Talk:Kids Company

The introduction uses figures taken from the given source (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/15/how-kids-company-feeds-britains-hungry-children) but the figures seem to have originated with Kids Company.

This source (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/the-inside-story-of-how-the-spectator-broke-the-kids-company-scandal/?ref=yfp) challenges the figures.

So the figures given are sourced but may still be incorrect. Perhaps a regular contributor to this article would like to reflect this.

JDE 78.150.4.76 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The article on Camila Batmanghelidjh uses "allegedly" for figures of children reached. The intro for the Kids Company article use "" for the word reaching but this qualifies reaching rather than the figure quoted.

JDE78.150.4.76 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it says "reaching" - that's not what the cited source says. As for the main point, there has been much recent coverage that the 36,000 comes from the charity and may have been exaggerated - in fact that's what the main body of the article says. The lead uses a different cited source for the statement, from February of this year i.e. before Kids Company's claims where being widely challenged. I think the right thing, per WP:LEAD, is that we should take out that source from the lead and precis what's in the main body of the article. DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A 'key finding' of an LSE research project confirms that the charity's services were reaching 36,000 children, young people and their families at the time the research was completed in 2013. The exact wording on pp. 57 reads, "Its services reach 36,000 children,young people and their families". Selector99 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't - and it's not a "key finding". There is no evidence that the research looked into the number. The research was about Kids Company's methodology of the services it provided. Per page 57: " The research focused on the views, perceptions and experiences of staff and volunteers of Kids Company as they talk about their work and engage in daily activities." The research data collected was limited to "5 focus groups with Kids Company’s staff and volunteers; 24 individual interviews (4 semi-structured and 20 unstructured) with Kids Company’s staff and volunteers; 85 online questionnaires of staff and volunteers working across Kids Company’s sites and programmes; Systematic observations based on a pre-designed observation template of 32 activities." (see page 6)

If you look at page 15 of the report, it is quite clear the report is simply quoting what the 2012 accounts claimed, unchecked. Unlike the other contents of the conclusion, there is no discussion of the 36,000 in the research methodology. The number is only then referred to in an introductory way in the report, abnd in an introductory way in the conclusion. In other words, it is not what the report is about. So I believe it is quite misleading to say the report in any way "confirmed" the number. In fact, given the amount of coverage in WP:RS that the number was either "exaggerated" or, more NPOV, uncheckable it would be quite WP:UNDUE to give any impression that 36,000 has been "confirmed" by any source. I have therefore remove this. DeCausa (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's examples of recent WP:RS challengfing the number: , , , , . DeCausa (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, here is an article in the Times Higher on the LSE Research project. Not only does it confirm that the researchers simply repeated Kids Company's claim on the 36,000, but it questions the credibility of the report because it was funded by Kids Company. I think on this basis, the report is not WP:RS and should not be cited in the article. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the majority of the article is misleading but Wiki says truth should bow to verifiability. Wiki editing says that where RS conflicts, both/all sources can be presented. Why not this one? If your issue is the word "confirmed", I have now amended this. It is certainly a "Key finding" as it is immediately preceded by the words; "The key findings of the study are presented below". At numeroud times the Spectator article is cited regarding ex-senior managers/employess - but for all we know these were disgruntled employees, but ours is not to quetion RS. Only to faithfully reproduce. Your suggestion that this is preamble is interpretaion which Wiki also advises editors not to do. Selector99 (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Times HE article suggest praise alone. The research study is both critical as well as including praise. The Times HE article is clearly not the straightest arrow in the box. Selector99 (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:BRD, I've reverted you - let's keep it out until there is consensus to include it. secondly, the point of the Time Higher article is that the LSE research project missed major issues it should have covered. What I am saying is that there is clear evidence that it is not a reliable source. It is not a case of "where RS conflicts" it is a case of RS v non-RS. also, it cannot possibly be used as a source for the 36,000 when it clearly is only repeating Kids Company's assertion in the face of multiple WP:RS that it is an exaggeration. DeCausa (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

also, another editor has added this edit, which I agree with. How could we possibly then use that tainted source for anything in this article? DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the LSE reports do appear to be tainted. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It is however not unusual for charities to pay outside consultants to do external reviews of the organisation. The LSE reports may well be tainted for other reasons, but as long as the reviewers are independent the fact that they were paid for doing the work does not necessarily indicate any kind of taint. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it's WP:RS (The Telegraph and the Times Higher) that are making that connection. It would then be WP:OR for us to ignore it on the basis that it's "not unusual for charities to pay outside consultants". The fact that it's already had this critique from RS because of the funding takes us out of that type of discussion. (I suspect that, in practice, it's had that critique because the output of the research is questionable, and not just down to the funding.) DeCausa (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to smile at the edit summary " Unless the suggestion is that LSE is corruptable?" how about you start your reading here London School of Economics Gaddafi links Lampshade Dog (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The LSE and Batmanghelidjh should have made the source of funding clear. If the Telegraph is right they failed to do so. Why not? JRPG (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@JRPG You mean we can't say for sure, so must say "appears to be"? That's not the avoidance of doubt in my books. Selector99 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Selector. I was on the receiving end of a letter from a solicitor following fraud allegations I made some years ago & I continue to choose my words carefully! I'm certain there appears to be a question mark over the report. The Telegraph doesn't say it was corrupt and we can't either. JRPG (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Selector99, by "not the avoidance of doubt", do you mean "beyond reasonable doubt"? If so, that's notbthe test. We're not discussing an article about this report. We are discussing whether it should be cited. All we need to know is that two reliable sources have cast significant doubt on its credibility. We don't need to go into the detail of why. That's enough for us to say it doesn't comply with our WP:RS criteria. I think we should just leave at that and move on. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa With respect, I absolutely disagree with you. It is not for editors to questions or interpret RS. The 36,000 is the first point under key finding. You cannot know how LSE came to insert this under key findings so should take that in good faith. For you to say 'they didn't check' is pure assumption or guesswork on your part. If that's how RS worked we'd have very few RS as most don't always tell you how they got what they're printing. Readers are expected to trust them based on reputation. As the Telegraph article also points out, LSE have commented saying,

"University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research,” he said.

“This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time".

Are we to simply ignore this truth? Dismiss Oxford organisational research? Cambridge? UCL? The leading business school in the UK, LSE, despite their protestations in the Telegraph article? Perhaps from hereon in we should all ignore anything the Telegraph reports on any company that's ever paid for a full paid advert in the organ? Once paid the Telegraph obviously can't be trusted to be impartial! Utter nonsense. It's apparent the Telegraph is being mischievous as it makes no claim outside of 'Kids Co paid for the research so the report must be dodgy' with absolutely no evidence presented whatsoever. Instead only amateurish supposition and inuendo. Organisations constantly pay for reports into themselves. Not just from academia, also from some of the largest consulting firms on the planet. Must the world assume such reports are now crud because millions have been paid for them? LSE have vouched for the impartiality of the report.

In the end, Wiki is about consensus - whether truth lies that way is not important. I'm content to go with the majority flow. Selector99 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My view is simply it's not a reliable source because The Telegraph and the The Times Higher, in terms, say it isn't. Simples. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, JRPG. Yay! Consensus of two! All I'm saying is question marks don't make something so. They're just question marks although, in my opinion, in this case they're quite idle question marks. I've had many solicitors letters (business and personal); I know much about "the avoidance of doubt".Selector99 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Then surely, for balance, if for no other reason (for the article is more than a little comdemning with not much counter punch), LSE's response to the Telegraph in the Telegraph should be included in the article? Selector99 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't do "balance" in that way. We reflect coverage in reliable sources. Currently, there is no reliable source that I am aware of which is defending Kids Company's claim on the 36,000. We must reflect that. DeCausa (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Forget balance. Simply include LSE's response because I fancy doing so and because I see it as relevant to the article in light of the suggestion of LSE bias which I am not persuaded about. And it comes from the RS, the Telegraph. As for the 36,000, it seem perverse and is at the very least revisionist to dismiss the past with current reporting. Surely, I like any editor, am entitled to be bold without constant fear of evision because another editor disagrees with my NPOVSelector99 (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa on another note, I see that you reverted my edit which said, "The Official Receiver, yet to be appointed, has yet to confirm this". You'll note from the following DTI quote in an unrelated matter, "A DTI official told me: 'We presented a petition to the court to wind up the company in the public interest and we made an application for the Official Receiver to be liquidator. There is not much more we can say as the matter is now sub judice.' - that such matters ought not to be decided by speculative newspapers articles or reported in Wiki. Or are we all up for breaking the law because the Telegraph fancies sticking its neck out? Selector99 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Selector, yes I reverted that for the reasons stated in my edit summary. Firstly, the cited source was the Kids Company website. The website (which as a self-published source, is only WP:RS for statements that "Kids Company claim/say X") simply said the OR was to be appointed. It didn't say what you claimed it said: that the OR has yet to confirm that that the reason it closed was lack of reserves. We don't know what the OR will cover in any public statements. The OR may not even give an opinion. The main job of a liquidator is to sell off the assets and repay creditors. It's not some sort of judicial enquiry. Normally, there won't be public statements on why the organization went bust unless thee has been serious wrongdoing by directors and they are to be sued. Btw, it's well established in Wikipedia that the Daily Mail is not WP:RS DeCausa (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa, I didn't for a moment claim that that's what Kids Company said. I cited the source saying that the charity was essentially no longer viable and were petitioning for a winding-up order. That's a court application. I cited the Daily Mail because it included a quote from the DTI (there's nothing wrong with using the DM on talk pages - particularly for direct quotes). I know what liquidators do and until they've done what they do, it's not for anyone to guess or predict their findings - not even the Independent. For all we know, a Official Receiver may find the charity is vailable if another organisation wishes to take it over and the Independent will have been talking tosh. At the very least the Independent was taking 2+2 and making 5.

Separately, I've now re-read the Wiki RS article and still disagree with you that the LSE research is not a RS 'because the Telegraph and Times HE said so. On questionable sources Wiki says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". Unless your objection is some other part of Wiki RS, I am mindful to reinsert the LSE research as a RS. Selector99 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend you don't reinsert it as clearly you don't have, at the moment anyway, consensus to to so. Please read WP:BRD. Reinserting it at this point could be seen as edit-warring. As far as the official receiver was concerned you inserted the following words: "The Official Receiver, yet to be appointed, has yet to confirm this". You cited the Kids Company website in support. But there was nothing on the Kids Company website to support it. All it said was that the OR was to be appointed.That's insufficient to use to back up a claim that the OR "has yet to confirm [that the organization had inadequate reserves]". You've jumped to the conclusion that this is something that this OR will opine on. Liquidators won't necessarily publish "findings" in the way you seem to think. That's not the main purpose of a liquidation. It's simply a mechanism to repay the creditors by selling off the assets. Ideally, the liquidator would sell the organization as a "going concern" possibly with the existing name. That's generally unlikely at this stage (it would probably have gone into administration if that were on the cards) and more likely to be a piecemeal sale of assets. (Even if it does happen, it has no bearing on the validity of the Independent piece. The Kids Company legal entity would still go into liquidation. That means it leaves the old balance sheet behind and the assets would be owned by a new company with a brand new balance sheet, and without the old Kids Company's debts. The reserves position would be blank sheet - and it doesn't change the resason why Kids Company had to close.)

The main purpose is not to act as a judicial enquiry into what went wrong and publish the findings - although sometimes that may happen as a by-product because in the course of the liquidation wrongdoing is found e.g. what's called "wrongful trading". that's a serious issue and I've not as yet seen anyone suggesting that the alleged financial mismanagement is of those proportions. But generally, the insolvency of the business is taken as a simple fact, and the only point is how much money can be raised for the creditors. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You cannot educate me on liquidation or the work of Official Receivers. I'm 'very' au fait with with company law and in another life, not so long ago, I've represented company owners in both voluntary and compulsory liquidations. But thanks for trying. Regarding the Kids Company source I cited, I've already explained above why I did so all else is circular discussion to no end. As for edit-warring, neither do you have concensus. You will be as guilty of edit-warring as me. But I'm not here for warring. I'm simply entitled to stand my ground. For the time being as you've not addressed my concern specifically, I can but assume your objection is no stronger than 'questionalable/unreliable source', which the LSE research study is not. Selector99 (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN: the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Consensus is needed to add material not to keep it out. Per WP:CONSENSUS the article's status quo is deemed to have consensus unless/until an unchallenged edit is made or an explicit consensus emerges on the talk page. In short, having the article without your edit is the consensus position until there is explicit consensus on the talk page to include it. This is the basis of WP:BRD which I've already linked to and is worth reading. DeCausa (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, while not quoting from it (yet), I have gone ahead and re-inserted the LSE research study as a reference source appropriately. Selector99 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to be blunt. That edit makes no sense whatsoever. You have now cited the report itself as a source for the following statement: In August 2015, the Daily Telegraph criticised the company for paying £40k towards a "glowing" report by the LSE. What is there in the report that refers to (i) the Telegraph criticising it (ii) the payment of £40k (iii) that it's a "glowing"? You are effectively saying that the report supports the Telegraph criticism. I really can't be bothered to revert. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa It made some sense as my intention was to reference, "report by the LSE". However, I take your point and my last edit reflects this. Selector99 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa, you are invited to comment on this ongoing issue which I moved to WP:RSN as you recommended. In essence, I'd like to reinsert;

"In 2013, a research study by the London School of Economics identified 'imited and unstable funding' as a major source of stress and anxiety for staff and 'a massive challenge for the sustainability' of the charity. It also found that an increase in bureaucracy and excessive management could jeopardise the charity's effectiveness and presented a challenge to its ability to sustain focus on the needs of its clients".

...and cite the LSE research study as RS. I hope now that a few days have passed, the waters have calmed and we can reach consensus. Selector99 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've responded at RSN here. Apart from the issues covered at the RSN thread, I see two other problems with your proposed addition. As far as the first sentence is concerned, what purpose does it serve to include it? We've got multiple comments and sources that funding problems impacted its sustainability. That's stating the obvious and we don't need it stating again. Then with the second sentence we have the opposite problem. Multiple RS have identified poor/light management governance as being a problem. It would be quite WP:UNDUE to state the report's point of view. Perhaps the only way to do it is to combine it with the existing text on the criticism of the report so that we have an assertion of what the report said combined with an acknowledgement of its defects as a source. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa I too have more fully replied at WP:RSN here. Chronologically, going by the current article, the LSE report was the first independent source identifying the charity's financial vulnerability in a published document. That alone merits its inclusion. I'm happy to remove other, later sources in favour of the first. Regarding the final sentence, I've pasted my entry from the Noticeboard below;

"There is no conflict between the citation's comment on the pitfalls of "excessive management" and later calls for "improved management". The two are quite different things and, frankly, I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise". Selector99 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. We're not going to take out respected reliable sources analysing, after the event, why Kids Company failed for a speculative one liner in a 2-year old research report where the one-liner is clearly outside the competence of the researchers and where the report itself has subsequently been criticised for being sycophantic to the Kids Company founder. I continue to be opposed to the edit in question for the reasons I've stated and I don't see any consensus for inclusion. However, I would support the following being included in the Foundation and expansion section:

"Kids Company has been criticized for failing to develop a body of evidence to support the efficacy of its activities.^[1] In 2013, the charity paid the London School of Economics (LSE) £40,000 to carry out a research project on Kids Company.^[2][3] The subsequent project report praised the charity's work and described it as "unique" and "extraordinary".^[2][4] The report became one of the most-cited assessments of Kids Company's work.^[1] However, in 2015, The Telegraph and The Times Higher Education criticized the report for being excessively sympathetic to the charity and for failing to identify its significant problems.^[2][3]"

This sets the existing text in the article criticizing the report in context and brings out the real reason the report is notable - not because it diagnosed Kids Company's problems but because it was the only empirical evidence praising Kids Company's work. DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to call anything you want ridiculous but that, of course, doesn't make it so. The LSE citation is not, "a speculative one liner". Instead these are Key Findings specifically identified as Challenges to the charity in the Conclusions of the report. I truly don't understand what you're not understanding. You say, "clearly outside the competence of the researchers"? Based on what? You're clearly make unfounded assumptions about an LSE professor. As for the report being 2-years old, I've already pointed out why its age (as a first announcer) stands it in better stead as worthy of inclusion in the article.

I've also already said I'm hoping to have the unqualified citation included, so your proposed text is useless to me. Not to mention it's interspersed with irrelevance seemingly seeking only to rubbish/pooh-pooh the LSE research study and then doesn't even include any of the citation or the points I've proposed.

The reports is notable because it was produced by LSE whose spokesperson (that's someone speaking for the London School of Economics) has openly defended the research study's impartiality and integrity - as pointed out above. Are we saying he can't be trusted or believed either? Your current protestations are akin to 'A' calling 'B' a liar while producing no evidence of the accusation. 'B' then vehemently defending his honour and integrity while 'C' tells 'B' his protests are pointless as 'B' can't be trusted or believed because 'A' called 'B' a liar! As I can't see you and me arriving at consensus on this, I think it's time to call on an administrator. Selector99 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrators don't arbitrate content disputes. There are a number of dispute resolution processes all of which involve getting more editors involved to determine consensus. One is RfC.

And it's "speculative" because Kids Company hadn't gone bust when they wrote the report. They don't have any competence to opine on the financial position because they're sociologists not accountants. I would think both points are obvious. DeCausa (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

For any volunteer reviewing the DRN request, I completely disagree with DeCausa's articulation of the issue. Perhaps that IS the issue! We're arguing different points. My point is correctly summarised on the DRN and atop of this, the LSE report and the citation I'd like to include contains an earlier (2013) indication of the financial challenges the charity faced than the more recent (in the last six months) sources cited in the current article. I see good cause to include the LSE citation regarding challenge without qualifying the citation by saying 'the research study, its authors and the LSE can't be trusted based on nought'. Selector99 (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to misunderstand the issue. Originally, you wanted to use it as a source for the 36,000 number. It's not a reliable source for that. But you seem to have dropped that and moved on to the edit cited in your 09:06, 17 August 2015 post above. The issues I have with that are the ones I addressed in the dispute resolution thread. The edit is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article: (1) as to the first sentence, there is in depth cover of the financial problems from multiple sources speaking with the benefit of hindsight i.e. with the knowledge of that Kids Company did in fact go bust, with research on auditors reports, Charity Commission investigations etc etc, none of which was (or could be) known by the LSE researchers (and was outside the scope of their study anyway). (2) as to the second sentence, what is the point of it? no one else has ever said anything like it: WP:UNDUE. It had no bearing on the collapse of Kids Company. In fact, it runs counter with the extensive coverage that Kids Company was managed too loosely. Governance was at the heart of why the government withdrew funding. You just seem to want to shoe-horn it in for reasons which are beyond me. But then you have objected, in apparent tit-for-tat, in the edit I propose. What I have done is tied the LSE report into broader issues concerning the charity - lack of a body of evidence etc - which the RS are reporting on. What you have done is randomnly picked out a couple of comments from the report, the importance of which only you have identified and which is not reflected in other coverage - that's the essence of WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've had enough of this crap. I've taken the article off my watchlist. DeCausa (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa You're the one who argued that the LSE report was not RS for the number 36,000. I completely disagreed with you and was unswerving in my argument. I never ceded my position because the LSE report was not RS. Instead, I gave way to you because you were being a stick in the mud and I couldn't be bothered with a circular, non-moving discussion.

I disagree that my latest edit adds nothing to the article. The "in depth cover of the financial problems from multiple sources speaking with the benefit of hindsight" doesn't negate the fact that the LSE study noted, without the benefit of hindsight and as a key finding, financial challenges. You have argued at length to have that inclusion excluded for reasons I have never and still don't understand. I've not tried to "shoe-horn" anything in. I've endeavoured to add balance, using RS, to the article about "Kids Company" which currently still, overwhelmingly, looks like an article that could be easily be called, "The Condemnation of Kids Company and its Founder". Selector99 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No amount of (probably false) consensus or any other form of probable gaming of the Wikipedia system, from discussions initiated or controlled, or both, mainly by left-wing (and often Guardian-reading, online or offline, or both, or BBC/Ch4 News-watching or listening) Wikipedia editors (ganging up together, obviously with a view to impose their own private and personal political agenda onto Wikipedia), can detract the rest of us from the fact that The Guardian (in print), The Observer and The Guardian Unlimited (as it used to be called) (online; https://www.theguardian.com/), are far more unreliable of and as sources with regards to both "Keeping Kids Company" and to Camila Batmanghelidjh, than either The Daily Mail (in print and online, or in print only), The Mail On Sunday (in print and online, or in print only) or The Mail Online, given their past partisan if not highly-partisan support that they had lent, almost unconditionally, to Batmanghelidjh and Kids Company, especially in July and August of this year (the year 2015). This is Wikipedia, not the bloody James O'Brien Show, the Russell Howard Show or the Charlie Brooker/Catherine Tate Show, for sweet poor little late Fanny Adams's sake! I mean, The Guardian practically painted the collapse (or at least the impending collapse, until the writing was obviously on the wall) of "Keeping Kids Company" as a massive evil Tory and David-Cameronian conspiracy for weeks and weeks (and I am absolutely no Call-Me-Dave-supporting [wet] Tory!) You really would have to be a dyed-in-the-wool Corbyn-voting, SW-reading SWP/TUSC Trot in order to be so blinkered as to fail to see that! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I predicted my edit on Camilla's latest exploits would be reverted. However, I think what the founder of Kids Company along with just under 10% of the charity's former staff are doing now, setting up a food/soup kitchen for vulnerable kids and young people, is noteworthy and worthy of mention in this article. However, with a few grown up kids of my own, I'm well aware of the persuasive tactic known in these parts as, 'wear the blighter down'. Generally involving incessant bickering. I'm more than happy to cede ground at times like this. I'd have to give a damn to be stirred to do more. Selector99 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This article gives some details of the report by PWC. It appears to me that much of the article will have to be rewritten. JRPG (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Much of this article deals with people. We should be using wp:Suggested sources#Current news and not as in some cases, Daily Mirror, Express or Mail. JRPG (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No! ... And, oh, no, not another blatant party-political broadcast for Jeremy Corbyn or the Socialist Workers Party, please, Master Wolfie Smith! Your no-doubt beloved Guardian (either in print; or on Guardian Unlimited) (if not also the Independent and the BBC (BBC News)) has been shown to be far more unreliable than the Mail on Sunday with regards to Kids Company and Camila Batmanghelidjh. The Grauniad, the Indy (especially either by, or under, Deborah Orr) and the Beeb (under constant pressure from Alan Yentob) were basically hired-for-free propaganda/PR mouthpieces for Kids Co. and Camila Batman-what-ever-her-name-is, at least until about June, July, August or September of this year (the year 2015)! Do please give it a rest! What is this constant secret, undeclared, obviously-private-political-agenda-driven campaign to effectively purge and expunge not only the Mail Online but also the Daily Mail (in print) and the Mail on Sunday (in print) across Wikipedia all about?! And, oh, please, are you sure you are not James O'Brien, Russell Howard, Charlie Brooker or Catherine Tate in disguise?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that the Mirror has a quite different ideological stance to the Daily Mail and the Express, I don't see how JRPG's comment is a "blatant party-political broadcast". The choice isn't just between the Guardian and the Mail - there are respectable broadsheet newspapers that have a right-of-centre perspective that are considered reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Urquhartnite, it is now accepted that ministers from both major parties made a mistake in funding this organisation -see Public Accounts Committee report. Recent coverage from reliable sources accept that and so should we. Both Cordless Larry and I are experienced editors albeit new to this controversial article. We will keep a wp:npov so please help us ..and wp:AGF. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Urquhartnite, I've highlighted the tabloid refs I intend to remove or replace. I have no wp:COI whatsoever here, I'm not James O'Brien -though I did look him up just to make sure:) - and to the best of my knowledge, you and I haven't edited the same article before. In short, I'm not anticipating serious disagreement with anyone and I've no problems with others choosing the source. Hopefully we will have a better article. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed this article from Category:London, as it was one of only two articles in that top-level category (the other one being London itself). The article is in Category:Charities based in London, which is the proper place. JRPG would you reconsider your revert, or explain why you think this article belongs in that category? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious problem of Kids Company being the only article in the London category apart from the London article, WP:CAT states "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category". Cordless Larry (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kids Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150728175757/http://www.kidsco.org.uk/ to http://www.kidsco.org.uk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071113224735/http://kidsco.org.uk:80/?page_id=70 to http://kidsco.org.uk/?page_id=70

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Place2B is a charity established by Benita Refson. Batmanghelidjh was involved with The Place To Be, a project which was the inspiration for the subsequent charity. Batmanghelidjh continued to work with the project, funded by the charity. Batmanghelidjh wasn't replaced by Refson - Refson always headed the charity, until she was replaced in 2014 by Catherine Roche. Place2B is, and always has been, unconnected with Kids Company. There's no reason for it to be on the Kids Company page. Keri (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Also, The [original] Place To Be where Batmanghelidjh worked was actually part of another, separate, charity, Family Service Units. FSU went bust in 2006 and was taken over by the Family Welfare Association charity. Keri (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The 36,000 figure is the one quoted by Kids Company, but many of the media and independent organisation reports since have hugely questioned this number. When Kids Company collapsed, despite being braced for an influx, London councils only found 1,692 London client records of children and adults - all already known to them - whilst in Bristol they could only find a further 175 clients.BBC News "The return of Camila Batmanghelidjh?" The number within the article is given some limited testing within the second section, but stating it in the header - and without post-collapse data either - seriously questions this article as encyclopedic. Rgds --79.67.43.220 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kids Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507215651/http://kidsco.org.uk/ to http://kidsco.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I find this judgement controversial, and added an edit

Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court, who has never had to work for a funded charity,

I think the high court reasoning leaves-out a common sense and widely-known problem with agencies like Kids Company that has been reported on Panorama. Kids Company epitomises problems with other government subcontractors who happen to be charities. They lied. About the founder's CV, about the number of clients, and about the severity of the clients' needs. The judge made a very narrow judgement about the existence of future plans for a balanced budget, but they relied on the other stats being true, and TV documentaries or the gut feeling of anyone who has had to work with such organisations being false. It is as serious a problem, I think, as the post office director and the Horizon scandal.

I think the high court reasoning gives too much weight to the need to find the kind of trustees I disapprove-of, as though the need to find trustees were reason-enough to excuse the ones at Kids Company with their fake stats and fake CV and big share of Department for Education funding.

I doubt the high court judge has ever used a service, paid-for by her taxes but delivered by a contractor such as Kids Company. I can't prove it but bet her linked-in profile shows that she has never worked for any such, so I wrote "who has never had to work for a funded charity", rather than "who has never used or worked for".

Someone who does a lot of unpaid subediting on a range of subjects from Afghanistan to cooking has sub-edited this page to remove my edit. Their page does not allow comment. I reverted it but the person is welcome to get in touch. brittaniabuckle at yahoo co uk will get me or comment here. I know it's tricky when people try to work as unpaid subeditors on subjects they're not interested in: they can miss things that are obvious if you are interested in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WantsToMakeThingsBetter (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And i have reverted your edit as you are clearly trying to advance your POV.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)