Thread: Common purpose on Google video

To make sure it stays a sewer?

I have to say, the "common purpose" thing is the least convincing thing I have heard so far. Lots of accusations and insinuations, without any real evidence to back it up.

I do think there are groups like the Fabians etc here who are trying to subvert organisations though. There is at least some evidence for that and their logo kind of gives it away.

Chatham House Rules is something that lots of organisations use in order to allow people to express themselves freely. Nothing wrong with it.

It is no doubt used by the Bilderbergers so that world leaders or potential leaders can say what they really think without the danger of being quoted. The goldfish bowl in which our leaders now live means that even if their mike is switched off they might still be heard on somebody else's. This is good for a laugh when someone famous is caught out as Bush, Blair and Prince Charles have been, but it only serves to ensure that those in the public eye have to be more circumspect and more disingenuous to avoid being caught out expressing perfectly valid opinions (the journo slagged off by Charles had given the royals good cause to criticise him and they weren't allowed to do so publicly; it was so funny to hear Charles' comment).

The Bilderbergers were allegedly set up in the late forties. I was aware of their existence in 1974 as were millions of others. The writer of the item has lost my interest by spouting demonstrable drivel. Presumably everything else he says is the same.

Is Brian Gerrish a submarine commander or a senior rating posing as such? he hangs out with Albert Burgess the retired special constable who uses his expertise in traffic control to prove he knows more about law than the nation's lawyers.

Gerrish is described variously as a former submarine commander and former expert on submarine warfare. These descriptions are only on sites linked to Common Purpose articles, including those on David Icke's site. There are no other references to Brian Gerrish having commanded a submarine and there are no articles by him on submarine warfare. Brian Gerrish is even referred to as a former commander of a nuclear submarine.

I was in the military and although my name can be found on an aviation website there are no links to me by name as a Flight Lieutenant. Commanders, or former commanders, of nuclear submarines are different. Nuclear submarines are commanded, IIRC, by people of the rank of Captain RN (Army Colonel, RAF Group Captain) or exceptionally by Commanders (Army Lieutenant Colonel, RAF Wing Commander). Like my rank of Flt Lt, these ranks are carried on retirement (only a few old WWII Flt Lts ever bothered to use their retired rank and I would only use it as a wind up or when using the Royal Air Force Club in London). Commanders and Captains RN often use their rank, especially when acting as experts on a subject and I am surprised not to find Captain Brian Gerrish RN in this category.

I am also surprised that he would have retired as a Captain since the command of a nuclear submarine often precedes elevation to a higher rank - Commodore, Rear Admiral or better. The people who achieve these ranks rarely retire before they are 60 - why bother when you have a nice desk and a massive salary with equally large pension to follow?

I am not calling Brian Gerrish a liar, but I am suggesting that those people who are 'puffing' his qualifications should consider that it is unlikely that a genuinely retired Captain or above (with probable OBE/MBE following nuclear command) would not allow them to make use of his rank and post-nominals. Most modern Captains would also have a BSc/MSc to give them a little more credence together with the odd MIPM etc thrown in.

I would ask those who have met Brian Gerrish to confirm with him his RN rank. If he is 60 or under it can be checked in the RN Reserve List; if he was a junior officer like me it would be there until he was 55 (check for me under Flight Lieutenants in the RAF Reserve List - available through your local library).

Like retired Special Constable (and therefore never a policeman) Albert Burgess, I think the creation of an artificial status is designed to give Brian Gerrish the credibility he would lack if he turned out to have peaked at Petty Officer - not that there is anything wrong with having been a NCO, but unless you are talking on your speciality as such it is difficult to establish decent credentials.

I don't know what Albert Burgess' non-police job was, but would you give him any credence if it said 'retired welder Albert Burgess talks on treason and sedition and former senior rating and submarine cook Brian Gerrish talks on the influence of Common Purpose'?

They're talking in Shrewsbury soon, perhaps someone could ask them what their real qualifications are - O-levels, A-levels, degrees - and what their real life jobs are not their 'former' jobs. It would be nice to know if Albert Burgess ever got Sergeant's stripes and if Brian Gerrish ever carried the Queen's Warrant or Commission.

So why is he described as a former nuclear submarine commander?

I never puff my rank or military experience; I just shut up about the bad bits and highlight my strengths. I was a junior officer on 3 squadrons and a detached flight; I would never tell people that I had commanded a squadron or even a flight of aircraft and I never pretend to be a pilot when I was a navigator and helicopter crewman. I normally just put that I served in the RAF when I stand for council; if I mention that I was an officer it might provoke the men to vote against me in a garrison town such as the one I live in.

In respect of Common Purpose I would argue that Gerrish loses credibility by not concentrating on his post-RN qualifications in management. The fact that he is a former junior officer is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things.