They are innocent..

[vetran]

More of a technicality. From your link.

The judge found that Ms Batmanghelidjh was not a “de facto director” of the charity so could not be subject to disqualification proceedings

Don't think it is unreasonable that someone asks where the 42 million given to one of Cameron's cronies went. Just because she wasn't at Eton let us not question why a charity went bust with 3million from the government days before the end.

I am always pleased to see judges declare people completely innocent it is so rare because frequently they will be made to eat their words.


Here is the entre from the Slaver

Kids Company: a charity so toxic everyone who supported it is tainted | Kids Company | The Guardian

I watched the Public Administration Committee hearing into Kids Companywith an increasing sense of disbelief. The amounts of money flowing into the charity from celebrity backers, philanthropists and government was just staggering.Between 2009 and 2013, its income increased from £13m to £23m. A£3m Cabinet Office grantwas given to Kids Company just days before it collapsed. This is a sum of which most charities could only dream.

watched the Public Administration Committee hearing into Kids Company with an increasing sense of disbelief. The amounts of money flowing into the charity from celebrity backers, philanthropists and government was just staggering.
Between 2009 and 2013, its income increased from £13m to £23m. A £3m Cabinet Office grant was given to Kids Company just days before it collapsed. This is a sum of which most charities could only dream.

[Whorty]

Why does CUK allow this sexism? Oh I forgot, women are always right. Is it just because its making up for thousands of years when women were repressed? I am sure this language will help.

There were several false allegations of sexual abuse. Harvey Procter. Leon Brittan. I looked up Leon Brittan and the most recent article on him was only reported by the Daily Mail ( Leon Brittan's widow breaks silence over Met's 'moral failure' in child sex abuse probe | Daily Mail Online ). The Guardian won't report anything that does not fit their narrow sexist agenda. And its the same with CUK.

If you want to end sexism you need the support of men and women. Which you do from the vast majority of men. Why not encourage them instead of villifying them?

You should get a one day ban in there was any justice. But knowing CUK, I will probably get the ban instead. Yes - I know - I'm a man - its all my fault.

I didn't read 'guys' as men, but a general term for CUK posters. I use that term a lot whether talking to men or women. When I Zoom chat with Mrs W's 2 besties I greet them .... "hi guys, how you both doing" - neither have assumed I think they're having/have had a sex change.

Although in the context of what SE has said, I believe it is mostly men on here (the same, obvious bigoted suspects as usual) so even if SE was using 'guys' as in men, she's actually factually correct as I'm pretty sure no CUK lady posters have attacked the reported innocents.

Happy to be proven wrong.

[NotAllThere]

Why does CUK allow this sexism? Oh I forgot, women are always right. Is it just because its making up for thousands of years when women were repressed? I am sure this language will help.

There were several false allegations of sexual abuse. Harvey Procter. Leon Brittan. I looked up Leon Brittan and the most recent article on him was only reported by the Daily Mail ( Leon Brittan's widow breaks silence over Met's 'moral failure' in child sex abuse probe | Daily Mail Online ). The Guardian won't report anything that does not fit their narrow sexist agenda. And its the same with CUK.

If you want to end sexism you need the support of men and women. Which you do from the vast majority of men. Why not encourage them instead of villifying them?

You should get a one day ban in there was any justice. But knowing CUK, I will probably get the ban instead. Yes - I know - I'm a man - its all my fault.

Top early morning rant. Now calm down and make the missus a cup of tea. Man, know your place!

[BrilloPad]

The fat women, most of you guys like insulting who was born premature so with medical issues

Why does CUK allow this sexism? Oh I forgot, women are always right. Is it just because its making up for thousands of years when women were repressed? I am sure this language will help.

There were several false allegations of sexual abuse. Harvey Procter. Leon Brittan. I looked up Leon Brittan and the most recent article on him was only reported by the Daily Mail ( Leon Brittan's widow breaks silence over Met's 'moral failure' in child sex abuse probe | Daily Mail Online ). The Guardian won't report anything that does not fit their narrow sexist agenda. And its the same with CUK.

If you want to end sexism you need the support of men and women. Which you do from the vast majority of men. Why not encourage them instead of villifying them?

You should get a one day ban in there was any justice. But knowing CUK, I will probably get the ban instead. Yes - I know - I'm a man - its all my fault.

[SueEllen]

The fat women, most of you guys like insulting who was born premature so with medical issues, and the other directors of Kids Company are innocent.

Bid to ban Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh and trustees fails in High Court | Evening Standard


The founder and trustees of former children’s charity Kids Company have been exonerated by a High Court judge after an failed attempt to bar them from being company directors in the future.

The charity, which supported vulnerable children and young people in London and Bristol, collapsed in 2015 amid claims of financial impropriety and allegations of historic sexual abuse.

A police investigation into abuse and exploitation allegations – first raised by BBC’s Newsnight – at Kids Company was eventually dropped seven months later.

Proceedings were brought in the High Court against the Kids Company founder Camila Batmanghelidjh and seven trustees, including former BBC creative director Alan Yentob.

They were accused of overseeing an “unsustainable business model” as the charity’s financial circumstances grew increasingly dire, and allegedly failed to act to try to prevent the charity’s collapse.


But Mrs Justice Falk today dismissed the case, hailing the efforts of the Kids Company leadership to try to survive and concluding the charity would not have closed if the initial allegations had not hit the news.

“The charity sector depends on there being capable individuals with a range of different skills who are prepared to take on trusteeship roles. Most charities would, I would think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess”, said the judge.

“It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees.”

She said disqualification proceedings were “not warranted” in this case, adding that court battles without proper merits “deter many talented individuals who take the trouble to understand and appreciate the risks either from charitable trusteeship at all.”

“The public need no protection from them”, she said. “On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for the care and commitment they showed in highly challenging circumstances.”

The judge found that Ms Batmanghelidjh was not a “de facto director” of the charity so could not be subject to disqualification proceedings, going on to praise the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years and what she managed to achieve in building a charity which, until 2014, was widely regarded as a highly successful one doing what senior members of the government rightly described as incredible work.

“It would be unfortunate if the events the focus of this decision were allowed to eclipse those achievements.”

Kids Company and the work of Ms Batmanghelidjh had received praise from across the political and celebrity worlds, including words of support from then-Prime Minister David Cameron.

The government had agreed to a bail out grant just before the charity closed, after it had struggled to cope with a dramatic increase in demand for its services.

The charity had reached out to wealthy benefactors and put in place a survival plan, but was derailed by the media allegations and criminal investigation.

The judge added in her ruling that there were no allegations in the case of “dishonesty, bad faith, inappropriate personal gain or any other want of probity against any of the defendants”.

A statement from Kids Company former trustees Alan Yentob, Richard Handover, Francesca Robinson, Jane Tyler, Andrew Webster, Erica Bolton, Vincent O’Brien welcomed today’s ruling, saying: “We are pleased that finally the facts have been gathered and assessed in a court of law, and that Mrs Justice Falk has exonerated both the former trustees and Kids Company CEO, Camila Batmanghelidjh"