of collective deals in the early years of the crisis. Ford, for example, struck a five-year deal with its unions in 2009 that Mr Machado believes was instrumental in luring more production to Valencia'
As for French Renault its plant in Spain manufactured 124,944 cars and 1,247,579 engines in 2013 (wiki). It's likely more by now. I'm sure they would like a lot more.
And to think that some think its safe and easy to leave the EU.
You prove my point entirely.