Rough Kids – Rough Love.
It was a stroke of genius, ten years ago, for Ms Camila Batmanghelidjh to invite documentary maker, Lynn Alleyway, into her multi-coloured harem to film her charitable work with underprivileged kids – ‘Tough Kids – Tough Love‘. It broadcast widely her seductive message of ‘give generously, money can solve all these problems’.
It was an act of madness to invite her back, ten years later, on what proved to be the eve of the charity’s destruction, to film the famous harem’s disintegration as the multi-coloured props were packed away amid recriminations, lies, and victim blaming.
Camila feels let down; ‘why shouldn’t poor people have nice things’ she wailed querulously when the intrusive cameras filmed her swimming pool, paid for by charitable donations. A nation shouted back – ‘because you’re not poor for a start’.
Alleyway started as a supporter; her voice was crackling with dismay and disillusionment as she realised she had a ringside seat filming a narcissistic manipulator on her way to the gallows. She dimmed the lights as she filmed ‘Annie’, in her well shod flat with expensive gizmos, but nothing could hide the fact that she was filming a woman that Camila claimed would ‘fall apart’ without Kid’s Company money to subsidise her desire to paint plastic eggs all day – and still pay the rent, buy new sofas, refit the kitchen…
Ms Batmanghelidjh’s downfall follows a familiar path – built up by the media as an exotic ‘picture-editor friendly’ icon, with charitable intentions, torn down and sent into disgrace in a whirlpool of sexual allegations. Last night’s documentary was an object lesson in why not to court the fickle media…
I do believe that Camila’s downfall was caused by the media – but not in the way she believes.
Camila thought that being a ‘good parent’, which was what she thought those kids needed, was shown by ‘buying things’. That idea in itself is a product of the media. The media’s desire to sell advertising. ‘Here’s a new thing that you want’. Nobody had swallowed that message more than Camila.
Our homes are overflowing with things that we ‘wanted’ a few months ago. Our landfill sites are overflowing with the things that we ‘wanted’ last year. We live in a welfare state where no one needs to starve on the street – but it’s not enough, not for food and all the things that we are told we ‘want’. Our economy is in trouble and allegedly it’s our fault; we are not wanting fast enough, thoroughly enough…
I have been both grindingly poor – I really did possess no shoes at one point; my solution was to call myself a hippy and make a feature of my bare feet. Eventually, hitchhiking, somewhere, sometime, someone with size eight feet took pity on me and gave me a pair of flip flops – I promptly tripped over them and sprained my ankle. Now I could afford as many pairs of shoes as Imelda Marcos if I wanted, a different price range perchance – but size 8s are hard to come by, so my shoe box rattles! I am neither happier nor was I sadder shoeless.
Camila believes that she has been ‘crushed’ by middle class values dictating ‘what poor people should have’. In truth, Camila is the larger than life embodiment of ‘middle class values’ – the idea that you can feed children objects from shops; expensive trainers, mobile phones, iPods, and that this qualifies as ‘parenting’.
There was a touching story doing the rounds the other day of a Mother who had watched another mother for ten years, walking her children to school, playing with them, talking to them, cooking for them – until guilt overtook her, and she gave up her job to spend time with her own children, and was now trying to make contact with the women who had so inspired her.
There was nothing wrong with Camila’s idea that these kid’s desperately needed a form of parenting; time, interest in their lives, mentoring. That she and her band of supporters could have done for ever – and been supported to do so charitably. A wage bill and rent was all that was required.
It was translating that into a requirement for multiple millions to provide those children with everything that every misguided middle-class parent palms their child off with, in preference to their time, that was wrong.
Quite why the media sought to publicise her charity to destruction and not any of several others is a mystery though, that can only be explained by Camila producing such wonderful photographic copy.
£42 million, we are told, over and over again, is the ‘disgraceful sum’ that we poor taxpayers poured into the utterly undeserving charity – Kid’s Company.
I have yet to see the main stream media even mention the £10 million that taxpayers poured into a charity you have probably never heard of – Awema.
Awema was also set up to give money to underprivileged black people across Wales, rather than colourful and right-on Brixton. The story has never left Wales; no documentaries, no high falutin’ journalists, no Public Accounts Committee. Just a sordid court case in Swansea Crown Court, where Naz Malik found himself defending, amongst other charges, his use of the charity’s money to pay a parking ticket…
Put Niz Malik in Matthew Kelly’s pantomime Dame outfit – and you might have heard about it. He just wasn’t photogenic enough.
The media don’t just orchestrate the values by which children are raised – they get to decide who or what you are scandalised by.
- David
February 4, 2016 at 10:01 am -
It is wrong that our ‘economy’ depends on us buying, ‘things’. Adverts on TV for new couches, kitchens, baths, insurance etc, have largely replaced the adverts ‘washing powders’, and ‘washing up liquid’. The biggest change to the economy though are the adverts aimed at children. It seemed different years ago, when rich, and poor children didn’t really mix together. Rich kids went to prep schools, with other rich kids, and poor kids went to local state schools with other, mostly poor kids. Now though, with more television, and the rise of the ‘I’m richer than you’, society, poor kids are taunted by the richer ones with ‘better’ mobile phones, trainers, designer clothes.
I have some sympathy that Camila wanted to be a fairy Godmother to these kids, as in the Ciderella story, giving them a chance to feel good about themselves. I agree that children should not have to compete like their parents in the consumer economy. Perhaps schools should ban designer clothes, mobile phones, tablets, and ‘boasting’ !! - English Pensioner
February 4, 2016 at 11:37 am -
Children need adults to talk to and listen to them. Our teenage daughter had a friend who came from a very wealthy family, she had anything that she wanted except her parents at home to talk to. She often came round to our house, and even when the girls fell out, as teenagers do, she still came to talk to my wife who in many ways helped bring her up through her teenage years. They moved away so we never discovered what happened in the long term, but my wife has the satisfaction of knowing she helped this girl whose her father was always away on business and whose mother was involved with so many local organisations that she never had time for her daughter. Money certainly isn’t all that a child needs.
- JuliaM
February 4, 2016 at 11:46 am -
Hmmm, comments with links in don’t seem to appear?
- Peter Raite
February 4, 2016 at 11:57 am -
I only managed to watch the first half hour off the hard-drive, as I got in late, but that was more than enough to confirm what I already thought was at the heart of Kids COmpany’s problems.
Rather than genuinely “helping” its “clients,” it had merely made them eternally dependent on the charity, and “Annie” was the perfect illustration for this. All her past issues aside, it still comes down to her being materially supported enough to pursue her creative endeavours at her leisure, in a manner that many creative people would envy. To her credit, she was clearly capable of keeping her Kids Company-funded flat in good order – regardless of whether or not there genuinely was someone else living there, as claimed – but the oppulence of the accomodation was staggering. Watch Home Under the Hammer and the presenters are frequently keen to point out when a would-be renter has done up a property above and beyond “a good standard.” Annie’s flat looked like an overdone show home. No Argos own-brand toasters there.
Another eye-opener also related to accomodation, but of a different kind. Previously the media has frequently shown us the “Kids COmpany offices,” nestled behind the terraced houses in Kenbury Street, Camberwell, SE5 9BS – a rather ramshackle but gaily painted collection of buildings that clearly had some sort of industrial past life. We saw them again in last night’s documentary, but we also saw the Jumble-Sale-on-Legs waddling into somewhat plusher premises. No less than Wedge House 38-40 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NZ. Now, I don’t think anyone needs to even live in London to appreciate the different cost implications of office accomodation in the back streets of a deprived borough in the south of the capital, and central premises slap next to a major railway station. And, my, but didn’t Camilla have a lovely piece of dead wood for a desk?!
There was also some very interesting body language on display on the part of many of the Kids Company staff, particularly those ensconced at Blackfriars. I kept expecting Alexander Armstrong to appear and interject, “Can I just check – this isn’t a cult, is it?”
- Margaret Jervis
February 4, 2016 at 1:43 pm -
Certainly the ‘2nd generation’ case seemed a bit cultlike – or else the 1st was an abject failure.
Wonder how many devotees she has now – since the the public tap of private readies has been cult off?
Note the doc did not include Camila’s VIP paedo ring allegations.
And what exactly was the miraculous ‘therapy’ outside the readies that was being carried out?
RE other charities – I wonder why Peter ‘Holocaust’ Saunders stepped down suddenly as CEO of NAPAC last year to become ‘founder and spokesperson?’ – sounds a bit like ‘ambassador’ doesn’t it?
- Margaret Jervis
- Mr Pooter
February 4, 2016 at 1:12 pm -
I supose we working-class children in the pre-war depression years were in today’s terms “underprivileged”, much more so indeed, at least as regards material possessions, than Ms Batmanghelidjh’s young charges. But most of us were blessed with good parents and we did grow up reasonably literate and numerate, unlike today’s English youth who, according to last week’s OECD report, came lowest for literacy and next to lowest for numeracy out of 23 developed countries. What a shameful state of affairs for a once proud nation!
- windsock
February 4, 2016 at 2:14 pm -
I don’t think things are much different, to be honest.
I have worked with some “challenging” people (in their late teens/early 20s) who definitely missed the parental loveboat, in terms of attention, care, boundaries, schooling etc, but at the same time I have met some astonishing young people who have exceeded my hopes of what I might expect of them – and not middle class either, but working class (in that both parents held down not very well paid jobs). Wasn’t it ever thus and won’t it always be?
- Mudplugger
February 4, 2016 at 4:29 pm -
But there was a key difference in Mr Pooter’s day, and mine – it was choices.
In my poor, working-class, upbringing in the 1950s, my parents simply didn’t have the funds to pamper me with presents, or to pamper themselves with a social life – if you’ve got nothing, then you’ve also not got choices. Their only choice was to spend time, rather than money, ‘parenting’ in the widest sense, hence we grew up reading, writing and being numerate, but without any of the bling toys and designer togs.
In the more modern era everyone, even the alleged ‘poor’, has vastly greater monetary resources available; the problem comes when they exercise their facility of choice and choose to use bling-gifting to evade real parenting. But at least they’ve got a choice now. Many ‘poor’ parents still manage to raise good kids, and many wealthy ones fail – it’s about finally having the power of choice, and then choosing well. I’d like to think that my parents would still have parented well even if they’d had modern-day money levels, but I’ll never know for sure.
- Mudplugger
- windsock
- Oi you
February 4, 2016 at 1:57 pm -
I was hoping you would fisk this. I was tempted to watch the BBC documentary, but knew I would loose my rag and start throwing things at the screen or worse throw the whole thing out the window. The chance that my elderly but serviceable telly would hit someone on the head, was too great a risk to take, so I turned over to another channel.
- Peter Raite
February 4, 2016 at 3:26 pm -
My wife turned in earlier than I did, having grown increasingly exasperated at CB and her antics. Mrs R taught in Peckham for a number of years during Kids Company’s “lifetime,” yet for all the challenging kids she had to deal with, she never saw hide no hair of the organisation, and nor has she anywhere else she has taught in the capital.
- Peter Raite
- Peter Raite
February 4, 2016 at 3:33 pm -
Something else that struck me in the documentary was how incredibly two-faced Batmanghelidjh was, schmoozing up to those who she needed with one breath, and then being patronising/insulting about them in the next. I wonder whether she will have even fewer friends left after so many of them (I’m looking at you, Yentob!) see what faces she pulls out them in their absence.
- leady
February 4, 2016 at 3:56 pm -
No entity should be allowed to call itself a charity if its taking coerced tax money in any form or circumstance.
- Andrew Duffin
February 5, 2016 at 11:38 am -
+1
- Andrew Duffin
- Fat Steve
February 4, 2016 at 4:04 pm -
Anna , To me this is you at your very best cutting through the obfustication by all the parties ( Camila, Yentob, the Government, the Media and the ‘Clients’) and hitting the bullseye with a critique of the Kid’s Company ‘model’ and the ‘product’ it seems designed (whether deliberately or not) to produce.
Forget for the moment whether Camila is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person , whether she is selfless or self serving , competent or incompetent, and look at outcomes …..the actual outcome of the Charity being in liquidation but much more importantly the outcome for the ‘Clients’ when it existed and if it had survived the outcomes that would have been achieved.
The thing that struck me about the ‘model’ was how it seemed to foster resentment and envy …..the I want and am entitled if others have it attitude , as you put it in different language a reinforcement rather than encouragement to question the ‘value’ of the thing itself to the individual ……. but above all else passivity,and as you so astutely observed, pushed the notion that ‘poverty’ could ‘simply’ be overcome buying ‘things’,
‘Poverty’ is a complex issue and I speculate financial poverty is just one strand of poverty in its broadest and real sense. You are quite right that poverty has come to mean an inability to buy and consume ‘things’ but I venture impoverishment is the better word connoting notions of lack of choice …….pushing consumerism as the only legitimate ‘choice’ pretty much guarantees comparative poverty for life and limits aspirations.,…..a prism which filters out notions of ‘doing’ refracting only notions of ‘owning’ ‘Doing’ anything is legitimate only as a means to an end of ‘owning’ something. This of course reinforces notions that status/ respect / happiness /meaning in life is reducible and measurable in terms of money.
Camila appears to be waaay behind the curve in addressing modern notions of poverty . She should look beyond economic poverty and look at issues of building social and cultural capital for the individual ‘client’ …..being handed a brown envelope, painting egg boxes and being served food in a canteen is I suggest perpetuating ‘modern’ poverty.
On a ‘gut’ level though I found Camilla and Alan Yentob’s attitude reeked of arrogance not so disimilar to Lord Lucan (the one who ordered the charge of the Light Brigade) who remarked after it (so it is said) ‘Its not my fault’ ,,,,of itself perhaps unremarkable ……but it was thought he genuinely believed it. I really got the idea that Camila and Yentob , members of the new aristocracy, genuinely believed any reproach was tantamount to insolence, ignorance and lese majeste.As I grow older I wonder if the prime objective of any aristocracy once it has achieved its position in any Society is not to put in place systems that leads to its perpetuation…..the mushroom farming approach to humanity…. ‘keep them in the dark and feed them shit’ . - theyfearthehare
February 4, 2016 at 4:40 pm -
I suppose you have to ask the question, why do governments actually fund these charities, and the standard response is generally that these charities provide support more efficiently, and at a lower cost than the public sector can.
Ms B is clearly as mad as a box of frogs, and I am confident that most people would consider the charity and its trustees dysfunctional by any reasonable standards, HOWEVER someone in authority originally believed, and continued to believe that they were providing a much needed service, and furthermore, that Kids Company were providing that service more efficiently and effectively than anyone else.
The only relevant question as far as I am concerned is was that actually true ? I suspect it isnt, and I suspect that noone had even the most basic metrics in place to monitor outcomes, but if Ms B is as mad as a box of frogs, what does that make the people who fascillitated this fiasco by funding her for the last 20 years ?
Maybe 50% of tax payers money they recieved was totally wasted lining the pockets of local street dealers, but then again, what percentage of government expenditure is wasted in other area’s, its just a different class of recipient who benefits
- Don Cox
February 4, 2016 at 6:59 pm -
Many of us, but politicians in particular, are easily deceived by manipulative people.
The easiest person to sell to is a salesman, and the easiest to con is a con merchant.
- Peter Raite
February 5, 2016 at 10:08 am -
The unfortunate reality is that charities can often only do something cheaper than the public or the private sector because they rely on a lot of volunteers giving up their time for free. Given the stated number of 650 employees, Kids Company’s wage bill of £800,000 per month equates to £1,230 per person, which is pretty low for London. I suspect that a lot of people were actually working part-time on paper and working longer hours in reality, in addition to more than nine thousand volunteers.
- AndyM
February 5, 2016 at 1:40 pm -
If memory serves me correctly, the civil servants didn’t want to fund her, and made sure the politicians took responsibility, which at the time was portrayed as a highly unusual step. They clearly thought money was not being spent wisely.
- Don Cox
- walter
February 4, 2016 at 5:14 pm -
Camila Batmanghelidjh her father wrote a book the bodys many cries for water, they say he was a fraud but i think too many of us are dehydrated!
- Eric Hardcastle
February 7, 2016 at 3:06 am -
It’s not something that occurred to me : the body requires water. Shouldn’t this message be dispensed to drought affected Africa and the locals told they should just try harder and drink more?
- Eric Hardcastle
- Frankie
February 5, 2016 at 1:27 am -
I’m waiting for CB to be clapped in irons…
I have no doubt that most if not all those employees thought/believed that they were doing their best for the downtrodden but…something definitely stinks – all that money just vanished like ‘a fart in the wind’.
Dysfunctional does not begin to describe it.
- macheath
February 5, 2016 at 2:06 pm -
‘a fart in the wind’ – I do hope that Elton John is even now composing a suitable ballad around the phrase for when CB – the People’s Largesse – finally pops her clogs.
Brava, Ms Raccoon, for addressing the matter with such perception.
- macheath
- Eric Hardcastle
February 7, 2016 at 3:09 am -
Camila correctly read the media : they require lots of Colour & Movement when applying the Three Card Monty Trick. She failed to understand that just as your rise can make good copy, so can your fall & destruction. The media always win.
- Stonyground
February 9, 2016 at 7:55 am -
Funny how easy it is to be generous with somebody else’s money.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }