The Guardian and other media carry reports that Camila Batmanghelidjh is being, in her opinion, forced to resign from the charity Kids Company.
The government claims that it has demanded her resignation as a condition of continuing support for the charity.
Camila Batmanghelidjh is not happy with that: it is clear that she thinks that she is being asked to resign because of outspoken comments on government cuts that have resulted in a financial crisis at the charity as it has to rapidly downsize the scale of its work.
I am quite willing to believe that there is a crisis at the charity: trying to downsize such organisations when every instinct of the charity is to do more is very hard.
I am equally quite willing to believe that the crisis is imposed by cuts.
What I am very confident of is that government does not like charities it funds criticising its policies. Their logic is that accepting funds buys silence on these issues. It is an extension of the principles of the Gagging Law. And when the current government appears particularly wedded to the idea that charity is about sending food parcels (at best) and not asking why they might be needed the presence of an articulate and well known head of a charity who is openly questioning government policy is the last thing they want.
But we should all be worried. When much government activity is undertaken by charities the message is clear that this sector is expected not to challenge the government, even if it thinks official policy is hindering the prospects of those for whom it undertakes its charitable work. The creeping hand of financial control is extending its reach, and that is a process designed to close down debate on what is needed by those most vulnerable in the UK and elsewhere.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Of course the charity could just be poorly run as suggested by the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33356304
So why has no action been taken then?
And why is it being taken this way when there are proper routes to do it, if it is necessary
The phrase ‘stitch up’ was invented for occasions such as this
Batmanghelidjh is an extraordinary advocate for change and social justice which is why the Government would want rid of her and has probably used bully tactics to do so. No doubt she will be replaced with a faceless yes person/brown-noser who is willing to sup with the devil.
The idea that a charity is neutral is an oxymoron, of course and yet another sign of 19th Century 2.0 on its way without the munificence!
So what’s new?
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist.” Cardinal Helder Camara of Brazil, prominent exponent of liberation theology.
Remembering that it was a particularly nasty Brazilian dictatorship that criticised Camara in this way, we realise once again exactly what trajectory we’re on!
We are once again thrust up against the painful awareness of just how much Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband (for both of whom I otherwise have great respect) let down the UK, by failing to defeat the current Tory Party, which is developing into the most destructive administration at least in living memory, and for me, in 200 years.
Yes, destructive and yes, a rapid trajectory. And sorry my health agenda again which feeds into this.
Birmingham ICC 9th July, budget time, so you might miss it.
U k,s premier healthcare procurement event of the year, the supply chain in the NHS.
It’s quite simple – charities are not allowed to engage in political activity. If she has been doing o on behalf of a charitable body, then she is wrong and must go.
Charities are explicitly allowed to undertake political activity
They are not allowed to do party politics
Please get your facts right
Some people – NeilT being an example – really DO have a warped view of politics, which is about how we organize society, so that, for example, by its VERY existence Barnardo’s was “political”, because it sought to ameliorate the harshness of 19th century society, and will have led its founder to clash with ALL governments of whatever persuasion.
To adopt the NeilT view of “politics” would mean charities could only smile sweetly, wave their hands to the watching crowd, like some minor royal, and be forbidden to DO anything that had ANY effect on society – which, incidentally, is largely to role of minor royals in reality, who have struck a bargain with society that we support them financially, at the cost of their not participating actively in politics (though even there there have been examples of e.g. Princess Anne being quite forthright on behalf of the Save the Children Fund, of which she was President).
I’m reminded of Bishop Desmond Tutu’s riposte to those who said religion and politics don’t mix, and shouldn’t mix – a similar view on religion, to NeilT’s view on the role of charities: Bishop Tutu asked them which Bible these commentators had been reading, because, he said, the Bible he knows is full of a passionate concern for justice and the care of the poor and marginalised. A “political” stance, though not a Party political one.
It’s the old “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If the peerless Camila Batmanghelidjh says nothing, people will accuse her of timidity; if she says anything, she will be accused of meddling in what she doesn’t understand, and should get back to her “proper role”.
Well, her proper role is “speaking truth to power”, and if power don’t like it, stuff them! they are only demonstrating their moral vacuity.
Speaking truth to power has always been a way to trouble
Many Quakers spent time in prison for it
Here’s a topical example of politics and religion mixing as Catholics write in dismay to the supposedly Catholic Iain Duncan-Smith about the damage his policies are causing http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/21853
Good letter
Or could it just be that the Kids Company has serious questions to ask about it’s financial management and results, going back to 2008 – under the Laobur government.
So why has no action been taken then?
Or are you just making allegations up?
The accusations were made by members of Kids Company’s own staff, and a woman who donated a large sum of money to them. And the 3 directors who quit over conerns regarding the running over the charity. It’s in the public domain should you have chosen to look.
And if this was too do with her outspoken views opposing the government, why did Cameron personally overrule a previous cut to their funding?
Maybe you aren’t aware that such splits are commonplace in charities
Was anything proven?
If so, is the Charity Commission taking action?
If not, what are you saying that isn’t libellous?
Not sure if anything was proven, but the lady who made a large donation has reported them to the charity commission.
Oh, and given all the information I gave is already in the public domain, it’s a pretty long stretch to suggest what I have said is in any way libellous.
The ponit you are really trying to make is “nasty uncaring Tory government” but the reality suggests that maybe the charity is simply not very well run, and is not offering value for money. Just because it’s a charity doesn’t mean it should be funded by government.
The point I am making is one that all in the charity sector know – that this government will not allow criticism
“Campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake. Legal requirement: however, political campaigning, or political activity, as defined in this guidance, must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity”
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434427/CC9_LowInk.pdf
Quite so
Political activity is allowed
The report only gives Ms Batmanghelidjh’s side of the story, plus ‘unnamed sources’.
Hard to know what is going on, but I bet there is more to it.
And if is true that their grant funding is been withdrawn as a response to criticism: what government in history has been happy to continue grant funding a critic? Acquiescence has often been a price for a slice of the pie.
I’ve said this to you before Richard: if you have bigger government, you then get a bigger proportion of the population who must keep their mouths shut to safeguard their livelihoods.
The BBC was full of the other side
The rest of what you say is nonsense
I am confused why you say it is nonsense.
You discuss a piece where government acted vindictively against a critic. Maybe that’s the explanation of what happened, maybe it isn’t. Who knows.
Elected officials and senior bureaucrats are culturally sensitive to criticism.
This is consistent with your point.
And are you aware that a lot of public sector roles are politically sensitive? Mine is. There is no way I can let my colleagues know my political views – whether at work or in the pub. No way. Call me a coward but I have a family to support.
So if government is given a bigger role in society, won’t we just have fewer people with the courage to speak out, out of protection of their livelihoods?
Charities are not the public sector
And they are allowed political opinion
But not party political opinion
In fact, many cannot do their work without political opinion
So what point are you trying to make?
The point I am trying to make is: if they let themselves fall too far within the patronage of the public sector (as Ms Batmanghelidjh’s charity appeared to do), they’ll be expected to watch what they say. Regardless of what’s permitted under the Charities Act.
That’s how big governments of all flavours have worked since year dot. I doubt the Pharaohs doled out huge amounts of cash to people who criticised them.
Politicians and public servants are sensitive to public criticism (aren’t we all?) and expect grant recipients to treat them as patrons.
And I disagree
Public servants who act in this way breach their duties
I sincerely hope you do not do so, but do not live in hope
“Public servants who act in this way breach their duties”
Sure. That’s what the textbook says, and therefore I’m sure that’s what people do. Ms Batmanghelidjh’s experience must be a one-off.
My small record of achievement in this is to amend a standard Council grant agreement that had previously forbidden ANY political activity with use of the grant funds. I amended it to allow political advocacy, but not the endorsement or criticism of a party or politician. So I do have some principles!
But having worked on dozens of grants, the recipients do tend to treat us deferentially as patrons (I can’t think of an example where this wasn’t so). That’s how life is when someone is giving you money. Doff your hat!
If you are a paying customer (the one with the money) and you went to a restaurant and the owner started slagging you off, wouldn’t you take your money elsewhere?
These are not commercial relationships
What do you want next? Tips? Be careful how you reply
You are right – they are not commercial arrangements.
Commercial arrangements involve payment in return for goods or services.
Grants are payment in return for, well, nothing in particular.
So when it comes to negotiating grants, the bargaining imbalance is probably more acute than in a commercial, 2-way exchange.
I’d like to think my colleagues and I act professionally in our dealings with grant recipients (have seen the odd imperious bod – the old RDAs were the worst, the NHS can produce some characters). But there is never any delusion that they need us more than we need them.
Maybe my restaurant analogy was unclear. We (the government) are the diner, the grant recipient is the waiter. We don’t want tips, the waiter does. That (sort of) describes the pecking order of things.
(And if you’re suggesting we want ‘tips’ for grants – never seen or been part of a bung personally, but we’d be naïve to think it didn’t go on).
I know all about grants
No one has given me one has never in any way behaved as you suggest you think you and your colleagues do
Not once
What does that say?
I suspect the difference in our experience is what we’ve each done over the past decade.
I’ve worked almost exclusively in the public sector and have worked on loads of grants – most as the granting body, some as the grant recipient (ERDF, RGF, Life, various quangos such as Sport England, Arts Council etc).
You’ve worked entirely in the private sector, so your only experience with public sector grants could only be as an occasional recipient.
Different experience, different perspective.
If you know as much about public sector grants as you say, no doubt you will be able to answer this question: what is the difference between a procurement and a grant?
I don’t play silly games
If you want to go and play elsewhere
Your question if fatuous
“Your question if fatuous”
I’m writing a note for my Assistant Director on the question right now (Saturday afternoon). It’s a topical and important question – goes to the heart to the way public money gets dispersed, particularly within local communities, third sector etc.
How do we get money out the door without having to go through formal tenders?
I don’t expect you to know the answer (but would have found it helpful if you had some thoughts). I’m a little stunned you couldn’t at least appreciate the importance of the question.
Anyway, thanks for the chance to have a discussion. Back to work…
As written your question was patronising and fatuous
The question you are answering does not relate to the manner in which you posed it to me
I’d suggest your boss has asked the wrong person
Well this is very promising!
Now that the government is so actively pursuing the righting of any wayward members of charities whom they feel are not managing finances properly, we should very soon have brand new top level management across entire swaths of the banking sector too! I mean, the government DID bail them out of certain failure didn’t they? They have a HUGE stake in how things are run now, so obviously will protect the people’s investment in them.
I wonder if they will let her keep her massive bonus though….
“What I am very confident of is that government does not like charities”
But you, Richard, don’t like charities either.
On an earlier forum you said charity was patronising.
Have you changed your mind on that?
You really don’t get context do you?