Was 'Kids Company' a Victim of the Westminster Paedophile Ring Cover Up?

originally posted by: uncommitted
the Newsnight interviews others are referring to had former residents/clients of Kids Company saying that people within the charity were abusing them. T.

I must have missed that bit, but Newsnight did say that there were reports of an older client sexually abusing younger clients. Not quite the same thing.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

wtf error 404...what are they hiding?

a reply to: HumanPLC

Our Establishment uses one major tool to destroy people and that's character assassination. It will demean their work ethics and make them look incompetent, incorrect and usually some vice it poured into the mix. One prime example is Arthur Scargill. Virtually everything that man warned us about happened to our mining industry and its workers. I know the newsreel was altered because I am related to one of the tv camera men who filmed it and was pretty p.ss.d off about how his film was edited to show the miners charge first, when it was the you know who, who charged first. Another claim about Scargill was his use of a Jag. Yet we have 'Johnny 2 jags with hardly any criticism yet we know he was involved with a company exploiting immigrant land workers - but no character assassination there.

So we have experience of exactly how our government works and how it protects its own.

I am pretty irate about Heath because of the horror of the possibility of throwing unwanted kids overboard after they had been used - which is chilling to my soul to think it could have happened in order fro protect this man who loved to play the organ at the christmas carol service. Also anyone who thinks going after dead people is more important than stopping the live ones who are still getting away with their paedophelia because they are high profile and their exposure would damage the government and some of our other establishments, needs a lobotomy.

I think the children and public deserve far better all round. I hate the fact that 'everyday Joe pays through the law's full force yet the establishment people don't. OK they have Jenner and Sewell from the house of lords but both of those were cruising for a bruising in any case due to their own pomposity.

From todays Daily Telegraph ...

Camila Batmanghelidj ran the charity as a personal empire from an office
that looked like an "Aladdins den" a former worker claims,the full
extent of waste at the charity, which received millions of public
money.

Camila Batmanghelidj denies new allegations of lavish spending and claims,
that there was a culture of fear and favouritism at the charity. It is
claimed she had up to five 'personal assistants' at any one point.

A post grad. student who worked as an intern at the charity's London H.Q.
spoke of her amazement at seeing the flamboyant style of
Camila Batmanghelidj even on day one I couldn't believe the waste, her
ego seems just to have got bigger and bigger.

I also read somewhere else that she paid herself £900,000 per annum.

Seems charity really does begin at home in her case.

a reply to: HumanPLC

It is an interesting premise but not one i share. Whilst there does seem to be suggestions of sexual contact, it appears to be refencing older boys and younger girls (all who use Kids Company).

To be honest, the issues with Kids Company seem to be entirely self inflicted - it is shoddy upper management. Also, things like paying for the Private education of the Chairwomens chauffeur! Frankly, that is fraud and someone should be prosecuted.

Woodward,

I agree with you about the good work Kids Company were doing - they genuinely appear to have been very effective. However, they were run appallingly. Whilst a registered charity, it is still effectively a business. Any business that poorly run fails. I genuinely therefore do not get the outpouring of surprise over what is happening.

a reply to: Flavian I'm in total agreement with your point. I guess the problem now is who is going to replace the good work this charity was doing? There are more cuts on the way especially to social services and local councils. Where I was volunteering, every thing we wanted had to be priced up and applied for from different funding bodies, the council or other charities. These things are difficult to finance. I ended up doing 4 days a week volunteering paying for my own petrol out of my own pocket to basically do any driving that needed to be done. Which turned out to be quite a lot. I was always annoyed at the lack of volunteers from the estate we were based in. No one came forward to help. It made me realise there is no big society, not even a small one. I can't imagine what it must be like doing something on a large scale in one of the biggest cities in the world

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Flavian I'm in total agreement with your point. I guess the problem now is who is going to replace the good work this charity was doing? There are more cuts on the way especially to social services and local councils. Where I was volunteering, every thing we wanted had to be priced up and applied for from different funding bodies, the council or other charities. These things are difficult to finance. I ended up doing 4 days a week volunteering paying for my own petrol out of my own pocket to basically do any driving that needed to be done. Which turned out to be quite a lot. I was always annoyed at the lack of volunteers from the estate we were based in. No one came forward to help. It made me realise there is no big society, not even a small one. I can't imagine what it must be like doing something on a large scale in one of the biggest cities in the world

I commend you for your volunteering, as do so many people who work

in the charity shops etc. who give their time freely... Not so much the

people who head up these organisations who earn mega salaries, many

who only lend their names. The celebrities eg. Terry Wogan among

others who head the 'Children in need' and take fees for it!! So

many of the public think they actually do it for charity!! LOL!!

a reply to: eletheia I wasn't working at the time. I never did it for being a helpful citizen, I did because it helped me recover from recurrent illness I have. I did it for me and to get me involved in society and other people. I understand volunteering for most people who work full time is almost impossible these days. No one was on a mega salary where I was at. Had there been I'd have been a little more forthright about getting some expenses

a reply to: uncommitted

Who are you referring to currently in office?

Im referring to those persons in past and current governments who have been complicit in withholding allegations contained within the dossier(s) that seem to have been suppressed for many years.

The charity received millions in funds

any normal business would go bust much more quickly

Very true... Im not disputing that, this may have been down to financial mismanagement. But the very fact that so much government money was pumped into this charity without question also makes this look more than a little dodgy.

yet you believe she is credible and appear to be justifying her

I never said that, in fact i clearly stated in my second follow up post that i disagree with the high salaries in all charities.

why is she making such claims now - some people would say that is trying to deflect any questions over her own behaviour

I dont think she has just started making these claims now, in fact the whole point of my OP was discussing the possibility of this being a smear campaign resulting from this list of alleged high profile abusers that she claims to have handed in.

Don't you think a place to start would be questioning her fitness to actually run the charity given its funds rather than what she is now claiming?

No way is that a place to start, just think about that, say her allegations were true. So while we waste time looking into her we have the ongoing abuse of those children. It would make much more sense to treat all the allegations seriously on both sides and act/investigate immediately.

To go about things this way (looking into someone before taking an allegation seriously) could have a catastrophic effect by deterring those victims of abuse who have a less than saintly background from coming forward.

Regardless of who the person is or what they may have done, any allegations of this nature require immediate action.

Abuse against children or any vulnerable person happens at all levels in society, to think that the corridors of Whitehall are somehow more likely than an alley in (insert provincial town of your choice) are more down to bias than anything else

I didnt say it didnt; however, what i would say is that the evidence i am seeing leads me to the conclusion that abuse that takes place in the 'corridors of Whitehall' is much more likely to go uninvestigated.

Where there is justifiable information or evidence then anyone, regardless of their job or position should be investigated.

Yep, that is what should happen but sadly it hasn't has it.

a reply to: HumanPLC

Ah, I see you have added 'un' to 'investigated'.

Anyhow, from what I can see, she appears to have made a comment without adding any foundation and says the she hopes that 'the truth will come out in years to come' - which is a strange comment. From the OP, the article is behind a paywall on the Times and I have no intention of becoming a subscriber so I've referred to a quote from the Mail link.

For someone who says that any claims of abuse within the charity would be shared with the police (which is rich seeing as there are allegations that she urged people not to report them), if she really has substantiated evidence then why wouldn't she share - I'm not naive, I appreciate that there my be pressure, but making a cryptic comment doesn't really help much - you have done it at least once in this thread alone.

There is something about her I've never been comfortable with, she seems more concerned with her ego than the message.

a reply to: uncommitted

Mate, my comments are not intended to be cryptic. If you want clarification on anything i have written just ask and i will happily explain.

originally posted by: uncommitted


There is something about her I've never been comfortable with, she seems more concerned with her ego than the message.

Same thing was said by a post grad. student who worked for her as an

intern ....

From the Daily Telegraph
I was amazed at the flamboyant style of Camila Batmanghelidj even
on day one I couldn't believe the waste, her ego seems just to have
got bigger and bigger.

In a post I posted earlier

The vids added below are of a Police interview secretly recorded by Ben Fellows at his home.

For those that don't know Ben Fellows, he was a child actor who has alleged that he was abused by Kenneth Clarke and many other high profile figures while he was aged around 13 and living in London.

After the allegation Ben claims that his life was threatened on two occasions which caused him to flee to Spain. When he later returned he was arrested at the airport and sent to jail. On 30 July 2015 he was tried for perverting the course of justice and found not guilty.

Ben has also alleged that he was sexually abused by a number of people in the entertainment industry, including a senior female executive at the BBC, he was taken to a coc aine fuelled party at the BBC hosted by two pop stars and he was invited to string fellows by Max Clifford along with many other 13 year old boys.




This probably warrants a new thread however i have chosen to include it here as i think it is further evidence of an ongoing cover up, which is what this thread is loosely about.

Ben has recently claimed the following:

David Cameron is preventing the Metropolitan Police from investigating my case against Kenneth Clarke MP, who was involved in the scandal of sexually assaulting me in Ian Greer’s office, which Cameron helped cover up!

I haven't followed this story at all since it broke - I thought is was awful that a charity of this magnitude should be closed down and worried about where the kids will go but had NOT heard the Sexual Abuse angle... and I would guess most others haven't either.

This definitely stinks and the kind of sudden abrupt nature of it and the fact that in the last few weeks she spoke out about abuse by senior politicians etc.

Wow....


Then again like most of the other child sex abuse going on by upper level politicians and judges and 80's kids tv stars, it'll be hushed up, evidence destroyed and maybe one or two sacrificial lambs jailed.

She needs to go on TV... she has powerful friends and she needs to buy some ad space, during prime time and tell people exactly has happened.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: uncommitted

Mate, my comments are not intended to be cryptic. If you want clarification on anything i have written just ask and i will happily explain.

Sorry, bad grammar from me. I meant you had said at least once in this thread that there are people actively suppressing reports of child abuse within government - she has said exactly the same with apparently as much evidence as you have provided, for her to be taken seriously needs just a little bit more than that IMHO.

a reply to: HumanPLC

Ben Fellows has been desribed as a serial liar and has little credibility. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true you know...

www.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: HumanPLC

Ben Fellows has been desribed as a serial liar and has little credibility. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true you know...

www.bbc.co.uk...

But he was was described in that manner by the prosecution.... and then found not guilty of perverting the course of justice.
And of course those in power and those guilty will try to discredit those they abuse.
That's why they targeted "Naughty" kids in childrens homes so often, who'll believe them, right?

a reply to: uncommitted

The words "Serial" and "Liar" do not even appear in that article.

I think you may be refferring to this:

Mr Fellows was described in court as "an inventive and sometimes persuasive fantasist".

You do realise that this statement was made by the prosecution who obviously had an interest in branding him as this, its what the whole case was based on.. The allegation that he lied!.. The one the jury failed to accept by finding him not guilty!

Do me a fave, show me one piece of solid evidence of Ben Fellows lying other than the word of a prosecutor that was not even accepted by the jury.

Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true you know

Just because the prosecution say something, it dosent mean its true you know.

No, youre right, it does not mean its true, thats what the ensuing investigation is meant to be for... You know, the ones that keep getting quashed.

And lets be clear, its no longer just one person saying it is it? its a lot of people.

@blupblup (above) ha ha you beat me to it... Great minds!

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: HumanPLC

Ben Fellows has been desribed as a serial liar and has little credibility. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true you know...

www.bbc.co.uk...

But he was was described in that manner by the prosecution.... and then found not guilty of perverting the course of justice.
And of course those in power and those guilty will try to discredit those they abuse.
That's why they targeted "Naughty" kids in childrens homes so often, who'll believe them, right?

That is a fair point, apart from the 'naughty kids' bit in this particular case. If I remember Ben Fellows actually wrote in his blog that Ken Clark was walking past him in a line (can't remember by, but I think the cast of some production were being presented to various people after a show) and he said that Clark's hand 'brushed against' his penis and that he was sure it was a grope rather than, well, his hand being at the end of his arm and he accidently brushed against him and as his penis is at the same level as his hand contact was made. If you would consider that a grope is your opinion really.

If that is the occasion he is referring to, I personally am not sure why that would warrant a police investigation - maybe that's just me.




ETA: or in this instance was he accusing Boris Johnson? I forget to be honest as like I say he appears to have made multiple accusations.

a reply to: uncommitted

Nope mate, its not that.

He alleged that it happened in a private office during a cash for questions sting 20 years ago.

It was nowhere near as trivial as the casual brush you seemed to be suggesting and for the life of me i can not find anything relating to Boris or the 'Johnson Brush' anywhere... Get it, 'Johnson' brush, lol... Just making some light humor there

As we have now addressed and proven to be false the points that you raised, would you now accept that Ben Fellows was a credible person?