"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Sunday, 3 January 2010

An Email: Common Purpose, Paedophilia & Corruption

 Together with other, un-named, bloggers, I have received an email which I'm copying and pasting here.  Much of what is said we already know/suspect but there are some serious & specific allegations regarding Sheffield CC and Common Purpose. It's very long so make yourselves a nice cup of tea and settle down in front of the fire:

The attached documents are public domain.
They may be used, abused, copied, distributed, shared, extracted, quoted, printed, published, boiled or fried.

Feel free to get in touch for supporting documents.
There are many more.


Ever wondered WHY ? Common Purpose Exposed

An as yet unnamed elite, lawless organisation is actually running the country by stealth, in effect a silent insurrection from within. The control must be total, absolute, and lead top-down from the centre. What and who cannot be controlled must be destroyed . This unelected cult cadre bypasses Parliament, the Judiciary, local democracy, and all the institutional safeguards that were designed to ensure our freedoms, especially free speech.

All that nulabor has done is to create and maintain the illusion of devolution, whilst imposing ever stronger central control. Throughout the country, from 1992 onwards, there has been the setting up of community based consultation and activity groups, such as community forums, that gave the appearance of meaningful engagement with citizens. What was really happening was that these groups were strictly controlled, placemen were imposed, local people ousted, and puppets padded out the group. Then false claims of representation of the community were made. Any existing, genuinely bottom-up, and self-managing community group that did not accede to ( forum ) control were destroyed and replaced. In effect, the government was consulting with itself.

The above process was then repeated in all local, area-wide, city and regional control structures. The controlled community groups ( for example, forums ) were grouped into controlled alliances ( for want of a better word ). These alliances were grouped into associations, then assemblies, and so on in an unbroken chain to No10, via quangos, Regional Development Associations, Regional Government Offices, etc. Another reason for the creation of these groups is that they can be controlled in networks, meeting and making decisions outside of the democratic structures ( and illegally in many cases ), leading beyond their authority, imposing influence, interest and control beyond their legal remit, and thus creating the impression of delivering on an otherwise undeliverable policy.

Over the years, citizens have become increasingly disengaged, and the voting figures have plummeted.

There have been attempts to re-engage citizens in politics, for example, the Baroness Kennedy consultation, and the introduction of the doomed Sustainable Communities Act. Why doomed? Because the same tactics, are still being employed, by the same people. Lies, deceit, smoke and mirrors, manipulation of meetings, are but a few of the tactics to ensure top-down control, whilst falsely claiming representation. The current government initiatives are simply ‘ more of the same ’ dressed differently.

The whole social re-engineering project needed vast quantities of money. Government matched EU funds were used.

The above is now used as a national template for any national or local government consultation.

The corruption is absolute, lead from the top down, imposed through all tiers of social and government control, down to street level. Being rotten to the core and from the core, everything it touches it taints. Having neither the ability nor inclination to correct itself, outside intervention is indicated.

In the UK, democracy is dead. Despite the claims to devolve democracy, empower people, or derogate decision-making, what we have seen is the creation and maintenance of an illusion of consultation, followed by false claims of consensus. In truth, central control is tightened, as so-called community leaders are politically placed and imposed, and so on upwards through every control tier to nulabor.

Meanwhile, it is daily reported how our leaders lie, cheat, steal, bully and abuse, yet there is a reticence - for fear of retribution - to using the appropriate description - institutionalised corruption - that has repeatedly, relentlessly, ruthlessly, systematically and cynically destroyed the lives of anyone arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat.

It is an expensive business to run an insurrectionist alternative power cult in parallel with what the ordinary decent citizen perceives as democracy. However, any perception of local democracy, people empowerment, or meaningful engagement in consultation to inform and contribute to the decision-making processes is a carefully engineered illusion.

It is necessary to create control structures, finance them, then train people to head these, to pay for fixers, and to employ the myriad of minions in the non-jobs. The money from this comes from both the current central government, and from the billions of Eurofunds. These created structures are used to facilitate the falsification of evidence of prior consultation and consensus needed for eligibility for the funds. To staff these structures, and to ensure placement of the chosen people in the right places, there needs to be centrally controlled leadership training establishment, working as a charity. The truth is, the training establishment is not training leaders at all, it is doing the opposite, training automatons to do the bidding of their masters, regardless of morality, ethics or the law.

Why a charity? Because charities do not attract the same level of cynicism and scrutiny as public authorities, they are not subject to freedom of information laws, they are easy and naive prey for the elite, and charities are easy organisations for strategic positioning to exert influence, interest and control far beyond their legal remit.

In addition, where the chosen leaders are placed in a charity positioned for strategic control, they form the perfect base for money-laundering. Where existing charities can't be taken over, they are destroyed, and new charities created. Where charities prove themselves to be providing a needed service, they are targeted for privatisation, and the tax-liable jobs falsely claimed to be employment creation. There is no job creation, just transfer.

The secretly chosen recipients of 'training' are to be found in highly lucrative positions of many of the decision-making quangos with financial controls. They also ensure that the social-re-engineering projects are funded in preference to any other, whilst refusing any applications not in keeping with the agenda.

Once the right steps are in place, the project can continue unfettered, having control of people, publicity, processes, and pecuniary pursuits. Threats are destroyed. All this being done covertly, with the cadre elite of the cult even deciding who can have what information.

This statement can be extended to democracy itself. Perhaps it is not only the government that must be replaced, but the style of government, as the current flavour leaves such a bad taste. Our leading politicians, to whom we are entitled to look for behavioural guidance, have failed to make the distinction between what is legal and what it right. Finding a loophole to do something does not make what is wrong, right. The very act of looking for a loophole is evidence of intent to act amorally. It is no use saying that no rules have been broken, and therefore the behaviour is OK. Those not acting in the spirit of the law, or not capable of making the distinction between right and wrong, have no place in our society, and certainly not as our leaders or representatives in any government.

So now we have described what we have today, and how we arrived at this sorry state.

The next question must be, WHY ? and Where is all this leading us?

As for those who would expose this corruption, any one arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat is subjected to a policy of Control or Destroy, and ruthlessly, remorselessly and relentlessly abused.

Why are they seemingly deliberately doing everything it can to ensure the development of those conditions that give rise to disorder, social unrest, riots, insurrection and even revolution ?

If the people should react as being driven, this gives excuse to impose a dictatorship - which is, by and large, what we have had for the past several years, with increasing impositions upon the freedoms of citizens.

To date, every law introduced for security reasons has been used against the citizens, for no other reason than for preservation of power.

This corrupt cult understands the importance of controlling the flow of information and stifling debate. It is pure paranoia and desperation on their part of to censor public criticism.

This nulabor cadre has declared war upon it citizens. Government has become the enemy of the state. Last time this happened, heads rolled, literally.

Sorting expenses is like moving the proverbial deck chairs. Is there any aspect of government that is not tainted?

Below is an update to recent developments.
Be warned, it is uncompromising, blunt and disturbing.

If the reports are to be believed, and they must be, this obscenity is being repeated throughout the country.

Update to Common Purpose – Sheffield and Nationally.

Sheffield is chosen because it is the recognised corruption capital of Europe.
The statutory obligation to declare, child protection issues, no CRB checks, no risk assessments, bypassing democratic processes, insider dealing, non-compliance with FoIA, criminal prosecutions. 291109

Distribution: Ministry of Justice, Charity Commission, Department of Education, Ofsted, CRB, etc. (CRB checks - Reference number 6675 )
For the attention of Christine Gilbert and Robert Lester – ofsted
For the attention of Norman Turpin – CRB
Tim Loughton, Dawn Primarolo, Baroness Delyth Morgan, Greg Hurst(Times)

One reason why this issue was raised was because of the reaction to a question raised on 5 November 2008 at the meeting of the Full Council at Sheffield City Council.

The question was:
7 the third party encourages its members to identify 12-15 year olds for grooming before placement for so-called training without any evidence of having carried out the statutory criminal safety checks
The reply of council Leader Paul Scriven was:
"You have made serious allegations about child abuse"
The local newspaper, a corporate sponsor of Common Purpose along with Sheffield City Council, published two wildly inaccurate and sensational articles about the citizen. The Star, despite a futile attempt at 'beating the rap' with the Press Complaints Commission, apologised for saying that the citizen had been banned from asking questions, but did not apologise for printing the lie that about the serious allegations of child abuse. This was because The Star had accurately quoted verbatim the words of Paul Scriven. Despite the incident being witnessed by over 100 people, a formal complaint against Paul Scriven was rigged by the council Executive, who are themselves involved with Common Purpose, but did not declare their interest.

A year on, the third party, identified as Common Purpose, continues the same practice. Common Purpose is a registered charity.
Here is the first example of an association between Common Purpose and child abuse. Below is a 2009 web-site screen-shot of Common Purpose using paedophile Jamie Rennie for their publicity purposes. It refers to the Common Purpose 360 programme, and contains links encouraging networking.

See the attachment for the screenshot. [* Not linked to here]

After his widely-reported conviction, the press reported:
“A well known Senior Social Worker (who has asked to remain anonymous) told us: "These claims are of course subjective at best, and if a paedophile has free and frank access to records of children and can come into contact with children unsupervised [which he was able to], one cannot exclude from the realms of possibility, that the said individual could sexually interfere with children" "People trusted him [Rennie] due to his position within the charity [LGBT Youth Scotland]"”

This must apply to ALL Common Purpose ‘graduates’.


Whilst it is not accurate to say that Jamie Rennie was a member of the local Advisory Panel of Common Purpose, it was correct to say that he was selected by members of the Common Purpose Advisory Panel for 'training' and for which he was recognised as a Common Purpose 'graduate'. At the time that Jamie Rennie was carrying out his paedophile activities the Common Purpose Advisory Board included a senior policeman and a senior member of the local press.

It is therefore ironic that those same people would have been part of the system that arrested and reported upon Common Purpose graduate Jamie Rennie. It is not known whether any evidence exists showing that Common Purpose Advisory Group Members were aware of what Jamie Rennie was doing.

Note the date of the above screenshot - see attachment
Jamie Rennie was arrested in 2007, yet Common Purpose continued to use his reference on their web site for their own publicity purposes and was still there on 30 October 2009 !


In that area, and indeed nationally, Common Purpose has been operating its 'Your Turn' youth project for several years, including around Yorkshire. It would therefore be appropriate for local authorities, the CRB, all government departments, and Ofsted take joint action to ensure that all Common Purpose youth activities were required to provide evidence that CRB checks were carried out and that risk assessments were made. This would apply urgently and specifically in the Jamie Rennie case, but applies nationally wherever Common Purpose operate, not only to Your Turn projects, but all. Clearly, it is the element of close proximity and trust with young people that attracts the likes of Rennie.


The recent adverse publicity in the press about ofsted, for example in The Times, may have been created for reasons other than those publicised.
It is to be expected that Ofsted is being criticised by the LGA, when so many LGA leaders are associated with Common Purpose throughout the country, and who in turn have allowed Common Purpose to operate unlawfully in that their personnel delivering the youth training have not had CRB checks and the local authorities have not carried out risk assessments.

Perhaps a 'calm measured voice' from Ofsted now, banning Common Purpose from all further activity so as to provide protection for the children, will counter the accusation that Ofsted is not 'protecting its own reputation', but is in fact protecting children.

However, since last November, the council has still refused to provide any response to this issue, other than denials. The third party continues to provide its youth 'services' to the local councils throughout South Yorkshire.

Meanwhile, it turns out that several senior council personnel are also associated with the third party, which meets in the Town Hall, and The Star offices, supported by the Chief Executive of the Council and The Star. In effect, there is an elite cabal specialising in leadership that also targets young people to join their organisation as future leaders.

It was explained that the third party has members within the council, who decide what courses or events shall be procured ( without any tendering process ), and from these events target selected children as potential future leaders and coerce them into attending these residential courses.
Both the local council and the third party refuse to answer queries about this issue.

Neither Ofsted nor CRB services have identified any exemptions that permit Common Purpose to operate these courses with young people without its personnel undergoing the statutory CRB checks, or the host local authorities carrying out the mandatory risk assessments.

All that has happened since 5 November 2008 is that the citizen has been lambasted, publicly humiliated, lied to, bullied and harassed.
Those involved with this are also involved with Common Purpose, both within the council and from outside of the council.

Here is another example of a connection between Common Purpose and child abuse:

CP trained West Midlands Fire Service Chief resigns after child porn arrest (09/07/2009) West Midlands
West Midlands Fire Service chief Frank Sheehan resigns after child porn arrest. He took the Common Purpose 20:20 course in 1998. 20:20 is a five-day residential programme. This high-level programme is held just twice a year. The 20:20 week includes days in both London and Brussels visiting key institutions in the cities and examining how they operate and who holds power. For those interested in NLP, ( Neurolinguistic programming ) practitioners PPD Learning Ltd boast West Midlands Fire Service as one of their clients.

Why did LibDem Leader Paul Scriven lie about that citizen as he did, when falsely accusing that citizen of making allegations of child abuse?

Perhaps this was in his mind:
Former Deputy Mayor Jailed For Grooming Teen
A former deputy mayor has been sentenced to eight months in prison for attempting to 'groom' a 13-year-old girl for sex.
The Lib Dem councillor, who represented Bilton on Harrogate Borough Council and Bilton and Nidd Gorge on North Yorkshire county Council, was also automatically disqualified from being a councillor as a result of his sentence."
Was the above in the mind of Paul Scriven when he falsely accused that citizen of making allegations of child abuse?
Paul Scriven then had his political spokesperson, Ian Turngoose, to provide The Star with a litany of lies about the citizen that The Star published. The line manager of the reporter that acutely quoted Paul Scriven sent damaging and false material to the Press Complaints Commission in a doomed effort, with the Council, to destroy that citizen.

A complaint was raised against Paul Scriven, which was then sabotaged by executive council officers – who were graduates of Common Purpose !
A complaint about the behaviour of the council was made to Standards for England, who agreed that the council has acted improperly, but refused to intervene – they were published supporters of Common Purpose !

Johnston Press, proprietors of The Star, have continuously failed to prevent the exposure of their paper to liability, and have also failed to support their truthful reporter, Lucy Ashton, when Paul Scriven twice falsely made a liar out her. Her line manager did not support her either.
Could this be because Johnston Press is a corporate sponsor of Common Purpose? Are the Johnston Press shareholders aware of the links between Common Purpose and the child abuse?

During 2008, and through 2009, strenuous efforts have been made to establish who are the Common Purpose ‘graduates’ and supporters and officers within and around Sheffield City Council. These efforts continue to be unlawfully blocked, accompanied by futile false accusations, obfuscation, a criminal, malicious adverse publicity campaign personally against that citizen, and blatant, in-your-face lies. The council is confident that it has Common Purpose ‘graduates’ in all the external organisations with purview, on whom they can rely within their ‘network’, to ensure that publicity about their activities remains contained. ( for example, South Yorkshire Police )

The Common Purpose ‘graduates’ are ‘trained’ at the ratepayers’ expense, carrying out their meetings and activities using ratepayer-paid time and resources, whilst the council has admitted that there is no evidence of any advantage to the ratepayer. This breaches the Local Government Act, and the council has been advised of this, yet can confidently ignore the law, knowing that they will never be held to account. The council is also obliged, as is every organisation throughout the country that employs public servants, to declare the membership of anyone associated with Common Purpose.

The following is a brief about the need to declare:

The Civil Service provides a definition of a secret society which clearly includes the modus operandi of Common Purpose. Please find definitions of a secret society below. These should prove useful in allowing members of the public to confirm that Common Purpose graduates should declare themselves to the public. The text also reveals the conflict of interest of Common Purpose graduates acting as the "eyes and ears of Common Purpose".
This is aside from the fact that Common Purpose is awarded public paid contracts by a 'nod and a wink' via their graduates within the public sector, rather than via open tendering process. In effect, this is illegal ‘insider trading’, which, coupled with the actions of local authorities to flout the Freedom of Information Act, should be more than sufficient to prompt immediate and radical action from the Audit Commission – if it wasn’t already infected from the top down with Common Purpose !

Civil Service Management Code 1.1 Recruitment 1.1.6 Departments and agencies must be satisfied that recruits are able to show that they will be able to give satisfactory service in the future and that nothing in their more recent past is likely to bring discredit upon the department or agency or the Civil Service in general.
Chapter 4 Principles 4.1.3
c. civil servants must not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or those of others. Conflicts of interest may arise from financial interests and more broadly from official dealings with, or decisions in respect of, individuals who share a civil servant’s private interests (for example freemasonry, membership of societies, clubs and other organisations, and family). Where a conflict of interest arises, civil servants must declare their interest to senior management so that senior management can determine how best to proceed;

Discipline and dismissal 4.5.3 It is for departments and agencies to define the circumstances in which initiation of disciplinary procedures may be appropriate. It is not necessary to attempt to define every circumstance. However departments’ and agencies’ rules for staff must make clear the circumstances in which the application of the disciplinary procedures may be considered, and these must include: a. breaches of the organisation’s standards of conduct or other forms of misconduct (see paragraph 4.1.4); and b. any other circumstances in which the behaviour, action or inaction of individuals significantly disrupts or damages the performance or reputation of the organisation; as well as other circumstances covered by the statutory dispute resolution procedures.

Example of application of the above code at local authority level:

XXXXXXXXX Constitution Part 5 Codes and Protocols 2. PUBLIC DUTY, PRIVATE INTEREST, FRAUD AND THEFT (i) General 2.1 An employee’s public duty and private interests must not conflict. Employees must declare any private interests relating to their public duties. 2.3 Employees must declare in writing to their Heads of Service membership of any organisation not open to the public that requires formal membership and oaths of allegiance and which has secrecy about rules, membership or conduct. A definition of what constitutes a secret society as shown in APPENDIX A.


The following is the Council’s definition of what constitutes a society with secret rules (secret society). ‘Any lodge, chapter, society, trust or regular gathering or meeting, which: (a) is not open to members of the public who are not members of that lodge, chapter, society or trust; and (b) includes in the grant of membership an obligation on the part of the member a requirement to make a commitment (whether by oath or otherwise) of allegiance to the lodge, chapter, society, gathering or meeting; and (c) includes, whether initially or subsequently, a commitment (whether by oath or otherwise) of secrecy about the rules, membership or conduct of the lodge, chapter, society, trust, gathering or meeting. A lodge, chapter, society, trust, gathering or meeting as defined above should not be regarded as a secret society if it forms part of the activity of a generally recognised religion.

From the above, Common Purpose constitute a secret organisation, for which declaration is mandatory, with possible disciplinary measures including dismissal for non-compliance.

But Common Purpose continue to meet, imposing secrecy under Chatham House rules, whilst local authorities continue to unlawfully refuse to disclose who these people are.

Below are given the urgent steps needed to protect our children.

What needs to be done now and with urgency?

1. Common Purpose to be declared a proscribed organisation.
2. A list of ALL Common Purpose graduates, throughout the country, to be immediately placed in the public domain.
3. Mandatory declarations of interest enforced wherever there are Common Purpose. graduates/associates/members/officers/etc.
4. ALL so-called ‘training’ at the expense of the public purse to cease immediately.
5. CRB checks and risk assessments carried on ALL Common Purpose personnel involved with youth activities, such as ‘leadership training’ and projects such as ‘Your Turn’.
6. ALL local authorities and institutions to cease complying with Common Purpose requests and interference that result in the unlawful and criminal withholding of information about their membership and activities at the public expense.
7. Government sponsorship to cease immediately, and government Cabinet involvement to be declared, i.e. within Cabinet Office itself.
8. Charitable Status withdrawn.


The investigation into the Scottish case began in late 2007. A man who had served time for sexually abusing a child and was on the sex offenders' register, worked as an engineer with Crown Paints at premises in Edinburgh. He had fitted a personal hard drive to one of the computers at his work and either forgot to remove it or had not realised that the computer was to be sent away for repair. A technician discovered an indecent image of a child, and police were alerted. There was an email link that was sourced at the address of Rennie. Operation Algebra swung into action.

The following is but one legal rationale showing why it is urgent, imperative and mandatory for full disclosure:

30 October 2009

Source: The MJ (Local government is rapidly changing - to be effective in this environment it is essential that you have access to the most up-to-date and detailed information. The MJ is the magazine that will help you to come up with practical solutions to everyday issues in this changing landscape.)

Confidentiality or clarity?

Nicholas Dobson

What is more important, transparency of council accounts, or commercial confidentiality? Nicholas Dobson looks at a High Court case which considered just that.

If everyone saw the world our way, there wouldn’t be many disputes. For, as the old cliché goes, we’d all then be singing from the same hymn sheets.

But they don’t, and we aren’t. So life often becomes a fierce competition. Your ‘rights’ against mine. Your wish to party late and loud. Mine to have a quiet night’s sleep.

Yours to build a mega home extension. Mine to object bitterly. And in current point, yours to inspect the ‘Full Monty’ council accounts. Mine to plead commercial confidentiality.

"Veolia contended that this information was commercially sensitive. It had been supplied to the council confidentially, and would be valuable to commercial competitors..."
So, someone has to decide just where the balance of rights lies. And that often falls to the courts, as it did on 1 October 2009, when the High Court decided that the statutory audit provisions enabling public inspection of accounts and related material trumped any contractual provisions for commercial confidentiality.

The case had been brought by waste management company, Veolia, following a decision of Nottinghamshire CC to make available for public inspection the council’s accounts, ‘together with all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them’.

A local elector, Mr Shlomo Dowen, applied to inspect and make copies of certain documents relating to a waste-management contract between the council and Veolia.

The council informed Veolia that it intended to make certain disputed documents available for inspection. These included – among others – monthly particularised invoices from Veolia to the council, the formulae by which contract payments were made, and provisions for contract default deductions.

Veolia contended that this information was commercially sensitive. It had been supplied to the council confidentially, and would be valuable to commercial competitors and contract sub-contractors. And, if any of that information was to enter the public domain, Veolia’s ability to compete on bids with other authorities would be damaged and its ability to hold down sub-contract prices on the contract impaired.

The company, therefore, sought to prevent the council from disclosing the disputed documents, save in heavily redacted form. So, just what law was causing all the kerfuffle? Well this is Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, which at each statutory audit enables ‘any persons interested’ to inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them.

It also enables such persons to make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents. But, while there are confidentiality provisions in Section 15(3) and (4), these do not extend to commercial confidentiality. They merely cover ‘personal information’, ie, that which identifies or enables the identification of a particular individual where the auditor considers that the information should not be inspected or disclosed.

The confidentiality provisions also cover information concerning an individual’s office or employment and relevant payments or benefits, including those on severance. Mr Justice Cranston noted that historically, the obligation to pay local taxation was matched by the right given to ratepayers to an involvement in the process of ensuring the money was well spent. This was a mechanism of democratic accountability through involvement in the public audit process.

Given its history, he therefore thought it ‘entirely unsurprising’ the law should permit a local elector, such as Mr Dowen, sight of the disputed documents in this case. For the historic role of interested persons such as local government electors in participating in the audit process would be severely diminished without such disclosure.

But while the judge could well understand the concern about commercial confidentiality – which could adversely affect not only Veolia but also the council through sub-contractor demands, once they understood Veolia’s modelling – nevertheless, ‘the plain fact is that there is no duty to keep commercial confidentiality in Section 15’.

For, if the section applies, the council must disclose and... the section trumps the confidentiality obligations set out in the contract’.

In protecting personal information in Section 15(3) as described above, Parliament had prescribed the extent to which confidential information could be excluded from disclosure.

According to the judge, while ‘accounts’ are not defined, the 1998 Act indicates that they are the record of the council’s financial activity over a period and of the financial position at a particular time.
He considered it ‘plain that each of the disputed documents relate to the council’s accounts as that phrase is to be construed in its statutory context’. Therefore, Mr Dowen was entitled to inspect and copy the documents in question.

It will be interesting to see to what extent this judgement dampens the enthusiasm of external contractors in council business. But if the court ruling endures, given the volume of lucrative local authority business – not to mention the recession – contactors will presumably just have to learn to live with it.

All recipients, you have had but the briefest of introductions, with but one example of how it may be applied to your area. The same applies nationally.

Best Regards,

What can elected members do now?

In addition to the above, here are some first steps:
- Identify all Common Purpose graduates, officers, supporters, and ensure that all are entered on a register that is available in the public domain
- Refute any claims that activities associated with Common Purpose are in any way private. Their training, meetings, and activities are all purchased and resourced at the expense of the ratepayer, so all that council officers do that is associated with Common Purpose must therefore be public domain material.
- Obtain the minutes of all meetings attended by Common Purpose graduates – these are NOT private, despite false claims to the contrary.
- Obtain from the local authority a list of all costs associated with the activities of Common Purpose, in terms of time, fees, donations and hospitality.
- For each of the above, obtain the objective evidence demonstrating that there is an advantage to the ratepayer ( saying ‘people felt’, etc is not evidence ! )
- Determine that no-one involved with procurement, payment, recommendation or evaluation of any Common Purpose involved activities were themselves associated in any way with Common Purpose
- If any contracts or services involved minors, i.e. the Your Turn project, ensure that the council had carried out the CRB checks and held such proofs. ( Duty of Care and Due Diligence )
- For each of the above, obtain a copy of the council minutes of meetings at which the elected members approved of the policy relating to its association with Common Purpose, and the extent of any delegated authority given to officers to deliver upon that authority
- For external liaisons, such as regeneration boards, assemblies, funding organisations, etc, obtain evidence that there was no possibility of Insider Dealing, not least by identifying Common Purpose graduates in those organisations.


Vexatious and irresponsible questions

Post categories: meta-requests, whatdotheyknow

Martin Rosenbaum | 08:17 UK time, Tuesday, 14 July 2009

I know from personal experience that making freedom of information requests to public authorities is something they sometimes find irritating - but at what point does it become vexatious or irresponsible?

This question is raised by some recent rulings on what constitutes legitimate use of the Freedom of Information Act.

In a decision published last week, the information commissioner determined that the local government ombudsman was right to dismiss an FOI request as 'vexatious'. This was the 48th request in a series made to the LGO by one individual in a six-month period.

The complainant is clearly concerned about the effectiveness of local authority complaints procedures, having submitted hundreds of FOI applications on the topic to various authorities. However the commissioner found his arguments "unconvincing" and "not considered to be properly anchored in sound evidence", concluding that the "the request could fairly be considered obsessive and manifestly unreasonable" and was therefore vexatious.

Under the FOI Act, a request can be refused if it's vexatious, but this has to be an issue about the request itself, not the person making it. Just because you are a really annoying person is not sufficient grounds for turning down your freedom of information applications.

In this case the request, along with many other requests by the same person, was made through the whatdotheyknow site. This site is certainly regarded as very vexing by numerous public authority FOI officers, who particularly don't like the way it automatically publishes all the correspondence in connection with a request.

In a different case, the High Court has just ruled that there is nothing necessarily wrong in making a meta-request - a request about how your other requests have been handled. The journalist Matt Davis put such a question to the Home Office, suspecting that he was getting worse treatment than the general public in the 48 requests he'd made to the Home Office (this was over a two-year period).

The Home Office argued that such meta-requests "are an arguably permissible, but irresponsible, use of the Act" which "could be used as a 'backdoor method' of obtaining information which had previously been withheld." But these arguments were rejected by the judge, who backed the earlier opinion of the Information Tribunal that "meta-requests should be dealt with in the same way as any other requests".

So if your FOI request is turned down as vexatious, is it irresponsible to put in a meta-request about how it was handled?
So, there we have it. I'm putting the information out in case it's of use to someone else.


  1. Is common puropose to control in order to make paedophile behaviour accepyable? It would make sense when you look at the likes of Mandleson, Deripaska, Rothschild and so forth. If such behavior became as acceptable as buggery then one of the last vestiges for resignation and shame, amongst the ruling elite, would be gone. remeber Belgium, or Dunblane, for that matter?

  2. The CP network is sinister enough as it is without adding paedophilia into the mix. There's long been talk of paedophile rings amongst tptb - incl. Robertson, ex-UN. Murderers and drug cartels too.

  3. The first part of this interesting article would explain why NHS Community Health Councils were closed down, representatives such as those from Age Concern would not play ball and were demanding changes. I have that from their local chairperson.


Related Posts with Thumbnails