Thursday 12th November 2015

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 7:37 pm

The comments below the line under Toynbee's social care article were mostly rude, inhumane, inaccurate...depressing.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 7:52 pm

Re. HMRC office closures -
Universal Credit will collapse if this happens, IMHO. As it is, people who work and claim working tax credits, or who just get child tax credits, have to declare a change of circumstances when it happens; for many people, that is not every month.
Under UC, it will be - working people, their employers, DWP, and HMRC (plus the LA if the HB element is involved) must update the system every 4 weeks (or every calendar month depending on the benefit/department) in real time.
People claiming the JSA or ESA elements will be expected to take any work they are offered (or ordered to do), and for some of them that might just be a few days or hours - that could scupper a claim for weeks on end.

We know that UC is, according to Nosferatu, "working" - but what we don't know is how many claims are being processed by DWP manually, or how many HB/LHA clams are also being processed manually (it was all of them at one point).
When you add HMRC to the mix, it gets even more complicated - and as many of us know, they are very inefficient as it is and almost impossible to contact by phone, totally impossible by email, and very slow to respond to letters.
The closures will be touted as efficiency - but even where staff are re-deployed, there are not going to be enough posts for them all; people are going to lose their jobs as if enough people haven't already.

Re. IDS and the great council house giveaway....this is something he slipped out a few months ago. He wanted to "gift" council homes to people on out-of-work benefits. The idea seems to be that they are given a 70% stake of the equity, then pay rent to the council for the other 30%.
This, IDS reckons, will cut the HB bill.
Obviously, if you are out of work and claiming benefits, you qualify for HB provided you do not have savings or assets above a certain level - the HB would only be applicable to rent for the equity held by the council; so in theory, the HB for this group of people would be cut by 70% and IDS probably thinks he'd save a few billion.
But nothing is that simple - plus, imagine the backlash from working people, paying through the nose to a private landlord, who cannot even dream of a council house to rent, let alone to buy....and never ever to be just "gifted" to them.

This country has gone completely mad.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 7:52 pm

Sky News ‏@SkyNews 10m10 minutes ago
Defence firm BAE Systems axes up to 371 jobs http://trib.al/hJoK4HD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 7:53 pm

A bit of an aside to some of your posts RR. Looking back to the grand announcements on TV of the Big Society tosh, and. how this company and that personality and the other organisation it seems as though very few actually came off well in reputation, most lost the respect of anyone eho needed to access their services quite early on, and some of them have even moved to other shores either to hide eir ill-gottens or ply their tainted trades elsewhere. Closer to home though, I was just reminded of a once developing set of charities. By that I mean they were in the process of moving from charitable paternalism or paternatistic charity, something like that anyway, though if you use maternal it doesn't work the same way but of course there are lots of women also being very charitable, too, and towards really starting to work with their client groups rather than blindly delivering what they thought was best.

As someone mentioned to me when discussing what later happened, " they went from being our primary representation to being the tools of our oppression".

All those training companies, all the dodgy contracts, the terrible decision making, but he had these people on board all ready to let loose on the country. He must have done a hard sell on them, but some didn't survive the influx of such large sums of money, the vast contracts. Most of it has fallen apart or come unstuck to some degree, in time most of the rest will too, I think. What we will be left with is the food banks. And presumably the mess.

Rowson did a great cartoon not long ago in which the ravaged steel works occupy the left horizon, and three immense fur cups occupy the right horizon, looming a bit. He never includes unintentional things, and is very astute. My apologies, I'm not really good at holding to a single point.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 7:59 pm

seeingclearly wrote:A bit of an aside to some of your posts RR. Looking back to the grand announcements on TV of the Big Society tosh, and. how this company and that personality and the other organisation it seems as though very few actually came off well in reputation, most lost the respect of anyone eho needed to access their services quite early on, and some of them have even moved to other shores either to hide eir ill-gottens or ply their tainted trades elsewhere. Closer to home though, I was just reminded of a once developing set of charities. By that I mean they were in the process of moving from charitable paternalism or paternatistic charity, something like that anyway, though if you use maternal it doesn't work the same way but of course there are lots of women also being very charitable, too, and towards really starting to work with their client groups rather than blindly delivering what they thought was best.

As someone mentioned to me when discussing what later happened, " they went from being our primary representation to being the tools of our oppression".

All those training companies, all the dodgy contracts, the terrible decision making, but he had these people on board all ready to let loose on the country. He must have done a hard sell on them, but some didn't survive the influx of such large sums of money, the vast contracts. Most of it has fallen apart or come unstuck to some degree, in time most of the rest will too, I think. What we will be left with is the food banks. And presumably the mess.

Rowson did a great cartoon not long ago in which the ravaged steel works occupy the left horizon, and three immense fur cups occupy the right horizon, looming a bit. He never includes unintentional things, and is very astute. My apologies, I'm not really good at holding to a single point.

Yes - sadly there were far too many 'charitable' or third sector organisations that got caught up in the contract and control culture. As someone who spent a large part of my working life employed in the charitable sector I'm ashamed and saddened by the way far too many went. At the same time there are so many smaller organisations doing the most wonderful work ... they just rarely, if ever, get the funds, opportunities or recognition.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 8:02 pm

citizenJA wrote:The comments below the line under Toynbee's social care article were mostly rude, inhumane, inaccurate...depressing.

Most were truly awful, inhumane isn't really strong enough, but it will do. I hold to the thought that perhaps these are trolls of some kind even though some of them seemed to utterly lack awareness of just what brief beings we are. Don't be depressed, be constructively angry.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 8:07 pm

Gale force winds, I think, here.
Lashing rain.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 8:12 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
citizenJA wrote:The comments below the line under Toynbee's social care article were mostly rude, inhumane, inaccurate...depressing.
Most were truly awful, inhumane isn't really strong enough, but it will do. I hold to the thought that perhaps these are trolls of some kind even though some of them seemed to utterly lack awareness of just what brief beings we are. Don't be depressed, be constructively angry.

Sometimes I click onto known trolls' comment histories and read all the replies they've received. Cheers me right up. Most people are altruistic, caring and yearn for fairness. You're a good friend, seeingclearly, thank you.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 8:21 pm

Not just the charities, I guess I was thinking of those security type companies too, am I right in thinking one was involved in an Olympics fiasco, people under bridges and in dreadful accomodation for no pay etc., never brought to any accountability, and today involved in offshoring antipodean undesirables in camps. Most tax payers would be unhappy about feeding such things. Or I think they would, but the comment JA mentions get me dithering over the state of our national fairness quotient.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 8:28 pm

seeingclearly wrote:Not just the charities, I guess I was thinking of those security type companies too, am I right in thinking one was involved in an Olympics fiasco, people under bridges and in dreadful accomodation for no pay etc., never brought to any accountability, and today involved in offshoring antipodean undesirables in camps. Most tax payers would be unhappy about feeding such things. Or I think they would, but the comment JA mentions get me dithering over the state of our national fairness quotient.

Molly Prince of Close Protection (?) and the sleeping-under-the- bridge Jubilee fiasco. And the unregistered driver\accident if memory serves.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 8:44 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:A bit of an aside to some of your posts RR. Looking back to the grand announcements on TV of the Big Society tosh, and. how this company and that personality and the other organisation it seems as though very few actually came off well in reputation, most lost the respect of anyone eho needed to access their services quite early on, and some of them have even moved to other shores either to hide eir ill-gottens or ply their tainted trades elsewhere. Closer to home though, I was just reminded of a once developing set of charities. By that I mean they were in the process of moving from charitable paternalism or paternatistic charity, something like that anyway, though if you use maternal it doesn't work the same way but of course there are lots of women also being very charitable, too, and towards really starting to work with their client groups rather than blindly delivering what they thought was best.

As someone mentioned to me when discussing what later happened, " they went from being our primary representation to being the tools of our oppression".

All those training companies, all the dodgy contracts, the terrible decision making, but he had these people on board all ready to let loose on the country. He must have done a hard sell on them, but some didn't survive the influx of such large sums of money, the vast contracts. Most of it has fallen apart or come unstuck to some degree, in time most of the rest will too, I think. What we will be left with is the food banks. And presumably the mess.

Rowson did a great cartoon not long ago in which the ravaged steel works occupy the left horizon, and three immense fur cups occupy the right horizon, looming a bit. He never includes unintentional things, and is very astute. My apologies, I'm not really good at holding to a single point.
Yes - sadly there were far too many 'charitable' or third sector organisations that got caught up in the contract and control culture. As someone who spent a large part of my working life employed in the charitable sector I'm ashamed and saddened by the way far too many went. At the same time there are so many smaller organisations doing the most wonderful work ... they just rarely, if ever, get the funds, opportunities or recognition.

The one positive thing I think that can be taken from these times is that we now know definitively what not to do!

Yes, I feel for all the smaller efforts and the people who make them, and the ones that folded and should still be here. I came across quite a few people working their way up the third sector in London, after I retired, most were really nice.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 8:45 pm

I don't watch much media or listen to news. I know I'm impressionable and up against billions of advertising investment. Going about my day, I read and see enough. If I start feeling scared or vulnerable, I either need to eat, sleep or withdraw from the bustle in order to work later. People can be persuaded to act against their own interests but it's not incurable. People are doing good work every day. It's not often broadcast.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 9:01 pm

The Environment Agency no longer prosecutes even some of the most extreme pollution events. One inspector said it was the worst pollution she had seen in 17 years. But the agency dithered for a year before striking a private agreement with the farmer, allowing him to avoid possible prosecution, criminal record, massive fine and court costs, by giving £5,000 to a local charity.

New rules imposed by the government means that such under-the-counter deals, which now have a name of their own – enforcement undertakings – are likely to become more common. They are a parody of justice: arbitrary, opaque and wide open to influence-peddling, special pleading and corruption.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... h-impunity

Toothless Environment Agency is allowing the living world to be wrecked with impunity

Monbiot's latest. Someone here, I think, wrote that it'll take a large-scale failure of our decimated civilisation infrastructure everyone voting understands Tory government have wrecked valuable systems in place for a reason. We must protect our lives and land, we've got to keep a professional eye on endeavours, fund regulatory agencies and retain qualifed personnel.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 9:03 pm

PorFavor wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:Not just the charities, I guess I was thinking of those security type companies too, am I right in thinking one was involved in an Olympics fiasco, people under bridges and in dreadful accomodation for no pay etc., never brought to any accountability, and today involved in offshoring antipodean undesirables in camps. Most tax payers would be unhappy about feeding such things. Or I think they would, but the comment JA mentions get me dithering over the state of our national fairness quotient.
Molly Prince of Close Protection (?) and the sleeping-under-the- bridge Jubilee fiasco. And the unregistered driver\accident if memory serves.

I've got the gaggle of fiascos that happened around then rolled together. What a mess it was, the Olympics, and the army brought in to show how to do it properly. I think the main contractor who set up the portacabins etc., and inadequate food and drink breaks, and not enough people, as if there weren't thousands and thousands of unemployed youngsters, is the same as the detention camp contractor. I'd forgotten about the Jubilee, another mess, will never forget how it all had to happen in spite of HRH and spouse having to quite literally weather the torrential rain, mostly to showcase a very expensive boat. I remember those bridge places from the eighties, used to be full of homeless people, sleeping under cardboard, wonder if they are now too. Molly Prince, yes, there was a lot more before she vanished, I think.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 9:22 pm

I keep wondering how they are so teflon coated, Dave and co. Gordon was guilty of so much less, and not hated to the same degree either, but got pulverised for small events. The Olympics brought back the Paralympic reception Osbourne got, but I do have some hope that events are cyclical and as what goes around comes around we will be delivered from all this, one way or another.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 9:47 pm

Have we had Chris Cook's long article on Kids Company yet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34676281" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To his credit, Gove seems to have to have been a sceptic, and Harriet Sargeant apparently revealed some concerns (without naming KC) in a book.

Letwin appears before the Select Committee next week. It should be Cameron.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 9:49 pm

Wait.

I've just realised the main point about Gibb's speech about school autonomy.

And these schools are prospering. Sponsored primary academies open for 2 years improved their test results at more than double the rate of those in the maintained sector over the same period - 10 percentage points compared to 4 percentage points based on the 2015 figures. Secondary sponsored academies - our most challenging schools - opened over the last 4 academic years have, on average, matched or bettered their performance compared with this time last year.

But the whole point about sponsored academies is that by removing them from LA control (sic) you gave them to an academy trust which had the legal power to intervene in the way that, unless they went into special measures and the DfE authorised an Interim Executive Board, the local authority never could.

So, that's the exact opposite of a school having autonomy!

That school that fought and lost against the Inspiration trust - the first thing that happened afterwards was that the CEO, the sainted Ms De Souza appointed herself as chair of governors there.

Has the school got autonomy? Nope. It does what the trust wants. It's the trust which has autonomy...at least until the DfE decides it doesn't.

How on earth does Gibb get away with talking such utter rubbish?

edit - I might well write this up properly.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 9:52 pm

Sponsored primary academies open for 2 years improved their test results at more than double the rate of those in the maintained sector over the same period - 10 percentage points compared to 4 percentage points based on the 2015 figures.

That's the "lower starting point" fallacy, isn't it?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 9:57 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Sponsored primary academies open for 2 years improved their test results at more than double the rate of those in the maintained sector over the same period - 10 percentage points compared to 4 percentage points based on the 2015 figures.
That's the "lower starting point" fallacy, isn't it?

Yep.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 10:02 pm

Kids Company try and back up the claims of 15,933 clients.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... NTACTS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are 7,000 from 3 boroughs- Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth.

2,000 for Wandsworth sounds a heck of a lot. Strikingly, about 85% came to KC , through schools rather than community centres, which provide the majority in most places.

I smell a rat here. Wandsworth's been basically outsourcing, hasn't it?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 10:09 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
That's the "lower starting point" fallacy, isn't it?
Yep.

One for Andrew Dilnot?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 10:15 pm

http://www.citymetric.com/transport/bus ... 300m-white" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"A bus designed for people who never take buses": how London's Routemaster became a £300m white elephant

Nice tribute to Tom of Boris Watch who did so much on this issue at the end.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 10:21 pm

Goodnight, everyone.
love
cJA

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 10:43 pm

Christ. Harriet Sargeant gets stuck in to Kids Company.

http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 24321.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Comms man from KC denies that there was this big float of free cash.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 11:08 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Kids Company try and back up the claims of 15,933 clients.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... NTACTS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are 7,000 from 3 boroughs- Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth.

2,000 for Wandsworth sounds a heck of a lot. Strikingly, about 85% came to KC , through schools rather than community centres, which provide the majority in most places.

I smell a rat here. Wandsworth's been basically outsourcing, hasn't it?

Isn't that what CB said was happening, that various Councils couldn't deal with the numbers and KC was taking up what they couldn't do. If so then that is exactly what other charities were pursuaded to do.

If they were delivering awareness projects and suchlike in schools as well as dealing directly with individual cases then the numbers could be feasible.

The above doc gives no time period. But all those people ought to be contactable, surely they wouldn't volunteer the info if it had no reality? Regardless of how wrong they were getting other things.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 11:10 pm

Couple of not very good Inspiration Trust stories. Did we see them before?

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/i ... _1_4302331" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One school struggling for pupils. And this

The Inspiration Trust has increased the amount of money it takes from its individual schools to cover the cost of the services it provides for them.

Like many other multi-academy trusts, Inspiration takes a percentage of each school’s funding.

Previously, the figure was set at 4pc, but minutes of its board meetings in March and May 2015 show it has now increased this to 5.25pc.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 11:16 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Kids Company try and back up the claims of 15,933 clients.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... NTACTS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are 7,000 from 3 boroughs- Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth.

2,000 for Wandsworth sounds a heck of a lot. Strikingly, about 85% came to KC , through schools rather than community centres, which provide the majority in most places.

I smell a rat here. Wandsworth's been basically outsourcing, hasn't it?
Isn't that what CB said was happening, that various Councils couldn't deal with the numbers and KC was taking up what they couldn't do. If so then that is exactly what other charities were pursuaded to do.

If they were delivering awareness projects and suchlike in schools as well as dealing directly with individual cases then the numbers could be feasible.

The above doc gives no time period. But all those people ought to be contactable, surely they wouldn't volunteer the info if it had no reality? Regardless of how wrong they were getting other things.

It's the disparity between Wandsworth and other boroughs that I'm puzzled by. Are they doing much more school work there? Elsewhere the clients, come through the centres. I suspect Wandsworth, who are manic outsourcers, might have taken it a lot further than the others.

Re the controversy about the total of clients they had, their Comms person reaffirms that there are 16000 electronic case files here:

http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 24320.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(He and the man from Southwark don't agree)

As you say, it ought to be possible to contact lots of the clients...

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 11:32 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Christ. Harriet Sargeant gets stuck in to Kids Company.

http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 24321.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Comms man from KC denies that there was this big float of free cash.

I've read a fair number of bits of written evidence and don't think she should personalize it like this.

This was a charity run badly as simple as that. Just because it was audited it doesn’t mean it was managed well Mr Yentob!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 11:44 pm

Yeah.

She's one of the "kids can't write proper English" types too.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 12 Nov, 2015 11:52 pm

Still, it's a nice line to use against Free Schools, I suppose.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 12:05 am

What is instantly puzzling about these various accounts is how different they are. An earlier link than yours had evidence which seemed largely hearsay, but what wasnt was pretty shocking, your earlier post was very emotive, I believe I've read some of that before, the Christmas do bit in particular.

I see similarities with other fiascos, public personas, delivering initiatives that undermine public provision, or replace it, lack of oversight, etc. An overall sense of winging it, being outside of the usual frameworks. But the other persons emotive account, supposed to be a professional, but that wasn't comfortable reading, and not just because of the subject matter.

just had to check her name, Harriet Sargeant, giving the emotive evidence.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 12:18 am

seeingclearly wrote:What is instantly puzzling about these various accounts is how different they are. An earlier link than yours had evidence which seemed largely hearsay, but what wasnt was pretty shocking, your earlier post was very emotive, I believe I've read some of that before, the Christmas do bit in particular.

I see similarities with other fiascos, public personas, delivering initiatives that undermine public provision, or replace it, lack of oversight, etc. An overall sense of winging it, being outside of the usual frameworks. But the other persons emotive account, supposed to be a professional, but that wasn't comfortable reading, and not just because of the subject matter.

just had to check her name, Harriet Sargeant, giving the emotive evidence.

Sargeant is a nasty hard rightist in her day job, and I reckon a decent barrister might expose her evidence. That bit about sitting outside a centre in 2014 sounds a bit funny.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 12:23 am

On the first visit we saw three adults leave carrying envelops the size and shape of a mobile phone, brown on one side and white on the other. On the second visit a young woman who had worked in the accounts department, a friend of Gamble’s, confirmed the envelops contained cash and were handed out to parents on Wednesdays and Thursdays (we had gone on a Thursday). The envelops contained up to as much as a £1000 a week for clothes and travel. They were not given according to need but often because, ’People turn up and cuss and make noise until they get their money.’

I'd put an envelop (sic) in my pocket if it contained a thousand pounds.

Wasn't there some (soon forgotten) allegation against a charity funded by Mayor Livingstone handing out free money to people who turned up and demanded it?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 1:36 am

Yes, some of it sounded quite creative, I remember who she is now having had cause to read bits and pieces of her stuff on white boys and black boys etc., disliked her analysis at the time. David Allen Green was more level headed about it, and gave an interesting link to the stuff on Beat Bullying, which opened up the whole can of worms about third sector stuff, which confirms a lot of what I had been mulling over for a while, that the sudden influx of large sums of money and patronage by a privatising, outsourceing government has not been good for these charities. Growing gradually allows for the right kind of adaptations and time to deal with things properly. There were more than a few comments about charities with charismatic single leaders, I know a bit about this having been reasonably close to one such, I hold him in high regard, but know just how overstretched he is and how driven. He is fortunate, right from the beginning he had excellent help and has resisted the demands of others that the work done should keep expanding forever. In the case of KC, I was astounded at the figure that it allegedly costs councils to deal with cases of very troubled youngsters, £300,000 and the saving they also allegedly could make if KC could do the same for £50,000. A case of exactly who is holding the carrot out to whom. Mix that in with a PM who is hitching his wagon to a spurious unworkable notion like Big Society, and who wants to be seen with the recogniseably great and good to boost his own status, and maybe to cover for his true ideological agenda then that is a recipe for disaster. I have been uneasy about these reports about CB, not least because I think she is very attackable, and I like seeing the evidence . HS evidence did not feel right. If the whole sector has built in issues, then those should be the thing under scrutiny, and if they are illegal then they should be a matter for the courts. I was interested in that they seem to fall short of that though, because of poor regulation, and that is also perhaps the case for other types of outsourcing. DAGs blog and associated links and comments were helpful, so many thanks, I feel as though i now have a much better perspective on this. It is concerning though. These are very predatory times and I believe many third sector social enterprises may have the same weaknesses, the uncomfortable reality of needing to eat into reserves in order to actually attract funders. That's a crazy position, and driven people may take all sorts of measures to shore things up when things start to go shaky rather than take the right advice, because they'd see it as everything they had worked for was at risk.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 1:49 am

PorFavor wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:Not just the charities, I guess I was thinking of those security type companies too, am I right in thinking one was involved in an Olympics fiasco, people under bridges and in dreadful accomodation for no pay etc., never brought to any accountability, and today involved in offshoring antipodean undesirables in camps. Most tax payers would be unhappy about feeding such things. Or I think they would, but the comment JA mentions get me dithering over the state of our national fairness quotient.
Molly Prince of Close Protection (?) and the sleeping-under-the- bridge Jubilee fiasco. And the unregistered driver\accident if memory serves.

G4S were heavily involved in the Olympics fiasco and I'm pretty sure that they're involved in the Antipodean off-shoring.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 1:58 am

citizenJA wrote:
The Environment Agency no longer prosecutes even some of the most extreme pollution events. One inspector said it was the worst pollution she had seen in 17 years. But the agency dithered for a year before striking a private agreement with the farmer, allowing him to avoid possible prosecution, criminal record, massive fine and court costs, by giving £5,000 to a local charity.

New rules imposed by the government means that such under-the-counter deals, which now have a name of their own – enforcement undertakings – are likely to become more common. They are a parody of justice: arbitrary, opaque and wide open to influence-peddling, special pleading and corruption.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... h-impunity
Toothless Environment Agency is allowing the living world to be wrecked with impunity

Monbiot's latest. Someone here, I think, wrote that it'll take a large-scale failure of our decimated civilisation infrastructure everyone voting understands Tory government have wrecked valuable systems in place for a reason. We must protect our lives and land, we've got to keep a professional eye on endeavours, fund regulatory agencies and retain qualifed personnel.

It's just heartbreak after heartbreak, isn't it?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 2:10 am

It's the other one, LC; Serco. Both were involved till last year when G4S lost the contract. I dont get out much now, but till recently my heart used to shrivel on seeing G4S security in my local supermarkets. And at a local very low key demo, no vocal stuff, just placards and a small group of people, there were more guards than demonstrators at an assessment centre. I don't see the need for them, we did ok before.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 2:40 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
On the first visit we saw three adults leave carrying envelops the size and shape of a mobile phone, brown on one side and white on the other. On the second visit a young woman who had worked in the accounts department, a friend of Gamble’s, confirmed the envelops contained cash and were handed out to parents on Wednesdays and Thursdays (we had gone on a Thursday). The envelops contained up to as much as a £1000 a week for clothes and travel. They were not given according to need but often because, ’People turn up and cuss and make noise until they get their money.’
I'd put an envelop (sic) in my pocket if it contained a thousand pounds.

Wasn't there some (soon forgotten) allegation against a charity funded by Mayor Livingstone handing out free money to people who turned up and demanded it?

Hmm. I remember before the jobcentres were called that, labour exchange, I think. There used to be people there cussing and swearing, smoking too, and demanding their Giros, but they didnt get more. My guess is if it was in an envelope it would have been counted out earlier, noone does them one at a time, it would take all day. I got the impression from other reports that some of KC clients were on the lower than benefits migrant income, and even those cards for food, which might also account for her supporting more adults. and for their presence at the Christmas do. If so then things would look different, without transparent evidence noone will know either way.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 2:44 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Kids Company try and back up the claims of 15,933 clients.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... NTACTS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are 7,000 from 3 boroughs- Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth.

2,000 for Wandsworth sounds a heck of a lot. Strikingly, about 85% came to KC , through schools rather than community centres, which provide the majority in most places.

I smell a rat here. Wandsworth's been basically outsourcing, hasn't it?

Wandsworth, being a 'flagship' Tory borough, has led in outsourcing for donkeys' years - well, middle-aged donkeys. In terms of the numbers of kids, Wandsworth is far from without its problems and, over the years the numbers mount up - and don't forget that KC's clients seem to stay with them long after they could properly be called 'kids'. Some, reportedly, are in their twenties or thirties now.

Edit: To remove a superfluous 's' - I think I should try to sleep again...

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 3:02 am

seeingclearly wrote:It's the other one, LC; Serco. Both were involved till last year when G4S lost the contract. I dont get out much now, but till recently my heart used to shrivel on seeing G4S security in my local supermarkets. And at a local very low key demo, no vocal stuff, just placards and a small group of people, there were more guards than demonstrators at an assessment centre. I don't see the need for them, we did ok before.

Ah, thank you! Swift edit to add that I yearn for the days when G4S meant the high-security vans delivering/collecting cash to banks and other high cash turnover businesses...

That's two edits: I keep hitting 'submit' instead of 'preview'... Bumboils™

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Fri 13 Nov, 2015 3:40 am

LadyCentauria wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Kids Company try and back up the claims of 15,933 clients.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... NTACTS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are 7,000 from 3 boroughs- Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth.

2,000 for Wandsworth sounds a heck of a lot. Strikingly, about 85% came to KC , through schools rather than community centres, which provide the majority in most places.

I smell a rat here. Wandsworth's been basically outsourcing, hasn't it?
Wandsworth, being a 'flagship' Tory borough, has led in outsourcing for donkeys' years - well, middle-aged donkeys. In terms of the numbers of kids, Wandsworth is far from without its problems and, over the years the numbers mount up - and don't forget that KC's clients seem to stay with them long after they could properly be called 'kids'. Some, reportedly, are in their twenties or thirties now.

Edit: To remove a superfluous 's' - I think I should try to sleep again...

I think Tubbys mystification on this was because the 2000 in Wandsworth were an anomaly in that they were listed under schools. So probably not in their thirties.

I understand that some categories of young people, those with certain SPLDS for instance are or were entitled to a longer duration of support and into their twenties, but have no idea whether this was applicable in the case of KC clients. 23 is the age I recall.