The Met’s verdict of “no evidence of criminality”, together with Camila Batmanghelidjh’s evidence to MPs that the charity struggled financially because it was “overwhelmed with demand”, her anger at the “betrayal of children, staff and donors” and belief that powerful interests in Whitehall and local authorities had been determined to shut down Kids Company because the charity was “telling the truth … that the child protection system is deeply in trouble” (Kids Company ‘shut by malicious claims’, 29 January), all demand a reappraisal of Kids Company.
We are now much more aware, post-Savile, of how close to the surface child exploitation takes place, but remains hidden thanks to human nature and the power of large organisations to cover up and present what they want us to see. But there are other important issues. Once the government had decided that its purposes were no longer served by Kids Company, the hatchet job was ruthless and possibly, if as claimed, there is overwhelming demand for its work, premature. And given the government’s penchant for privatisation and outsourcing, whether it, or the MPs preparing to publish their paper, recommend filling the hole it’s created by its closure with the likes of G4S becomes a moot point.
David Murray
Wallington, Surrey
• As a former Southwark councillor, I was the only one of 63 of all parties who bothered to visit Kids Company’s premises when the council was about to evict it. One example of the kind of instant help I witnessed was a teenage girl with just a few shreds on her feet. Camila Batmanghelidjh gave her £15 to buy a pair of cheap basic trainers (not the overpriced brands that her middle-class critics buy their kids).
How many reports and forms in triplicate would Southwark and other councils have to complete to prevent this girl having to run barefoot through its streets? The everyday requirements of thousands of impoverished, underclass children, many from broken or no homes, are going unmet. There remains a desperate need for Kids Company or something like it.
Jonathan Hunt
London
• The report from the public administration and constitutional affairs committee lays bare the dangers of a government being able to authorise “multiple grants outside of the normal competitive process” to charities of their choice. When politicians do so against the advice of civil servants they should pay the price for recklessly spending millions of pounds of our money, as would those in almost any other job or profession. Oliver Letwin and Matthew Hancock should both resign and be barred from standing.
Brian Wedge
Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire
• Your leading article (Wanted: better guidance for the guardians of the voluntary sector, 2 February) is a highly topical commentary on the subject. However, what the collapse of Kids Company illustrates is not only that lay part-time trustees have considerable difficulty in holding a powerful and high-profile chief executive accountable but also that there is a culture amongst many charities that believe that because what they do is so worthwhile they thereby have a divine right to funding. The reality is, of course, that there are a thousand excellent charities out there but only a handful can secure funding. Those that are grant-aided rightly tend to be those that have an innovative niche in their chosen field, rather than those that are, for instance, all too often replacing much-needed services that should be provided by the public authorities.
Michael Meadowcroft
Leeds
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
