"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."

Saturday, 8 May 2010

Common Purpose: More Sheffield Shenanigans

From time to time I receive emails from an ex-blogger whose blog was taken down thanks to Common Purpose.  Re-printed below is the latest update on Sheffield City Council and Common Purpose:

"Bare-Faced and Brazen"

The title is the best choice of words to describe the response of Sheffield City Council to this citizen’s questions put to the meeting of the Full Council on Wednesday 5 May 2010. An all-too-familiar occurrence these days.

It was pleasing to receive the applause of the elected members to the questions, from all parties.  However, the reply, which did not receive any applause, rather a stony silence, was an altogether completely different matter. The questions are given in their entirety below. For now, we can consider the response.

The main question concerned why, despite having been informed for over eighteen months about the activities of Common Purpose, if such activities are deemed to be so serious, has absolutely nothing been done?

Here is a paraphrased summary of the response of the Leader of the Council.

‘You keep coming up with generalisations and not specific questions. You have been asking for over a year, so we will not answer any more questions unless they are about specific instances.  It is the members who make the decisions.’

As well as the response attempting to impose conditions beyond legal authority, it is also inaccurate in almost every important detail. Perhaps significantly, the Leader of the Council has accused Common Purpose of being liars. The Leader of the Council does not have the authority to arbitrarily alter the Standing Orders or Constitution of the Council by singling out non-legal conditions to be applied to a single citizen.

Let’s see:

The question was not only highly specific, it even quoted from a Common Purpose document. Just how is it possible to be more specific?

Here is an example of some of the quotes from Common Purpose and its directions to its graduates and members of its Advisory Boards:

“Beware of organisations that want the final say in pre-selecting their own applicant.”

“... we will select...” ( i.e. Common Purpose make the decisions )

Here is perhaps the nastiest of quotes:

“ Do not compromise on seniority. Common Purpose is for leaders. Beware also too many older participants, sometimes people have seniority but are past the peak of their influence.”

Is it possible to get any more incorrect?

So, as can be seen, there are no generalisations, but specific quotes from source material about specific issues affecting the council.

So, when the Leader of the Council says that it is the elected members who are making the decisions, and Common Purpose are demonstrating otherwise, who are we to believe, the reply or the facts?

Also, as you are all aware, each time questions are asked, they are followed up with the supporting evidence and documents.

So, therefore, the statement about ‘generalisations’ is untenable.

There is another aspect of this response. It is very similar to the response given at the Cabinet meeting of 28 April, where the Leader of the Council stated that he was not going to answer any more questions on a certain subject. This was a coached response. It was also unlawful. It is not for the Leader of the Council to announce what laws shall be obeyed by the council. The Law is not a pic-n-mix stall.

So we must ask the question, WHO has been coaching the Council Leader?

The answer is easy: The two people advising him of what to say in response are BOTH members of the Common Purpose Advisory Board! Enough said?

To make matters worse, it must be remembered that Common Purpose members sabotaged the formal complaint against the Council Leader when he publicly, falsely accused this citizen of making allegations of child abuse in response to questions raised that noted that there was no evidence of CRB checks having taken place when Common Purpose undertook activities with children on behalf of the council.

What this means, as was described fully at the time, is that Common Purpose effectively ‘own’ the Council Leader.

No-one could be criticised of they were to publicly conclude that there are yet again irreconcilable inconsistencies between the statements of the Council Leader and the facts. No-one could be criticised for saying that it is impossible to reconcile the reply of the Council Leader with what is already widely known and established.

There is one other piece of information to share. It was not possible to do so at Full Council. Below is a quote from a Common Purpose document. There is a history to the quote, which is a direction from Common Purpose to its ‘host’ organisations. When FoIA questions are asked, say, of a local authority, Common Purpose graduates ( public servants ) within the authority have been asked to inform Common Purpose, who then advise on how the process the FoIA request. The quote is but one example of how Common Purpose expects local authorities, through its public servants who are also its graduates, to flaunt the law and maintain the secrecy of Common Purpose.

This is the quote:

“Information shared with Advisory Group members is shared in confidence, as it contains information about the internal management and operations of Common Purpose that would be considered commercially sensitive and therefore exempt from disclosure.”

Pure, unadulterated lies from start to finish ! Even better, Common Purpose get their ‘useful idiots’ to carry the can when the legal sword inevitably falls.

These claims are spurious, not least where there are statutory duties of public authorities and national institutions to demonstrate financial openness, honesty, transparency and accountability. Common Purpose cannot allow any exposure that would reveal its illegal activities. Its graduates and supporters are unwittingly ensnared into the collusion and conspiracy of silence, not least under threat of personal criminal liability if they speak out.

In summary, one word describes Common Purpose, corrupt. We have already seen that Sheffield City Council is not only institutionally corrupt, but seen as the corruption capital of Europe.  Ever wondered why?


  1. You cannot fight the dark world of Common Purpose except with light. Cockroaches do not like the light.

    If I had the task of stopping the deadly Common Purpose virus, I would start with a Register of Common Purpose Graduates.

    The Register would be on the net so anyone could inspect it.

    It would be made law that an implied clause would be added to all Contracts of Employment (even those already in force) to the effect that all people employed by the state or receiving state funds, (which would include but not be limited to all tiers of government and all quangos), who were Common Purpose Graduates, had to declare on the Register that they were graduates of Common Purpose with full details of their course(s) and involvement and seniority. They would have two months to ensure that this declaration was recorded on the Register of Common Purpose Graduates and it would be their individual duty to ensure that this was done. Any failure to comply with this term of their Contract of Employment would result in instant dismissal without compensation and with all loss of pension rights. Any employing body who failed to ensure and enforce such dismissal would themselves be subject to disciplinary measures.

    We would then have a list of these people and we would have definite data on the extent of the penetration. These are the carriers of the virus.

    This of course would just be a start.

    The decontamination and fumigation of the administration of our society can be done. It really can. It would be an immense job, but it is definitely achievable.

    I would be very happy to set up and code the database and draft the terms of the new clause and indeed advise generally.

    To do this job, we need an Eliot Ness and his Untouchables, a team of totally trusted, utterly incorruptible patriots. It would not need a large team.

  2. It's a good job it wouldn't need a large team, Marcellus, because I don't see many of them in public life at the moment. The political infrastructure and media is creaking under the weight of fabianistas and cp grads. I like your idea of a register and contract of employment though.


Related Posts with Thumbnails